CHAP. I. Ʋpon the King's calling his last Parliament.

THAT (saith he) which the King lays down here as his first Foundation, Milton, p. 1. and as it were the Head Stone of his whole Structure, ‘That he cal­led this last Parliament not more by others advice, and the necessity of his affairs, than by his own choice and inclination,’ is to all knowing Men so apparently not true, that a more un­lucky and inauspicious Sentence, and more betokening the downfal of his whole Fabrick hardly could have come into his Mind. And a good mannerly be­ginning! A Man may not say to the King, What dost thou? and yet it seems, may tell him,Eccles. 8.4. He lyes. And without proving any thing, but throwing it out boldly that somewhat may stick, charges the Court Parasites (as he calls them) with their averseness to Parliaments; and that the King never called a Parliament but to supply his Necessities, and having supplied those, as sudden­ly and ignominiously dissolv'd it, without redressing a­ny one Grievance of the People: And broke off the Parliament at his coming to the Crown for no other cause than to protect the Duke of Buckingham a­gainst them who had accused him, besides other heinous Crimes, of no less than poysoning the decea­sed King his Father.

In reply to which it is but necessary to take notice of the condition of that time: The Par­liament had engaged King James in a War with [Page 14] Spain, in which the Parliment 1 Car. 1. desert­ed his Son: He had a large Dominion, and a flourishing Kingdom left him; but (as I said a War and an empty Treasury with it; beside which, King James died in Debt,

To the City of London, One Hundred and Twen­ty Thousand Pounds, Vid. Annals of K. Charles 1. [...]in R [...]. 1. and [...]r. R [...]w. C [...]i­leet. 1 Pa [...]. F [...]. 179. besides Interest.

For Denmark, and the Palatinate, One Hun­dred and Fifty Thousand Pounds.

For his Wardrobe, Forty Thousand Pounds.

Laid out for his Navy, Twenty Thousand Pounds.

For Count Mansfield, Twenty Thousand Pounds.

For the Expence of his Fathers Funeral, For­ty two Thousand Pounds.

For the Queen, Forty Thousand Pounds.

And to equip and pay the Navy for the Expe­dition for the Palatinate, Three Hundred Thou­sand Pounds.

And what was worse than all this, there had follow'd King James out of Scotland a sort of People whom himself calls Puritans, ‘very Pests in the Church and Common-weal: whom no deserts can oblige,Bas [...]n Do­r [...]. p. 31. nor Oaths or Promi­ses bind; breathing nothing but Sedition and Calumnies; aspiring without measure, railing without reason, and making their own Ima­ginations, the Square of their Conscience.’ These Men had by degrees spread themselves through City and Country, and watch'd the People (like Hawks) so long, till they could do any thing with them, and sow what they pleas'd as they found them napping. Nor want­ed there some of the same Kidney here among our selves, who under the specious pretences of easing the People, had got the command of [Page 15]most of their Purse-strings. King James ('tis true) might have helpt it at first, if his Beati Pacisici, (that is) Give Peace in our time O Lord! had not been too much in his Light; by which means all Remedies in his Son's time came too late, and joyn'd with the Disease, to the de­struction of the Body.

In this Case, what could King Charles the First do? Monarchy is more Ancient and Inde­pendant, than Parliaments; and yet their Ad­vice and Assistance, makes it more compacted: He calls a Parliament in the first Year of his Reign, which sate not long: And another in his Second, in which he lets them know his, and the Kingdoms condition; and particularly, that of the Palatinate: Instead of answering which, they fall into Debates and Reflections, against the Duke of Buckingham, and at a Conference of both Houses,Vid. The [...] of [...] in [...] p. 15. [...] 1. p. 104. the Commons deliver in an Im­peachment of thirteen Articles against him; the last of which was, That the King being sick of an Ague at Theobald's, the Duke had gi­ven him a Plaister and a Posset-drink without the Advice and Consultation of his Physicians. Three days after, the King (by message to them) takes upon himself, as having full knowledge of all those transactions, to clear the Duke of every one of those Articles:P [...]. C [...]. [...] However the Duke makes his Defence to the Lords, and puts in his Answer and Plea to the Impeachment made a­gainst him by the Commons: And to the thir­teenth Article, says, That having been recove­red himself of an Ague, by a Plaister and Pos­set-drink given him by a Physician of the Earl of Warwick's, the King impatiently press'd to have it, but was delayed by the Duke, who [Page 16]pray'd the King not to make use of it, but [...] the Advice of his own Physicians, nor till it w [...] tryed upon one Palmer (of the Bed-Chambe [...] then also sick of an Ague, which the King said he would do: However, the Duke being go [...] to London, the King would have it, and [...] took it; and upon his return, hearing a Rumo [...] that the Physick had done the King hurt, as that it had been administred by him witho [...] Advice, the Duke acquaints the King with i [...] who with much discontent answer'd thus, The [...] are worse than Devils that say it. And so ha­ving put in his Answer, the Duke moves th [...] Lords, that the Commons might expedite the Reply: Instead of doing which, they Petitio [...] the King against Papists, and suspected Papist holding Places of Authority and Trust in th [...] Kingdom, and draw a Remonstrance again [...] the Duke, and Tonnage and Poundage, o [...] which, that Parliament was dissolv'd by Com­mission. Whereas this Accuser would pe [...] ­swade the World, that the King broke off th [...] Parliament, for no other cause than to prote [...] the Duke against them who had accused him [...] no less than the poisoning his Father. And tr [...] ­ly I was once wondring why he said nothing touching the Parliament of the third of King Charles, till I considered, it was in that Parlia­ment that the King past the Petition of Right with Soit Droit sait come il est desire: He found it was not for him, and therefore resolv'd i [...] should make nothing against him. When o [...] the contrary, he reproaches the King with ille­gal Actions to get Money, least considering i [...] was the Art of that time to reduce the King to Necessity, to the end that being forced to extra­ordinary [Page 17]means, he might attract a po­pular Odium. And here also he quarrels at Straws; and rather than not want matter, he'll find a Knot in a Bullrush. For what other can he make of those Compulsive Knighthoods, Milt. p. 2. when the King had the Statute of 1 Edw. 2. De mili­tibus to warrant it? In like manner for the Ship-money: The Dutch (in the Year 1634.) had encroach'd upon the Royalty of the Northern Seas; upon which the King (so loath was He to do any thing that might but seem illegal) writes to the Judges, and demands their Opinions in Writing, whether, when the good or safety of the Kingdom in general is concern'd, the King may not by Writ under the Great Seal, com­mand all His Subjects of this Kingdom, to fur­nish a certain number of Ships and Men, for such time as the King shall think fit, and by Law compel the doing it in case of refusal? And whether in such a case he is not the sole Judge both of the danger of the Kingdom, and when and how the same is to be prevented and a­voided?V. The case, and all the Arguments on both sides, Printed in 4 to As also in the said Annals from p. 550. to p. 600. To which every one of the twelve Judges (repeating the very Words of the King's Letter) subscribed their names in the Affirma­tive. And though J. Hutton, and J. Crooke afterwards fell off; yet, upon arguing the mat­ter by all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber (in the Case of Mr. Hambden) the majority of them gave their Opinions for the Writs, on which the Barons gave Judgment.

Then for Monopolies; every thing is not a Monopoly, that may be call'd so; and therefore because he gives no particular instance either as to them; or the King's seizing (Naboth's Vine­yard as he calls it) Inheritances, under the pre­tence [Page 18]of Forest, and Crown-Lands; and Cor­ruption and Bribery compounded for; I say no more but this, that Generals imply nothing and consequently deserve no particular Answer But this I know, that in the Parliament of 44 o [...] Queen Elizabeth, a Bill was preferr'd for Expla­nation of the Common Law in certain cases of Letters Patents,V. Sir Simon D'ewe's Jour­nal of the Commons. 44. Eliz. viz. touching Monopolies, and was strongly bandied on both sides: O [...] this the Queen sends them a Message, That a she was not conscious to herself she had granted Letters Patents of any thing that was Malu [...] in se; V. Towns­end's C [...]llecti­ons. 44. Eliz. so when it should appear that she had made any such Grant, it should be revok'd or o­therwise redressed: on which the Common make her an humble Address of Thanks, and a Grant of Subsidies: and yet I do not find the Queen ever did any thing in it: But what the King did as to the Grievances (for that was the Word) I shall come to shew presently.

The next thing he trumps up, is, The King' [...] having the second time levied an injurious War a­gainst his Native Country, Milt. p. 3. Scotland; a Wa [...] (saith he) condemned and abominated by the whol [...] Kingdom, and which the Parliament judged one o [...] their main Grievances. Nor without reason, for that was a cover'd Dish, and had been long be­fore cooking for their own Tooth: They knew it would keep cold for another time, and the King was not yet become necessitous enough to have it opened at present. But, to observe the wording it! The King levied an unjust War &c. As if a King might not defend himself a­gainst the Rebellion of his natural Lieges! For such (and no other) was the case here. But the Story is thus. The King in the Sixteenth of his [Page 19]Reign, had call'd another Parliament, which opened 13. April 1640. at which time the Scots with an armed Force lay upon the Borders. His Majesty by Sir J. Finch (Lord Keeper) tells them of the Scots Insurrection the Summer be­fore,V. Rushw. Coll. 16. Car. 1. which he had pass'd by upon their Pro­testations of their future Loyalty; instead of which, they had now address'd to the King of France, to put themselves under his Protecti­on, and causes an intercepted Letter of theirs, signed by the heads of those Covenanters (one of whom was then in Custody) to be publickly read, and therefore demands a Supply. The Commons consider of it, and pay it with com­plaints; Innovation in Religion! Grievances against Liberty, Property, and Privilege of Parliament! The King sends several times to the Houses, and presses to them the danger of the Scots Army; but the question is which shall have the Precedency, The Supply, or Grie­vances. The Lords are for the former, and that the King ought to be first trusted. The Commons are so long a tuning their Instrument that the King (in despair of any good Musick from 'em) dissolves them the Fifth of May fol­lowing. From which, our Accuser thus infers, that strong Necessities, and the very pangs of State, Milt. p. 3. not his own Choice and Inclination, made him call this (Monstrum Horrendum, Informe, Ingens) last Parliament, which began the third of No­vember, 1640. when yet he brings nothing to back his Assertion, but the scurrillous Language of the General Voice of the People almost hissing him, and his ill-acted Regality, off the Stage: That it was impossible be should incline to Parliaments who never was perceived to call them, but for the greedy [Page 20]hope of a National Bribe, his Subsidies; and never lov'd, fulfill'd, or promoted the true end of Parlia­ments, the redress of Grievances, of which himself was, indeed, the Author: Not doubting also to call it, a natural Sottishness, fit to be abused and ridden. And if this be the Reverence due to Majesty, this the Respect we pay the Vicegerent of God, sure Job was mistaken when he says, ‘Is it fit to say to a King, Thou art Wicked? and to Princes,Job 34.18. Ye are ungodly?’ The interrogation is in the Affirmative, and concludes in the Nega­tive; No certainly, it is not fit. St. Paul checks a bare slip of his Tongue toward the High Priest;Acts 25.5. Jude v. 9. Zach. 3.2. and the Arch-Angel (in Jude) brought not a railing Accusation even against the De­vil.

And yet when His Majesty says, ‘He hop'd by his Freedom, and their Moderation to prevent Mis understandings:’ See how, Spi­der-like, he draws Poison from what the Be [...] would have suck'd Honey! And wherefore (saith he) not by their Freedom and his Moderation! But Freedom he thought too high a Word for them, and Moderation too mean a Word for him. Inso­lence! and if this (as it seems to be) were the early Moderation of his Masters, I the less wonder how they broke down that Wall, which at once adorn'd and defended their way. However, for reply to it, the Kingdom was fallen into a Distemper that required a Cordia [...] more than a Corrosive; somewhat to cool, not heighten the Fever. And if His Majesty did not contribute his part to it, let any Man judge▪ When besides his granting The Petition of Right, (of which before) he denied this Parliament nothing they had the confidence to ask him. [Page 21]Witness his passing the Bill for a Triennial Par­liament. Vid. Scobel's Collection of Acts and Or­dinances from 1640. and the Statutes at large, 16 and 17 Car. 1. — For the continuance of this Parlia­ment during the Pleasure of both Houses; than which, what more could they have demanded, but the Kingdom also? — For the raising Moneys for the disbanding of the Armies of England and Scotland. It was but a modest dis­arming the King, and for the Scots, they want­ed not the Bait to get them together again. — The taking away the several Courts of the Star-chamber; the Presidencies of Wales and the North; Dutchy of Lancaster, and the Exche­quer of the County Palatine of Chester.—The High Commission, and Oath, Ex Officio. — Limiting the Stannary Courts—Setting Bounds to Forests. — The Bill against Ship-Money. — And (what our Answerer calls) compulsive Knighthoods. — Add to this, his Consent to a Bill for Two Hundred and Twenty Thousand Pounds for the Supply of the Occasions of our Brethren of Scotland. — For pressing Sol­diers for Ireland. — Borrowing Four Hundred Thousand Pounds for the necessary defence, and great affairs of England and Ireland. — And an­other for the encouragement of Adventurers for Ireland. So that (in effect) there remain'd little more for them to ask, or His Majesty to grant.

And now (to use the Parable of the Prophet touching his Vineyard;Isa. 1. v. 1. to v. 8. ‘A Vineyard in a very fruitful Soil. He fenced it, and gathered out the Stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest Vine, &c. And he looked that it should bring forth Grapes, and it brought forth Wild Grapes.’) Judge I pray between the King and his Vineyard, the Kingdom: [Page 22]What could have been done more to it, tha [...] he had not done in it? ‘And he look'd fo [...] Judgment, but behold Oppression; for Righ­teousness, but behold a Cry.’

Judge (I say) between the King and them when they had no sooner gotten an Army an [...] Money together, and that for the reducement [...] Ireland,Vid. His Ma­jesty's Answer to their Irish Papers. as was pretended, than they drove th [...] King from While hall by Tumults, and fought hi [...] at Edge-Hill with those individual Forces.

They tax'd the King of illegal exactions an [...] grievances, which he readily redressed. We [...] see now how they mended it themselves. Shi [...] Money (which was about Ten Shillings a Month out of a Thousand Pounds a Year) was a grea [...] Burthen to the Country, and the King took it of They set up the Excise in the room of it, whic [...] was Two Hundred Thousand and Ninety fi [...] Pounds for one Year; besides Eight Thousand Sixty three Pounds paid in the Country to th [...] Army. — The Country groan'd under Coat, a [...] Conduct-Money. See more of this, chap. 13.15. They brought in an Army o [...] One and Twenty Thousand Scots, instead o [...] 'em.—The King granted that Right be don [...] They secur'd Property in Sequestring Mens E­states. — In a word, the Court went awa [...] in the City's Debt: They made an Ordinanc [...] for the Publick Faith of the Kingdom, for the re­payment of publick Debts, (that is) such Mo­neys as they had borrow'd for the carrying o [...] of their Rebellion.— And for fear the King lightning their Burthens should make the Peo­ple grow wanton, they began with an Asses [...] ­ment for the twentieth part of their Estates and all this too for the Ease of the Nation.

And lastly, to consider what return they made him. — Quis talia fando Temperet? — They first stripp'd him of his Royal Authority; and having dealt with the Monarchy it self like Gold-beaters, beaten it so thin that there re­main'd no more of the Substance, than the emp­ty appearance: They accuse him in the name of all the Commons of England, (in which case how could any of them be as Witness, when they were both Accusers and Judges?) Try him with a ridiculous Pageantry, that had neither Equal nor Superiour in his Realm: Traiterously sentence him, and as ignominiously murther him before his own Palace: And (to fill up the measure of their Wickedness) abolish Kingly Government, and proscribe his Posterity.

And so judge also, whoever he be that reads me, whether they deserv'd not what the Pro­phet says he will do to his Vineyard? ‘I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the Wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. I will lay it waste; it shall not be pruned nor digged, but there shall come up Briars and Thorns: I will al­so command the Clouds that they rain no Rain upon it.’ But to return to our Answe­rer.

The King in his wonted Sincerity, says, ‘The Odium and Offences which some Mens ri­gour, or remissness in Church and State, had contracted upon his Government, he resolved to have expiated with better Laws and Regulations.’ A healing Proposition one would have thought, and a fair step to an Accommodation. A King said it, nor is it for Princes that they should Lye; and therefore [Page 24]could not but be credited by every Honest Man; for he that is Vertuous himself, believes the same of another. But this Answerer according to the fullness of his Heart, vomits out these and the like Expressions: And yet (saith he) the work of Misdemeanours committed by the worst of all his Favourites, he hath from time to time continued owned, and taken upon himself by publick Declarati­ons, as often as any of his Instruments felt themselve [...] over-burthen'd with the Peoples Hatred. And ye as publick as they are, he instances not in any one Particular, by which to have examin'd it. A Fa­vourite is the same to a King, that a Friend is to a Private Man, he may unburthen himself to him; and it is not the Crowd, but agreement makes the Company. Nor are all Men of like Merit, more than they are of Face; and there­fore if a King say Euge bone Serve, must our An­swerer's Eye be evil, because the King's is good. But the point lies not there: They are not piqu'd that the King might have Favourites, but that themselves are not those Favourites and consequently wanting Vertue in themselves, not only envy it in others, but strike at the Prince through the Sides of his Favourites.

I thought to have pass'd that, The King's Reverend Statute (as he calls it) for Dominical Jiggs and Maypoles, publish'd in his own Name, and deriv'd from the Example of his Father James: And had so done, but that it being spoken to the People upon the Wall, I also thought it could be no hurt to undeceive them in the matter. Statute I am sure there is none in the case, and if there were, Where lies the Blame? But thus it is. The Sabbatarians, and Anti-Sabbatarians (the one holding the Fourth Commandment to be [Page 25]simply moral, and everlastingly oblig'd Christi­ans as well as the Jews; the other, that it was the same with other days, and to make it a Jew­ish Sabbath was but Will-worship,) had come from Pens to Blows; nor would the labouring sort of People, who had no other time of Re­creation, be depriv'd of that: And thereupon the King sets forth a Declaration for tolerating Sports on the Lord's Day in the Afternoon: Wherein (as it is confess'd) he was not without Precedent at home, and has ever been, and now is, the Practice of Holland and Geneva. And why all this Cry!Godwin's Jewish Anti­quity. p. 112. Even the Jews had their Sab­bath-days Journey, and for my part, I should sooner trust a Man that (after the Service of the Day is over) takes a harmless Diversion on a Sunday, than him that runs from Sermon to Sermon, and cheats his Neighbour when he comes home. The Baker of Banbury that whipp'd his Cat for killing a Mouse on the Lord's Day, came ofter to Sessions than any two of the Trade.

And this (saith this Accuser) is the Substance of his first Section, till we come to the devout of it: which he calls the Lip-work of every Prelatical Li­turgist, clapp'd together, and quilted out of Scri­pture-Phrase, &c. And makes it the Policy of a Tyrant to counterfeit Religions: As for Example, Andronicus Comnenius, the Constanti­nople. Bizantine Emperor, who by A constant reading of Saint Paul's Epistles, had so incorporated the Phrase and Stile into his familiar Letters, that the Imitation seem'd to vie with the O­riginal: Yet this avail'd not to deceive the People of that Empire, who, notwithstanding his Saint's Vizard, tore him to pieces for his Tyranny. To the Malice of which, I shall only make this re­turn, [Page 26] ‘That as he travail'd with Iniquity, he hath conceiv'd Mischief,Psal. 7.14. and brought forth Falshood.’ When yet, if he had gone no farther than his own time, he might have spoken Truth, though not cum Privilegio. For what were all the Actions of those his Masters, but Theatrical Hypocrisie? A mere Shell, and out­side of Religion, and Rebellion blanch'd and varnish'd with dissembled Sanctity. And there­fore instead of Andronicus, he might have better instanc'd in Oliver Cromwell, who had it to a Hair, and never so fervently sought God, as when he acted most strongly against him: What he might have been at his Pen I know not; but for knocking his Breast, lifting up his Eyes, at­testing God, and invoking Imprecations on him­self, if he did not that which he never intended, he should have given Andronicus a Barr and an half, and out-thrown him too; though this (by the way) I must take leave to say, it was not altogether Andronicus's Tyranny, but his Usurpation and Murther of his Predecessor and Nephew, Alexius Comnenius, that gave him that Tragical Exit.

And again (for he cannot speak without bit­terness) where the King says, ‘I intended not only to oblige my Friends, but my Ene­mies also; exceeding even the desires of those that were Factiously discontented, if they did but pretend to any modest and sober Sense.’ He says thus; Poets never put more pi­ous Words in the Mouth of any Person than of a Ty­rant; and I shall not instance an abstruse Author, wherein the King might be less conversant, but one whom we well knew was the Closet-Companion of these his Solitudes, William Shakespear, who [Page 27]brings in Richard the Third speaking in as high a strain of Piety and Mortification, as is in any Pas­sage of this Book, &c. And what's this but mere Malice to expose the King to the Censure of the Rabble? How! A King and have such Books in his Closet! As if he alone were confin'd to The Crumbs of Comfort, The Sick-man's Salve, and The Minc'd-meat of Divinity. When Alexan­der (for the most part) carried Homer in his Pocket; and Virgil, Horace, Terence were not least in request with Augustus; nor do I think but there are many things in Mr. Shake­spear, that may be safer read than a Seditious Sermon.

Lastly, he as opprobriously, as infamously endeavours another blot to his Memory, in ren­dring His Majesty so insensible of that sad hour which was upon him, as immediately before his Death to pop into the Hand of that grave Bishop, who attended him, a Prayer, stollen Word for Word from Sir Phi­lip Sidney's Arcadia, a vain amatorious Poem (as he calls it) and that in a Language estrang'd to Humanity, which never insults over even a Slave in Misery. And therefore passing that Scurrillity for fear of being infected my self, I say thus: It seems improbable that he to whom (as Solomon says of himself) ‘God had given to speak as he would,Wisd. 7.15. and conceive as is meet for the things to be spoken of, should be guil­ty of so open a borrowing, without some ac­knowledgment at least to the Author.’ I said ere while, that I saw, and read a part of the King's Book the very next Morning after that execra­ble Murther, to which I add this now (and with that regard as if it were my last) that it was not many days before I bought it my self, and [Page 28]frequently read it, with the best attention I wa [...] capable of, nor do I remember to have met i [...] in that Quarto Impression. And I have an O [...] ­ctavo of a later Edition now before me, in which it is not. However it first came into the Book, it makes so little to the purpose in this Place that nothing but Envy, Hatred, Malice, and al [...] Uncharitableness had ever thought of it, unles [...] as (Malitia supplet aetatem) Malice supplies Years he also did it for want of Argument.

