This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
HE begins with the Kings mention of Tu∣mults, the demonstrations he calls them of the peoples love, & loyaltie to the Parliament. Which in their nature more then the kings denomination were demonstrations of disobedience to law, hatred of Government, & disloyal∣tie to the king. Their petitioning was in the Authors owne judgment the height of violence, & Barbarisme, which he com∣pares
to the Iron flaile, & those Armes which he cals defensive were so apparently a Trayterous histolitie, that the ends, which he assignes for them admit not the least colour for the appellation of defensive.
The King takes noe notice, that those listed about him were the beginners of these Tumults. Neither could he of soe strange an imagination.
The king sayes his recesse gave them confidence, that he might be conque∣red. The Libeller sayes, other men supposed both that, and all things els, who knew him neither by nature warlike, nor experienced, nor fortunate, yet such sa∣yes he are readiest to imbroyle others. How well he performes the first pe∣riod of his booke not to descant on the kings misfortunes his readers may heere see, that makes the kings misfortune his reproach, and a ground of their wicked confidence to Rebell against him, but that such men are readiest to imbroyle others is not soe certaine, but vndoubted they are not readiest to imbroyle themselves, and noe valour, nor expe∣rience, whereof his Majest is wel knowne to have had a greate measure can stopp a slandrous tongue. The mischeifes brought vpon his Majest kingdomes sprung from such persons, as sought their advantage by such broyles, which all men see the King could never expect.
The King sayes he had a soule invincible. And the Libeller sayes, what prayse is that? the vnteachable man hath a soule to all reason invincible. And is an invincible courage noe prayse? He seekes to shew his witt by ap∣plying invincible to vnteachable, when as if he had cited the Kings next words, as he ought, he had lost his jest, for the King sayes, he had a soule invincible through Gods grace enabling him, but he breaketh sentences, and truth, least he should breake for want of matter.
That the King labours to have it thought, that his fearing God more then man was the ground of his sufferings. The Libeller sayes, he pretended to feare God more then the Parliament, who never vrged him to doe otherwise. And did they not vrge him to doe otherwise, when they vrged him to doe that, which was against his conscience? But there neede not more be spoken of this, for the Libeller calls that a narrow conscience, which will not follow a multitude against its owne perswasion.
He shewes his levitie beyound that Creature he calls the vulgar, who now affirmes the King was drawne by his Courtiers, and Bishopps, and yet in the beginning of his booke he sayes, that the discourses, and preach∣ings of Courtiers, and Prelates against the Parliament was but a Copy taken from his owne words, and Actions, that all remissenes in Religion issued origi∣nally from his owne authoritie, all miscarriages in state may be imputed to noe other person cheifely then to himselfe.
He goes on to compare the words of Saul, that he had performed the Com∣maundement of God to the Kings mention of his fearing God, & the kings vphol∣ding the Prelates, against the advice of the Parliament, & example of al refor∣mations, is not much vnlike, if not much worse, noe neerer like, then this Au∣thors writings to modestie, & loyaltie. Is the advice of the Parliament,
and the example of all reformations equall to the expresse Commaund of God? The examples of all Reformations, himselfe tells afterward are not concurrent in the matter he mentions, and if they were soe, are all points of reformation equally necessary, and of the same obligation with the commaund of God? and was the Reformation of the Church of England noe reformation? Why then doth he say all Reformation? And is not the Church of England equall, if not superiour to any part of the world, that hath reformed? But we see what account these hi∣pocrites make of the Example of all Reformation, that have set vp schismaticall confusions of Religion in contempt of all Reformation. His Majest did noe more in vpholding the Prelates, then what the example of the most primitive times, Godly Emperours, & holy mar∣tyrs instructed him in, which noe Reformation ever contradicted, and he had no reason to hearken to the advice of such, as then called them∣selves a Parliament, who had broken and the lawes, and priviledges of Parliament, expelled the members, and were governed by Tumults, & a company of Bedlam Sectaries against de doctrine, and practice of the vinversall Church. The practice of Saul in persecuting David wel sutes with the course of these Rebells, but they have gone beyound him in malice, and disobedience in the matter both of David, and alsoe the Amalekites, he brake the Commaundement of God in sparing A∣maleke, these traytours presumptuously breake the Commaund of God in destroying their King, & Church. And this man exceedes Sauls pre∣sumption, that makes the preservation of an order continued in the Church in all ages as bad, or worse, then the sin of Saul.
