Behemoth/Dialogue II
A. You are welcome; yet, if you had staid somewhat longer, my memory would have been so much the better provided for you.
B. Nay, I pray you give me now what you have about you; for the rest I am content you take what time you please.
A. After the Parliament had made the people believe that the exacting of ship-money was unlawful, and the people thereby inclined to think it tyrannical; in the next place, to increase their disaffection to his Majesty, they accused him of a purpose to introduce and authorize the Roman religion in this kingdom: than which nothing was more hateful to the people; not because it was erroneous (which they had neither learning nor judgment enough to examine), but because they had been used to hear it inveighed against in the sermons and discourses of the preachers whom they trusted to. And this was indeed the most effectual calumny, to alienate the people’s affections from him, that could be possibly invented. The colour they had for this slander was, first, that there was one Rosetti, Resident (at and a little before that time) from the Pope, with the Queen; and one Mr. George Con, Secretary to the Cardinal Francisco Barberini, nephew to Pope Urban VIII., sent over, under favour and protection of the Queen (as was conceived) to draw as many persons of quality about the court, as he should be able, to reconcile themselves to the Church of Rome: with what success I cannot tell; but it is likely he gained some, especially of the weaker sex; if I may say, they were gained by him, when not his arguments, but hope of favour from the Queen, in all probability prevailed upon them.
B. In such a conjuncture as that was, it had perhaps been better they had not been sent.
A. There was exception taken also at a convent of friars-capucins in Somerset-House, though allowed by the articles of marriage: and it was reported, that the Jesuits also were shortly after to be allowed a convent in Clerkenwell. And in the mean time, the principal secretary, Sir Francis Windebank, was accused for having by his warrant set at liberty some English Jesuits, that had been taken and imprisoned for returning into England after banishment, contrary to the statute which had made it capital. Also the resort of English Catholics to the Queen’s Chapel, gave them colour to blame the Queen herself, not only for that, but also for all the favours that had been shown to the Catholics; in so much that some of them did not stick to say openly, that the King was governed by her.
B. Strange injustice! The Queen was a Catholic by profession, and therefore could not but endeavour to do the Catholics all the good she could: she had not else been truly that which she professed to be. But it seems they meant to force her to hypocrisy, being hypocrites themselves. Can any man think it a crime in a devout lady, of what sect soever, to seek the favour and benediction of that Church whereof she is a member?
A. To give the Parliament another colour for their accusation on foot, of the King as to introducing of Popery, there was a great controversy between the Episcopal and Presbyterian clergy about free-will. The dispute began first in the Low Countries, between Gomar and Arminius, in the time of King James, who foreseeing it might trouble the Church of England, did what he could to compose the difference. And an assembly of divines was thereupon got together at Dort, to which also King James sent a divine or two, but it came to nothing; the question was left undecided, and became a subject to be disputed of in the universities here. All the Presbyterians were of the same mind with Gomar: but a very great many others not; and those were called here Arminians, who, because the doctrine of free-will had been exploded as a Papistical doctrine, and because the Presbyterians were far the greater number, and already in favour with the people, were generally hated. It was easy, therefore, for the Parliament to make that calumny pass currently with the people, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, was for Arminius, and had a little before, by his power ecclesiastical, forbidden all ministers to preach to the people of predestination; and when all ministers that were gracious with him, and hoped for any Church preferment, fell to preaching and writing for free-will, to the uttermost of their power, as a proof of their ability and merit. Besides, they gave out, some of them, that the Archbishop was in heart a Papist; and in case he could effect a toleration here of the Roman religion, was to have a cardinal’s hat: which was not only false, but also without any ground at all for a suspicion.
B. It is a strange thing, that scholars, obscure men, and such as could[1] receive no clarity but from the flame of the state, should be suffered to bring their unnecessary disputes, and together with them their quarrels, out of the universities into the commonwealth; and more strange, that the state should engage in their parties, and not rather put them both to silence.
A. A state can constrain obedience, but convince no error, nor alter the minds of them that believe they have the better reason. Suppression of doctrine does but unite and exasperate, that is, increase both the malice and power of them that have already believed them.