But stay — And I'll suppose for once tha [...] His Majesty did give this Prayer to the Bishop and if he did, where lies the Scandal? The Pray­er ('tis true) is the Prayer of Pamela under Im­prisonment,Sir Ph. Sid. Arcadia. 248. but withal, so Divine a Meditation that it speaks the Soul of the Honourable Com­poser. What is that Thought of Mr. Sher­ley's,

the worse, that it is in one of his Plays? Or is it a just Quarrel to the English Liturgy, that it is taken out of the Roman Missal? St. Paul convinces the Athenians of the unknown God, Arts 17.28. whom they ignorantly worshipp'd, from their own Poets:Titus 1.12. And in his Epistle to Titus, does not bid him, Cretizare cum Cretensibus, but ‘rebuke them sharply from one of themselves, even a Prophet of their own.’ In a word, true Morals, and good Thoughts lose nothing of their Innate Excellence, from whencesoever they are handed to us. The Devil had not been the Enemy, but Friend of Mankind, if he had spoke no worse in Paradise than he did at [Page 29] Delphos, viz. ( [...]) Know thy self. And therefore admitting the Accusation were true, where lies the Scandal? Nor will he have done while there's a drop yet left. The King says, ‘He call'd this Parliament with an up­right Intention, to the Glory of God, and his People's good:’ Our Answerer makes this of it, That there be some whom God hath given over to Delusion, whose very Mind and Con­science is defil'd; of whom St. Paul to Titus makes mention. To which I say, there is not any one such Expression in the whole Epistle; but o­thers there are, whom he calls ‘Evil Beasts, Slow-bellies, and Lions:’ With which I leave him, and proceed to the second Section.

CHAP. II. Ʋpon the Earl of Strafford's Death.

‘I Looked upon my Lord of Strafford (saith His Majesty) as a Gentleman, whose great Abilities might make a Prince rather afraid than asham'd to employ him in the greatest affairs of State.’ Yes (saith our Answerer) He was a Man whom all Men look'd upon as one of the boldest, and most impetuous Instruments that the King had to advance any violent or illegal design. He had rul'd Ireland, and some Parts of England in an Arbitrary manner: Had endeavour'd to sub­vert Fundamental Laws and Parliaments: To make Hostility between England and Scotland: And [Page 30]Counselled the King to call over that Irish Army of Papists to reduce England. For which, and many other Crimes alledged and proved against him i [...] twenty eight Articles, he was Condemned of High Treason by the Parliament. The Commons by the far greater number Cast him: The Lords likewis [...] agreed to the Sentence and the People cry'd out fo [...] Justice, &c. Only the King (saith he) was not sa­tisfied in his Conscience, to Condemn him of High Treason.

In reply to which, I think he might mor [...] truly have said, not prov'd but alledg'd, as I shal [...] come to shew presently. That he was onc [...] the Darling of the Commons,His Tryal of Tho. Earl of Strafford. Fol. 763. to 769. we have several Instances of it in Mr. Rushworth. But (alas!) the King had made him Lord Deputy of Ireland, and the heighth of that Sphere contracted En­vy in the Great Ones, and an Odium in the Peo­ple; nor is it every one that can say — n [...] ­pluribus impar. Though during that his Govern­ment, he improv'd the Revenue of that King­dom, which before his time had been rather [...] Charge than Advantage to this; and procur'd of the King, that all Impropriations then in th [...] Crown be restor'd to the Church of that Nati­on, and supplied it with Learned Men out o [...] England; upon the Scottish Invasion in 1639 he counsell'd the King ('tis true) to fight them out; Vox Reipub, honesta, sibi anceps, (as Taci [...] of Galba on the like Occasion) for the Scotc [...] Commissioners not long after preferr'd that Charge in Parliament against him before-men­tion'd: And then, for the Irish Army of Papists &c. that brings me naturally to the Article themselves, which were (as is said) Twent [...] Eight in number: Some of which were for mat­ters [Page 31]of Fourteen Years standing; some of them as the First, Seventeenth, Eighteenth) not in­sisted on; and others (as the Fourteenth, Twen­ [...]y first, Twenty Second, Twenty Fourth,) not [...]rg'd.Dr. Nalson's impartial Col­lect. Part 2. Fol. 8. And to disable him of the Testimony and Assistance of Sir George Ratcliffe (his quon­dam Secretary, and now Friend) he also was charged with High-Treason, and Confederacy with him, and sent for out of Ireland. The Earl had now been under five Months Imprison­ment, when, the 22d of March 1640. he was brought to his Tryal, which held till the 13th of April following, and in which he defended himself so well, that since there was neither Matter nor Proof enough against him to take off his Head by the Common-Law, it was re­solv'd a Bill of Attainder should. The pinch­ing Article against him was the Twenty third, and is the main Particular mention'd in the said Bill, viz. ‘That he advis'd the King, that he was loose, and absolv'd from the Rule of Go­vernment, and that he had an Army in Ire­land, by which he might reduce this Kingdom.’ A shrewd Article no doubt, and sufficiently e­vidences their Crime, that (without the King's Consent) afterwards brought the Scots into England. But let us see how this was proved. There had been an old grudge between Sir Hen­ry Vane the Father, (Secretary to the King) and my Lord of Strafford, touching the Title of Ba­ron of the Castle of Raby, of which Vane was Proprietor, and endeavour'd the Honour to himself; notwithstanding which, the King had given it to the Earl of Strafford: And is so hap­pen'd that the said Sir Henry having a sudden occasion to make use of a Paper, gave his Son [Page 32](young Sir Henry Vane) the Key of his Cabine [...] where lay another Key, which open'd a Til [...] in which he found some short Notes of a Com­mittee of eight of the Privy-Council, of whic [...] the said Earl was one, upon this Question, Wh [...] ­ther the War with Scotland should be offensive, or defensive: In which there were Words, [...] spoken by the said Earl somewhat to that pu [...] ­pose, but still relative to the War with Sco [...] ­land: However, young Sir Henry carries it [...] the Lords, and makes it an Article of the Ad­ditional Charge against him, which upon fu [...] Evidence of such of the said eight as were no [...] in Prison, terminated in this. ‘The Earl o [...] Northumberland being interrogated touchin [...] these Words, absolutely denied that ever h [...] heard the said Earl speak them. Mr. Trea­surer (Sir H. V.) shuffled in his Evidenc [...] forward and backward;The Tryal. Fol. 563. and at last said, h [...] thinks they were spoken positively, or to tha [...] effect.’ [And a shrewd Evidence for the proof of a Bond!] ‘The Lord Treasurer declar'd that he never heard the said Earl speak th [...] said Words, or any thing like it. The Lord Cottington to the same purpose; and think [...] the Earl might say, The Parliament had no [...] provided for the King, and that the King ought to seek out all due and lawful ways to employ his Power and Authority, Caste & Candide, which Words he very well remem­bers. The Marquess Hamilton, that he hath often heard the said Earl use those last Words to the King; for otherwise (said the Earl) it were unjust and oppressive. And to the same purpose the Lord Goring, [...]ll Nelson. Fol. 87. and Sir Tho­mas German, in behalf of the said Earl.’ [Page 33]However die he must; and to that end a Bill of Attainder was prepar'd by both Houses, to which the King, May the first, in the House of Lords, the Commons then present, declar'd, ‘That in his Conscience he could not con­demn him of Treason.’ On which a City armed Rabble of about Six Thousand, tumultu­ously flock to Westminster, crying, Justice! Justice! against the Earl of Strafford: Which (within a day or two) they second with a Petition. On which the Earl (less valuing his Life than the quiet of the Kingdom) writes a Letter to the King, whereby to set his Conscience at Liber­ty, and by his own Consent prays him to pass the Bill; which in a few days after, was (by Commission to the Earl of Arundel, and three o­ther Lords) accordingly done, with this Pro­viso, ‘That no Judge or Judges, &c. shall ad­judge or interpret any act or thing to be Treason, nor hear or determine any Treason any other way than they should, or ought to have done before the making of this Act, and as if this Act had never been had or made.’ A modest Confession! and that nothing but an Act of Parliament could affect him: Nor un­like that Clause in an Ordinance of the King and Lords, for the Banishment, &c. of the Lady Alice Pierce, (a Favourite of King Edward the Third's) viz. ‘That this Ordinance in this Special Case,Mr. Seld [...]n's Privilege of Baronage. 71 which may extend to a Thousand other Persons, shall in no other case but this be taken in Example.’ However, after the Bill was pass'd, the King (as deeming, They will reverence my Son) wrote a Letter to the House of Lords with his own Hand, and sent it by the Prince of Wales, in which he in­terceeds [Page 34]for that Mercy to the Earl which ma­ny Kings would not have scrupled to have gi­ven themselves. But 'twas resolv'd, and no­thing would do. And thus between Accumula­tive and Constructive Treason, nor better prov'd than I have shewn before,

Or, if my Reader had rather have it in Eng­lish, take it from that happy Flight of Sir Ri­chard Fanshaw on that Occasion:

And yet (not to leave his Memory in the Dust) there is an Act of Parliament that vindi­cates all I have said in the matter; and that is, The Act for reversing this Attainder; 13, 14. Car. 2. c. 29. which says thus, ‘That the Bill of Attainder was pur­posely made to Condemn him upon Accumu­lative and Constructive Treason, none of the said Treasons being Treason apart, and so could not be in the whole, if they had been prov'd, as they were not. And the Act further says, It was procured by an armed Tumult, the names of Fifty nine of the Commons that opposed the Bill, posted by the name of Straffordians; and sent up to the Peers at a time when a great part of them were absent by reason of those Tumults, and many of those present, protested against [Page 35]it. For which Causes, and to the end that Right be done to the Memory of that deceased Earl, it was enacted, &c. That the said Act, &c. be repeal'd, &c. And all. Records and proceedings of Parliament relating to the said Attainder be cancell'd and taken off the File, &c. to the intent the same may not be visible in after-Ages, or brought in Example to the prejudice of any Person whatever. Provided that this Act shall not extend to the future questioning of any Person, &c. how­ever concern'd in this Business, or who had any hand in the Tumults, or disorderly procuring the Act aforesaid, &c.’ A shrewd suspicion that they thought that Act of Attain­der was not so regularly obtain'd as it ought to have been; for if it had, what needed that Proviso? And having duely considered this Act, I think the Wonder will cease why the King was so dissatisfied in his Conscience touching the giving his Assent to that Bill of Attainder;His Speech on the Scaffold. or that the Lord Capel so publickly begg'd for­giveness of God for having given his Consent toward it: At least (I presume) it may startle any Man, that from such repeated Calumnies has not yet come to be of our Answerer's Opi­nion, That there may be a Treason against the Com­monwealth as well as against the King only. A Trea­son not mention'd in 25 Edw. 3. or in any Statute since, saving those of the late Usur­per's making; inasmuch as no Estate or Estates of the Realm make any thing of themselves, but as joyned to their Figure, the King. And therefore passing the King's most detested Conspi­racy (as he calls it) against the Parliament and Kingdom, by seizing the Tower of London; bring­ing [Page 36]the English Army out of the North, &c. I leave him and his Stuff together, and come to the Third.

CHAP. III. Ʋpon His going to the House of Commons.

I Said ere-while His Majesty might think the Lords would reverence his Son; nor was in to be doubted whether the Commons would himself: Especially considering the business he went about. ‘It was (faith the King) to de­mand Justice upon the Five Members, whom upon just motives, and pregnant grounds I had charged, and needed nothing to such Evi­dence as could have been produced against them, save only a free and legal Tryal, which was all I desired. Which fill'd indifferent Men with Jealousies and Fears; yea, and ma­ny of my Friends resented as a motion rising rather from Passion than Reason.’

See (says our Answerer) He confesses it to [...] ­an act which most Men, whom he calls his Enemies cried shame upon; indifferent Men, &c. (as before) He himself in one of his Answers to both Houses, made profession to be convinc'd that it was a plain breach of their Privilege: Yet here, like a rott [...] Building newly trimm'd over, he represents it speci­ously and fraudulently to impose upon the simple Rea­der, &c. Words insolent enough without ad­ding [Page 37]the rest; though it had not been from his Matter if he had told that simple Reader, in which Answer of his Majesties he might have found that Profession. However, for the dis­covery of the Truth on both sides, it may not be amiss to make a few steps backward, that considering the occasion, we may the better judge of the thing.

It had been advis'd to the King by the then Privy-Council of Scotland to send the Book of Common-Prayer to be receiv'd and us'd in all Churches of that Kingdom,The King's Declaration, 1639. which was accor­dingly order'd: And in the Month of July, 1637. publickly read in the great Church of Edinburgh. The Kirkmen took fire at it; nor wanted there some in England to fan the Flame, which in a short time got that head, that they invade Eng­land; but finding the design not ripe enough yet, they humbly submit, and the business is smo­ther'd: Whereas, had those smoaking Brands been sufficiently quench'd, they had not made a greater Eruption the next Year. During this time the King had gotten into the matter, and calls this Parliament with a real intention of quieting all. They begin where the last Parlia­ment left; Complaints of Grievances, Innovations in Religion, Growth of Popery, and Arbitrary Power, and single out the Earl of Strafford for an example of their Justice. The King (I said) was got into the matter, and had discover'd whose Correspondencies and Engagements they were that had embroil'd his Kingdoms, and ordered his Attorney to draw a Charge of High-Treason against the Lord Kimbolton, Mr. Pym, Mr. Hanbden, Mr. Hollis, Sir Ar. Haslerigg, and Mr. Strode. Which was accordingly done, and [Page 38]the substance of it is this. ‘That they have Trai­terously endeavour'd to subvert the Funda­mental Laws of this Kingdom,Saude [...]sin's Hist.of K.C.I. Fol. 473. and to deprive the King of his Power. — That they have endeavoured by foul Aspersions to alienate the Peoples affections from the King. — That they have traiterously invited and encourag'd a foreign Power to invade His Majesties King­dom of England. — That for the compleat­ing their traiterous designs, they have actually rais'd and countenanc'd Tumults against the King and Parliament. — And that they have traiterously conspired to levy, and actu­ally have levied War against the King.’ Nelson. 2d Part F. 811. ad idom. On this (the King having first demanded them of the House by a Serjeant at Arms) a Warrant is granted to apprehend them; but missing their Persons,Id. Fol. 514. their Trunks are seiz'd, and seal'd up: While this was yet doing, the Com­mons had notice of it, and thereupon Vote, ‘That on all like occasions for the future, any Member might call a Constable to his assist­ance, defend himself, and seize all such Persons.’

The next Morning the King goes to the House with part of his ordinary Guard of Pensioners, and orders them to stay without; and having rested himself in the Speaker's Chair, told them, ‘He came to demand five Persons whom he had accused of High Treason.Id. Sander. Fol. 474. And though no King that ever was in England could be more tender of their Privileges, that yet they knew, there was no Privilege a­gainst Treason.So Sir F [...]. Coke a [...]st. 25. And (looking round him) I see (faith he) they are gone: But assured them in the word of a King that he never in­tended any force, but to proceed against [Page 39]them in a legal fair way, and therefore ex­pected the House would send them to him;’ and so went off. Nor was he yet out of hear­ing when the general Cry was Privilege! Pri­vilege! And the next day they Vote this co­ming of the King a breach of Privilege, and adjourn for a Week into London, there to sit as a General Committee, pretending they were not safe at Westminster; and (though the King afterwards wav'd their Prosecution) would not be satisfied unless he also discover'd who gave him that Counsel to come to the House: as if it were not enough that he for bore his E­nemies, without he also betray'd his Friends.

Upon this, Tumult upon Petition, and Peti­tion upon Tumult, daily encreasing, the King, Queen, Prince and Duke retire to Hampton-Court, the Members in the mean time passing to and from Westminster with Hundreds of Boats, Flags, Seamen, Rabble, and Huzza's as they pass'd by Whitehall.

And now again judge any sober Man between the King and them. The King (to avoid the ill consequence of a denial) gave his Assent to the Bill of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford: He demands Justice against the five. Members, and 'tis refus'd him: If they were guilty, why were they protected against him? And if not guilty, why did they not clear themselves? The King came to the House with an attendance short of his ordinary Guard, and it was Vo­ted a Breach of Privilege. They had their armed Tumults of Six Thousand at a time to awe the King's Friends, and no notice taken of it, but rather encourag'd: Whereas it is Lex & consuetudo Parliamenti; ‘That wheresoever [Page 40]the Parliament is holden,Sir F. Coke. 3 Inst. 160. there ought to be no wearing of Armour, exercise of Plays, games of Men, Wothen or Children; much less Riots.’ What shall I add: They (in the Year 1647.) submitted eleven of their Members to the impeachment of an Army; after that, their House to be garbled; and when (con­trary to the Fundamental Laws of this King­dom) they had voted themselves the Legislative Power of the Nation, as tamely submitted to be turn'd out by their Journey-Men. And yet, when the safety of the Nation was at stake, in­solently contend, nay mate it with their Sove­reign. And therefore weighing altogether in a true Balance, judge (I say) wherein the King was to blame, or where lay this breach of Pri­vilege.

And for what His Majesty's Intention in this matter was (besides what has been before urg'd) take this further from himself, where he says ‘If he purpos'd any Violence or Op­pression against the Innocent; then let the E­nemy persecute my Soul, tread my Life to the Ground, and lay my Honour in the Dust.’ To which this Accuser thus: What needs there more disputing? He appeal'd to God's Tribunal, and behold God hath judged and done to him in the sight of all Men according to the Verdict of his own Mouth. Whereas in Common Humanity as a Man, Charity as a Christian, Reverence to him as a King, and Duty as his King, he might (and that truly) have said,2 Sam. 3.34. ‘As a Man falleth before wicked Men, so fell'st thou.— The Breath of our Nostrils,Lam. 4.10. the Anointed of the Lord was taken in their Pits, of whom we said, under His shaddow we shall live among the Heathen.’

CHAP. IV. Ʋpon the Insolency of the Tumults.

WHat, and how frequent the Tumults of London and Westminster that follow'd the convening of this Parliament were, is obvi­ous enough to every Man that knows the least of our own Story; and how aptly His Maje­sty has compar'd them, not to a Storm at Sea, (which yet wants not its Terror) ‘but an Earthquake, which shakes the very Foundati­ons of all, may be also as visible from the too sad effects of them.’ Earthquakes, the more general they are do less hurt, by reason of the united weight which they offer to sub­vert; whereas narrow and particular Earth­quakes have many times overturn'd whole Towns and Cities. And such was the Case here. The Kingdom as yet stood well enough, witness those the Nobility and Gentry, who out of a principle of Honour and Honesty ad­hered to the King: Some humours (tis true) might glow and estuate in the Body, but they were not yet got into the Head; (That Ricketty Head that was already swoll'n too big for the Body.) But when they once discover'd that Vent, all gather'd to it, and shook those Foun­dations which the Wisdom of so many Centu­ries had been laying and securing; as I shall come to show presently.

In the mean time our Answerer (for what concerns the King's Words) says, The matter here is not whether the King or his Houshold Rhe­torician have made a Pithy Declamation against Tu­mults, but first whether they were Tumults or not; next if they were, whether the King himself did not cause them; and having all along begg'd the Question as to the first, makes the other as a consequence of the former. The King (saith he) having both unwillingly call'd this Parliament, and as unwillingly from time to time condescended to their several Acts, first tempts the English Army with no less Reward than the Spoil of London, to come up and destroy the Parliament; But that being discover'd, makes the like bait to the Scotch Army, with the Addition of four Northern Counties to be made Scottish; with Jewels of great value to be given in Pawn the while, which they with much Ho­nesty gave notice of to the Parliament. Besides this, a malignant Party was grown up; The Rebellion of Ireland broke out; a Conspiracy in Scotland had been made while the King was there against some Chief Members of that Parliament; numbers of unknown seditious Persons resorted to the City; the King upon his return from Scotland, dismisses that Guard the Parliament thought necessary to have a­bout them, and appoints another, which they dis­charge; the People therefore, lest their worthiest and faithful Patriots should want aid, came in Multitudes, tho' unarm'd, to witness their Fidelity to them, &c. The King sends a Message into the City for­bidding such Resorts; the Parliament Petition the King for a Guard out of the City to be commanded by the Earl of Essex; the King refuses it, and the next day comes to the House of Commons, and begins to fortifie his Court; many are wounded, [Page 43]whereof some died; and so concludes it was no Tumult: Or if it grew to be so, the Cause was in the King himself, who both by hostile Preparations, and an actual assailing the People, gave them just cause to defend themselves. Which (saving the scandal of his wording it) is the full substance of his 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th Pages. Where­in also how far he has begg'd the Question, I appeal to every unbiass'd Reader.

How willingly the King call'd this Parlia­ment, Chap. 1 I have already shewn. And why he so un­willingly pass'd the Bill of Attainder against the willingly pass'd the Bill of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford I have not been wanting to it, and if he had never condescended to several of the Bills pass'd this Parliament, Chap. 2 and since re­peal'd, he had not with one hand cut off the other. But when he calls them their Acts I am to seek what he means. The office of the two Houses is Preparative and Consultive, but the Character of the Power rests in the final Sancti­on, which is the King: The passing a Bill is but the granting a Request; the two Houses make the Bill, but the King makes the Law, and 'tis the Stamp, not the Matter that makes it currant.