He sayes acts of grace are proud, vnselfe knowing words in the mouth of any King, who affects not to be a God. Certainly this Libellers words shew him not only in affection, but in Act a proud vnselfe knowing man. Are there noe Acts of favour, noe Acts of mercy in Kings, but all of necessitie, but enough hath been said to these brainesicke dreames.
Never King was lesse in danger of violence from his subjects, till he vnshea∣thed his sword, nay long after, when he had spilt the blood of thousands, they had still his person in a foolish veneratiō. Should a Christian cal that, which God Commaunded, & David practised foolish veneration, but they whose wisedome is Rebellion, hold Divine wisedome foolishnes. And was he in so litle danger from those, that held that veneration foolish, were there none, that held soe, when they affronted him, and threatned him every day? To what end should multitudes come about his Pallace, and cry Justice, when they sought murder? What would they have done if he had denyed their demaunds, shall we beleive they intended noe violence, or shall wee beleive, that they, who had seised the forts, and navy, and vsurpt the Government would have used noe violence to his person, when they had him, if he plyed not with them? Its true ma∣ny were not wholy vnshamed at the first, but the malice, and ambition
of others was sufficiently confirmed, and the multitude easily falls by Example.
The King complaines, that Civill warr must be the fruites of his seven∣teene yeares raigning with such a measure of Iustice, peace plentie, and Religion, as all nations either admired or envyed. The Libeller sayes for Iustice let the Councell table, starr Chamber, and high Commission speake the prayse of it. Wee may be assured that malefactours will never prayse Court of justice, we know Sectaries, and seducers hated the high Commission, and seditious Libellers the starr chamber, & conspiratours, & incendiaries the coun∣cells of Kings, and there were noe Acts past in these places of such ex∣ception, as the measure of justice, which he enjoyed was not admired, or envyed by all nations.
His mention of abolishing Parliaments detracts not from the measure of justice, peace, plentie, and Religion, & we have found what injustice hath succeeded.
The displacing of honest Iudges he hath misplaced to detract from the ju∣stice of his Majest Government, and as the placing of judges was in his Majest choise, soe he might take notice, whether their places might not be better supplyed by others, and the change of two judges, for thats the number in seventeene yeares, is beneath an exception, his ray∣ling declamation against corrupt Government being only in generall deserves not an answeare, and the knowne prosperitie, peace, and plen∣tie of the Kingdome, are a sufficient confutation of such imaginary oppressions.
He sayes what peace was that, which drew out the English to a needeles, and dishonourable voyage against the spaniards at Cades. It was that peace the Parliament desired, and if the voyage proved successeles his Majest by preventing further danger, and preserving peace notwithstanding the miscarriage (which must be the dishonour only of the managers) suffi∣ciently testifies how wel he deserved of his people for the continuance of their peace, and safetie.
He askes next what that was, which lent our, shipping to a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr against the poore Protestants of Rochell. What is this against our peace at home, and though there were shipps of ours vsed against Rochel, tis sufficiently knowne they were not lent against Roc∣hell, and the Dutch shipps, which were vsed, as ours were not lent to a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr.
He askes what peace was that, which fell to robb the french by sea to the im∣barring all our marchants in that Kingdome. Is not this man madd, that will charge the vse of the shipping against Rochell for a Cryme, and call it a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr, and presently charge the King for making warr against the french, vpon the ground of vsing his shipps against Rochell, and call it a robbing of the french by sea, and is it possible to avoyde the losse of Marchants in case of hostilitie?
He proceedes to cry out on that vnblest expedition to the Isle of Ree doubt∣full whether more calamitous in the succes, or designe. Was not the designe in the favour of Rochell, did they not desire it? and yet he calls the ill successe of that Action the betraying all the flower of our military youth, and best Commaunders to a shamefull surprisall, and execution. And who betray∣ed them, and to what purpose, what advantage could his Majest have by such a losse? And was the warr against Rochell Treacherous, and Antichristian, and the releife too? But this Libeller is resolute to defie sence, and reason, & now he hath spoken against the peace we enjoyed, whereto doth it amount, was there any interruption of our peace at home, and was there not cause for these expeditions abroade, If there were not the Parliament failed in their Councell to the King in advi∣sing the warr with spaine, and complaining of the french for the mis∣imployment of the shipps against Rochell?