B. But what are the points they disagree in? Is there any controversy between Bishop and Presbyterian concerning the divinity or humanity of Christ? Do either of them deny the Trinity, or any article of the creed? Does either party preach openly, or write directly, against justice, charity, sobriety, or any other duty necessary to salvation, except only the duty *we owe* to the King; and not that neither, but when they have a mind either to rule or destroy the King? Lord have mercy upon us! Can nobody be saved that understands not their disputations? Or is there more requisite, either of faith or honesty, for the salvation of one man than of another? What needs so much preaching of faith to us that are no heathens, and that believe already all that Christ and his apostles have told us is necessary to salvation, and more too? Why is there so little preaching of justice? I have indeed heard righteousness often recommended to the people, but I have seldom heard the word justice occur in their sermons; nay, though in the Latin and Greek Bible the word justice occur exceeding often, yet in the English, though it be a word that every man understands, the word righteousness (which few understand to signify the same, but take it rather for rightness of opinion, than of action or intention), is put in the place of it.
A. I confess I know very few controversies amongst Christians, of points necessary to salvation. They are the questions of authority and power over the Church, or of profit, or of honour to Churchmen, that for the most part raise all the controversies. For what man is he, that will trouble himself and fall out with his neighbours for the saving of my soul, or the soul of any other than himself? When the Presbyterian ministers and others did so seriously preach sedition, and animate men to rebellion in these late wars; who was there that had not a benefice, or having one feared not to lose it, or some other part of his maintenance, by the alteration of the Government, that did voluntarily, without any eye to reward, preach so earnestly against sedition, as the other party preached for it? I confess, that for aught I have observed in history, and other writings of the heathens, Greek and Latin, that those heathens were not at all behind us in point of virtue and moral duties, notwithstanding that we have had much preaching, and they none at all. I confess also, that considering what harm may proceed from a liberty that men have, upon every Sunday and oftener, to harangue all the people of a nation at one time, whilst the state is ignorant of what they will say; and that there is no such thing permitted in all the world out of Christendom, nor therefore any civil wars about religion; I have thought much preaching an inconvenience. Nevertheless, I cannot think that preaching to the people the points of their duty, both to God and man, can be too frequent; so it be done by grave, discreet, and ancient men, that are reverenced by the people; and not by light quibbling young men, whom no congregation is so simple as to look to be taught by (as being a thing contrary to nature), or to pay them any reverence, or to care what they say, except some few that may be delighted with their jingling. I wish with all my heart, there were enough of such discreet and ancient men, as might suffice for all the parishes of England, and that they would undertake it. But this is but a wish; I leave it to the wisdom of the State to do what it pleaseth.
B. What did they next?
A. Whereas the King had sent prisoners into places remote from London, three persons that had been condemned for publishing seditious doctrine, some in writing, some in public sermons; the Parliament (whether with his Majesty’s consent or no, I have forgotten), caused them to be released and to return to London; meaning (I think) to try how the people would be pleased therewith, and, by consequence, how their endeavours to draw the people’s affections from the King had already prospered. When these three came through London, it was a kind of triumph, the people flocking together to behold them, and receiving them with such acclamations, and almost adoration, as if they had been let down from heaven; insomuch as the Parliament was now sufficiently assured of a great and tumultuous party, whensoever they should have occasion to use it. On confidence whereof they proceeded to their next plot, which was to deprive the King of such ministers as by their wisdom, courage, and authority, they thought most able to prevent, or oppose their further designs against the King.—And first, the House of Commons resolved to impeach the Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of high-treason.
B. What was that Earl of Strafford before he had that place? And how had he offended the Parliament or given them cause to think he would be their enemy? For I have heard that in former Parliaments he had been as parliamentary as any other.
A. His name was Sir Thomas Wentworth, a gentleman both by birth and estate very considerable in his own county, which was Yorkshire; but more considerable for his judgment in the public affairs, not only of that county, but generally of the kingdom; and was therefore often chosen for the Parliament, either as a Burgess for some borough, or else Knight of the shire. For his principles of politics, they were the same that were generally proceeded upon by all men else that were thought fit to be chosen for the Parliament; which are commonly these: to take for the rule of justice and government the judgments and acts of former Parliaments, which are commonly called precedents; to endeavour to keep the people from being subject to extra-parliamentary taxes of money, and from being with parliamentary taxes too much oppressed; to preserve to the people their liberty of body from the arbitrary power of the King out of Parliament; to seek redress of grievances.
B. What grievances?
A. The grievances were commonly such as these: the King’s too much liberality to some favourite; the too much power of some minister or officer of the commonwealth; the misdemeanour of judges, civil or spiritual; but especially all unparliamentary raising of money upon the subjects. And commonly of late, till such grievances be redressed, they refuse, or at least make great difficulty, to furnish the King with money necessary for the most urgent occasions of the commonwealth.