Then for that ridiculous Sham of the Spoil of the City of London, &c. He might as well have added the blowing up the Thames, and drowning the City, and altogether as proba­ble, unless he had prov'd at least somewhat to­wards it.—The Rebellion of Ireland ('tis true) was broke out, and they had gotten Four Hundred Thousand Pounds towards the redu­cing it; but what they did with those Moneys I have shewn before. And for the Conspiracy of Scotland, &c. A malignant Party growing up; unknown seditious Persons resorting to the City, &c. [Page 44]Why added he not the Pope's Marrying th [...] Great Turk's Sister? For who (besides himself ever heard of this Scottish Conspiracy against any but the King. And for that new coin [...] Word Malignant Party, if he means the King Friends, they had an Act of Parliament fo [...] their Warrant;11 Hen. 7. c. 1. but for those unknown Seditio [...] Persons, 'tis somewhat strange (methinks) [...] should call them Seditious, and not know w [...] they were, unless it were in Contradistinction [...] his own Party, whom all the World visibly fa [...] to be such.

And for the King's discharging those Guar [...] the Parliament thought necessary, &c. And th [...] discharging those other, that he had appointed the. They were legally conven'd by the King' [...] Writ, and the same Law was a full Security t [...] them: But by what Law they could take Guard to themselves without the King's Co [...] ­sent (I think) the best of our Lawyers may b [...] yet to learn: And when (to gratifie their Incl [...] ­nations) the King had appointed them anothe [...] which they discharg'd, what was it but to sp [...] a defiance in his Face. For my part, I spea [...] plain English, and let my Reader judge between this our Answerer and me, whether his There­fore the People came in Multitudes, &c. be a suff [...] ­cient Justification of those Riots.

The King (saith he) forbad those Resorts, &c. and no doubt justly, for it was no more tha [...] what the Law had forbidden to his Hand. [...] call'd them Riots, but take it thus: The [...] came to the assistance of that Parliament, wh [...] were then compassing and imagining to lev [...] a War against the King, the overt act of which was, That they did actually levy it. — I'll [Page 45]run it no higher: Though I have heard it said, — Fascinus, quos inquinat aequat.

However the Parliament Petition the King for a Guard out of the City, &c. Which, because it falls more naturally under the subsequent Matter, I leave it till then, and in the mean time ask a­ny Man whether from these Premises he has rightly concluded, that they were no Tumults; or if they grew to be so, the cause was in the King himself, &c. more than as an honest Man fight­ing with a Thief in defence of his Purse, and is kill'd by him, may be said to be the cause of his own death. And thus Men (like Pythago­ras's Scholars) take things by the wrong Han­dle, whereas if they took it by the right it would be quite another Matter; and as near as I can I'll open the truth of this.

The Scottish Invasion had been accommodated at Rippon some Months before this Parliament sate, nor had the King yet lost the Reverence he had in the Hearts of his People, who all stood waiting what this Parliament would do, when instead of healing the Breaches, they ra­ther widen'd them, in falling upon the old Trade of Grievances, Popery, and Arbitrary Power; and that they might the better single him from his Friends, and thereby deprive him of such as had either Wisdom, Authority or Courage to prevent or oppose their further Designs, they first fall upon those that had either Written or Preach'd in defence of those Rights of the Crown they intended to Usurp; and arraign his Actions in his Ministers, some of which are Imprison'd, others fly: And on the other hand set at liberty such as had been sentenc'd for Se­ditious Writing and Preaching against him, [Page 46]and bring them to London in Triumph to tr [...] how the People would be pleas'd with it, an [...] consequently how their endeavours to draw th [...] Peoples Affections from the King had already succeeded; and the general Applause on this occasion gave them no weak assurance of it.

And now having gotten from the King th [...] Eyes of Argus, and to themselves the Hands of Briarius, they think themselves able enough to lessen him in his Power, and as preparatory to it, they first procure an Act of Parliament that they should not be Dissolv'd or Prorogu'd but by Act of Parliament: And which is remarka­ble, that very day on which his Majesty Sign'd the Commission for giving his Assent to the Bill for the Earl of Strafford's Attainder: And ha­ving (in a manner) necessitated him not to de­ny any thing, they get his Assent to those se­veral Bills before mentioned. Chap. 1 Concessions one would have thought might have satisfied any sort of Men but those that were Pre-resolv'd not to be satisfied with any thing.

Nor did the King in the least doubt their being satisfied, and therefore makes a Journey into Scotland to satisfie his Subjects there,A [...]. 1641. as he thought he had done here; and they all seem'd to be so, especially as to the matter of Epi­scopacy, which they saw was tumbling be­yond a Recovery. During this His Majesty's absence the Houses adjourn to the 20th of O­ctober, three days after which the Rebellion of Ireland broke out. The 25th of November the King returns to London, as yet welcom'd with the full Acclamations of the People, tho' he met not any suitable Reception from the Parliament, who instead of having swept out [Page 47]the old Leven, had prepar'd new. However, the King having call'd them together the Se­cond of December, recommends to them the raising Succours for Ireland, and on the Four­teenth again press'd it; and withal told them he took notice of a Bill that was then in agitation, to assert the power of Levying and Pressing Sol­diers to the two Houses, which he was content should pass with a Salvo jure to him, and then, because the present time would not admit the disputing it; and one would have thought that when the King came so near, they might have met him half way: But instead of that they send him a Remonstrance the next day, in which they complain of the Designs of a Malig­nant Party, which by their Wisdom had been prevented; and running on with the old Cry a­gainst Papists, Bishops, and Evil Counsellors, magnifie themselves in what they had done for the good of the Kingdom, and cause it to be Printed.

About this time it was that the King had come to the House, and they adjourn'd into London, as before, when upon their return to Westminster they Petition the King for a Guard out of the City to be commanded by the Earl of Essex (a Gentleman who upon the account of his Father in Queen Elizabeth's time, the business of the Nullity in King James's time, and the little notice that had been taken of him at Court till now of late he had been made Lord Chamberlain, was a Discontent,July 29.1641. and conse­ [...]uently a Darling of the People) as pretending [...]ey could not otherwise sit it safety: Which [...]e King (as well he might) thought not fit to [...]ant, inasmuch as it look'd so like a Force [Page 48]against himself, and afterwards prov'd so when they made him their General. But with­al, let them know that if there were any such occasion, he would command such a Guard to wait upon them as he would be responsible for to God Almighty.

On this the Militia of Westminster by Petition to the House of Commons offer them their Ser­vice,Id. Nalson, Part 2. Fol. 839, and 840. when it shall please them to comman [...] it.—The Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Com­mon-Council of the City of London, by Peti­tion to the King, representing (amongst other things) His going to the House, &c. Pray tha [...] the Tower may be put into confiding Hands, an [...] a Guard be appointed for the Parliament or of the City; which was insolently seconded b [...] the disorderly conflux of a Rabble about White hall and Westminster.—And that the House might not be wanting while the Iron was ho [...] they Petition the King, that the Tower [...] London, all other Forts, and the whole Milit [...] of the Kingdom be put into the Hands of suc [...] Persons as should be recommended to him [...] both Houses. Which his Majesty (as justly b [...] might) refused to grant; and for the Security of his Person, withdrew to Hampton-Court.

And now from the whole let any indiffere [...] Man say for me, first, whether these disorde [...] Proceedings were not Tumults, and next, [...] they grew to be so, how the King can be said to be the cause of them himself. For though those hostile Preparations, and actual assaili [...] the People, which our Answerer says, gave the just cause to defend themselves, might (perhap [...] have been somewhat in the Case if those Peopl [...] had not been the Aggressors; yet, when as him­self [Page 49]confesses, the King had sent a Message into the City forbidding such Resorts, what made they there? Nor can these Hostile Preparations, and actual assailing the People be other than what the Lord Mayor, &c. in their Petition to the King, represent, viz. His fortifying Whitehall, and the wounding some Citizens: Which His Majesty thus answers,Id Nalson. Part 2. Fol. 839, and 840. That (as to the former) his Person was in danger by such a disorderly conflux of People; and withal urges their Se­ditious Language, even at his Palace Gates: And (for the other) that if any were wound­ed, it was through their evil Misdemeanours. And therefore to make it no more than the Case of a common Person; every Man's House is his Castle; and if a confus'd Club-rabble ga­ther about it, Cum kickis & friskis & horribili sonitu, the Gentleman of the House commands his Servants to beat them off, and in the doing it, some of the Assailants are wounded; nay put it further, kill'd. And what can the Law make of it? That it was an unlawful Assembly (I should not have minc'd it, a Rout) it is ma­nifest; and that what the Servants did was in defence of their Master is also as evident:Sir Ed. Coke 3 Inst. Let the Rule of Law cut between us (Quod quis ob tutelam Corporis sui fecerit, id jure fecisse vi­detur:) Whatever a Man does in defence of his Person, the Law presumes it to have been done Legally. O, but you'll say, It was not the Master himself! A Thief assaults a Gentleman in his House, or upon the Road, the Gentleman's Servant in defence of his Master kills the Thief; he forfeits nothing. And if this holds in the case of a common Person, how much more then in Case of the King?

And lastly where he says, Instead of Praying for his People as a good King should do, he Prays to be deliver'd from them, ‘as from wild Beasts, Inundations, and Raging Seas, that had o­verborn all Loyalty, Modesty, Laws, Ju­stice, and Religion.’ God save the People from such Intercessors. I think (A gente inimica & dolosa, libera me Domine!) ‘From an evil and perverse Generation deliver me, O God!’ might have very well become any honest Man's Prayer concerning them: For in their Malice they slew their King, and in their Self-will they broke down a Wall.

CHAP. V. Ʋpon His Majesty's passing the Bill for the Triennial Parliaments and after, settling this, during the Pleasure of the two Houses.

‘PArliaments (saith Sir Robert Cotton) are the times in which Kings seem less than they are,His Reign of Hen. III. p. 1, and Subjects more than they should be.’ A smart Character, whether we respect those Paaliaments of Henry the Third, of whom it was spoken, or that Parliament of 1640. of which we are now speaking: And yet they are become so congenial, and as it were bred up, and embodied with the English Temper, (which, [Page 51]as it naturally relishes nothing but what comes from them, so it rarely disputes any thing that is transacted by them) that some have thought this might be one reason that inclin'd His Maje­sty to pass these Bills; though for my part, I'll believe no Man against the King, when he says,

‘That the World might be confirm'd in my Purposes at first, to contribute what in Ju­stice, Reason, Honour, and Conscience I could, to the happy Success of this Parliament, which had in me no other design but the ge­neral good of my Kingdoms. I willingly pas­sed the Bill for Triennial Parliaments: Which, as gentle and seasonable Physick, might (if well applied) prevent any Distempers from getting any head or prevailing; especially if the Remedy prov'd not a Disease beyond all Remedy.’

And as to the other for settling this, during the Pleasure of the Houses, ‘An Act (saith the King) unparallell'd by any of my Predecessors; yet granted on an extream Confidence I had, that my Subjects would not make an ill use of an Act, by which I declar'd so much to trust them, as to deny my self so high a Point of my Prerogative, &c.’

Whereas (saith our Answerer) He attributes the passing of them to his own Act of Grace and willingness, as his manner is to make Vertues of his Necessities, he gives himself all the Praise, and heaps Ingratitude upon the Parliament, to whom we owe what we owe for those beneficial Acts, but to his granting them, neither Praise nor Thanks. No! and by what Law I would fain know, is the King obliged to pass every Bill that is offered [Page 52]him? He swears ('tis true) to defend the Laws, i. e. Such Laws as are then in being; but that obliges him to no futurity in granting every thing (whether good or bad) that shall be of­fer'd him: And therefore, unless he had shewn at least some one Act of Parliament that had not the Royal Assent to it, he might with more Mode­sty have acknowledged that it was in the King's Option whether to have passed these Acts or not;Sir Ed. Coke. 4 [...]nst. 25. because neither of the Houses singly, not both of them together can make any binding Law without the King's Concurrence, which gives the Embryo Life, and quickens it into [...] Law. But, (saith he) The first Bill granted les [...] than two former Statutes, yet in force by Edward the Third; that a Parliament should be called every Year, or oftner if need were. Very well! an [...] there being no more in it, it is somewhat strange (methinks) how the King could be necessitated to the passing it, or that the Houses eve [...] desired it: When all that he says to it, is, Tha [...] the King conceal'd not his unwillingness in testifying a general dislike of their Actions, and told the [...] with a Masterly Brow, that by this Act he had obliged them above what they had deserved. And truly if the King had said it, or given tha [...] Masterly Brow (for which yet he brings n [...] Voucher but himself) those subsequent Acts o [...] Parliament which repeal'd both these Acts have sufficiently evidenc'd their particular dis­like of them also, in that they nulled them. And how well they were pleas'd with their Per­sons, or their Actions, the Statute of the 12th of Charles the Second (before-mention'd) may satisfie any Man.

And as to the other Act for settling their sit­ting, &c. The King (saith he) had by his ill Stewardship, and to say no worse, the needless raising of two Armies intended for a Civil War, beggar'd both himself and the Publick: Left us in score to his greedy Enemies (their Brethren the Scots:) to dis-engage which, great Sums were to be borrow'd, which would never have been lent, if he who first caused the Malady, might when he pleas'd, reject the Remedy. And from thence, and other the like dross, meerly thrown in to help out Weight, which yet he never gives, he comes to this, That it was his Fear, not his Favour drew that first Act from him, lest the Parliament incens'd by his Conspiracies against them, should with the People have resented too heinously those his doings. if to the suspicion of their danger from him, he had also added the denial of this only means to secure themselves. And now to examine it a little; he charges the King with the needless raising two Armies intended for a Civil War: What the Houses then intended was afterwards visible by its Effects, a Civil War: But that the King should intend it, and at the same time divest himself of his Power, is manifestly ridiculous: For as he says himself,1641. this Bill was pass'd in May, whereas the King (besides his Journey into Scotland) retired not from Whitehall till a­bove half a Year afterwards; and when he left it (considering their respective Conditions) might have as truly said, Cum baculo transivi Jordanum istum: And how then could he intend a Civil War? Having (as our Accuser says) so beggar'd himself.—For what concerns the King's Enemies and their dear Brethren, I refer it to its proper Place.—And for what re­lates [Page 54]to the Sums of Money to be borrow'd, besides what I have already shewn how they were dispos'd of, Chap. 1 I add this, That they could not have put the Kingdom into a Posture of a Defence; i. e. [...]'d a Rebellion, without it. And withal considering that the King set not up his Standard till the August following,1642. he must have been much shorter sighted than our Answerer all along endeavours to make him, to have design'd a War without Sir Edward Coke's Materials, Firmamentum belli, & Ornamentum pacis, which (the Houses having taken his Re­venue into their Hands) all the World knew he wanted.

But the [...] [...]ot yet run to the end of the [...] King taxes them for undo­ing what they found well done: Yet knows they un­did nothing but Lord Bishops, Liturgy, Ceremonies, &c. judged worthy by all Protestants to be thrown out of the Church. But what Protestants were they that so judg'd it? Those of the Church of England were (I am sure) of another Opinion, and the temporal Laws of the Kingdom had suf­ficiently establish'd them. And therefore since Interest had so blinded his Intellect that he world not see, were he now living, I could tell him wherein they had undone what they found well done: And because there are many yet in being, who (perhaps) may be willing enough to be satisfied in the matter, I shall not be shie in it.

It is, and ever was the Law of England, that the sole supream Government, Command, and Disposition of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea and Land, and of all places of Strength, is, and ever were the undoubted Right of His [Page 55]Majesty, and of his Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England: Or else what means that of Fitz-Herbert, Nat. Brev. p. 113. It is the Right of the King to defend his Kingdom. To make Leagues and denounce War only belongs to the King,7 Coke 2 [...]. as a Right of Majesty which cannot be con­ferred upon any other. And how can he do it without the power of the Sword? (that is) the sole Command of the Militia? To levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King, unto whom it only belongeth,Id. Coke. 3 Inst. 9. was High Treason at the Common-Law before the Statute de proditionibus. 25 Ed. 3. And a latter Sta­tute, not introductive of a new Law, but de­claratory of the old Law, has the very Words touching the sole Command of the Militia, 13 Car. 2. c. 2. &c. before-mention'd; with this farther, ‘That both or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot, nor ought to pretend to the same, nor can, or lawfully may raise or levy War offensive or defensive against his Majesty, his Heirs and lawful Successors:’ Short View, &c. Fol. 86. And was con­fest by themselves when they acknowledg'd the Militia an inseparable Flower of the Crown, and subject to no command but his Autho­rity.

And yet contrary to this known Law, these two Houses not only Petition the King, That the Tower of London, &c. (as before) be forthwith put into such Hands as shall be recommended to him by both the Houses; but, upon his recess from Whitehall, send him a Peremptory Petition, That unless the King by those Commissioners then sent assure them of their former desires,Mar. 1. 1641. Rushw. Col. Fol. 92. they shall be enforced to dispose of the Militia by the Authority of both Houses; which, up­on [Page 56]the King's refusal,Sir Will. Dug­dale's Short View. p. 85. they Vote a Denial, and dispose of it themselves.

And now they begin to unpin the Mask, and publish a Declaration, wherein they say, ‘That what the Houses declare for Law ought not to be question'd by the King.—That the Sovereign Power resides in both Houses.—That the King ought to have no Negative Voice.—That Treason cannot be com­mitted against the King's Person otherwise than as he is entrusted with the Kingdom, and discharges that Trust; and that they have a Power to judge whether he hath discharged that Trust or not.’ 7 Coke 11. Fine dainty Law! And the Spencers Treason (in Edward the Second's time) but better improv'd.

In the May following they fall a-branching it into nineteen Propositions;Rushw. 307. V. The Sta­tutes at large. many of which are but the substance of those Acts pass'd by Edward the Third, in the fifteenth of his Reign, and revoked by him the same Year as derogatory to his Crown; and send them to the King, which being refus'd by him, they Vote, The King intended a VVar upon them, and thereupon raise an Army; and (suffering the Mask to drop off) make Essex General thereof;12 Jul. 42. and farther Vote, They will live and die with him. On which the King sets up his Standard at Nottingham the August following. Nor will I carry it further at present, because I design not a History, but only to shew which of the two, the King or the Houses intended a Civil VVar; and whether they did not undoe what they found well done. In short, their Endeavours were to strip the King of what God and the Law had given him; the King's [Page 57]was but to keep what he ought to have: and therefore viewing both by a true light, How can the King be justly charg'd with intend­ing a VVar, when it was (in a manner) but a suing for his own?

CHAP. VI. Ʋpon his Majesty's retirement from Westminster.

‘WITH what unwillingness (saith His Majesty) I withdrew Westminster, let them judge, who unprovided of Tackling and Victual, are forced to Sea by a Storm; yet better do so than venture splitting or sinking on a Lee-Shoar.’ And if the Parallel held not in all its Parts, our Answerer had done well to have shewn in which it fell short; whereas instead thereof he only says, He was about to have found fault with the Simile, as a garb somewhat more Poetical than for a Statist, and finds it the strain of other of his Essays. But what's this to the matter? farther than that in the Words His Essays, a Truth slipt from him un­awares in confessing them to have been written by the King, and not by his Houshold Rhetorici­an, as before. But to the Argument (saith he) and I follow him, with this by the way to my Reader, That he would consider how the Hou­ses had depriv'd the King of his Friends, dis­robed him of his Power, trampled his Autho­rity, [Page 58]affronted his Person, baited him with a Rabble, and left him nothing but what could not be taken from him, a good God, and the satis­faction of a Conscience founded on a

And then, tell me in what condition he was when he left Westminster.

‘I stay'd at Whitehall (saith His Majesty) till I was driven away by Shame more than Fear, to see the barbarous rudeness of those Tumults, &c.’ a thing so true for matter of Fact, that being not able to deny it, our An­swerer turns it thus, That in the whole Chapter next but one before this, the King affirms, That the danger wherein his Wife, his Children, and his own Person were by those Tumults, was the main cause that drove him, &c. Whereas what the King (and that but in one place of that Chap­ter) says of it is this, ‘That he thought himself not bound to prostitute the Majesty of his Place and Person, and the safety of his Wife and Children to those who are prone to insult most when they have objects and opportunity most capable of their rude­ness and petulancy.’ With this other from Digby (as he calls him) who knew his Mind as well as any, That the principal cause of his Maje­sty's going thence, was to save them from being trod in the Dirt. And where in the name of Good­ness lies the Contradiction! The Tumults were such they might have been call'd Legion, and well make a King asham'd to see them, and not [Page 59]be able to disperse them: But a direct Fear it could not be in him, whom

and who refused Life at the price of an in­glorious Submission. And yet in the Case of a private Person, was not this ground enough to apprehend a danger; and the consequence of it, to be trod in the Dirt? How much more then in the Case of a King? A King of England, of whose Predecessors the Parliament of Eng­land had declar'd, ‘That they could not assent to any thing that tended to the dis-inherison of the King and his Crown,Sir Ed. Coke. 4 Inst. 14. whereunto they were Sworn.’ But what could the wisest of Men say to it, when the Parliament and the Rabble were both of a side. And whether they were so or not, witness those Tumultuary Routs from the Men of Essex, Colchester, De­von, Somerset, Middlesex, Hartford, Sir W Dag­dale's Short View. Fol. [...]5. London, Apprentices, Seamen; nay the very Women and all, for putting the Kingdom into a Posture, &c: On which follow'd those several Associations for suppressing the Popish Malignant Party, though in truth it was to pursue the King with all vehe­mence;Id. Dagd. 113. for such are the Words of Essex's Let­ter to the Houses near that time. Nor were the Black Cloaks less wanting to their Parts; they could blow the Bellows well enough, tho' they car'd not how little they wrought at the Forge.

And therefore, seeing the Reverence of his Government was lost with the People, and the Great Ones moving at another rate, quam ut [Page 60]Imperantium meminissent. [...]. As it was no less than time for His Majesty to retire and pray for fair Weather, so our Answerer, instead of snarling and catching at his Words, might have suffer'd him to depart in Peace. But to go on with him.