If peace were intended vs at home, what meant these billetted souldiers in all parts of the Kingdome. Doth noth he know the meaning, that mentions Cades, and the Isle of Ree, where they were imployed, surely he is soe intent on words, as he looses his Memory, aswell as his other faculties.
But he hath found out a designe of German horse to subdue vs in our peacefull houses. These German horse have made much noyse, & yet were never discovered, and the King, who was advised to make a warr in Germany, and other places by the Parliament could not vse German horse, but against England. But what is all this to the greate measure of peace we enjoyed above other nations. Can any man, that reades this Libellers willfull impertinency judge other, then that he fights blind∣fold, who would extend these forraigne voyages, which had not the face of warr at home, and continved not beyound the fower first yeares of his Majest Raigne, to diminish the measure of our peace soe long enjoyed, and that in the middest of soe many miscarriages, and conspi∣racies both at home, and abroade.
For our Religion he sayes, where was there a more ignorant, prophane, and vitious Clergie learned only in the antiquitie of their pride. The pride of these Sectaries contemnes all learning, & antiquitie, which condemnes their fanctasticall, & presumptuous novelezing. The learning of the English Clergie is too well knowne to the world to receive any disreput from the Streechinge of night oules, and of Kats.
Noe wise man could see, what was left for other nations to admire or envie, but to pittie. Other nations saw who had enough to cause them to ad∣mire our happines, not to pittie our condition, and of this there is a large Testimony.
But sayes the libeller, wealth, and plentie in a land, where Iustice Raignes not is no Argument of a florishing state, but of neerenes rather to ruine, & com∣motion. The blessings of God, peace, and plentie are often turned into
wantonnesse, and wickednes by the people, and are often a signe by the peoples abuse of ensuing ruine, or commotion, and of this the present condition of England is a greate Testimonie, but it was never denyed, to be the florishing state of any nation, and he will finde litle creditt to his supposition, that Justice Raignes not, where there is wealth, and plentie in a land.
There were not some miscarriages only of Government, which might escape. And of that nature are all the particulars gathred by him, if they had been true, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to arbitrary Govern∣ment. There was a distemper, and disaffection to Government in many seditious seducers, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to Arbitrary Government could not consist with the oppression of that tranquillitie, and securitie of the people, which was visible to all men, the losse whereof brought on by these Rebells is too late lamemted.
That his Majeest: owned the Actions, and protected the persons of men in highest favour with him is noe argument of this vinversall distemper, no more then the vulgar cryes against rulers is an Argument of their mis∣carriage, or the peoples moderation, who will have persons removed from Government, and yet not agree, who shall succeede them. It was an Argument of greate distemper in a people, that cryed out against the Kings evill Councellours, that could not judge of their Actions, but of noe vinversall distemper in the Government, neither could the king with pietie, & justice leave his Ministers to the malice of conspiratours and barbaritie of Tumults.
The king sayes, whose innocent blood hath he shedd, what widdowes, or or∣phans teares can wittnes against him? The Libeller thinkes he hath gi∣ven an answeare by saying the suspected poysonnig of his Father not enquired into, and he advanced, who was aceused by Parliament to be Author of the fact, and many yeares of cruell warr on his people in three Kingdomes. It is a won∣der to amazement, that such, whose language hath noe Limits of truth, or modestie should not be able to forge a probable Calumnie, the Re∣cords of the Parliament shew, that noe man was accused for the poy∣soninge of the kings Father, nor poysoninge named, ct the fact was ful∣ly enquired into, and all wittnesses examined, that had any knowledge of Circumstances touching it, and must this be the particular to prove the king guiltie, of shedding blood? We may see vpon what grounds they will draw blood, that offer such pretences for taking the blood of their king. Is it possible, that a Tyrant in seventeene yeares Raigne could not be proved guiltie of the blood of one man? And can a Re∣bellion be more apparently convinced, then by the seeking a cause for it from the resistance, that is made against it, and the endeavour to sup∣presse it? Was ever a cause soe barren of excuse, that had nothing, but its owne guilt for defence?