B. How then can a King discharge his duty as he ought to do, or the subject know which of his masters he is to obey? For here are manifestly two powers, which, when they chance to differ, cannot both be obeyed.
A. It is true; but they have not often differed so much to the danger of the commonwealth, as they have done in this Parliament, 1640. In all the Parliaments of the late King Charles before the year 1640, my Lord of Strafford did appear in opposition to the King’s demands as much as any man; and was for that cause very much esteemed and cried up by the people as a good patriot, and one that courageously stood up in defence of their liberties; and for the same cause was so much the more hated, when afterwards he endeavoured to maintain the royal and just authority of his Majesty.
B. How came he to change his mind so much as it seems he did?
A. After the dissolution of the Parliament holden in the years 1627 and 1628, the King, finding no money to be gotten from Parliaments which he was not to buy with the blood of such servants and ministers as he loved best, abstained a long time from calling any more, and had abstained longer if the rebellion of the Scots had not forced him to it. During that Parliament the King made Sir Thomas Wentworth a baron, recommended to him for his great ability, which was generally taken notice of by the disservice he had done the King in former Parliaments, but which might be useful for him in the times that came on: and not long after he made him of the Council, and after that again Lieutenant of Ireland, which place he discharged with great satisfaction and benefit to his Majesty, and continued in that office, till, by the envy and violence of the Lords and Commons of that unlucky Parliament of 1640, he died. In which year he was made general of the King’s forces against the Scots that then entered into England, and the year before, Earl of Strafford. The pacification being made, and the forces on both sides disbanded, and the Parliament at Westminster now sitting, it was not long before the House of Commons accused him to the House of Lords of High-Treason.
B. There was no great probability of his being a traitor to the King, from whose favour he had received his greatness, and from whose protection he was to expect his safety. What was the treason they laid to his charge?
A. Many articles were drawn up against him, but the sum of them was contained in these two: first, that he had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realm; and in stead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against law: secondly, that he had laboured to subvert the rights of Parliaments, and the ancient course of Parliamentary proceedings.
B. Was this done by him without the knowledge of the King?
A. No.
B. Why then, if it were treason, did not the King himself call him in question by his attorney? What had the House of Commons to do, without his command, to accuse him to the Lords? They might have complained to the King, if he had not known it before. I understand not this law.
A. Nor I.
B. Had this been by any former statutes made treason?
A. Not that I ever heard of; nor do I understand how anything can be treason against the King, that the King, hearing and knowing, does not think treason. But it was a piece of that Parliament’s artifice, to put the word traitorously to any article exhibited against any man whose life they meant to take away.
B. Was there no particular instance of action or words, out of which they argued that endeavour of his to subvert the fundamental laws of Parliament, whereof they accused him?
A. Yes; they said he gave the King counsel to reduce the Parliament to their duty by the Irish army, which not long before my Lord of Strafford himself had caused to be levied there for the King’s service. But it was never proved against him, that he advised the King to use it against the Parliament.
B. What are those laws that are called fundamental? For I understand not how one law can be more fundamental than another, except only that law of nature that binds us all to obey him, whosoever he be, whom lawfully and for our own safety, we have promised to obey; nor any other fundamental law to a King, but salus populi, the safety and well-being of his people.
A. This Parliament, in the use of their words, when they accused any man, never regarded the signification of them, but the weight they had to aggravate their accusation to the ignorant multitude, which think all faults heinous that are expressed in heinous terms, if they hate the person accused, as they did this man, not only for being of the King’s party, but also for deserting the Parliament’s party as an apostate.
B. I pray you tell me also what they meant by arbitrary government, which they seemed so much to hate? Is there any governor of a people in the world that is forced to govern them, or forced to make this and that law, whether he will or no? I think not: or if any be, he that forces him does certainly make laws, and govern arbitrarily.
A. That is true; and the true meaning of the Parliament was, that not the King, but they themselves, should have the absolute government, not only of England, but of Ireland, and (as it appeared by the event) of Scotland also.
B. How the King came by the government of Scotland and Ireland by descent from his ancestors, everybody can tell; but if the King of England and his heirs should chance (which God forbid) to fail, I cannot imagine what title the Parliament of England can acquire thereby to either of those nations.