‘I am (saith the King) not further bound to agree with the Votes of both Houses, than I see them agree with the Will of God, my Rights as a King, and the general good of my People.—And better for me to die, enjoying this Empire of my Soul, which subjects me only to God, than live with the Title of a King if it carry such a Vassallage with it, as not to suffer me to use my Reason and Conscience, in which I declare as a King to like or dislike.’ An use of Reason (saith our An­swerer.) If he thereby means his Negative Voice most reasonless and unconscionable, and the utmost that any Tyrant ever pretended over his Vassals. For if the King be only set up to execute the Law, which is indeed the highest of his Office, he can no more reject a Law offer'd him by the Common, than he can new-make a Law which they reject. And yet as reasonless and unconscionable as he pretends to make it, this Negative Voice is, and ever has been the undoubted Right of the Kings of England. For (besides what I had the oc­casion to speak to this matter before) it is no Statute if the King assent not to it: Because if it were, all those Bills that have passed both Houses, and for want of the Royal Assent lie buried in Oblivion, might as occasion serv'd be trump'd up for Laws: And if he may dis-as­sent, it is a sufficient Proof of this Negative Voice, and that he may refuse or ratifie as he [Page 61]sees cause; And withal shews, where this Le­gislation lies, though the use of it be restrain­ed to the consent of both Houses, whose Ro­gation (which is exclusive of all co-ordinate Power) preceeds the Kings Ratification. Then for his if the King be only set up, &c. If this (if) be false, his whole matter falls with it: And that it is so, I thus prove it. The Parliament-Roll (1 Edw. I. n. 8.) says, ‘That upon the de­cease of King Richard the Second,9 Edw. 4. Fol. [...].6. the Crown by Law, Custom and Conscience descended and belonged to Edmund Earl of March, un­der whom King Edward the Fourth claimed.’ And Henry the Fourth, who had usurp'd upon King Richard the Second, makes no other Title, but as Inheritor to King Henry the Third.Sir J. Hay­ward's, 1st year of [...]n. 4. So the Parliament of the first of King James the First, ‘Recognize as (say they) we are bound by the Law of God and Man, the Realm of England, and the Imperial Crown thereof doth belong to him by Inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubted Suc­cession.’ The same also for Queen Elizabeth, 1 Eliz [...]. 1. as to her. Which shews, that Kings are nei­ther set up by the People, nor have the Titles to their Crowns from the two Houses, but by Inherent Birthright. Which needs no setting up: And so (I think) what depends upon this (if) sinks with it, though I shall have a further occasion to speak to it in his next Paragraph.

And here he taxes the King for saying, ‘He thinks not the Majesty of the Crown of England to be bound by any Coronation Oath, in a blind and brutish formality to consent to whatever its Subjects in Parlia­ment shall require.’ But where does the [Page 62]Law of England say the King is so bound? Tho' yet out Answerer is pleas'd to say, What Tyrant could presume to say more, when he meant to ki [...] down all Law, Government, and Bond of Oath? Least considering what his Majesty subjoyns, viz. ‘I think my Oath fully discharg'd is that Point by my Governing only by such Laws as my People, with the House of Peers have chosen, and my self consented to.’ Nor did the Coronation Promise,See the Oath in every Hist. of his Reign. or Oath oblige him to more than To hold and keep the Laws and rightful Customs which the Com­monalty of this his Kingdom have; and to defend and uphold them to the Ho­nour of God, so much as in him lay. Whereas had there been any Obligation up­on him to have consented to whatever the Par­liament shall require, it is not to be doubted but it would have been expressed in the Oath, as it is not: And yet our Answerer less doubts to say, That that Negative Voice to deny the pas­sing of any Law which the Commons chuse is both against the Oath of his Coronation, and his Kingly Office, in that he makes himself Superiour to his whole Kingdom, which our standing Laws gainsay, as hath been cited to him in Remonstran­ces, That the King hath two Superiors, the Law, and his Court of Parliament. An excellent Proof in the mean time! But we'll examine it a little.

The Common-Law saith (Omnis sub Rege, Sir E. Coke. 1 Inst. 1. &c.) Every Man is under the King, and he un­der none but God. And to the same purpose Bracton, Lib. [...]. Ed. 55. 2 Inst. 496. from whom he quotes it. — His Prerogative is a part of the Law of the Land. — All offences are said to be against [Page 63]the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, &c.—The Laws of England are call'd the King's Laws.—The Parliament (as is con­fess'd to my hand) his Parliament. And therein also the King is sole Judge,22 Ed III. 3. the rest but Ad­visers.—His is the power of Calling, Pro­roguing and Dissolving them.4 Inst. 46. Id. Inst. 3. — And by his Death they are dissolv'd of course.—And why all this, but that the King is (Principium, Caput, &c.) The beginning, the head, and end of a Par­liament. — As he is also the Head of the Commonwealth. — And of the Law,1 Inst. 73. Id. Inst. 99. which he is presum'd to carry in Scrinio pectoris sui.

And then for the Statute-Law (besides those Statutes that call the Kingdom the Kings Lige­ance,27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 10, 11. R. 2. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 3. the King Liege Lord, the People his Leige Men) it is further declared,16 R. 2. c. 5. ‘That the Crown of England hath been ever so free that it is in no Earthly Subjection, but sub­ject to God in all things touching the Re­gality of the same Crown, and to none o­ther.’

So that of Henry the Eighth, which says, ‘That by sundry old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declar'd and ex­pressed that this Realm of England is an Em­pire govern'd by one Supream Head and King,24 H. 8. c. 12. unto whom both Spiritualty and Temporal­ty are bound, and owen to bear next to God, a natural and humble Obedience.’

And in another of the same King,25 H. 8. c. 21. the Crown of England is called, ‘An Imperial Crown re­cognizing no Superiour under God, but only your Grace, i. e. the King.’ Which Statutes being declaratory Statutes (as others of that kind) made in affirmance of the Common-Law, [Page 64]are a guide in praeteritis, 2 Inst. 308. as saith Sir Edw. Coke; and shew us what the Law as before the ma­king of those Statutes. Which I the rather urge, because our Answerer makes such a sputter about the old Law, though as well here as ge­nerally throughout his Book, he has an odd way with him of keeping it to himself: How­ever, if this be to have a Superiour, be the Superiour he that will, and keep it without Envy: And for what concerns me, I hope I have prov'd, that the King of England has no Superiour but God, and that neither the Law nor his Coronation-Oath require his undeniable Assent to what Laws the Parliament agree up­on; but that he may well refuse them without the Imputation of Incomparable Arrogance, a [...] Ʋnsufferable Tyranny, as he is pleas'd to term it One thing I had forgot: Suppose the King had never been Crown'd, by which means he could not have taken the Coronation Oath, was he the less King for that? I should think not: And if I am mistaken,3 Inst. 7. Sir Edw. Coke was mi­staken before me when he says, ‘The King i [...] King before Coronation;’ So 7 Coke. Calvin's Case. and Coronation is but an Ornament or Solemnity of Honour. Which in other Words may amount to this, That he promises no more at that time that what he was morally pre-oblig'd to do; viz. To discharge that Duty honourably which the Laws of God and Nature had requir'd of him without that Royal Promise.

CHAP. VII. Ʋpon the Queen's Departure and Absence out of England.

AND truly this Chapter being but a kind of Re-capitulation of the mutual En­dearments between the King and his Queen, ‘whose Sympathy with his Afflictions had as­sur'd him, and might the World, that she lov'd him and not his Fortunes,’ might, one would think, if not for the King's, have for her own sake escap'd his Venom; but (poor Lady) she was the King's Wife, and Malice (like Fear) where it finds no real Object, will be sure to create one. And truly it was once in my Thoughts to have spoken more at large to it; and had done it, but that I fear'd even Truth it self might incurr the suspicion of Flattery. What my end was in making this Reply I have already shewn; it was to vindi­cate that good King from this ill Man's Calum­nies; and the Method I have taken in it has been from the History of that time and the Prior Law of the Land, as it came in my way, and therefore not to break that Method, as I find him hereafter running wide of that Mat­ter, I shall purposely leave him, as I do at pre­sent.

CHAP. VIII. Ʋpon His Majesty's repulse at Hull, and the Fates of the Hothams.

‘THIS my repulse at Hull (saith the King) was the first overt Essay to be made, how patiently I could bear the loss of my Kingdoms. — The hand of that Cloud which was soon after to over-spread the whole Kingdom, and cast all into dis­order and darkness.’ Which, how Prophe­tically true it was, the miserable effects of it both before and since the Restauration, have too visibly spoken it. And yet our Answerer thus slubbers it over. That Hull, a Town of great Strength and Opportunity both to Sea and Land Affairs, was at that time the Magazine of all those Arms which the King had bought a­gainst the Scots.—The King had left the Par­liament, and was gone Northward. — The Queen into Holland, where she pawn'd and set to Sale the Crown Jewels (a Crime heretofore counted Treasonable in Kings) and to what purpose the Par­liament was not ignorant, and timely sent Sir John Hotham, Knight of that County, to take Hull into his Custody, and some of the Train'd-bands to his Assistance; and seeing the King's Drift in rai­sing a Guard for his Person, send him a Petition that they might have leave to remove the Magazine of Hull to the Tower of London, which the King denies, and soon after goes to Hull with Four Hun­dred [Page 67]Horse, and requires the Governour to deliver him up the Town; whereof the Governour prays to be excused till he could send notice to the Par­liament who had entrusted him; and the King be­ing incens'd at it, Proclaims him a Traytor before the Town Walls, and demands Justice of them, as upon a Traytor; who declare that Sir John Ho­tham had done no more than his Duty, and there­fore was no Traytor. And this is the Substance of his 57. 58. 59 Pages.

How (and by their own Authority which was none) the Houses had rais'd an Army and made Essex General, I have already shewn; and though the King had not yet set up his Standard, he knew he had a Magazine at Hull which might either help to defend himself, or certainly annoy him if it fell into his Enemies Hands; and therefore in order to a Self-Pre­servation, takes a Journey to York, where the Parliament had been before him with a Com­mittee then lying there as Spies upon his Acti­ons: However, upon Petition of that County, to have the Magazine of Hull to remain there for the greater Security of the Northern Parts, His Majesty thought fit to take it into his own Hands, and appointed the Earl (afterwards Duke) of Newcastle to be Governour of Hull; but the Townsmen had been so influenc'd by that Committee that they refused the Earl.

The Queen also had borrow'd some Moneys of the Hollanders upon the Crown Jewels (a Crime heretofore counted treasonable in Kings, but not a word of when, or by what Law) not in the least considering the Crown it self was the King's, or how the King of England could com­mit Treason against himself.

The Houses during this time wanting no In­telligence from their Committee, nick the Op­portunity, and send down Sir John Hotham, who was receiv'd as Governour, and upon the King's coming before Hull, attended only with his own Servants, and some Gentlemen of the Country, audaciously shut the Gates a­gainst Him, and standing upon the Wall, de­nied him Entrance. Upon which, the King (as by Law he might) proclaim'd him Tray­tor. A Cholerick and revengeful Act (says our Answerer) to proclaim him Traytor before due pro­cess of Law; having been convinc'd so lately be­fore of his Illegallity with the five Members. Goodly, goodly! and yet at the same time doubts not to tax the King of a Treasonable Act, in borrowing Moneys upon his own Jew­els: Not unlike the Parliament 41 Hen. 3. who took notice of the Lye given to Montfort, Daniel's Hist. of Eng. 171. and 175. Earl of Leicester by William of Clarence, but not of the Lye given the King by the said Lei­cester. But the Point between us lies narrow. A Man with Train'd-Bands holds and defends a place of Strength against the King: The que­stion is, whether this be a levying of War with­in the Statute of the 25th of Edward the 3d. Sir Edward Coke shall answer for me.2 Inst. 10. ‘If any with Strength and Weapons invasive and defensive, doth hold and defend a Castle or Fort against the King and his Power, this is levying of War against the King within the Statute of 25 Edward 3.’ And in the leaf before he says, ‘It was High Treason by the Common Law to levy War; for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Au­thority from the King, for to him only it be­longeth.’ [Page 69] Le Roy de droit doit saver & defender son Realm, Fitz. N. B. 113. a. &c. And therefore this being the Case, wherein may it be said that the King was to blame?

And lastly, for what concerns this Gentle­man's Catastrophe, and whether Hotham were more infamous at Hull, or at Tower-Hill (no less ignominiously pretended to be answer'd) it may be enough to satisfie any Impartial Man that he repented and came in, though it were at the last Hour; and for the rest, he stood and fell to his own Master.

CHAP. IX. Ʋpon the Listing, and raising Armies against the King.

‘I Find (saith His Majesty) I am at the same Point and Posture I was when they forced me to leave Whitehall: What Tumults could not do, an Army must; which is but Tumults listed and enroll'd to a better order, but as bad an end.’ To which our Answerer thus re­plies, It were an endless work to walk side by side with the verbosity of this Chapter; only to what already hath not been spoken, convenient Answer shall be gi­ven. But what that Answer is see! He begins a­gain with Tumults; all the demonstration of the Peoples Love to the Parliament was Tumult; their Petitioning Tumult; their defensive Armies were but listed Tumults; and will take no notice that those [Page 70]about him, those in a time of Peace lifted in his own House, were the beginners of all these Tumults; abusing and assaulting not only such as came peacea­bly to the Parliament at London, but those that came Petitioning to the King himself at York. Nei­ther abstaining from doing Violence and Outrage to the Messengers sent from Parliament; himself coun­tenancing, or conniving at them. Which is the Substance of what our Accuser says to this ver­bose Chapter, as he calls it: An old Figure in Politicks, to Calumniate stoutly, till somewhat stick to a Prejudice.

But where lay this Love of the People, that they must needs express it in such a Tumultua­ry way? God Almighty is more pleased with Adverbs than Nouns, and respects not so much the Justice or Lawfullness of the thing, as that it be Justly and Lawfully done: and I think the Case was not such here. Three or more ga­ther'd together do breed a disturbance of the Peace,Mr. Lambert's [...]irenarch [...], Lib. 2. c. 5. either by signification of Speech, shew of Armour, turbulent Gesture, or express Vio­lence, so that the peaceable sort of Men be di­sturbed, or the lighter sort embolden'd by the Example, It is (Turba) a Rout: And it has been said (Decem, So Kitchen. page 20. multitudinem faciunt) Ten, make a Multitude: What then must ten times ten (not to say Hundreds and Thousands) arm'd with Swords, Clubbs, Staves, as many of these Demonstrators of their Love were, Chap. 4 and throwing out Seditious Language, as I have shewn before, the did?

O but their Business was Petition! The same said the Barons and Commonalty at Running-Mead in the 17th of King John. But what came these for? What, but Matters that no way con­cern'd [Page 71]them. Justice! Justice against the Earl of Strafford; Chap. 2 yet the Parliament of the 14th of Char. the 2d, calls them arm'd Tumults, as before,—For putting the Tower of Lon­don into confiding Hands. Chap. 4 — A City Guard for the Parliament. — And the Kingdom into a Posture of Defence, &c. But still, what was this to them? As if a Parliament must be beholding to a Fescue!

‘And their defensive Armies (saith he) were but listed Tumults!’ So that now (as a last Shift) he turns the Question to a ‘—Quis prior induit arma?’

When all the World knows, That the De­fensive part of it was the King's, and the Par­liament were the Aggressor's; in that they had made their Associations, rais'd an Army some Months before, and made Essex General there­of the 12th of July 1642. Whereas the King set not up his Standard until the August follow­ing. But stay, — say the King (in defence of his Right) had first drawn his Sword, what Law of England warranted theirs? When be­sides what Sir Edward Coke (of whom so late­ly) says, ‘No Subject can levy War without Authority from the King,’ it appears that the ancient Law of England was ever such, or the Parliament had never declar'd, That both,1; Cat. 2. c. 2: or either of the Houses of Parliament neither can, or lawfully may raise or levy War offensive or defensive against the King, &c.

And will take no notice that those about him were the beginners of those Tumults. That the King had his Guards about him was no more than [Page 72]what became the Majesty of a King; and that the Loyal Gentry made their Appearances at Whitehall when they saw it beset with a kind of Gebal and Ammon, and Ameleck, a confus'd conflux of People, which also the King had forbidden, was but the least of their Duty: But when he talks of listing, and abusing, and assaulting such as came peaceably to the Parlia­ment, and doing Violence to the Messengers sent from them, it is such a Rapsodie of Stuff that no Man can credit upon his single Autho­rity. And therefore I leave it as I do the rest of this Matter, it being either such as I have before spoken to, or such as no Man that had not a hand in those Mischiefs, had ever vent­ed.

Yet before I go off to another, I cannot but take notice how he says, The King twits them with his Acts of Grace; Proud and unself-know­ing Words in the Mouth of any King who affects not to be a God, &c. Whereas it was not of his Grace but of his Duty, and his Oath to grant them. But being neither of the King's Duty nor his Oath, Chap. 6 Chap. 6. as I have already shewn, it remains that they were Acts of Grace; for he might have chosen whether he would have granted them or not. And yet his Majesty does not (as he maliciously says it) twit them, but in a kind of Soliloquy to his Soul, ‘Is this (saith he) the reward and thanks that I am to receive for those many Acts of Grace I have lately passed, and for those many Indignities I have endur'd? Is there no way left to make me a glorious King but by my Sufferings?’ It was the common Pro­testation of all their Addresses, but how well they perform'd it the World is not to learn: [Page 73]While they were yet in pursuit, it was matter of Grace, but once obtain'd, it turn'd to a loathing. Or taking it in a middle Sense, not that he twitted, but minded them of what he had done (a modest way of refreshing their Memories) and wherein can it justly be blam'd? Especially considering all he had done, was but a kind of Limming the Water, to them, who like Tiberius, when one that had been former­ly Serviceable to him thus addressed him: You may remember Caesar; No says Caesar (cutting him short) I do not remember what I was. Nor must there ever better be expected from Ingra­titude, which (like a vitiated Stomach) turns the best Nourishment into the Disease.

CHAP. X. Ʋpon their seizing the King's Maga­zines, Forts, Navy, and Militia.

‘HOW untruly (saith his Majesty) I am charg'd with the first raising an Army, and the beginning this Civil War, the Eyes that only pity me, and the loyal Hearts that durst only pray for me at first may Wit­ness. — My unpreparedness for a War may well dishearten those that would help me; while it argues (truly) my unwillingness to fight, yet it testifies for me that I am set on the defensive Part; having so little hopes or Power to defend others, that I have none [Page 74]to defend my self, or preserve what is my own from their prereption.’ To which one Answerer after his wonted way, To put the matter soonest out of Controversy, who was the first beginner of this Civil War, may be discern'd not only by the first Act of Hostility, but by the Counsels and Preparations foregoing, in all which the King was the foremost. But what he means by that first Act of Hostility, unless it were the beating off that Club-rabble from before Whitehall, I cannot conjecture; and if that be all, I have spoken to it before, and shewn that the King did no more than what any Private Man might have justified the doing of. Chap. 4 And for the Counsels, &c. he instances in the design of German Horse, Billetting of Soldiers, &c. when yet he knew himself it was to no other end but the carry­ing on the War for the recovery of the Palati­nate, wherein the Parliament had engag'd the King his Father. — The Pulpits sounded no other Doctrine than that which gave all Property to the King, and Passive Obedience to the Subject. And truly if they did the former they were to blame; though till I have better Authority that they did so, I shall not believe it: And for the lat­ter, however the London and Westminster Pul­pits thumb'd no Text oftner than that of Curse ye Meroz, &c. and nuzzled the People into a resisting the King, they never applied the Do­ctrine of Non-Resistance to the two Houses.—And for Exactions and Disarmings: The redress of the former was no sooner pray'd than grant­ed; and for the latter, it seems strange he should tax the King with that which was the constant Modus of that Parliament: Not unlike the Woman that beat her Husband and cry'd [Page 75]Murther! to raise the Neighbours. And for so much concludes, That the King was the first beginner of these Civil Wars, as in the Treaty of the Isle of Wight he charg'd it upon himself, and acquitted the Parliament. A bold Assertion! and so contrary to all the King's Declarati­ons, and every Man's Knowledge, that it is not to be believ'd. It was hard press'd on him ('tis true) but that he did it appears no where. Yet if he did so, what kind of Men were those Commons that threw by their King's Concessions, and made those desperate Votes of Non-Addresses, and that it should be Treason to receive any Paper or Message from him. Nor wanted they Malice to have urg'd such a Confession (if any) against him­self, when they Voted,4 Jan. 45. ‘That the King took Arms against the Parliament, and ought to expiate it with his own Blood.’ So easie a thing it was to Murther him with his own Sword, having as our Answerer confesses,Milton. p. 55. wrung the Militia out of his Hands.

CHAP. XI. Ʋpon the Nineteen Propositions, first sent to the King; and more after­wards.

OF the Nineteen Propositions, saith our An­swerer, he names none in particular, neither shall the Answer; but he insists upon the old Plea, of his Conscience, Honour and Reason; and ei­ther of them, to all honest Men, a perem­ptory Plea. This of the King's was a discourse to himself, and therefore to what End should he say more of them than what he does; viz. ‘If nothing else will satisfie, I must chuse rather to be as Miserable and Inglorious as my Enemies can make, or wish me.’ Where­as our Answerer, that knew them so well, ought first to have told us what they were, and then shewn the Unreasonableness of the King's Refusal: But, that he knew had been to Undeceive the People, and therefore slubber'd them under the General Name of the Nineteen Propositions; a Word of many Syllables Men have in their Mouths, but how few of them are there that know what it means? What therefore, he so maliciously suppress'd, I have with all Faithfulness summ'd, and made such Remarks on them as followeth:

1. That the Lords, &c. of the Privy-Council, and all Great Officers of State be removed; save [Page 77]only such as shall be approv'd by Both Houses; and none put in their Places, but by like Approba­tion.

The Power hereby claimed, was either Ori­ginally in the People, or it was not: If it was, they ought to have shown it; if it was not, the Demand was Unjust, and consequently not to have been demanded.

2. That the Great Affairs of the Kingdom, be Transacted only in Parliament; and Privy-Council Matters, by such as shall be chosen by the Parlia­ment: And that no publick Act of Council be estee­med valid as proceeding from the Royal Authority, unless it be sign'd by the major Part of the Coun­cil, nor vacant Place therein supply'd, without the Assent of the Major Part; and that also to be void, if not confirmed by the next Parlia­ment.

This was to set the Cipher before the Figure, and make the King a kind of Jupiter in Lucian; a Thing of a Swelling Name, but bound up to Fate.