But he hath found out a scotchman, not vnacquainted he sayes with
the affaires, who affirmes, that there hath been more Christian blood shed by the Commission, approbation, and connivance of King Charles, and his Father Ia∣mes, in the latter end of their Raigne, then in the ten Roman Persecutions. And is not this a doughtie authoritie, what could he say more to prove him∣selfe a false varlett? Whoever saw, or heard of this shedding of Christi∣an blood, is it possible, that soe much blood should be shed, and noe man know it, but this Scotchman? Was all the world soe negligent to take notice of it, and did the Scotchman, and this Author thinke, that the blood of the late warr made vp this number, they may then expect vengeance vpon themselves, and their bloody crew for it, either heere, or heereafter. They value such, as suffred in the ten persecutions at the same rate they doe their King, and their conscience, and if they though persecution odious, why doe they exercise a persecution vppon Chris∣tians as cruell, as these persecuting Emperours?
He sayes not to speake of those many whippings, and other corporall inflicti∣ons, wherewith his Raigne alsoe before this warr was not vnbloody. And is a Raigne bloody by inflicting death vpon robbers, and murtherers, or whipping, and the Pillory vpon, Cheates Infamous Libellers, and se∣ditious disturbers of Government, but of these latter the number was very small not exceeding fower in seventeene yeares, and these merited the punishment they had, & an higher had not exceeded their crymes. Is the execution of law a bloody Raigne, he findes none, that suffred banishment, nor any that died in prison, but such as were restrained by or∣dinary Justice.
He cannot pretend an arbitrary power in any of this, that the King in∣fested the true Church is noe other language, then what good Princes all∣wayes received from Sectaries, who accuse allwayes for their restraint, infesting the true Church, but all men now see they are the malignant Compamy that infest the true Church, & the seducers of simple soules.
But he hath a proofe of blood above exception, where no blood was drawne, and that is the six members, whome all men judged to have escaped no lesse then Capitall danger. Doubtles they had merited Capitall punish∣ment in the judgment of all knowing men. That a just King may be of∣fended for the escape of malefactours is easily beleived, but that saying the birds are flowne argues much trouble is a secret to all men, and a pro∣verbe as often applyed in jest, as earnest.
The libeller sayes, that if some vulter in the mountaines could have spake, he could not have vttered fitter words at the losse of his prey. The excesses in blood, and crueltie of theis Rebells cannot be expressed to the full, by the savage nature of any Creature. The grinning of doggs howling of wolves, and hissing of Serpents are not more hideous to nature, then the petulence of vile persons against kings are abominable to Religion, and pietie.
Because Nero was vnwilling to sett his hand to the execution of a
Common Malefactour, and wishing he had not knowne letters he would prove the King prosecuting Traytours to have noe greate aversation to blood, but it strongly proves a bloody conspiracie, when the contrivers are held innocent, and the King made the offender for seeking just pu∣nishment, and the Triumphs of such, as protected those persons, and their impudent braving the King at his very doores argued their haste to the shedding of that blood, which since hath covered the Land.
Touching the cause of the warr, the King sayes, It was not my with∣drawing from whitehall, for noe account in reason could be given of those Tu∣mults, where an orderly guard was graunted. The libeller sayes, that if it be a most certaine truth, that the Parliament could never obtaine any guard fit to be confided in, then some account of these pretended Tumults may in reason be given. But if they be not only pretended, but apparently Tumults, there can be noe account given of them, at least the libeller vndertakes it not, and that they could not obtaine a guard fit to be confided in, is false, for they had a guard, and Commaunder of their owne nomination, though not the Earle of Essex.
The King askes, whome did he protect against the Iustice of Parliament. The Libeller sayes he endeavoured to rescue Strafford, that was from their injustice, if he had done soe.