A. Yes; they will say they had been conquered anciently by the English subjects’ money.
B. Like enough, and suitable to the rest of their impudence.
A. Impudence in democratical assemblies[2] does almost all that’s done; ’tis the goddess of rhetoric, and carries proof with it. For what ordinary man will not, from so great boldness of affirmation, conclude there is great probability in the thing affirmed? Upon this accusation he was brought to his trial in Westminster Hall before the House of Lords, and found guilty, and presently after declared traitor by a bill of attainder, that is, by Act of Parliament.
B. It is a strange thing that the Lords should be induced, upon so light grounds, to give a sentence, or give their assent to a bill, so prejudicial to themselves and their posterity.
A. It was not well done, and yet, as it seems, not ignorantly; for there is a clause in the bill, that it should not be taken hereafter for an example, that is for a prejudice, in the like case hereafter.
B. That is worse than the bill itself, and is a plain confession that their sentence was unjust. For what harm is there in the examples of just sentences? Besides, if hereafter the like case should happen, the sentence is not at all made weaker by such a provision.
A. Indeed I believe that the Lords, most of them, *following the principles of warlike and savage natures, envied his greatness, but yet* were not of themselves willing to condemn him of treason. They were awed to it by the clamour of common people that came to Westminster, crying out, “Justice, Justice against the Earl of Strafford!” The which were caused to flock thither by some of the House of Commons, that were well assured, after the triumphant welcome of Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, to put the people into tumult upon any occasion they desired. They were awed unto it partly also by the House of Commons itself, which if it desired to undo a Lord, had no more to do but to vote him a Delinquent.
B. A delinquent; what is that? A sinner, is it not? Did they mean to undo all sinners?
A. By delinquent they meant only a man to whom they would do all the hurt they could. But the Lords did not yet, I think, suspect they meant to cashier their whole House.
B. It is a strange thing the whole House of Lords should not perceive that the ruin of the King’s power, and the weakening of it, was the ruin or weakening of themselves. For they could not think it likely that the people ever meant to take the sovereignty from the King to give it to them, who were few in number, and less in power than so many Commoners, because less beloved by the people.
A. But it seems not so strange to me. For the Lords, for their personal abilities, as they were no less, so also they were no more skilful in the public affairs, than the knights and burgesses. For there is no reason to think, that if one that is to-day a knight of the shire in the lower House, be to-morrow made a Lord and a member of the higher House, he is therefore wiser than he was before. They are all, of both Houses, prudent and able men as any in the land, in the business of their private estates, which require nothing but diligence and natural wit to govern them. But for the government of a commonwealth, neither wit, nor prudence, nor diligence, is enough, without infallible rules and the true science of equity and justice.
B. If this be true, it is impossible that any commonwealth in the world, whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, should continue long without change, or sedition tending to change, either of the government or of the governors.
A. It is true; nor have any the greatest commonwealths in the world been long free from sedition. The Greeks had for awhile their petty kings, and then by sedition came to be petty commonwealths; and then growing to be greater commonwealths, by sedition again became monarchies; and all for want of rules of justice for the common people to take notice of; which if the people had known in the beginning of every of these seditions, the ambitious persons could never have had the hope to disturb their government after it had been once settled. For ambition can do little without hands, and few hands it would have, if the common people were as diligently instructed in the true principles of their duty, as they are terrified and amazed by preachers, with fruitless and dangerous doctrines concerning the nature of man’s will, and many other philosophical points that tend not at all to the salvation of their souls in the world to come, nor to their ease in this life, but only to the direction towards the clergy of that duty which they ought to perform to the King.
B. For aught I see, all the states of Christendom will be subject to these fits of rebellion, as long as the world lasteth.
A. Like enough; and yet the fault (as I have said) may be easily mended, by mending the Universities.
B. How long had the Parliament now sitten?
A. It began November the 3rd, 1640. My Lord of Strafford was impeached of treason before the Lords, November the 12th, sent to the Tower November the 22nd, his trial began March the 22nd, and ended April the 13th. After his trial he was voted guilty of high-treason in the House of Commons, and after that in the Lords’ House, May the 6th; and on the 12th of May beheaded.
B. Great expedition; but could not the King, for all that, have saved him by a pardon?
A. The King had heard all that passed at his trial, and had declared himself unsatisfied concerning the justice of their sentence. And, I think, notwithstanding the danger of his own person from the fury of the people, and that he was counselled to give way to his execution, not only by such as he most relied on, but also by the Earl of Strafford himself, he would have pardoned him, if that could have preserved him against the tumult raised and countenanced by the Parliament itself, for the terrifying of those they thought might favour him. And yet the King himself did not stick to confess afterwards, that he had done amiss, in that he did not rescue him.