3. That the Lord High-Steward of England, Lord High-Constable, Lord Chancellor, Nine o­ther Principal Officers, the Two Chief Justices, and Chief Baron, be always chosen with the Ap­probation of Both Houses; and in the Intervals of Parliament, by the Major Part of the Council.

The same may be said to this, as to the First; with this farther, that though the like had been often attempted, it never continued longer than the Rebellion that set it on foot.

4. That the Government of the King's Children be committed to such as Both Houses shall approve of; and in the Intervals of Parliament, by the Privy Council: And the Servants then about them, [Page 78]against whom the Houses have just Exception, to be removed.

This had been to abridge the King of that Privilege, which the meanest of Subjects has in his Family; nor had themselves yet try'd it in theirs.

5. That no Marriage for any of them be treat­ed, or concluded without Consent of Parliament.

The same also here, as to the Fourth.

6. That the Law in Force against Jesuits, Priests, and Popish Recusants, be strictly put is Execution.

And where had the King ever refused it?

7. That the Votes of Popish Lords in the House of Peers, be taken away.

This had been to take away their Birth­right; a Right as ancient as any thing but the Monarchy it self.

8. The the King will be pleased to reform the Church-Government, and Liturgy, as both Houses shall advise.

This had been already settled by several Acts of Parliament.

9. That he would rest satisfied with what they have done, for ordering the Militia; and recall his Declarations and Proclamations against it.

This confesses an Usurpation upon the King's Right, and in that, who began the War: For, if it were not so, what need was there for the King to recall his Declarations, &c. when in doing it, he had made himself Guilty of the War, and all the Blood therein spill'd.

10. That such Members as have been put out of any Place or Office, since this Parliament began, be restored, or have Satisfaction.

But how does this agree with the Self-denying.

[Page 79] 11. That all Privy Counsellors and Judges take an Oath, to be settled by Act of Parliament, for the Maintenance of the Petition of Right, and certain Statutes made by them.

The Judges are ex Officio oblig'd to take no­tice of a General Act of Parliament, and such the Petition of Right is; but who knew what those Acts of this Parliament might be?

12. That all Judges and Officers plac'd by Appro­bation of the Houses, may hold their Places quamdiu se bene gesserint.

To the intent, that if any Confiding Person how Ignorant or Factious soever had been ap­prov'd by them, it should not be in the King's Power to remove him without a Sute at Law, in which themselves, or their Creatures were sure to be Judges.

13. That all Delinquents, whether within the Kingdom, or fled out of it; and all Persons cited by either House, may appear and abide the Censure of Parliament.

That is, all such Persons as upon an innate Honour, according to their Duty, and the Sta­tute of the 11th. of Henry VII. had stood firm and Loyal to the King, against their Usurpa­tion.

14. That the General Pardon offered by his Ma­jesty, be granted with such Exceptions, as shall be advised by Both Houses.

But, who knew what those Exceptions might be? Saving this, that they intended them not to any of themselves: A thing that carried Rancour and Venom in it, and which was his Majesty's whole drift to take off.

15. That all Forts and Castles be put into such Hands, as the King with Approbation of Both Houses, shall appoint.

That is, to keep them in their own Hands as they were; when yet, the Undoubted Right was the King's, and the Grant of it had given away the Sovereignty. An old Trick (which together with the Three first Propositions) they borrow'd from Montfort's Rebellion in Henry III.'s Time.

16. That the King's Extraordinary Guards [...] discharg'd, and none rais'd for the Future, but ac­cording to Law, in Case of actual Rebellion and In­vasion.

Like the Wolves in the Fable, that would come to no Terms with the Sheep, unless they first discharg'd their Dogs: Whereas his Ma­jesty had not rais'd those Guards but according to Law, in the Case of an actual Rebellion a [...] Home, and a then threatning Invasion from the Scots.

17. That his Majesty enter into a more strict Alliance with the Ʋnited Provinces, and other Neighbour Protestant Princes and States.

The King is the only Supream Arbiter of Peace and War; and, what honourable Al­liance with any of them had he ever refus'd?

18. That his Majesty be pleased by Act of Par­liament, to clear the Lord Kimbolton, and the Five Members.

If they were Guilty, why should they be less brought to Tryal than were Canterbury and Strafford? And, if they were Innocent, what need of an Act of Parliament to clear them?

19. That a Bill be passed for restraining Pears made hereafter, from sitting or voting in Parlia­ment, unless they be admitted with Consent of Both Houses.

The King is the Fountain of Honour, and to have granted this Article had been, if not to damm up that Fountain, to turn it into a­nother Channel: Nor could the King have done it, without a manifest Contradiction to himself. I have blessed him (said Isaac) and he shall be blessed.

Such were these Propositions; this, at Least, the true Substance of them; which if his Ma­jesty had conceded to, what other were it, than as himself says of it, ‘As if Sampson should have consented, not only to bind his own Hands, and cut off his Hair, but to put out his own Eyes, that the Philistines might, with the more Safety, Mock and Abuse him?’ He had rendred himself not a half Duke of Venice; nor much better than that—Inutile lignum, of which Horace speaks; who,Serm. l. 1. Sat. 8. tho' he were God of the Gardens, could not keep a Crow from muting upon his Head.

‘Nor ought they (says his Majesty) to have been obtruded upon him with the Point of a Sword, nor urg'd with the Injuries of a War.’ To which our Answerer in his bold Way: And which of the Propositions were obtruded upon him with the Point of the Sword, till he first with the Point of the Sword, thrust from him both the Propositions and the Propounders? Which, how egregiously and scandalously False it is, let any Man judge;Rush. 2. part. 307. when these Propositions were not sent the King till the Second of June, 1642. Five Months before which, they had not only forced him from Whitehall, but dispo­sed of the Militia, as appears by the Ninth Pro­position; where they pray the King, that he [Page 82]would rest satisfied with what they ordered in it: As resolv'd (it seems) that Will or Nill, he should.

And thence he runs off again to the Corona­tion Oath; and That the Parliament is the King's Superiour. Chap. 6 Touching which, I have said so much already, and not from any single Opinion of my own, but the Authority of the Law, that I think it needless actum agere. Only, when he says, The Noblest Romans, when they stood for that which was a kind of Regal Honour, the Consulship, were wont, in a submissive manner, [...] go about and beg that Highest Dignity of the Mean­est Plebeians; which was call'd, Petitio Consu­latûs. He would have done well to have co­ver'd his Hook a little better, if he ever ex­pected to catch any Fish: If he had said, they chuse their Consuls as we do our Knights of the Shire, he that has most Voices carries it (ba­ting the Ambitus) it had been well enough. But when he speaks of a King of England, what Mischief brought it into his Head, to confound the Irregular Practices of a Democratical State, with the settled Constitutions of an Hereditary Imperial Monarchy, which this of England is, or those several Statutes (as well as Common Law) of which before, are grosly mistaken? And therefore for the rest it bring but mere catching at Words, whereby to wrest the Sence, I had as good leave it, and go to some­what else.

CHAP. XII. Ʋpon the Rebellion and Troubles in Ireland.

IT is the Nature of Flies to be ever buzzing, and blowing upon any thing that is raw; and has been the only design of our Answerer throughout his whole Book, not to deliver Things as they truly were, but to rake toge­ther old exploded Forgeries, that having dress'd up the King as like a Tyrant as he can, he may have the more to say in Defence of the Parricide.

It is the Way of Witches, to foretell those Storms, themselves intend to move: Nor had the Contrivers of ours been wanting to that Part of it; but the Earl of Strafford's Watch­ful Eye lay so close for them, that nothing could be done, unless they first brought his Masts by the Board: And having gotten that Point of him, and the Rebellion of Ireland falling close upon it, they only make an ad­vantage of it, and buzze the People, that it was done with the King's Privity (at least) if not by his Commission: Whereby to represent him to the World, as the more Inhumane and Barbarous.

Nor is this our Accuser less wanting to in­sinuate it over again, when he says, That it can­not be imaginable, that the Irish guided by so many Italian Heads, should have so far lost the Ʋse of [Page 84]Reason and common Sense, as not supported with other Strength than their own, to begin a War so desperate and irreconcilable, against both England and Scotland at once, without some Authority from England, or great Assistance promised them, and assurance which they had in private, that no remedy should be apply'd against them. All which being merely conjectural, by the same Reason it may be true, by the same Reason also it may be false; without there were somewhat more than Words to evince the Truth of it. And so taking that for granted, which should have been first proved, he audaciously Charges the King as the Prime Author of that Rebellion, though both here and elsewhere he denies it with many Im­precations, but no solid Evidence. And how so­lid his on the other hand are, may be worth the viewing.

It is most certain (saith he) that the King was ever friendly to the Irish Papists, and in his Third Year against the plain Advice of Parliament, sold them Indulgences for Money, and engaged them in a War against the Scotch Protestants. What he means by that Sale of Indulgences, I know not; nor does any History of ours that I yet met, direct me to it. The Irish were his Majesty's Subjects, as well as the Scots; and if he was friendly to them, though Papists, he did but the part of a prudent Father, who sel­dom chucks one Child more than another, for fear of breeding a Quarrel in the Family. And besides, though the Scots were Protestants, there is not any one English Law against Papists, i [...] Force in Ireland, and Sanguinary Law, none [...] But that the King engaged them in a War against the Scots, wants Proof, and as such I pass it.

To this he adds, That several of the most active Papists, all since in the Head of that Rebel­lion, were in great Favour at Whitehall, and in Private Consultations with the King and Queen; and that he gave them more than Five Irish Counties at an inconsiderable Rent. And for the Proof of all this quotes a Scotch Author, but says not a Word, who or what this Author was: Tho' if he had call'd him Squire Meldrum, the Cherry and the Sloe, or David Lindsey against Side-Tails, it had past not a Jot the worse with the People. If they were in great Favour at Court, it was no more than what the Scots also were; if they had private Consultations, &c. Charity would have presum'd the best, and that it was in order to the Quiet and Peace of that Kingdom; and if the King gave them Five Counties, he gave but his own, which if he had shared among the Five Members, we had not (perhaps) heard a Word of the Story: But that they should ungratefully rebel against him, how could he more foresee it of them, than he did of the Scots? And after this if any Ʋnderstanding Man yet doubts who was the Author and Instigator of that Rebellion, I referr them (saith he) to that Declaration of July 1643, concerning this Matter. Very good! The Word of a King is but the bare denial of one Man; and what is one Man, against the Credit of Both Houses, though they were Judges, Wit­nesses, and Parties.

‘I offerred (saith his Majesty) to go my self in Person, upon that Expedition.’ But happy it was that his going into Ireland was not consented to (saith the other;) for certainly he had turn'd his intended Forces against the Parlia­ment. [Page 86]Whereas it seems more probable, that without this Rebellion in Ireland, they could never have rais'd their Rebellion in England. For, upon the Credit of the Acts for the bor­rowing of 400000 l. for the necessary Defence of England and Ireland; Both of them, 17 Car. 1. and for the Encou­ragement of Adventurers, for the reducing the Rebels in Ireland, they got ready Moneys into their Hands,V. His Maje­sty's Answer to their Irish Papers. In his Large Book. f. 537. and rais'd Forces (as was pre­tended) for the Relief of that Kingdom, but (in truth) fought the King with them at Edge-hill. But enough of this Matter.

CHAP. XIII. Ʋpon the Calling in of the Scots, and their coming.

AND here again our Answerer lays his Foundation to this Chapter upon what he has so often run off to before, and been by me (and I hope) fully answered: That the first Original and Institution of Kings was by the Consent and Suffrage of the People, and calls them the entrusted Servants of the Commonwealth; but (in his wonted way) says not a Word how they came by this Power of choosing; i. e. whether it were given them by God, or they took it themselves: If God gave it them, he ought (one would think) to have prov'd where, when and how; at least, rendred it probable that there was once some such thing [Page 87]done, though the Grant be lost: And if they took it themselves, it was Unjust in its Ori­ginal, and consequently they had no more Right to chuse their Kings, than Children have to chuse their Fathers. And yet, from this false Position magisterially determines, That Kings do no Acts of Grace and Bounty, but in discharge of their publick Duty.

The Sum of the King's Discourse (saith he) is against settling Religion by violent Means; and yet never did thing more eagerly, than to molest and persecute the Consciences of most religious Men, and made a War, and lost all, rather than not uphold an Hierarchy of persecuting Bishops. That Con­sciences are not to be forced, but to be reduced by force of Truth, aid of Time, and use of good Means of Instructions and Perswasions, was his Principle as well as Queen Elizabeth's: but (saith Sir Francis Walsingham concerning the Queen's proceedings in the like Cases) ‘Causes of Con­science, when they exceed their Bounds,V. Hist. of the Reform. Part 2. f. 418. and grow to be matter of Faction, lose their Nature; and Sovereign Princes ought di­stinctly to punish their Practices and Con­tempt, though colour'd with the pretences of Conscience and Religion. And accord­ing to this (saith he) the Queen proceeded.’ And if the King also did distinguish Faction from Conscience, and Tenderness from Singu­larity, blame the Law, not him.

But, He obtruded new Ceremonies upon the En­glish, and a new Liturgy upon the Scots with his Sword. Saving the Reverence of the Thing, it is Indifferent whether a Man Preach with his Hat on, or hung upon a Pin; the Hugonots have one way, and the English another: The [Page 88]same also may be said of Ceremonies; but how indifferent soever they are in themselves, when they are once commanded, the indifferency ceases in the Law that enjoyns them. And for that other, of the Liturgy upon the Scots: the King obtruded it not on them, much less with his Sword, because it was sent them at their own Request, as I have shown before. But, ad­mitting their Kirk liked it not, what had they to do with a Church that did? Or, what Au­thority had Tweed to reform Thames; least of all, to give Law to their King, and that too with beat of Drum and Colours displayed? Especially when one of their own Acts of Par­liament says,Continuation of Sir R. Ba­ker, f. 514. ‘That it should be damnable and detestable Treason in the highest De­gree, to levy Arms, or any Military Forces, upon any pretext whatever, without the King's Royal Commission.’—Nor is this all: For their National Covenant oblig'd them to his Defence; or else what means this Ex­pression in it?Sir W. Dudg. his short View, f. 132. ‘That whensoever his Ma­jesty's Honour and Interest should be in Dan­ger, they would as one Man (obliged by the Laws of God and Man) apply themselves to his Succour and Defence.’—And the Chan­cellor, and others the Lords of that Kingdom had (by their Letter of 1. July 1643.) as­sured his Majesty, That no Arms should be raised, without his special Commission. And after all this (and contrary to the Common tye of Nature) to run into open Rebellion a­gainst him! What may it mean? I'll tell ye.

This Matter had been hatching ever since the Third of his Reign, and though the Chick ap­pear'd not till the Year 1637, yet it could run [Page 89]about with the Shell upon its Head, and it want­ed not Friends in England to keep it alive, till it could feed it self, and if it liked not one Barn-door take to another. The Metaphor is too visible to need Application. There was a kind of a Kirk Party in England, that finding the King firm to his Principles, knew there was no better way to deal with him than by reducing him to Necessities, to the end that being forc'd to extraordinary means for Supply, he might disgust the People, and consequently attract an Odium. But what's a Bow without a Bowman? The Scots and they made but one Kirk, Money was the Nerve that would keep them together, and what need many words among Friends. Nor were they long without the occasion of shewing their Fidelity: The new Liturgy (as before) had been sent to Edinburgh. The Scots presently take the Alarm; are quieted again, but lost nothing by it, and in return make the King all Protestations of future Loyalty.

How comes it then you'll say, that it was not long after that they invaded England, and after that took Arms for the Parliament against the King? The Case is plain; the King had no Mo­ney; the Houses had, or at least knew where to get it: Nor will it be unworth any Man's while to see what that was.

They had, as a Relief to the Scots for their Losses,17 Car. 1. and a supply of our Brethren of Scot­land (for so the Act words it) 220000 l. rais'd for them by Act of Parliament.

By an Ordinance of Lords and Commons,Vid. Hughes's Abridgement of Acts and Ordinances, p. 92. 27 Octob. 43. — 66666 — 13 — 4. for their Brotherly Assistance in the defence of the com­mon cause of Religion and Liberty.

By a like Ordinance Feb. 20. 1644.—21000 l. per Mens. Id. p. 178. for the maintenance of the Scots Ar­my under the Earl of Leven.

Further confirm'd.Id. p. 197. June 13. 1645.

Continued for four Months more.Id. p. 220. 25 Aug. 1645.

By a like Ordinance,Id. p. 201. June 20. 1645. — 130000 l. for enabling the Scots Army to ad­vance Southward.

And by a like Ordinance Decem. 3. 1645.—31000 l. Id. p. 237. for payment of the Scots Army.

Besides all which, I find in the continuation of Sir Richard Baker, Fol. 611. Several other Moneys rais'd for the Scots, which because they agree neither in Sum nor time, I thought fit to transcribe, and leave it to my Reader to judge of it as he thinks fit.

Taxed by them in 16 Car. 1. 350 l. per diem, on the Bishoprick of Durham; and 300 l. per diem on the County of Northumberland, on the penalty of Plundering. — In the 20th they were impowered by Parliament to assess for themselves the twentieth part of the North, &c. — In the 21st sent them 30000 l. to in­duce them to besiege Newark. — In the 22d, 200000 l. more for delivering up the King: And another 200000 l. secur'd them out of the publick Faith. — And 16000 l. allowed them for the charge of their Carriages. All which I leave (as I said) to my Reader to judge; and whe­ther (notwithstanding all that cry of Religion and Loyalty) it far'd not with them like Atalanta in the Fable, ‘Declinat cursus,Ovid [...] [...]. l. 10. F [...]. 15. aurumque v [...]lu [...]ile tollit.’

And truly considering all, if they were not well paid for their Pains, I wish they were.

CHAP. XIV. Ʋpon the Covenant.

UPON this Theam (saith our Answerer) his Discourse is long, his Matter little but Repetition, and therefore soon answered. And tru­ly here he is better than his Word; for either he gives it no Answer at all, or where he does, it is so perfunctory that he only justifies the Proverb of Canis ad Nilum. As witness that Re­petition of which he shews not one, and for the Matter (which is full and unanswerable) he mumbles it as a Cow does Thistles, but dares not chew it for fear of pricking his Chops. But we'll see what he says.

After an abusive and strange apprehension of Covenants, as if Men pawn'd their Souls to them with whom they Covenant, he digresses to plead for Bishops, first ‘from the antiquity of their Pos­sessions here since the first Plantation of Chri­stianity in this Isle; next from an universal Prescription since the Apostles till this last Century.’ But what (saith he) avails the most primitive Antiquity against the plain Sense of Scri­pture, which if the last Century have best follow'd, ought in our Esteem to be first. And yet it has been often prov'd, &c. that Episcopacy crept not up into on Order above Presbyters till many years after the Apostles were deceas'd.

Abusive he said! But wherein? For neither is it the way of his Majesty's Pen, nor can any forc'd Interpretation bring the words to any thing like it. For if the Contrivers and Impo­sers of the solemn League and Covenant did not reciprocally pawn their Souls to each o­ther, they call'd God as a Witness and Avenger of the Perfidy. When Laban and Jacob made a Covenant between them, they set up a Pillar and a heap of Stones; And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this Heap, Gen. 31. v. 51, 52, 53. and behold this Pillar; be they a Witness betwixt me and thee, and the God of our Fathers judge betwixt us: And Jacob Swore by the Fear of his Father Isaac. i. e. By that God whom Isaac his Father fear'd; whereas Laban on the other hand was an Idola­ter. And yet the Oath was Religious and bind­ing; for it was not the God of Nahor, or the Pillar and heap of Stones that made any thing in it, but the true God that was represented by it. Not that I say that the Covenant was Religi­ous or obligatory to any but the exacters of it, as I shall shew presently; but to take notice of that Saying of our Answerer, As if Men pawn'd their Souls to them with whom they Covenant: Which in other words make this: As if any Man should be so ridiculous as to believe the Houses (who knew the Scots were afraid of being left in the lurch, and therefore would not come in with­out it) meant any thing more by it than to serve a turn. And truly so far he was in the right; for there is a great deal of difference between a Heart-Oath and a Lip-Oath; a Book-blowing as the Scots call it; and the Tragedian more expressively, ‘Jurata lingua est, mente juravi nihil.’

Nor have I sooner got over one (if) than another lies in my way: The King (saith he) pleads for the Bishops, from their Antiquity, &c. But what avails Antiquity against Scripture, which if the last Century have best follow'd, ought in our esteem to be first. But if they have not best follow'd it, what then? And if he has not prov'd that they have so done, as he has not; I say he has said nothing to the purpose: But the matter concerns Churchmen, and I leave it to them, with this for my self: St. Paul left Titus in Crete, Tit. 1.5. ‘That (saith he) thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City as I had appoint­ed thee.’ And when the Presbyters shall shew half that Authority for Jurisdiction and Ordination, I shall begin to believe there may be something in it, and that the Words Bi­shop and Presbyter are but Synonoma's; though in the mean time I am and shall be — Nullius in verba.—

The next thing he takes notice of is, that His Majesty says, ‘He is unsatisfied with many Passages in the Covenant (some referring to himself, with very dubious and dangerous li­mitations) for binding Men by Oath and Covenant to the Reformation of Church Discipline and Government.’ To which our Answerer says: First, those Limitations were not more dangerous to him, than he to our Liberty and Reli­gion; and cunningly slips the Cart before the Horse, for well he knew Religion was but the Pretence, whereas the design was under the name of Liberty to warrant Licentiousness; and therefore it was but good Manners that the Hand-maid waited on the Mistress. Next, [Page 94]that which was there vowed to be cast out of the Church, an Antichristian Hierarchy, which God had not planted, but Ambition and Corruption had brought in: Apoint not to be argued but of Moral Necessity to be forthwith done.