But sayes the Libeller he endeavoured it, though with the destruction of them, and the Cittie, commaunding admittance of new souldiers into the To∣wer. And is it a necessary consequent, that the admittance of new soul∣diers into the Tower were to the destruction of Parliament, and Citie. But did not such, as like blood hounds, & wolves hunted the Earle of Straf∣ford, that they might not loose their prey, and the sweetenes of their revenge in drinking his blood, stirr vp the Tumults to the destruction of King, Parliament, and Kingdome?
What can be disputed with such a King, in whose mouth, & opinion the Par∣liament it selfe was never but a faction, and their Iustice noe Iustice, but the Dic∣tates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabbles. The Parliament was never a faction in the Kings mouth, but it is in every mans mouth, that the Parliament hath been overswayed by a faction, and a faction have called themselves the Parliament. And how can the Libeller define a Parliament, but he must acknowledge that those, whome the King calls a faction were noe Parliament, and that their Actions were noe Justice, but the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabbles? himselfe prooves it by the commendation he gives the Tumults, for effecting these Acts, which he now calls the Justice of the Parliament, & noe wise man could thinke such a rabble fit to Judge of Delinquents, or that such men, who fled from their fury were thereby culpable of the Crymes objected, and the fairest Tryall would sooner have con∣demned to death, these Tumultuous accusers then the parties accused. But who can talke with such a man, as this breaker, that reputes Mo∣narchy
Tyrany, order in the Church an imposed Religion, and lawes worse then Ceremonies in Religion.
He compares the avoyding of his madd Iudicature to Catilnies flight, and excepting to the Roman Senate, and Cesars injecting scrupulous demurrs against the Decres of the senate vpon Lentulus, and Cethegus. But did either of them object, that the power of Tumults overswayed the senate, or that the senate wanted freedome, and had oppressed the members of its? If Ca∣tiline had set vp a senate as Caesar did afterward, and these Rebells have in England, & oppressed the legal Government, the exceptions had been very just, but exceptions against particular senatours for private animo∣sities cannot derogate from the judgment of the whole being free.
That such reasons were vrged for Strafford, was never heard at his Try∣all, or other proceedings against him the cases being contrary, for Len∣tulus, and the rest were accused for conspiring against the state, & Straf∣ford was accused by those, that conspired against the state, and sought to take him away for a cleerer passage to their designe.
The King vouchsafes, to the Reformation, which both Kingdomes intended noe better name then innovation, and ruine both to Church, and state, and the expelling of Bishopps out of the Church, ruine to the Church, and out of the house of Peeres ruine to the state. And he askes how happy the nation could be in such a governour, who counted that their ruine, which they thought their deliverance. It cannot be doubted, but the abolition of the order, and Government of Church and state, is an innovation, & performed by force against the King, execrable Rebellion, and the King never doubted to say, that such disorderly innovations were the ruine of Church, and state, and the in∣novations, and ruines mentioned by the King to be agitated by some men are not restrained to the cause of the Bishopps, though that alone, and the manner of proceeding in regard of the injustice, violence, and the dangerous consequences, that attend it, threatned ruine to Church, and state. It is strange, that a people may mistake their ruine for their deliverance, & that a wise Prince by denying them their wil may keepe them from perishing, which their owne errours would cast them into, but such, as knew how small a part of the people, & how contemptible, affected those innovations, and how they were cherisht by the leaders of Rebellion to strengthen their partie, and how others were drawne in by hopes, and feares, to comply with a potent faction for their profit, or safetie, and how greate a partie both for number, & qualitie detested these innovations may well conclude that neither the nation thought it their deliverance, nor the Kings refusall other, then a just care, and providence for their good.
It is not likely, that the house of Peeres gave hardly their consent to the Bills against the Bishops, that soe easily gave it to attach them of high Treason. But it is apparent they hardly gave their consent to those Bills, for they had often rejected them, and therefore his presumption is of noe weight against plaine proofe.