B. It was an argument of good disposition in the King. But I never read that Augustus Cæsar acknowledged that he had done a fault, in abandoning Cicero to the fury of his enemy Antonius: perhaps because Cicero, having been of the contrary faction to his father, had done Augustus no service at all out of favour to him, but only out of enmity to Antonius, and out of love to the senate, that is indeed out of love to himself that swayed the senate; as it is very likely the Earl of Strafford came over to the King’s party for his own ends, having been so much against the King in former Parliaments.
A. We cannot safely judge of men’s intentions. But, I have observed often, that such as seek preferment, by their stubbornness have missed of their aim; and on the other side, that those princes that with preferment are forced to buy the obedience of their subjects, are already, or must be soon after, in a very weak condition. For in a market where honour and power is to be bought with stubbornness, there will be a great many as able to buy as my Lord Strafford was.
B. You have read, that when Hercules fighting with the Hydra, had cut off any one of his many heads, there still arose two other heads in its place; and yet at last he cut them off all.
A. The story is told false. For Hercules at first did not cut off those heads, but bought them off; and afterwards, when he saw it did him no good, then he cut them off, and got the victory.
B. What did they next?
A. After the first impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, the House of Commons, upon December the 18th, accused the Archbishop of Canterbury also of high-treason, that is, of design to introduce arbitrary government, &c.; for which he was, February the 28th, sent to the Tower; but his trial and execution were deferred a long time, till January the 10th, 1643, for the entertainment of the Scots, that were come into England to aid the Parliament.
B. Why did the Scots think there was so much danger in the Archbishop of Canterbury? He was not a man of war, nor a man able to bring an army into the field; but he was perhaps a very great politician.
A. That did not appear by any remarkable event of his counsels. I never heard but he was a very honest man for his morals, and a very zealous promoter of the Church-government by bishops, and that desired to have the service of God performed, and the house of God adorned, as suitable as was possible to the honour we ought to do to the Divine Majesty. But to bring, as he did, into the State his former controversies, I mean his squabblings in the University about free-will, and his standing upon punctilios concerning the service-book and its rubrics, was not, in my opinion, an argument of his sufficiency in affairs of State.—About the same time they passed an act (which the King consented to) for a triennial Parliament; wherein was enacted, that after this present Parliament there should be a Parliament called by the King within the space of three years, and so from three years to three years, to meet at Westminster upon a certain day named in the act.
B. But what if the King did not call it, finding it perhaps inconvenient, or hurtful to the safety or peace of his people, which God hath put into his charge? For I do not well comprehend how any sovereign can well keep a people in order when his hands are tied, or when he hath any other obligation upon him than the benefit of those he governs; and at this time, for anything you have told me, they acknowledged the King for their sovereign.
A. I know not; but such was the act. And it was further enacted, that if the King did it not by his own command, then the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper for the time being, should send out the writs of summons; and if the Chancellor refused, then the Sheriffs of the several counties should of themselves, in their next county-courts before the day set down for the Parliament’s meeting, proceed to the election of the members for the said Parliament.
B. But what if the sheriffs refused?
A. I think they were to be sworn to it: but for that, and other particulars, I refer you to the act.
B. To whom should they be sworn, when there is no Parliament?
A. No doubt but to the King, whether there be a Parliament sitting or no.
B. Then the King may release them of their oath.[3] Besides, if the King, upon the refusal, should fall upon them in his anger; who shall (the Parliament not sitting) protect either the Chancellor or the sheriffs in their disobedience?
A. I pray you do not ask me any reason of such things as I understand no better than you. I tell you only an act passed to that purpose, and was signed by the King in the middle of February, a little before the Archbishop was sent to the Tower. Besides this bill, the two Houses of Parliament agreed upon another, wherein it was enacted, that the present Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the dissolution of it; which bill also the King signed the same day he signed the warrant for the execution of the Earl of Strafford.
B. What a great progress made the Parliament *towards their ends, or at least* towards the ends of the most seditious Members of both Houses in so little time! They sat down in November, and now it was May; in this space of time, which is but half a year, they won from the King the adherence which was due to him from his people; they drove his faithfullest servants from him; beheaded the Earl of Strafford; imprisoned the Archbishop of Canterbury; obtained a triennial Parliament after their own dissolution, and a continuance of their own sitting as long as they listed: which last amounted to a total extinction of the King’s right, in case that such a grant were valid; which I think it is not, unless the Sovereignty itself be in plain terms renounced, which it was not.