And whether the King had not ground e­nough for the words before, let any Man judge: They Swear ‘to endeavour to preserve the Rights and Privileges of Parliament,’ Art. 3. &c. without the least Limitation, or so much as stating what they are; where by the way we may note, that the Privileges of Parliament (whatever they be) have got the Precedency of His Majesty's Person: But when they come to the King, they swear ‘to endeavour to pre­serve and defend the King's Person and Au­thority in the Preservation and Defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the King­doms, i. e.’ So long as they shall say he defends them. Which is not so much as they Swear to do for any ordinary Person that enters into this Covenant,Art. 6. whom they vow absolutely to assist and defend; but here they undertake no more than barely to endeavour to defend the King, and that with a Limitation. Now sup­pose the certain safety of the King's Person came in competition with any of their real or pretended Privileges, Which was to have the Preference? Or that the Houses having gotten all the Power into their Hands should have said (as they did afterwards) that he did not pre­serve and defend the true Religion, and the Liber­ties of the Kingdoms; might they not also have said, We are free of this Oath? and so rather suffer his Person to perish, or actually to destroy him than violate a Privilege. For my part I [Page 95]take them to be doubts well worth the solving. And for the dangerous part of it, there is an Article in it,Art. 4. ‘To bring all Delinquents to such Punishment as the Supream Judicatories of both Kingdoms respectively shall judge con­venient.’ Nor was that Article put in to no purpose,Milton. 202. and Cromwel nick'd his business with it, when to bring on the Commons to those Votes of Non-addresses, he told them they were obliged by the Covenant to bring all Delinquents to Punishment. And I (saith he) impeach the King as the grand De­linquent of the Nation. And now tell me any Man where the King judg'd amiss, when he said some Passages in this Covenant referr'd to him­self with very doubtful and dangerous Limita­tions. Though our Accuser thinks it enough for him to have said, Those Limitations were not more dangerous to him than he was to their Li­berty and Religion.

His next is that Antichristian Hierarchy, which was there vowed to be cast out of the Church, &c. Whether God planted it or not is not the question; the King's Progenitors had bounti­fully water'd it, and the Law of England set a Hedge about it. They held their Possessions in Barony; the Statute pro Clero calls them Peers of the Realm; and another of Queen Elizabeth, 2 [...] Ed. 3. c. 6. 8 E [...] c. 1. one of the greatest States of this Realm. And for a Fag-end of a Parliament, without the King's Consent, nay contrary to his Will, to take upon them to extirpate so ancient, so esta­blish'd an Order, and dis-seize them of their Free-hold without a legal Trial, whatever the Liberty or Religion of it might be, I am sure it was contrary to Magna Charta. And him­self [Page 96]says, it is a Point not to be argu'd, but of a clear Moral Necessity to be done: And a most expeditious Answer! though it may seem much in the dark to every Man but himself, and the Actors in it.

‘Nor was it (saith his Majesty) less than su­perfluous to enjoyn Oaths where former Re­ligious and Legal Engagements bound Men sufficiently to all necessary Duties.’ But it was (saith he) the Practice of all reforming Church­es: Israel were bound enough before by the Law of Moses to all necessary Duties, yet with Asa their King entred into a new Covenant at the beginning of a Reformation, &c. And as well might he have prov'd it out of the first Words of Genesis, Is the Beginning: i. e. In the beginning of Forma­tion the World was Created, and in the begin­ning of Reformation the Covenant was produc'd. But to give it a direct Answer: This New Co­venant of which he speaks, was not about Pre­tended Privileges, or disputable Liberties in matters of State, nor any Conjectural Fancies in Point of Religion,2 Chron. 15.12.15. but ‘to seek the God of their Fathers; in which also the King joyn'd with them; and it is said of it, that God was found of them, and gave them rest round about, which cannot be said of ours:’ And which may be further observable; of all the Covenants made by the Jews, there was no one of them ever Sworn against the Will of the Supream, or at least Subordinate Rulers; not opposed, but rather countenanced by the Su­pream; and the matter of their Covenant was always enjoyn'd by God himself.

And whereas he further says, The Jews after the Captivity, without Consent demanded of that King who was their Master, took a Solemn Oath to walk in the Commandments of God. See how he slurs it upon the unwary People! That King, &c. The Jews from the Captivity to the coming of our Saviour, had no Kings of their own, but were govern'd by Deputies and Vicege­rents, who had not Supream Authority in them­selves, but as it pleas'd the Persian Monarchs (and afterward Alexander and his Successors) to assign them; and these were call'd Heads or Princes of the Captivity, of whom Zerobabel was the first; and upon the Restauration of the Captivity by Cyrus, came back again with them to Jerusalem and Judah; and with him, Nehemiah, as one of the chief of the Fathers: For in the third of Nehemiah, ver. 16. he is call'd a Ruler, and in the fifth, verse 14. Go­vernour in the Land of Judah: With this Ne­hemiah it was that the Princes and the Priests made the Covenant our Answerer speaks of,Nehem. 10.1. and Nehemiah seal'd to it, as the Tirshatha, or Governour; and the People clave to their Bre­thren their Nobles,Ver. 29. and entred into an Oath to walk in God's Laws. And now what need was there to demand that King's (Artaxerxes) Con­sent, when his Vicegerent joyn'd with them? In a matter too, which terminated in themselves, and their own Worship, without the least de­sign of extirpating their Masters, the Syrians or Babylonians. And when he calls it a Solemn Oath, what other is it than to wheedle the Peo­ple into an easier swallow of it, and that the Solemn League and Covenant was just such another?

And yet our Answerer will not away with it when the King says, ‘They made their Cove­nant like Manna (not that it came from Hea­ven as this did) agreeable to every Man's Palate:’ For the drift (saith he) is that Men should loath it. Whereas if we truly consider the thing, never was Comparison more aptly applicable:Exod. 16.15. ‘For when Israel first saw it, they said one to another, Manna (or, What is this?) for they wist not what it was,Ver. 20. and if they kept it above a day, it bred Worms and stank.’

CHAP. XV. Ʋpon the many Jealousies rais'd, and Scandals cast upon the King, to stir up the People against him.

THere is a great deal of difference between Accusations and Calumnies, the first ne­cessary to all Popular States, whereby to keep any one's growing too great for the rest (as may be seen in the Athenian Ostracism, or Banishment for ten Years, and the Syracusian Petalism, for five Years;) but Calumnies were ever exploded, as the bane and destruction of Common Society: And if they are so dan­gerous to Commonwealths, what must they be to Monarchy, which is never truly support­ed but by being at unity within it self? And yet [Page 99]such were the Artifices of those times, that they rais'd their Babel on no other Foundation; and what the effect of it was, we have all seen: however, it must not seem strange that our Answerer, bred at the Feet of those Gamaliels, should all along Copy so exactly after the Ori­ginal. But to pass his railing, and come to his Matter, which is so loose and thin that I was once going to throw it away; till I better consider'd, that the best way to undeceive the People, was to undraw the Curtain and shew them how they had been deceiv'd; and if in the doing it they have not tack'd together all the shreds and parings of Policy, let any Man judge.

What the Plot of the Play was, appears in their last Act; and that was, by the Murther of their Lawful Soveraign, to transform and new model an ancient Monarchy into a Mush­rome of a Commonwealth. But many things were to be done by the way, and without the People it was impossible to effect it. They knew the People lov'd the King, but had with­al taken a discontent at somewhat, but what that was not a Man of them could tell: Nor were they to learn of what importance the aspersing a Prince is, to boil up that discontent to a height fit for a Rebellion. To have done this directly had been to betray themselves: No, they first commend him for a good Prince, a King that would do any thing for his Peo­ple—But alas! — There are some about him.—The more's the pity.—However, God in his time can mend all: And yet—the less they spake of it the better; which was as much as if they had been bidden to tell no bo­dy but Folk of it.

This Foundation thus laid, they suppress the Vertue, and lay open the defects of the Go­vernment. The dissolution of Parliaments.—The Cales Expedition. — The Peace with Spain. — Loan-Money. — Ship-Money. — Enlargement of Forests. — Fines, Imprison­ments, &c. by the Star-Chamber. — Acts of Council-Table.—Selling of Offices. — Insolence of Bishops, and muzzling the Mouths of pain­ful Teachers; and what not! So that where lay the difficulty of raising what Super structure they pleas'd, or wonder (as it is said of Absa­lom's Rebellion) that ‘the People went with them in their Simplicity, [...] Sam. 15.11. and knew not any thing:’ Till from one thing to another they came at last to devolve the pretended faults of the Officer upon the Office.

Nor was the matter yet come from Words to Blows, when his Majesty had gratified them in most of those Particulars; but now that they had gotten an Army, it is not what the King would grant, but what the Houses will be plea­sed to accept. The King also begins to have an Army, which, because it appear'd more con­siderable than they imagin'd Loyalty without Money could have ever brought together, they take up another Artifice, and clamour it to the People, That the King made use of Papists a­gainst them: That all might be at Peace if it were not for Evil Counsellors: And for them­selves, that their Intentions were the liberties of the Kingdom, as the King in this Chapter particularly takes notice of; and our Answerer in his wonted Scurrility runs off to other matter; yet e're he was aware confesses, The Sum is, they thought to regulate and limit his Negative Voice, [Page 101] and share with him in the Militia, which (in the Eighty fifth Page of his Book) he owns to have been wrung out of his Hands.

And yet while they thus charge the King with making use of Papists against them, they stifle that Army of Sectaries themselves brought a­gainst him. An Army so diversified in Opinion, that had any one Regiment of them been to have entred the Ark, the Flood might have soon­er come than Noah suited them into Pairs. And now ‘Clodius accusat Moechos!’ Does Simeon accuse Levi! I should think he ought not; especially if we come to the order of the House, that admits no Man to criminate another till he shall have first clear'd himself. But allowing it to be true: Those Papists were the King's Subjects, and by the Law of the Land equally oblig'd to serve the King as well as Pro­testants, who yet fought against him. But did the Houses never make use of Papists? I am sure they would have done it; or otherwise what means that Declaration of theirs, ‘That if any Papists would bring in any considerable Sums of Money upon the Propositions,Oct. 6. 1642. it should be receiv'd:’ and for matter of Fact that they did so, They hired Owen Roe O Neal to raise the Siege of London-Derry in Ireland, then beleagur'd by His Majesty's Forces.

And then for his hearkning to Evil Counsellors, a thing so often charg'd upon him by the Parliament. But who were these Evil Counsellors during His Majesty's Imprisonment, and when they lock'd him up so that no-body could come at him, [Page 102]and yet still the same Man? But we are off the Scent: Themselves were not those Counsellors; and if they had been (perhaps) we had heard no more of it. The Lord Cottington was a despe­rate Delinquent, but had the Grace to know where his Delinquency lay: He gave up his Mastership of the Court of Wards to a confiding Lord, and for that time Cantavit vacuus—The Beast Castor takes his Name a Castrando, and when the Hunters have gotten what they Hunted him for, they take off their Dogs.

And lastly, for what concerns their own so much boasted Preservation of the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom, it may be much doubted whether they did so or not; but this I dare say, if they merited Heaven by it, it was by an Antiperistasis; for how strong soever they found the Blessing of Judah upon this Land, they brought it down to that other of Issachar. As (besides what I have said before) witness their Committees (in every County under their Power) for the seizing and imprisoning Malig­nants, i. e. Such as refused to give them the 25th part of their Estates; and because the County Gaols were too few to hold them, erecting o­thers in most Cities, and throwing the most con­siderable of them on Ship-board. — Their Sequestring the Estates of the Royal Party, and denying them the benefit of the Statute that indempnified them:11 Hen. 7. c. 1. Forcing some to Com­pound, and selling the Estates of such as re­fus'd it.—Their frequent Headings and Gib­bettings.—Their Sale of King's, Queen's, Princes, Church-Lands, &c.

Add to this those heavy Burthens (which without any Authority, and contrary to Law) [Page 103]they laid upon the People, with a saving never­theless to the Members of either House; and the almost incredible Sums of Money they rais'd thereby.Contin. of R. Baker. Fol. 610. See the Ordin. of both Houses. Mar. 1642. As witness that their Weekly Assess­ment of Thirty three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty one Pounds Thirteen Shillings upon England and Wales; which for the Year came to One Million Seven Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Forty five Pounds Sixteen Shillings.—The vast Sums of Money they made of the Plate, Rings, nay even,Sir W. Dugd. Short View. Fol. 96. Bodkins and Thimbles brought into Goldsmiths-Hall, which in London, Essex and Middlesex came to eleven Millions.—The Moneys lent upon publick Faith.—The Profits of those Lands and Estates so seiz'd, and the many Millions they got by the Sale of them.—Besides those By-jobbs through most Counties for the raising Horse, Foot, and Dragoons,See Hughes's Abridg. for the years 1643, 1644, 1645. the maintaining of them, the defence of some Garrisons, and the reducing of others. And all this for the preserving the Rights and Liberties of the Kingdom; which puts me in mind of that of Tully (Nomina rerum perdidimus, Ad Atti [...]um. & Licentia Libertas vocatur) we have lost (saith he) the names of things, and Licentiousness is call'd Liberty. And yet, ‘the Tabernacle of the Rob­bers prosper'd,Job 12.6. and those that provok'd God were secure.’

CHAP XVI. Ʋpon the Ordinance against the Com­mon-Prayer-Book.

‘IT is no News (saith his Majesty) to have all Innovations usher'd in with the name of Reformations in Church and State, by those, who, seeking to gain Reputation with the Vulgar for their extraordinary Parts or Piety, must needs undo whatever was for­merly settled never so well and wisely.’ And less News it is (saith our Answerer) to have all Reformation censur'd and oppos'd under the name of Innovation, by those, who being exalted in high Pla­ces above their Merit, fear all change, though of things never so ill, or so unwisely settled. Which is no more than so many Words stitch'd toge­ther, without he had shewn wherein this Book had been so ill or unwisely settled: But were there—That had been to question the God­liness and Wisdom of the Compilers of it, whom Mr. Fox calls Martyrs; or what was worse,2 and 3 Ed. 6. c. 1. run foul of the Statute that says, It was concluded by the aid of the Holy-Ghost.

But (says he) Edward the Sixth confesses it was no other than the Old Mass-Book done into Eng­lish, and modell'd no farther off it, lest by too great an alteration they should incense the People. And prudently one would think; because to run far­thest from what one was last, may be a sign that he has altered his Opinion, but no Argu­ment [Page 105]that it is for the better. But the point lies elsewhere. The Universities had thrown more Truants abroad than the Church of Eng­land either could, or thought fit to provide for; to have gone back again they were too well known; and to set up in the Country there requir'd no more but a few Notes at St. Mary's, and a double Portion of Lungs and Confidence, for Words (says he) will follow of themselves. And if they had the knack of laying Damnation home to them, whom should the People run af­ter but those that could save them? As if a Man had a Sore Leg, and he should go to an ho­nest judicious Chirurgeon, and he should only bid him keep it warm, and anoint it with such an Oil (an Oil well known) and that would do the Cure: haply he would not much regard him, because he knows beforehand the Medicine is but ordinary: But if he should go to a Quack that should tell him, your Leg will Gangrene in three days, and must be cut off, or you'll die unless you do something that I could tell you; what listning would there be to this Man? Oh for the Lord's Sake tell me what it is, I will give you any Content for you Pains. And such was the Trade of these Men, they cry'd down the Common-Prayer, not that they could justly find any fault with that Dose of prepar'd Words as he calls it, but make the better way for their own Enthusiasms; whereas there seems no reason why a Man may not as well Pray in a Set-Form which is commanded, as Sing in a Set-Tone, which was never so much as recom­mended.

But we'll examine it a little. It is the ad­vice of the Preacher, ‘Be not rash with thy [Page 106]Mouth,Eccles. 5. v. 2. and let not thy Heart be hasty to ut­ter any thing before God: For God is in Heaven and thou upon Earth; therefore let thy Words be few.’ And when the Disci­ples besought our Saviour to teach them to Pray,Luke 11.1: as John also taught his Disciples, how easy had it been for him, if he had approv'd this Extemporary way, to have bade them take no care for what they should say, for it should be given them in that Hour? Whereas on the contrary,Math. 6.7.9. he not only forbade them the use of vain Repetitions as the Heathen do, but laid an Injunction on them to pray after this manner, Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. And de­nounced Woe to the Scribes and Pharisees for devouring Widows Houses under a Pretence of long Prayer.Mar. 12.40. In a word, and if the Authori­ty of Holy Writ be of any force, I think our Gifted Men may make up their Packs, unless they produce some equal Authority to counter­balance it; and if they shall not, there was be­sides that Authority an Act of Parliament in the Case, which no Ordinance could ever amend, much less abrogate; but least of all, were Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. alive would they thank him for saying this English Mass-Book was Composed, for ought we know, by Men neither Learned nor Godly.

CHAP. XVII. Of the differences between the King and the two Houses, in point of Church-Government.

‘TOuching the Government of the Church by Bishops (saith His Majesty,) the com­mon Jealousie hath been, that I am earnest and resolute to maintain it, not so much out of Piety as Policy and reason of State.’ And saith our Answerer, hath been so fully prov'd from the Scriptures to be vicious and usurp'd, that whe­ther out of Piety or Policy maintain'd, it is not ma­terial. With this further, that we may have learnt from Sacred Story, and times of Reformation, that the King's of this World, have both ever hated, and instinctively feared the Church of God. But that they have been so prov'd to be as he says, he takes it for granted that his Assertion is Proof enough; for other, he gives none, unless it be that Pharaoh when he grew jealous least the Isra­elites should multiply and fight against him, his Fear stirr'd him up to afflict and keep them under: And to the same drift this King and his Father found the Bishops most Serviceable. And now 'tis all out, and we see what that Church of God (he means) is, viz. The Seditious Exorbitancy of Ministers Tongues, which his Father, and him­self, and Queen Elizabeth before them so Instin­ctively, nor without just cause had reason to suspect. A sort of People which King James [Page 108]the first calls ‘Proud Puritans, [...]. 65. who cry we are all but vile Worms, and yet will judge and give Law to their King, but will be judged nor controul'd by none. And some Leaves before;Id. p. 30. Informing the People that all Kings and Prin­ces were naturally Enemies to the Liberty of the Church, and could never patiently bear the Yoke of Christ; Id. p. 31. and therefore (saith he) take heed (my Son) to such very Pests in Church and Commonweal, whom no deserts can oblige, neither Oaths nor Promises bind: breathing nothing but Sedition and Calum­nies, aspiring without measure, railing without reason, and making their own Ima­ginations (without any Warrant of the word) the Square of their Conscience.’ Nor were they of less disturbance to Queen Elizabeth than they had been to him, as witness that Letter of Sir Francis Walsingham's before-mention'd. Chap. 13 And the Lord Keeper Puckering's Speech in Parlia­ment, where by the same name of Puritans he charges them ‘to have persecuted Her Majesty so vigorously, that they thereby open'd the Door to the Spanish Invasion; and warn'd the Parliament from her Majesty to give no Ear to their wearisome Sollicitations; for while in the giddiness of their Spirits they labour to advance a new Eldership, they do nothing but disturb the good Repose of the Church and the Commonwealth.’ And how they dealt with his Majesty, there are few Men (sure) can be so much Strangers at home as not to know. And therefore if the Bishops (as Cicero in his Consulship says of himself, Eos qui otium pertuban [...] reddam otiosos) took his way of Silencing that Se­ditious Exorbitance of their Tongues, they were [Page 109]Serviceable I must acknowlege it, but where­in did they exceed the Obligation of their Of­fice? But to proceed.

What the Bishops by the Laws and Constitu­tions of this Kingdom were and are, I have al­ready shown. And therefore for answer to what he says, Chap. 14 That many Western Churches set­tled above Four Hundred Years ago in France, &c. have not admitted of Episcopacy among them. The reason is obvious, not that they would not ad­mit Episcopacy, but that they liv'd in a Catho­lick Country, and so must either have Catho­lick Bishops, or govern themselves as well as they might: And if they have no Bishops, they have something else that has the Power of Bishops, though it be in many; and thirty sin­gle Pence with us make a Half-Crown.

In a word, they that would pull down Bi­shops and erect a new way of Government, do as he that pulls down an old House and builds another of a new Fashion; there's a great deal of doe and a great deal of Trou­ble; the old Rubbish must be carried away, and new Materials must be brought; Workmen must be provided, and perhaps the old one might have serv'd as well.

CHAP. XVIII. Ʋpon the Uxbridge Treaty, and other Offers made by the King.

‘I look upon Treaties (saith his Majesty) as a retiring from Fighting like Beasts, to argue like Men. — And though I could seldom get the Opportunity, I never want­ed either desire or disposition to it.’ And if (says our Answerer) he look'd upon Treaties as a retiring from Bestial Force to Humane Reason, his first Aphorism here is in part deceiv'd, for Men may treat like Beasts as well as fight. When through dilatory purposes they come from fighting to under­mining. Thereby insinuating that such and no other was the end of all the King's Treaties: But whose that degenerous way was, and whe­ther the King's or the Houses we come to exa­mine; with this by the way, that the Houses never desir'd any Treaty, but when they were making their Recruits, or foresaw the King would be upon them before they were ready for him, if they could not divert him by a Treaty: And such was this their Petition to him at Colebrook to vouchsafe a Treaty. The Story lies thus.

The King had set up his Standard at Not­tingham, at which time Essex lay with his Ar­my at Worcester to attend his Motion, who finding his Forces not sufficient enough to give Essex Battle, he went to Shrewsbury, where he [Page 111]was quickly furnish'd; and having appointed the Earl of Lindsey to be General, marches to­wards London: Essex seems to take no notice of it, and makes no offer to stop him, but as soon as he was gone by keeps close in his Rere: The King to avoid being hemm'd in between Essex and the City of London, turn'd upon him, and gave him Battle at Edgehill, in which, whoever had the better of it, Essex thought fit to get back for London, which was so frighted that they had shut up their Shops, and the Houses caused all the Train'd-Bands and Auxiliaries to be drawn together. The King on the other hand un­fortunately struck off to Oxford, but continu­ing his former Resolves for London, he again advances towards it, and is met (with the Pe­tition before-mention'd) at Colebrook, but find­ing it nothing but a design to get time, he for­ceth his way at Branford, where he cut off three of their Regiments, and (by what Fate or Council I know not) was again diverted for Oxford; whither (the North being generally re­duc'd to his Obedience) the Queen return'd from Holland. His Arms successful in the West, their own affairs half under Water, and they Scots not yet come to their Assistance, they send Commissioners to Treat, but with such Propo­sitions as they were sure would protract time, but never be yielded unto.