If their rights, and priviledges were thought so vndoubted in that house, then was that protestation noe Treason, and the house will become liable to a just con∣struction either of injustice for soe consenting, or of vsurpation to expect, that their voting, or not voting should obstruct the Commons. The priviledges of the Bishopps had they not been vndoubted, they needed not, an Act of Parliament, nor soe many Acts of violence to take them away, nei∣ther can the Commons pretend to greater right for their sitting in the one house, then the Bishopps in the other, and the Libeller hath right∣ly concluded, that their protestation was noe Treason, but that their accusation by the house of Commons was a false, and vngrounded Cla∣mour, and their commitment by the Lords house an odious injustice, but it could be noe vsurpation to expect, that their voting, or not vo∣ting was conclusive to the Commons. To what end did the Commons offer their accusation to the Lords, if their voting, or not voting were not considerable. It is Justice, when they concurre, & vsurpation when they dissent? But Lords house, & Commons house are vsurpers, when they obstruct the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of rabbles, and Tumults.
The Commons were not to desist for five repulses of the Lords, noe not for fiftie from what in the name of the Kingdome they had demaunded, soe long as those Lords were none of our Lords, and what if they had been your Lords, were they then to desist, if so, it was more then they would doe to their King, but our, or not our makes noe difference to resolute Traytours. The Lords were soe farr their Lords, as they were not to persist by the power, wherewith they were intrusted for the kingdome in their de∣maund after the Lords refusall, for to what end hath the law ordained a Lords house, and the Commons soe long practised their addresses to them, if they may doe what they please without them? Doth the vse of the name of the kingdome add any right to them, that have not the po∣wer of the kingdome, and demaund things to the destruction of the kingdome? The king allowes not such a faction the name of a Parlia∣ment, which hath nothing of either house, but some members, that as∣sume the name without the priviledges, and authoritie, that constitu∣ted it.
Though the Bill against roote, and branch passed not till many of the Lords with some few of the Commons, either enticed away by the king, or overawed by the sense of their owne malignitie deserted the Parliament, that was noe warrant for them, who remained being farr the greater number to lay aside the Bill. He well knowes they, that remained of the Lords house were an inconsi∣derable number, and such, as deserted the Commons house wanted not many of the number of them, that remained, and of them, that re∣mained many were overawed by force, and diverse plainely dissented to that Bill. The injustice of them, that remained was intole∣rable that refused all reparation, or securitie to such, as were
injured by the Tumults, and it was a most perfidious Act in them to enforce their members to desert the house, that they might exercise their Arbitrary power over the kingdome, the injury was so apparent, & the pretēce of malignancie so ridiculous against the deserting mem∣bers, that noe sober man can imagnie enticement, or overawing to be the cause of their withdrawing, and these remaining members ought to have forborne by their dutie to the kingdome, the passing of such a Bil in the absence of soe many members, but they, that will forbeare noe degree of treason cannot probably abstaine from breakes of priviledge, and lesse injuries.
He sayes this degrading of the Bishopps was orthodoxall in the Church an∣cient, and reformed. What will not this man say? Wee neede not won∣der at his other impudencies, that will affirme the taking away the or∣der of Bishopps orthodoxall in the ancient Church, which never wan∣ted them.
The King sayes he was bound besides his judgment by a most strict, and vn∣dispensable oath to preserve that order, and the rights of the Church. And sa∣yes the Libeller. If the letter of that oath be not interpreted by equitie, refor∣mation, or better knowledge, then was the King bound to graunt the Clergie all priviledges graunted to them by Edward the Confessour, and so bring in Popery. Equitie must be admitted in all interpretations of oaths, and soe must better knowledges, but the knowledge of other men is noe exposition to him, that takes an oath, if his owne knowledge be not convinced. The King hath sworne to preserve the priviledges of the Church, to be a protectour of the Bishopps, and by what equitie, reformation, or bet∣ter knowledge would this libeller induce the King to breake this oath? If Sectaries say the calling is vnlawful against the judgment of the vni∣versall Church, must the king believe this, & thinke himselfe absolved of his oath? The King never doubted, that his oath could not binde him to sin, but he was assured, that it was a sin to breake his oath, when it was no sin to keepe it, and while his conscience was not informed of any vnlawfulnes in the matter of his oath, his sin must be the more hai∣nous to act against his oath, aswell as his knowledge.