A. Besides, they obtained of the King the putting down the Star-chamber and High-Commission Courts.
B. But what money, by way of subsidy or otherwise, did they grant the King, in recompense of all these his large concessions?
A. None at all; but often promised they would make him the most glorious King that ever was in England; which were words that passed well enough for well meaning with the common people.
B. But the Parliament was contented now? For I cannot imagine what they could desire more from the King, than he had now granted them.
A. Yes; they desired the whole and absolute sovereignty, and to change the monarchical government into an oligarchy; that is to say, to make the Parliament, consisting of a few Lords and about four hundred Commoners, absolute in the sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside. For this was the design of the Presbyterian ministers, who taking themselves to be, by divine right, the only lawful governors of the Church, endeavoured to bring the same form of Government into the civil state. And as the spiritual laws were to be made by their synods, so the civil laws should be made by the House of Commons; who, as they thought, would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been: wherein they were deceived, and found themselves outgone by their own disciples, though not in malice, yet in wit.
B. What followed after this?
A. In August following, the King supposing he had now sufficiently obliged the Parliament to proceed no further against him, took a journey into Scotland, to satisfy his subjects there, as he had done here; intending, perhaps, so to gain their good wills, that in case the Parliament here should levy arms against him, they should not be aided by the Scots: wherein he also was deceived. For though they seemed satisfied with what he did, whereof one thing was his giving way to the abolition of episcopacy; yet afterwards they made a league with the Parliament, and for money, when the King began to have the better of the Parliament, invaded England in the Parliament’s quarrel. But this was a year or two after.
B. Before you go any further, I desire to know the ground and original of that right, which either the House of Lords, or House of Commons, or both together, now pretend to.
A. It is a question of things so long past, that they are now forgotten. Nor have we anything to conjecture by, but the records of our own nation, and some small and obscure fragments of Roman histories: and for the records, seeing they are of things done only, sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly, you can never by them know what right they had, but only what right they pretended.
B. Howsoever, let me know what light we have in this matter from the Roman histories.
A. It would be too long, and an useless digression, to cite all the ancient authors that speak of the forms of those commonwealths, which were amongst our first ancestors the Saxons and other Germans, and of other nations, from whom we derive the titles of honour now in use in England; nor will it be possible to derive from them any argument of right, but only examples of fact, which, by the ambition of potent subjects, have been oftener unjust than otherwise. And for those Saxons or Angles, that in ancient times by several invasions made themselves masters of this nation, they were not in themselves one body of a commonwealth, but only a league of divers petty German lords and states, such as was the Grecian army in the Trojan war, without other obligation than that which proceeded from their own fear and weakness. Nor were those lords, for the most part, the sovereigns at home in their own country, but chosen by the people for captains of the forces they brought with them. And therefore it was not without equity, when they had conquered any part of the land, and made some one of them king thereof, that the rest should have greater privileges than the common people and soldiers: amongst which privileges, a man may easily conjecture this to be one; that they should be made acquainted, and be of council, with him that hath the sovereignty in matter of government, and have the greatest and most honourable offices both in peace and war. But because there can be no government where there is more than one sovereign, it cannot be inferred that they had a right to oppose the King’s resolutions by force, nor to enjoy those honours and places longer than they should continue good subjects. And we find that the Kings of England did, upon every great occasion, call them together by the name of discreet and wise men of the kingdom, and hear their counsel, and make them judges of all causes, that during their sitting were brought before them. But as he summoned them at his own pleasure, so had he also ever the power at his pleasure to dissolve them. The Normans also, that descended from the Germans, as we did, had the same customs in this particular; and by this means, this privilege of the lords to be of the King’s great council, and when they were assembled, to be the highest of the King’s courts of justice, continued still after the Conquest to this day. But though there be amongst the lords divers names or titles of honour, yet they have their privilege only by the name of baron, a name received from the ancient Gauls; amongst whom, that name signified the King’s man, or rather one of his great men: by which it seems to me, that though they gave him counsel when he required it, yet they had no right to make war upon him if he did not follow it.