And if he will not, Essex and Waller had two Armies, and they appear before Oxford, but the design having been smelt before, the Queen is sent into the West, and himself march­ed towards Worcester, on which Essex and Wal­ler divide their Armies, Essex goes into the West, and Waller follows the King, who turn'd [Page 112]upon him at Copredy Bridge, and gave him a total Rout; and forthwith follow'd Essex into Cornwall, from whence Essex got off in a Boat for Plimouth, and his Horse having broke through in the Nig [...]t, the Foot were forc'd to lay down their Arms, and upon conditions never more to bear Arms against the King, were suffer'd to depart.

The King before this time had from Evesha [...] desir'd and propounded a further Treaty for the full ending the matters in question,July 4. 1644. but they had two Armies (as was said before) and thought it below them to return him an Answer: However, the King after this double Success thinks it no dishonour to renew his desires of a Treaty,Sept. 8. 1644. and by a Message from Tavestock does it, but to no purpose: For what with the re­mains of Waller's Army, Essex's Horse that broke through, and the Foot whom they had Preach'd into new Arms, (by perswading them the Conditions were unlawful, and consequent­ly invalid) the Train'd-bands and Auxiliaries, they had form'd a considerable Army before the King could get out of the West; but there also being disappointed in the Success, a Trea­ty is appointed at Ʋxbridge, Jan. 30. 1644. where the Com­missioners on both sides met; but those for the Houses limited to twenty days.

This Treaty is the Argument of this Chap­ter; and though I have been longer in coming to it than might regularly become the short­ness of a Reply, yet because it contributes much to the discovery of the Intrigue, and where the fault lay, and whether the King or the Houses may be charg'd more justly with it, I may be the more excuseable.

To be short, the Treaty began, and the King made such large Concessions, that if they had met him one third of the way,See the Treaty at large in the Folio Book of the King's Works. Ecl. 512 it was im­possible but it must have concluded in a Peace. For it was (as also says our Answerer) come to these three Heads; Episcopacy, the Militia, and Ire­land: To which His Majesty's Commissioners thus answer'd, That the first as it was propos'd took off all dependency of the Clergy upon His Majesty, proposing only the Bishops Lands to be settled on him (subject nevertheless to the disposal of the Houses) whereas all the Lands of Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. (if those Corporations must be dissolv'd) belong to the King in his own Right.

As to the Militia, as it was proposed, the King was so totally divested of the Regal Pow­er of the Sword, that he would be no more a­ble to defend any of his Allies than his own Do­minions from Rebellion and Invasion; and con­sequently the whole Power of Peace and War (the acknowledg'd and undoubted Right of the Crown) is taken from him.

And as to Ireland, the Power of nominating the Lord Lieutenant, &c. and other Officers there, and in that the dependency of that Kingdom, would as it was propos'd, be taken from him. And to add to all, it was farther propos'd, to bereave him of the Power of a Father in the Education and Marriage of his Children, and of a Master in rewarding his Ser­vants. And so, what between pretended want of Instructions, and the twenty days spun out to nothing, the Treaty broke off, as well it might, with them that came prepar'd not to yield any thing: However, his Majesty's Com­missioners [Page 114]desir'd an Enlargement of time, but it would not be granted.

And to Salve it on their side, our Answerer runs to his common Topick, That the King had nothing (no not so much as Honour) but of the People's Gift, yet talks on equal terms with the grand Representative of that People, for whose sake he was made King: And is one of the modestest Expressions of his whole Book, and which I have so fully answer'd before, Chap. 6 that I need not add any thing farther to it here.

CHAP. XIX. Ʋpon the various Events of the War; Victories and Defeats.

THIS Chapter relates nothing to the Histo­ry of those times, and is a brief but pathe­tical Account of his Majesty under those varie­ties of Events, wherein he acquitted himself,

And verified his own Words, That ‘he wish'd no greater advantage by the War, than to bring his Enemies to Moderation, and his Friends to Peace: As also those other, That if he had yielded less he had been oppos'd less, and if he had denied more he had been more obey'd.’ And if the Word of a King may not pass in his own Case, take in all Histo­ries of him, and you'll find him so little made up of Accidents, or subject to them, that he [Page 115]sacrific'd his Particular to the advantage of the whole, and more regarded an honest Life than a safe one.

Nor has our Accuser's railing given me Ground to take notice of him in this Chapter, other than when he says, His Lips acquitted the Parliament not long before his Death of all the Blood spilt in this War; which also he had said before; and to what I then urg'd I only add this now, That His Majesty at the Treaty of the Isle of Wight seeing the unreasonableness of their de­mands, made some Queries upon them, of which this was one,See tho King's Book in Folio. Fol. 608. ‘Whether his acknowledge­ment of the Blood that had been spilt in the late Wars (nothing being yet concluded or binding) could be urg'd so far as to be made use of by way of Evidence against him, or any of his Party.’ And whether this be an acquitting the Parliament (for other I am sure there is none) I appeal to any Man. His Ma­jesty came as near the Wind as with Honour he could, till finding at last that nothing would do, as stripp'd as he was of every thing but his Vertue, and the Freedom of his Mind, he justified to the World, that however he was with­in the common Chance, he was not under the Dominion of Fortune.

CHAP. XX. Ʋpon the Reformations of the Times.

I Need not tell my Reader the Argument of this Chapter, the Title speaks it, and ‘As his Majesty was well pleas'd with this Par­liament's [Page 116]first Intentions to reform what the indulgence of Times and corruption of Man­ners might have deprav'd; so (saith he) I am sorry to see how little regard was had to the good Laws establish'd, and the Religi­on settled, which ought to be the first Rule and Standard of Reforming.’ But our An­swerer will by no means hear those two Bug­bears of Novelty and Perturbation, (an Expression his Majesty uses in this Chapter) the ill looks and noise of which have been frequently set on foot to divert and dissipate the Zeal of Reformers: A [...] it was the Age before in Germany by the Pope, and by our Papists here in Edward the Sixth's time. Whereas Christ foretold us his Doctrine would [...] be receiv'd without the Censure of Novelty and ma­ny great Commotions. But with his Favour, he neither shews us that this Parliament had the same Authority which our Saviour had, or that they proceeded his way: For besides that ‘He came not to destroy the Law,Mat. 5.17. but to full­fil it in all Righteousness,’ he commanded this to his Disciples (Habete sal in vobis, Mar. 9.50. & pa­cem inter vos) ‘Have Salt, (i. e. Wisdom) in your selves, and Peace one with another.’ And as he knew God was the God of Order, not of Confusion, he left the Care of his Church to his Disciples, but no where (that I find) to reform it by Tumults, or under the Face of Re­ligion to destroy the Power of it; as must in­evitably follow, when against known, settled, establish'd Laws Men shall take upon them to reform by the Lump, without discerning what things are intermingled like Tares among Wheat,Lord [...]on. which have their Roots so wrapp'd and entangled together, that the one cannot [Page 117]be pull'd up without endangering the other, and such as are mingled but as Chaff and Corn, which need but a Fan to sift and sever them.

And that his Majesty was not averse to a due Reformation appears in this, when he says, ‘I have offer'd to put all differences in Church-affairs and Religion to the free Consultation of a Synod or Convocation rightly chosen.’ So offered (saith our Answerer) all Popish Kings heretofore: And let it be produced what good hath been done by Synods from the first times of Reforma­tion. And truly if he knows none, I offer none: Though methinks he ought not in Gratitude to have forgotten their own Assembly of Divines, Men of unknown Parts, and so Instrumental to the carrying on of the Cause, that if they had not kept blowing the Coals, the Fire would have quickly gone out of it self. But what talk we of Gratitude to a Man of those Times; the Fish was caught, and what more use of the Net?

And yet if the Houses had with the King submitted those differences to a Synod rightly chosen, where had been the hurt? Flannel-Weavers I must confess are not the best at ma­king Love; yet we have an old Proverb (fabri­lia fabri) Every Man in his own Trade: And who more fit to judge of Church-matters than Churchmen? But this had been to uphold an Antichristian Hierarchy; and what need that, when scarce a Man of our Reformers but was a Church by himself?C [...]mb. Brit. Fol. 509. And why might not they bid as fair now as the Army of God and the Church in King John's time; the Holy League in France; the Sword of the Lord John Knox and Gideon in Scotland; John of Leyden, and [Page 118] Knipperdoling in Germany? Tantum Religio potuit!—That successful Pretence of Mankind, Religion! Absalom mask'd his Rebellion with a Vow at Hebron; and Herod his design of Murther with another of Worship.

CHAP. XXI. Ʋpon His Majesty's Letters taken and divulg'd.

I Have heard of a malicious Stab, that con­trary to the intent of the hand that gave it, open'd an Impostume: And such was the bar­barity of this Action, of which also it may be as truly said, ‘Ʋna eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit.’ The Fortune of that day in which His Majesty lost those Letters, [...] Naseby. might (one would think) have been enough to the Houses, at least kept them from forfeiting the dignity of Men. Some Men are drawn away by Interest, others by Pleasure, a third sort by Profit, but every of these were least in the Case: For what Intere [...] of theirs could it be to expose their King, whose Honour they had so often pretended to defend▪ Whereas having got their Point, in had been their Interest rather to have justified those Pretences, and dealt with him like a charitable Physician, who when he cannot save his Patient's Life endeavours to make his Death easie. Th [...] for Pleasure, there was neither the Lust of the Eye, nor the Pride of Life in it, but rather [Page 119]the contrary; for Mankind naturally pity the afflicted, and are ready to put those Pieces to­gether again which their Heat tore asunder: And it may be generally observ'd, he that takes Pleasure in the Evil befallen another has no good of his own. And lastly for Profit, there also could be the least Prospect, unless it were by killing the Heir to divide the Inheritance.

And if there were none of these in it, what remains but that it was a Wickedness even for the sake of Wickedness: That low ignoble going of the Serpent which creeps basely on its Belly, and not upon Feet. And because His Majesty was most sensible of it, take his Thoughts upon it: ‘The taking away of my Credit is but a necessary preparation to the taking a­way of my Life and my Kingdoms: I must seem neither fit to Live nor worthy to Reign; and by exquisite Methods of Cunning and Cruelty, I must first be compelled to follow the Funerals of my Honour, and then be destroy'd.’ And yet they miss'd that their end as to his Credit, when in thus exposing the Father of their Country they only discover'd their own Shame, and evinc'd to the World ‘what they were so loath should be believ'd of him, That he could both mind and act his own and his Kingdoms Affairs as became a Prince, and that he was his own Coun­sellor.’

In short, his Majesty in those Letters lost but so many Papers, wherein had there been any thing disadvantageous to his Honour we had been sure to have had it: And yet if there had, who was more Praise-worthy, Cham that dis­cover'd his Father's Nakedness,Gen. 9.23. or Jehu that [Page 120]buried those remnants of Jezabel, 2 Kings 9.34. for she was a King's Daughter? Especially when they did but bark at the Moon, and all their Malice (like Arrows shot against a Wall) either broke in pieces, or return'd on themselves.

CHAP. XXII. Ʋpon his Majesty's leaving Ox­ford, and going to the Scots.

THe King's coming in, whether to the Scots or English (saith our Answerer) deserved no Thanks, for Necessity was his Counsellor. And what deserv'd they that drove him to this Ne­cessity; which, had not the Scots come in with their Brotherly Assistance, had never been? That the Scots first began his Troubles, and the Houses improv'd upon it, has been suffi­ciently shown: And yet so desirous was the King of Peace, that after so many fruitless Messages, he again (in the Winter 1645.) sent to the Houses for a pass for the Duke of Rich­mond and others, to bring them New Propo­sitions, which was denied him a first and a se­cond time: Then he sent to them that himself might come in Person, which was as often de­nied him, as being the only thing they now fear'd from him; and therefore, instead of granting it, they made an Ordinance, ‘That the Commanders of the Militia of London, in Case the King should attempt to come with­in the Line of Communication, should raise [Page 121]what Forces they thought fit to suppress Tumults, to apprehend such as came with him, and to secure (i. e. to Imprison) his Person from Danger.’ And our Answerer confesses it to have been said, That His purpose was to have come to London, till hearing how strictly it was Proclaimed, that no Man should conceal him, he diverted his Course.

And, what in this Case should a distress'd Prince do? Come to London he could not, without endangering his Friends, some of which they had so often gibbetted: To have gone for Ireland, might have been what they design'd, and thereby justifie their Jealousies of an Irish Popish Army. And to have made for France, he knew not what Construction might have been forced from it. To whom therefore should he rather apply, than to the Scots? They had begun his Troubles, and who knew, but (by this time) they might have seen their Errour?

What Prudence (saith our Answerer) there could be in it, no Man can imagine: Malice there might be, by raising new Jealousies to divide Friends. And excellent Friends, no doubt but he thought them, by the Character he gives them; As hireling Army of Scots, paid for their Service here, not in Scotch Coin, but in English Silver; nay, who from the first beginning of these Troubles, what with Brotherly Assistance, and what with Monthly Pay, have defended their own Li­berties and Consciences at our Charge. And so concludes it hazardous and rash. What the ha­zard of it might have been is too late to enquire now, but that it was not Rash but Prudent, will readily appear, if we consider,

The King was their Country-Man born; and there might be somewhat in that Natale solum, of which Ovid speaks — Et immemores not sinit esse — Or if that were nothing,V. Chap. 1. his Father had particularly oblig'd them to his hurt — Himself had forgiven them several Insurrections — Themselves had given him repeated assurances of their future Loyalty — Their own Statutes, Chap. 13 National Covenant, and Letter to his Majesty, had oblig'd them to his Defence — And, greater than all these, their own Interest, when by this one generous (but Loyal) Act, they had recover'd themselves to the World, and shown it was not the Nation, but a Faction that were his Enemies. And therefore considering what I have said, give me leave also to conclude from it, That this Act of the King's, in trusting himself with the Scots, was not the Effect of Rashness, but the Result of Prudence; especially, if we credit the general Belief of that time, That the Scots had been pre-acquainted with his intention of coming to them, and that they had return'd him private Assurances of their Fidelity to him.

CHAP. XXIII. Ʋpon the Scots delivering the King to the English, and his Captivity at Holdenby.

OUR Answerer says little to this Chapter, but as little as it is, see with what Art [Page 123]he manages it! Nor are his Brethren less than beholding to him. That the Scots in England should sell their King, as the King here affirms, and for a Price so much above that, which the Covetousness of Judas was contented with to sell our Saviour, is so foul an Infamy and Dishonour cast upon them, as befits none to vindicate but them­selves: And it were but friendly Counsel to wish them beware the Son, who comes among them with a firm belief that they Sold his Father. In the former Chapter he gibes them with their Bro­therly Assistance; and here, to whet them a­gainst the Son of that Father, he lays at their Door an Infamy so foul, that if they do not Vindicate it themselves, no one else (he is sure) can do it for them: And why all this, but to tell them in other Words (Scelere ve­landum est Scelus) they had gone too far, not to go farther, and therefore cannot be secure till they do as much by his Son.

Whatever it be (I think) this may be said in the Matter, That as Trust is the Sinew of Society, Truth is the Pledge of it: And there­fore as they were his Majesty's Countrymen, and Sworn Subjects, in Confidence of which he had intrusted his Person with them; as the keeping that Oath impeded no moral Good (a distinction yet which every Man will not allow;) as the Person to whom they swore, was not incapable of an Oath (which is much the same;) as he came not to incline them to any thing but that Duty which was incum­bent upon them; and if he had no voluntary Rule in their Hearts, he wanted Power to gain a Coersive — If they had not thought fit to defend him, they should not have put him in [Page 124]a worse Condition than they found him. He was their King, and wanted no Letters of Safe-Conduct; and therefore, as he came free, they ought to have set him as free out of his Enemies reach.2 Kings 16.22. ‘Thou shalt not smite them, (said Elisha to the King of Israel, concern­ing the Syrians he had then in his Power) for thou neither tookest them with thy Sword nor thy Bow: But set Bread and Water before them, that they may eat and drink, and let them go.’ And the kindness prevail­ed with the King of Syria, though had the Case here been, that they had taken him, I know not how they could have deliver'd him up. And memorable to this Purpose is that of James the Fourth of Scotland, who when Perkin Warbeck had fled to him for Protection, from our Henry the Seventh, not only pro­tected him, but rais'd an Army for him; him, with whose Head he might have made what Peace he would with King Henry his profest Enemy: And when at last a Peace was conclu­ded between the Kings (upon the Marriage of King James with Margaret, Eldest Daughter of Henry the Seventh, by whose Issue came the Union of the Crowns) he not only refu­sed to deliver up the said Perkin, but gave him a safe Transport for himself and his Fol­lowers.

There remains yet to have spoken to that other part of the Title of this Chapter, His Captivity at Holdenby; but because our An­swerer takes no notice of it, neither (I think) ought I.

CHAP. XXIV. Ʋpon their denying his Majesty the Attendance of his Chaplains, viz. Dr. Juxon, Bishop of London; Dr. Duppa, Bishop of Salisbury; Dr. Sheldon, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Holdsworth, Dr. Sanderson, Dr. Turner, Dr. Heywood.

THERE seems somewhat in it more than of Chance, that his Majesty thus Names the particular Persons, ‘Whose Service and Assistance he both needed and desired in that Solitude they had confin'd him to, and where the Company they had obtruded on him, was more sad than any Solitude could be;’ that more sober Times enquiring into the Ground of it, might the better judge, whether this his desire was more reasonable, or their denying it him, more barbarous. A Mercy which not Religion only allows, but even the Rigor of the Law never denied the meanest and greatest Malefactors. Yet see how shamelesly this Accuser takes upon him to Answer it! A CHAPLAIN, a thing so di­minutive and inconsiderable, that to take up such room in the Discourses of a Prince, if it be not wondred, is to be smiled at — The Scripture owns no such Order: In State perhaps they may be listed among the Ʋpper Serving-Men — The Sewers or Yeomen Ʋshers of Devotion — The [Page 126]Implements of a Court Cup-board, &c. And what ail'd this King, that he could not chew his own Mattins, without the Priest's Oremus? Which, with the rest of this his Chapter, has so out­gone even scurrility it self, that though I had once resolv'd to have pass'd it over, I could not yet but desire my Reader to consider the Per­sons of whom this Character is given, and then tell me how well the Character of any one of them agrees with the Person. And therefore (let the World Censure me how they list) I purposely avoid the further medling with this his Chapter, as for the same Reason also, I shall say less to the next.

CHAP. XXV. Penitential Meditations and Vows in the King's Solitude at Holdenby.

HIS Majesty in this Chapter may seem to have had holy David in his Eye, when he said, ‘Lord, remember David, and all his Troubles:Psal. 132. How he sware unto the Lord, and vowed a Vow unto the Almighty God of Jacob.’ And yet this Accuser so maliciously detorts those Meditations, that unless one run into the same Excess with him, it will be im­possible to get up with him; which having for my part resolv'd not to do, I leave him to run by himself, and only desire my Reader to collate these Two Chapters of the King's, with those of our Answerer, and then judge as he thinks fit; and whether I have done other, or less in this Matter, than what became me to have done.

CHAP. XXVI. Ʋpon the Army's Surprizal of the KING at Holdenby, and the ensuing Distractions in the Two Houses, the Army, and the City.

‘THIS surprize of me (saith his Majesty) tells the World, that a KING cannot be so low, but he is considerable, adding weight to that Party where he ap­pears. — What the Presbyterians have hunted after, the Independants now seek to catch for themselves—And as an Argument that they are manumitted from the Rivals Service, assume my Person into the Armies Custody, without any Commission, but that of their own Will and Power.’ To which our Answerer. To give an Account to Royalists what has been done with their Vanquish'd King's yielded up into our (i. e. the Peoples) Hands, is not to be expected from them whom God hath made Conquerors. And, for Brethren to debate, and rip up their falling out in the Ear of a Common Enemy, is neither wise nor comely. To the King therefore, were he living, or to his Party yet re­maining, as to this, belongs no Answer. No! and why not? Because those that had a Mind to be satisfied in the Action, might desire to know by what just Means the King came into their Hands? How Subjects, whom the Law of Eng­land [Page 128]never call'd Enemies, could be said to have conquer'd him? How God came intituled to it, when it was so directly contrary to the Law of God? And how the Law of the Land, which was their common Cry to defend, could justifie that Rebellion and Parricide, which it every where condemns? And is it enough (think ye) to say no Answer belongs to it? He knew there was none to be given, and there­fore, Magisterially slighted it. He holds it also neither wise nor comely, that the falling out of Bre­thren be debated before a Common Enemy; and tacitly implies his Reason, least the Uncircum­cised rejoice. But (I think) I can tell ye a better. When Presbytery rode the fore-Horse, no one kept up with it more than himself; but, when he found it began to faulter, he was loth to lose Company, and jogg'd on with the rest.

The first leading Men that carried on the War were Presbyterians, and their General upon the New-Model was as right as they could wish to have had him: And yet, he was in the Hands of the Army, and that Army in the Hands of his Lieutenant-General Cromwell: A grand mistake of theirs, in thinking to Settle. Presbytery with an Army of Anabaptists, Inde­pendents, Fifth-Monarchy-Men, and what not: Bone of their Bone, and Flesh of their Flesh ('tis true) but as Mortal Enemies to them, as were the Jews to the Samaritans, and yet both of them had Abraham to their Father: And for Cromwell, though no one could say of what Religion he was (besides that he ever match'd the Colour that was in Fashion) he still protested Obedience and Fidelity to the Par­liament, [Page 129]and by that Means got his Ends of the King and them.

And whether our Answerer took it not right, judge, when he says, Some of the former Army, touch'd with Envy to be out-done by a New Model; and being prevalent in the House of Commons, took advantage of Presbyterian and Independant Names, and the War being ended, thought slight­ly to have discarded them, without their due Pay, and the reward of their invincible Valour. But they (i. e. the Independants) who had the Sword yet in their hands, disdaining to be made the first Objects of Ingratitude and Oppression, after all that Expence of their Blood for Justice and the Common Liberty, seiz'd the King, their Prisoner; whom nothing but their match [...]ess Deeds had brought so low, as to surrender his Person. By which we see the Bottom of this Good Old Cause, when the only quarrel was about dividing the Spoil. And truly, when they that once had it could not keep it, what had our Answerer to do to gape after them any longer: And brings into my Head that Story of the Friars, Crucifixus est etiam pro nobis. But to go on with the Matter.