The Libeller talkes of lawes of God, and truth of the Gospell. But his schismaticall fancies must over rule lawes, and oath, & though the Ger∣man Emperours, or other Kings had noe cause to leavy warrs vpon Protestant subjects vnder colour of a blinde, and literall observance to an oath, it had been a wickednes in their subjects to make a warr on them to compell them to breake that oath.
It is not to be imagined, if what shalbe established come in question, but that the Parliament should oversway the King, and not the King the Parliament. Neither can it be imagined that he, which is to be overswayed by the Parliament is a King.
By all law, and reason, that which the Parliament will not, is noe more esta∣blished
in this Kingdome, neither is the king bound to vphold it, as a thing esta∣blished. Certainly lawes are very vainely said to be made by the King, if he have no voyce in the making of them, and if they may be vnestablis∣hed without him, and it was a wickednes, aswell, as weakenes to binde him to vphold lawes, and to governe his people justly, that had not soe much as voyce in the making of their lawes, & that was bound to go∣verne by wicked lawes, if the Parliament would have them, such Ima∣ginary powers cannot consist with Religion, law, nor reason in the Go∣vernment of England.
The King sayes had he gratified, he thinkes, their Antiepisconall faction with his consent, and sacrifised the Church Government, and Revenues to the fury of their Covetuousnes, they would then have found noe colourable necessitie of raysing an Army. The Libeller to this sayes. It was the fury of his owne hatred to the professours of the true Religion, which incited him to persecute them with the sword of warr, when whipps pillories, exiles, and imprisonments were not thought sufficient. Its certen such a generation of Traytours, as have persecuted the King with a warr, justly merited to be whipt out of all Kingdomes, and while this Libeller frequently sports at the Kings ne∣cessities, he is not ashamed presently to call the warr voluntary on his part. If the Kings fury incited him to a warr, he would not soe often have sought peace, nor been denyed peace without the sacrifice of the Church.
But the Libeller sayes to colour this warr the King cannot finde where∣with all, but that stale pretence of Charles the fifth, and other Popish Kings, that the Protestants had only an intent to lay hands on the Church Revenues. The King neede not a colour for making a warr, whereto necessitie en∣forced him. It is apparent, that the sectaries in England intended to de∣voure these Revenues, and have effected it, and they professe to seeke it by the sword, because they could not have it otherwise.
But the Libeller sayes, it was never in the thoughts of the Parliament till exhausted by warr, their necessitie seized on that for the Commonwealth, which the Luxury of the Prelates had abused to Common mischeife. They neede not have been exhausted, if reason, Justice, or Religion could have conten∣ted them. They will make a warr, and robb, and steale from other men to maintaine it. Did not their pretended necessitie come from their warr to take away Episcopacy, and is not the necessitie of their owne making to get these Revenues? What if goods dedicated to Gods service were abused to luxury, were there none els in the Kingdome soe abused? Must they make choise of the Patrimony of the Church for a sacrifice to their Covetuousnes, that they may spare their pri∣vate?
That the King consented to the vnlording of Bishopps at Canterbury the cheife seate of their pride, for God would have it soe. And can he tax the King for his allusions vpon the fate of Hotham, and obserring the course
of Gods judgments, and himselfe make such an observation from the Kings passing the Bill at Canterbury? May it not be an aggravation of the offence in passing the Bill there, rather then a punishment vpon those, that were wronged by it, but Canterbury had not relation to their peace in Parliament, but in Church, and therefore his scene is mislayed.
The King sayes his consent to that Bill of putting Bishopps out of the house of Peeres was from his firme perswasion of their contentednes to suffer a present diminution of their rights. The Libeller from hence argues the pure moc∣kery of a Royall assent to delude for the present. May not sober times re∣voke what distempered madnes had necessitated, and had not the King just cause to thinke, that after times would see the obliqutie of that Bill?
The Libellers consequence is that we may hence perceive the wisedome, and integritie of those votes, which voted his consessions at the Isle of weight for grounds of a lasting peace. And why might they not be soe, though some of them might not be thought fitt to last long? And that by the judg∣ment of both King, and houses? But what were they, that voted, were they not the Libellers Parliament, in whose behalfe he hath soe of∣ten expressed his anger for the Kings disesteeme of them, and calling them a faction, and now will have neither wisedome, nor integritie in them?