B. When began first the House of Commons to be part of the King’s great council?
A. I do not doubt but that before the Conquest some discreet men, and known to be so by the King, were called by special writ to be of the same council, though they were not lords; but that is nothing to the House of Commons. The knights of shires and burgesses were never called to Parliament, for aught that I know, till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., or the latter end of the reign of Henry III., immediately after the misbehaviour of the barons; and, for aught any man knows, were called on purpose to weaken that power of the lords, which they had so freshly abused. Before the time of Henry III., the lords were descended, most of them, from such as in the invasions and conquests of the Germans were peers and fellow-kings, till one was made king of them all; and their tenants were their subjects, as it is this day with the lords of France. But after the time of Henry III., the kings began to make lords in the place of them whose issue failed, titulary only, without the lands belonging to their title; and by that means, their tenants being no longer bound to serve them in the wars, they grew every day less and less able to make a party against the King, though they continued still to be his great council. And as their power decreased, so the power of the House of Commons increased; but I do not find they were part of the King’s council at all, nor judges over other men; though it cannot be denied, but a King may ask their advice, as well as the advice of any other. But I do not find that the end of their summoning was to give advice, but only, in case they had any petitions for redress of grievances, to be ready there with them whilst the King had his great council about him. But neither they nor the lords could present to the King, as a grievance, that the King took upon him to make the laws; to choose his own privy-counsellors; to raise money and soldiers; to defend the peace and honour of the kingdom; to make captains in his army, and governors of his castles, whom he pleased. For this had been to tell the King, that it was one of their grievances that he was King.
B. What did the Parliament do, whilst the King was in Scotland?
A. The King went in August; after which, the Parliament, September the 8th, adjourned till the 20th of October; and the King returned in the beginning of December following. In which time the most seditious of both Houses, and which had designed the change of government and to cast off monarchy (but yet had not wit enough to set up any other government in its place, and consequently left it to the chance of war), made a cabal amongst themselves; in which they projected how, by seconding one another, to govern the House of Commons, and invented how to put the kingdom, by the power of that House, into a rebellion, which they then called a posture of defence against such dangers from abroad, as they themselves should feign and publish. Besides, whilst the King was in Scotland, the Irish Papists got together a great party, with an intention to massacre the Protestants there, and had laid a design for the seizing of Dublin Castle, on October 23, where the King’s officers of the government of that country made their residence; and had effected it, had it not been discovered the night before. The manner of the discovery, and the murders they committed in the country afterwards, I need not tell you, since the whole story of it is extant.
B. I wonder they did not expect and provide for a rebellion in Ireland, as soon as they began to quarrel with the King in England. For was there any body so ignorant, as not to know that the Irish Papists did long for a change of religion there, as well as the Presbyterians in England? Or, that in general, the Irish nation did hate the name of subjection to England, nor would longer be quiet, than they feared an army out of England to chastise them? What better time then could they take for their rebellion than this, wherein they were encouraged, not only by our weakness caused by this division between the King and his Parliament, but also by the example of the Presbyterians, both of the Scotch and English nation? But what did the Parliament do upon this occasion, in the King’s absence?
A. Nothing; but consider what use they might make of it to their own ends; partly, by imputing it to the King’s evil counsellors, and partly, by occasion thereof to demand of the King the power of pressing and ordering soldiers; which power whosoever has, has also, without doubt, the whole sovereignty.
B. When came the King back?
A. He came back the 25th of November; and was welcomed with the acclamations of the common people, as much as if he had been the most beloved of all the Kings that were before him; but found not a reception by the Parliament, answerable to it. They presently began to pick new quarrels against him, out of everything he said to them. December the 2nd, the King called together both Houses of Parliament, and then did only recommend unto them the raising of succours for Ireland.
B. What quarrel could they pick out of that?
A. None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. The King, hearing of it, called the Houses of Parliament together again, on December the 14th, and then pressed again the business of Ireland (as there was need; for all this while the Irish were murdering the English in Ireland, and strengthening themselves against the forces they expected to come out of England): and withal, told them he took notice of the bill in agitation for pressing of soldiers, and that he was contented it should pass with a salvo jure both for him and them, because the present time was unseasonable to dispute it in.
B. What was there unreasonable in this?
A. Nothing: what is unreasonable is one question, what they quarrelled at is another. They quarrelled at this: that his Majesty took notice of that bill, while it was in debate in the House of Lords, before it was presented to him in the course of Parliament; and also that he showed himself displeased with those that propounded the said bill; both which they declared to be against the privileges of Parliament, and petitioned the King to give them reparation against those by whose evil counsel he was induced to it, that they might receive condign punishment.