The King is now in the Army's Hands, but our Answerer thinks not fit to say a Word to ‘the Distractions in the Two Houses, the Army, and the City, that ensued it,’ but has left it out of his Title: And why, but that it must not be spoken in Gath, when yet every Man here is not a Dweller of Askalon.

Cromwell found that the Parliament out-card­ed him, as having gotten the King their Pri­soner,May 4, 1646. and put the Militia of London into the Hands of a Committee of Citizens, whereof the Lord Mayor for the time being to be One; [Page 130]and therefore, unless he could give them the Cross-bite, and bring the Army to mutiny a­gainst their Masters, he knew he must expect no better of them, than what Essex had found from them. To this purpose he and Ireton (his Son-in-Law) take advantage of a Vote of theirs (25. May 1647.) for Disbanding the whole Army, excepting Five Thousand Horse, and One Thousand Dragoons, and some Fire­locks, to be kept up for the Safety of the King­dom, and some to be sent for Ireland, and spread a Whisper through the Army, that the Parlia­ment, now they had the King, intended to Disband them, to cheat them of their Arrears, and send them into Ireland, to be destroy'd by the Irish.

And it ran like Wild-fire; for, the Army were so inrag'd at it, that they set up a new Council among themselves of Two Private Sol­diers out of every Troop and Foot Company, to consult for the Good of the Army, and to assist at the Council of War, and advise for the Peace and Safety of the Kingdom: And these they called Agitators or Adjutators, it matters not which; for whatever Cromwell (who yet stood unsuspected by the Houses) had a mind to be done, there needed no more but put­ting it into these Agitators Heads. And the Ef­fect of their first Consultation was to take the King from Holmby (where, upon his being de­liver'd up by the Scots, Feb. 16. 1646. the Parliament had lodged him with Colonel Graves) and bring him to the Army.

Amongst these there was one Joyce, a stub­bed, bold, ignorant, Enthusiastick Journey-man Taylor, who from the Service of Denys Bond had gone out to the Assistance of the Lord a­gainst [Page 131]the Mighty, and much about this time made a Cornet of Horse: And however the matter was contriv'd (for Commission he had none) he went off by Night in the Head of a Thousand Horse, and having surpriz'd the Par­liament-Guards at Holmby, early in the Morn­ing, importunately demands admittance into the King's Bed-Chamber, as from the Army, and was hardly prevail'd upon, to stay so long as till the King could get up; but being come in, told his Majesty he was sent by the Lieutenant-General, to secure his Person from his Enemies, and bring him to the Army: On which, the King demanding to see his Commission, Joyce opens a Window, and points to the Body of Horse that stood drawn up on the Side of the Hill before the House; An undeniable Argu­ment, says his Majesty, and so went with him; who brought him to the Head-quarters at New-Market. Cromwell seems no less surpriz'd at it than the King; however since he was among them, assur'd him, he should have no Cause to repent it; and in a seeming passionate Manner promis'd him, to restore him to his Right a­gainst the Parliament.

On this the Parliament send to the General, to have the King redeliver'd to their Commis­sioners; and this the rather, for that the Ge­neral by his Letters to them, had excus'd him­self, and Cromwell, and the Body of the Army as ignorant of the Fact; and that the King came away willingly with those Souldiers, that brought him. And yet, instead of giving them an Answer,Jun. 23. 1647. the Army send a Charge against Eleven of their Members, all active leading Men, and require them to appoint a Day to deter­mine this Parliament, and in the mean time to [Page 132]suspend the Eleven Members sitting in the House; to which last they only answer, and say, they could not do it by Law, till the Particulars of the Charge were produced; and were soon replied to with their own Proceed­ings against the Earl of Strafford, and the Arch­bishop of Canterbury.

The London Militia had been yet in the Cities Hands, till Cromwell taking the opportunity of a thin House,Jul. 26. 1647. procures the Ordinance of the Fourth of May aforesaid to be revok'd, and the Militia put into other Hands, more favourable to the Army. On which a Rabble of Appren­tices and Disbanded Soldiers, headed by the Sheriffs, under the Name of a Petition, beset the Houses, and force them to resettle it as it had been on the Citizens.

Hereupon the two Speakers, with forty of the Lower House, five Earls, one Viscount and three Lords, run off to the Army, and Vote with them in their Council of War in the Nature of a Parliament, and engage to live and die with the Army.

And a Mercy it was, says our Answerer, that they had a Noble and Victorious Army so near at hand to fly to!

The remains of the Houses on the other hand chuse new Speakers, and raise an Army in the City; and declare in Print, it was in Order to his Majesty's being free, and in a capacity of treating: which yet they made use of but as a Stale to the Faction.

The Army-Soldiers also engage to Fair fax, that they will live and die with him; the Par­liament (i. e. such of the Houses as had fled to them) and the Army, who set out a Declaration of the Grounds of their march towards London, [Page 133]and denying them to have been a Parliament, since the said 26 of July, at what time they were under a force, call them the Gentlemen at West­minster; and by a Letter to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, reproach them with those Tu­mults, and demand the City to be delivered into their Hands, to which purpose they were now coming to them.

To be short, the Forces the City had raised were able, and willing enough to have fought the Army; but the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermens Hearts failing them, they open their Gates, and let them march through the City.

And now the first thing was to replace the Speakers, and purge the Houses,Aug. 6. 1647. which be­ing accordingly done, and a holy Thanksgiving appointed, they declare all that had past in the Houses from the said 26 of July, to the 6 of August, to be null and void. And the Army (in their way) impeach some, imprison others, demolish the Line of Communication, and take every thing into their own Hands. And yet to sweeten the People on the other side, they treat the King (now at Hampton-Court) with more Li­berty and Respect than had been shewn him by the Parliament's Commissioners; for they not on­ly allow him his own Chaplains, and permit his Children and some Friends to see him, but pre­tend to establish him in his just Rights; to call Committees and Sequestrators to an account, and free the People from Excise and Taxes; and now who but the Army and Cromwell! ‘Tertius è coelo cecidit Cato! —’

Such (as well as I could put them together) were the Distractions in the two Houses, the Army and the City, that ensued the Army's sur­prisal of the King at Holmby. And here they [Page 134]ended for this time; what became of them af­terward I shall come to show in the last Chapter.

CHAP. XXVII. To the Prince of Wales.

HIS Majesty's Father, King James the First, who might have truly said, Many and e­vil have been the days of my Pilgrimage, thought it not enough to have pass'd those Windings himself without leaving his Son some Clue to direct him; and therefore wrote that his [...], or Instructions to his Son Henry the Prince: And by his Fatherly Autho­rity charges him to keep it ever with him as carefully as Alexander did the Iliads of Homer. And the same seems this the King's Letter to the Prince of Wales. A Manual penn'd by the best of Men, and may be a Guide to the best of Princes. For as to himself, it is so ad fidem Hi­storiae, and as to the Prince so ad exemplar justi Imperii, that whoever he be that opens it with­out prejudice, cannot (to use his Majesty's Words) ‘measure his Cause by the Success, nor his Judgment of things by his Misfortunes.’ And truly when I came to this Letter I was thinking to my self what our Accuser could say to it, till having perused his Answer I was thus far sa­tisfied, that he deceiv'd not my Expectation; for instead of giving it any solid Answer he on­ly catches at Words, Et minutiis, rerum pondera frangit: And had he gone no farther, how blamable soever he might have been, he had been less Ignominious: But when he rakes those [Page 135]Kennels of his own making, and throws his dirt-balls to blacken what he cannot destroy, what is it but a spitting against the Sky, where the Spittle returns upon his own Face?

In short, this Letter might have shewn him if he had pleas'd, how ‘when some Mens Con­sciences accuse them for Sedition and Faction they stop its Mouth with the name and noise of Religion; and when Piety pleads for Peace and Patience, they cry out Zeal.’ When on the contrary all good Men know that this is a Religion not proceeding from the Spirit, but a Worm of their own breeding, how devoutly (i. e. Enthusiastically) soever they vent it to the People; for neither is every Dream new Light, nor every Whim, Prophecy. And what the sad Effects of this has been we cannot (sure) have so soon forgotten: When God was brought in to the worst of Actions; the King abus'd in the affections of his People; Religion wounded with a Feather of its own; and the State fired with a Coal from the Altar.

CHAP. XXVIII. Meditations upon Death after the Votes of Non-addresses, and His Maje­sty's closer Imprisonment in Caris­brook Castle.

WHAT our Accuser says to this last Chapter, and whether his Majesty had not a more particular ground for these Medita­tions, will best appear if we look back to the [Page 136]latter end of the twenty sixth Chapter, where I left the People in an Hosannah (or now save us!) to the Army and Cromwell. And now what might he not do before he was discover'd? Or if he were, the Army was in his Hands, the Parliament in his Pocket, the City at his Feet, and which of them was there durst first say to him, What art thou doing?

There stood nothing now in his way but the King; he had no more need of him, and how should he dispose of him? To keep him in the Army was troublesome; to let the Presbyteri­ans get him had been a Bar to his design; and to have murthered him had nothing further'd it, for as yet he was but Lieutenant General: The best way therefore was to let him escape beyond Sea: To which purpose private Letters are slipp'd into his Hand, that the Agitators had a design upon his Life, which coming also to his Ear from report, and the Guards purposely disposed for it, the King in a dark rainy Night makes his escape from Hampton-Court, but the Vessel that should have carried him over sail­ing, he unfortunately fell into the Hands of Colonel Hammond, Governour of the Isle of Wight, who secures him in Carisbrook-Castle, and sends to the Parliament to know their Plea­sure concerning him.

From thence His Majesty sends to the Houses his desires for a Personal Treaty,Decemb 6. 1647. which they refuse, unless he first pass four Bills.

• 1. That the Parliament have the Militia and the Power of levying Money to maintain it for twenty Years.
• 2. That the King justifie the Proceedings of the Parliament in the late War, and that all Declarations, &c. against them be declared void.
• [Page 137]3. That all Titles of Honour conferr'd by the King since the Great Seal was carried to Oxford in May 1642, be taken away.
• 4. That the Parliament might adjourn them­selves when, where, and for what time they pleas'd

But the King refusing to grant them, the Parliament Vote there should be no more Ad­dresses made him: And upon Cromwell's laying his Hand upon his Sword and telling them the People expected their Safety from them, and not from a Man whose Heart God had hard­ned, the Vote of Non-Addresses was made into an Ordinance, and that it should be High-Trea­son to receive any Message from him.

And now Compassion for the King's Suffe­rings, with the discovery of their Hypocrisie, had begotten such a general Indignation against the Parliament, that all Wales declare for the King: The Surrey Men Petition the Parlia­ment for a Personal Treaty; the same was Kent coming up to have done, but seeing how evilly those of Surrey had been Treated, they threw away their Petition and took Arms un­der the Earl of Norwich. The same did others at Maidstone, Black-heath, Kingstone, &c. Which though they were all defeated, yet the Houses seeing how the Inclinations of the Kingdom went, and Cromwell being out of the way in securing Edinburgh, they revoke their Ordi­nance of Non-Addresses, and send the King new Propositions, not much easier than the former, and upon his Answer to them, they sent Commissioners to treat with him at Newport in the Isle of Wight; Sept. 2. 16 [...]. the Treaty to be trans­acted with Honour, Freedom, and Safety: in which the King made such Concessions,Decemb. 5. 16 [...]. that it was resolv'd upon the question by the Com­mons [Page 138] ‘That the King's Answers to the Pro­positions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settling the Peace of the Kingdom.’ But (it seems) they had been so long dodging about Trifles, that Cromwell was come to London before any thing was done:Nov. 20. 1648. For Fairfax and the General Officers had remonstrated and (amongst other things) requir'd, ‘That the Capital and grand Author of our Troubles, the Person of the King, be brought to Justice for the Treason, Blood and Mischief he is therein guilty of, &c.’ But the Presbyterian Party standing strong to the Resolve aforesaid, a Guard is set upon the House, the major part of the Members are excluded, and the King made a closer Prisoner in Carisbrook-Castle; which brings me to these His Majesty's Meditations up­on Death: In which, (as from the precedent of several of his Predecessors, both of Eng­land and Scotland, well he might) he makes this Judgment, ‘That there are but few steps be­tween the Prisons and Graves of Princes.’

And now we'll see what this Accuser says, when having lopp'd off more than three quar­ters of the Title that he may bring the rest to his own Model, he goes on, All other humane things are disputed, and will be variously thought of to the World's end; but this business of Death is a plain Case, and admits no Controversie: Never­theless since out of those few mortifying Hours he can spare time enough to inveigh bitterly against that Iustice which was done upon him, it will be needful to say something in defence of those Proceedings. And makes this his Justice the Justification of that horrid Parricide, from that universal Law, Who­soever sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood [Page 139]be shed. And that other of Moses, Ye shall not take Satisfaction for the Life of a Murtherer. No ex­ception in either of them.

And well may he call it Iustice, when he so often blasphemes God in making him the Fa­vourer of those the before unheard-of Villainies of that Usurpation and Tyranny; as here also so wretchedly detorts Scripture to give it a Co­lour. Whereas it was Injustice it self in its very Foundation, as being directly contrary to the Law of God, the Law of the Land, and the Practice of the Jews, from whom he draws his Authority.

To the Law of God; whereby we are com­manded, First, Negatively; not to think ill of the King; Curse not the King, Eccles. 10.20. no not in thy Thoughts: Much less then may we speak it; Thou shalt not speak Evil of the Ruler of thy People: Exod. 22.18. Least of all may we do him hurt: Touch not mine A­nointed. Secondly, Affirmatively;Psal. 105.25. To Honour him, as by the fifth Commandment; and that with a Blessing annex'd to it, That thy Days may be long in the Land: To keep his Commandments,Eccles. 8.2, 4. and that in regard of the Oath of God: Neither may we give him any cause of Anger,Prov. 20.2. for he that provoketh him sinneth against his own Soul. And if thus far be true, then I am sure it was Injustice to murther him.

To the Law of the Land: Where (besides what I have before said to the Soveraignty of the Crown of England) to imagine the King's Death. Chap. 6 —To levy War against him in his Realm,25 Ed. 3. c. 2. or adhere to such as do, so that it prove­ably appear by some Overt Act, is High-Trea­son.3 Inst. 12.—The like is the Preparation by some Overt Act to take the King by force and strong hand, and imprison him until he hath yielded to certain [Page 140]Demands. And what must it then be to sit in Judgment upon him, [...] Ed. 3.19. who having neither Equal nor Superiour in his Realm, cannot be Judged? And greater than this, what must it be to mur­ther him?

And lastly, contrary to the Practice of the Jews, from whom he draws his Authority. The Israelites had a hard Bondage under the Egypti­ans; [...] 12 37. and yet that Moses whom he quotes, and Six Hundred Thousand Footmen with him, be­sides Children and a mix'd Multitude, fled from Pharaoh, 1 Sam 22.2. but did not rebel against him. David in the head of an Army (and those, if we con­sider the Persons, desperate enough) fled from Saul. And Eliah from Jezabel, Seven Thou­sand Men yet left in Israel who had not bow'd their Knees to Baal. 1 Kings 19.18. So that if Scripture, Law, or Practice have any Authority (I think) I need not labour the matter to prove it execrable, as well as unjust.

Besides, with what common Modesty could he tax the King with Blood, when the Houses had form'd an Army so long before him, as I have shewn before? And therefore who shall be, or was ever said to be guilty of the Blood spilt in a War, the Aggressor, or the Defen­dant, when the Law chiefly regards the Original act? Nor will Success more be able to alter the Nature of it than (as says His Majesty) ‘The prosperous Winds which often [...]ill the Sails of Pyrates, do justifie their Pyracy and Rapine.’

And were that true (saith he) which is most false, That all Kings are the Lord's Anointed, it were yet absurd to think that the Anointment of God should be, as it were, a Charm against Law. I know not what he means by that, all Kings. Saul, was, David was, and particularly laments the [Page 141]fall of Saul, As if he had not been anointed with Oil. 2 Sam. 1.11. And I never found any reason to doubt but that all Christian Hereditary Kings are the same too, and consequently exempt from the Law, foras­much as concerneth the coactive force of the Law, though not forasmuch as concerneth the directive Power of the Law.Lord [...]le [...] ­me [...]'s post [...]ti. 106. ‘Subjects are bound to fullfil the Law by necessity of Com­pulsion, but the Prince only by his own Will in regard of the common good. For seeing the Law is but a kind of Organ, or Instrument of the Power that governeth,Hist. of the World. 29 [...]. it seems (saith Sir Walter Rawleigh) that it cannot extend it self to bind any one whom no humane power can controul or lay hold of.’ And therefore till I find better Authority for this his Iustice than he has yet given, I shall look upon it as I do on the rest of his Book, a thing meerly stuffed out to deceive the People.

If Subjects also by the Law of the Church so much approv'd by this King, be invested with a Power of Judicature, both without and against their King, it will be firm and valid against him, though pretending, and by them acknowledg'd next and immediately un­der Christ Supream Head and Governour. But what King or Queen of England, besides Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Mary (for her two first Years) ever us'd that word Head? Or in what Age was it, that the Church of England ever pretended a power of Judicature, both without and against their Kings? He says if they are invested with such a Power, but shews not that they are; and instead thereof tells us that St. Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius the Empe­rour, which he calls a Spiritual putting to death. The like did St. German by Vortiger. And two other Kings of Wales excommunicated by their [Page 142]respective Bishops, Subjects of those Kings. And admitting it, I never heard that any of those Bi­shops ever perswaded the People that it was lawful to Murther those Kings; or how does it make out this his Iustice against the King? 'Tis a shrewd sign a Man is sinking when he takes hold of Twigs.

Then he comes up with the particular Laws and Acts of Greece, Athens, Sparta, Rome, &c. But what's that to England? must we be govern'd as they were? Their Laws were for it, the Laws of England directly against it. Nor is there any Country whatever but has its particular Laws or Customs. If a Man steal an Oxe or a Horse in the Isle of Man it is no Felony;4 Inst. 285. for (having no Woods) the Offender cannot hide them; but if he steal a Capon or a Pig he shall be hang'd for it.

But what need we (saith he) search after the Laws of other Lands for what is so fully and so plainly set down lawful in our own? Where antient Books tell us, Bracton, Fleta, and others, that the King is under the Law, and inferiour to his Parliament. As for Bracton, the Words that he means may be (per­haps) these: Rex habet Superiorem, Deum, scilicet. Item Legem per quam factus est Rex. Item curiam suam, viz. Comites, Barones. The King hath a Su­periour, to wit, God. (But doth not say Superi­ours in the Plural Number.) Also a Law by which he is made King. (i. e. He hath a Law, but says not a word of Punishment.) Also his Court, to wit, his Earls and Barons. (Not a Court as if it were of some others Constitution, but a Court of his own.) Where the word (habet) in Pro­priety of Latin is necessarily understood.1 Inst. 1. Or o­therwise he would be contradictory to himself when he saith (Omnis sub Rege, Bra. l. 4. c. 24. S. 5. &c.) Every Man is under the King, and he is under none but [Page 143]God: He is not inferiour to his Subjects, and hath no Peer in his Realm. But saith no where that he is under the Law, and inferiour to his Parliament, which word his sufficiently denotes where the Superiority lies.

And for Fleta, he saith,Lib. 1. c. 17. f. 16. ‘None can judge in Temporal Matters but only the King and his Substitutes.Id. F. 66.—And he hath his Court in his Council, in his Parliaments, &c.’ And for the Mirrour of Justice (a Book written in Edward the First's time) that says,Mir [...] 232. ‘Jurisdiction is the chief Dignity that appertains to the King.’ And for what concerns the King's Oath, it has been several times altered since that. And what this King's Oath was I have particularly shewn before. Chap. 6

Those objected Oaths of Allegiance and Suprema­cy we swore not to his Person, but as it was invested with his Authority. The same said the Spencers in Edward the Second's time, but it was condemned for Treason by two Acts of Parliament.7 Coke 11, 12. And Sir Edw. Coke calls it, ‘a damnable, detestable, and execrable Treason.’ For Corps natural le Roy & politi (que) sont un Corps, Plowd. 213.234.242. and are inseparable and indivisible, for both make but one King.4 Inst. 46. The death of the King dissolve [...] a Parlia­ment: Now if this referr'd only to his politick Capacity, the Parliament would continue after his Death, because a Body Politick never dies.

And now as the Covenant once help'd the Hou­ses at a dead lift, it must do our Accuser the like Job at parting, or this his Iustice will be little beholding to it. Certainly no discreet Per­son can imagine it should bind us to him in any stricter Sense than those Oaths formerly. And truly I must approve him when he deals ingenuously; no cer­tainly it did not, for they broke all three. The in­tent [Page 144]of the Covenant as it was to extirpate Prelacy, to preserve the Rights of Parliament and the Liber­ties of the Kingdom, so they intended, so far as it might consist with these, to preserve the King's Per­son and Authority, but not otherwise; for that had been to swear us into Labirynths and Repugnancies. We vow'd farther to bring Delinquents to open Tryal and condign Punishment: So that to have done so by the King hath not broke the Covenant, but it would have broke the Covenant to have sav'd him, the chief A­ctor as they thought him at the time of taking that Co­venant. Ye have heard what he says, and I leave it to every Man to apply it as he pleases. But be­cause this matter has already taken up a whole Chapter between us, I referr my Reader to what I have there said. Chap. 14

And now to close all, and if there be any Man has a Mind to learn how to break Oaths by Pro­vidence, and forswear himself to the Glory of God: To say Grace to the action be it never so ungodly, and give Thanks for the Success be it never so wicked: To carry on a Design un­der the name of Publick Good, and make the slavery of a Nation the liberty of the People: Or (in a word) to hold forth any useful, though notorious Untruth with convenient Obstinacy, until he believes it himself, and so renders it no Sin, let him read this Book of Mr. Milton's, and if he does not improve upon it, he may thank God for it.