He sayes from the kings professing the continuance of his judgment touching Episcopacy, there is a faire justification of the Parliament, who notwithstan∣ding his obstinate minde omitted not meanes, and patience to have gained him. They omitted not reproach, and violence, but other meanes, or pa∣tience they vsed not, and the Libeller hath contrived a conviction of his Parliament, that their not gaining his consent to their demaunds was the cause of their warr, which he hold justified by the Kings con∣tinued aversion.
The King sayes a greate shew of delinquents was made, which were but consequences of his, and others withdrawing, or defence. This sayes the Li∣beller is a prettie shift to mince the name of a delinquent into a necessary con∣sequent. It is injustice to make the name of delinquent a propertice, and snare for innocence. Its plaine, that the faction would have all, that adheared not to them, or left them delinquents, and if such an ex∣tension be not minced, the law it selfe will be, whose Rules will not define delinquents, but the observation of them become delinquencie.
He sayes a Traytour is the consequent of his Treason, and a Rebell of his Rebellion. And such are certainly delinquents, but for saking their so∣cietie is not a Cryme to denominate a delinquent, and such only were by the faction called delinquents.
The London Tumults was the Kings overworne Theame, and stuffing of all his discourses. Which was not at all mentioned in this place, but tis a
Theame of difficultie to the Libeller, and wherefore, he would stopp the beleife of it by his threed bare repetitions of the blood of the warr, delinquents, Tyrany, and Popery, which are become as vaine, as the taunts of children.
He turnes to the Scotts, and Covenanters, whome he calls misobservers of the Covenant, and askes how they will reconcile the preservation of Religi∣on, &c. With the Kings resolution, that esteemes all the Zeale of their prosti∣tuted Covenant noe better then a noyse, and shew of pietie, &c. For the Co∣venanters, and misobservers of the Covenant we leave to debate their owne controversies, but noe man knowes what he supposes, that by those principles the King might at length come to take the Covenant, and that then all had ended in a happy peace, which he hates vpon any condi∣tions, but his owne.
He makes an opposition between the Kings telling God, that his E∣nemies are many, and telling the people they are but a faction of some few pre∣vayling over his Major part of both houses. Might not his Enemies be many, though a faction of a few prevailed over the Major part of both houses, and wherein doth the King misapply David, or David accuse him? But the Libeller stickes not at misapplication, nor false accusations.
The King sayes he had noe passion, designe, or preparation to imbroyle his Kingdome in a Civil warr. The Libeller sayes, true, & yet formerly said, that his fury incited him to prosecute them with the sword of warr. How doth he handle his outworne Theame?
But he gives a reason, for that the King thought his Kingdome to be Is∣sachar, that would have couched downe betweene two burthens of Prelaticall su∣perstition, and Civill Tyrany. As his Majest subjects had peace without burthens, soe the rest of Issachar was more eligible, then the blood, and Treacherie of Simeon, and Levi, whose rage, and crueltie their Father cursed vpon his death bedd, but such attempts the libeller likes better then Issachars ease.
He sayes the King had made preparation by terrour, and preventive force. The fury of a warr is come to terrour, and preventive force. Its cer∣taine the Rebells had vsed all meanes to prevent his defence, & his ter∣rour must be litle, whose force they had surprised.
The King sayes God will finde out bloody, and deceitefull men, many of whome have not lived out halfe their dayes. The Libeller sayes, It behoved him to have been more cautious, how he tempted God til his owne yeares had been further spent. Is it temptation to rely on the truth of Gods word? And may not innocent persons, whose lives are ready to be taken away by blood thirstie Tyrants reflect vpon Gods word touching wicked mens being cut of, though they see their owne life expiring?
The King in his prayer sayes, that God knew the cheife designe of this warr was either to destroy his reason, or force his judgment. The Libeller
sayes This is hideous rashnes accusing God before men to know that for truth, which all men know to be false. And is it not horrid presumption in the Libeller to say all men know that to be false, which himselfe confesses true. And we must expect, that the wickednes of these Rebels, which accuse veritie of vntruth will reproach the sinceritie of his Majest in praying for his Enemies with hipocrisie, their owne corruption exclu∣ding confession of others integritie.