B. This was a cruel proceeding. Do not the Kings of England use to sit in the Lords’ House when they please? And was not this bill in debate then in the House of Lords? It is a strange thing that a man should be lawfully in the company of men, where he must needs hear and see what they say and do, and yet must not take notice of it so much as to the same company; for though the King was not at the debate itself, yet it was lawful for any of the Lords to make him acquainted with it. Any one of the House of Commons, though not present at a proposition or debate in the House, nevertheless hearing of it from some of his fellow-members, may certainly not only take notice of it, but also speak to it in the House of Commons: but to make the King give up his friends and counsellors to them, to be put to death, banishment, or imprisonment, for their good-will to him, was such a tyranny over a king, no king ever exercised over any subject but in cases of treason or murder, and seldom then.
A. Presently hereupon began a kind of war between the pens of the Parliament and those of the secretaries, and other able men that were with the King. For upon the 15th of December they sent to the King a paper called A Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom, and with it a petition; both which they caused to be published. In the remomstrance they complained of certain mischievous designs of a malignant party, then, before the beginning of the Parliament, grown ripe; and did set forth what means had been used for the preventing of it by the wisdom of the Parliament; what rubs they had found therein; what course was fit to be taken for restoring and establishing the ancient honour, greatness, and safety, of the Crown and nation.
And of these designs the promoters and actors were (they said) 1. Jesuited Papists:
2. The bishops, and that part of the clergy that cherish formality as a support of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and usurpation:
3. Counsellors and courtiers, that for private ends (they said) had engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign princes.
B. It may very well be, that some of the bishops, and also some of the court, may have, in pursuit of their private interest, done something indiscreetly, and perhaps wickedly. Therefore I pray you tell me in particular what their crimes were: for methinks the King should not have connived at anything against his own supreme authority.
A. The Parliament were not very keen against those that were for the King,[4] they made no doubt but all they did was by the King’s command; but accused thereof the bishops, counsellors, and courtiers, as being a more mannerly way of accusing the King himself, and defaming him to his subjects. For the truth is, the charge they brought against them was so general as not to be called an accusation, but railing. As first (they said) they nourished questions of prerogative and liberty between the King and his people, to the end that, seeming much addicted to his Majesty’s service, they might get themselves into places of greatest trust and power in the kingdom.
B. How could this be called an accusation, in which there is no fact, for any accusers to apply their proofs to, or their witnesses. For granting that these questions of prerogative had been moved by them, who can prove that their end was to gain to themselves and friends the places of trust and power in the kingdom?
A. A second accusation was, that they endeavoured to suppress the purity and power of religion.
B. That is canting. ’Tis not in man’s power to suppress the power of religion.
A. They meant that they would suppress the doctrine of the Presbyterians; that is to say, the very foundation of the then Parliament’s treacherous pretensions.
A third, that they cherished Arminians, Papists, and libertines (by which they meant the common Protestants, which meddle not with disputes), to the end they might compose a body fit to act according to their counsels and resolutions.
A fourth, that they endeavoured to put the King upon other courses of raising money, than by the ordinary way of Parliaments.
Judge whether these may be properly called accusations, or not rather spiteful reproaches of the King’s government.
B. Methinks this last was a very great fault. For what good could there be in putting the King upon any odd course of getting money, when the Parliament was willing to supply him, as far as to the security of the kingdom, or to the honour of the King, should be necessary?
A. But I told you before, they would give him none, but with a condition he should cut off the heads of whom they pleased, how faithfully soever they had served him. And if he would have sacrificed all his friends to their ambition, yet they would have found other excuses for denying him subsidies; for they were resolved to take from him the sovereign power to themselves; which they could never do without taking great care that he should have no money at all. In the next place, they put into the remonstrance, as faults of them whose counsel the King followed, all those things which since the beginning of the King’s reign were by them misliked, whether faults or not, and whereof they were not able to judge for want of knowledge of the causes and motives that induced the King to do them, and were known only to the King himself, and such of his privy-council as he revealed them to.
B. But what were those particular pretended faults?
A. 1. The dissolution of his first Parliament at Oxford. 2. The dissolution of his second Parliament, being in the second year of his reign. 3. The dissolution of his Parliament in the fourth year of his reign. 4. The fruitless expedition against Calais. 5. The peace made with Spain, whereby the Palatine’s cause was deserted, and left to chargeable and hopeless treaties. 6. The sending of commissions to raise money by way of loan. 7. Raising of ship-money. 8. Enlargement of forests, contrary to Magna Charta. 9. The design of engrossing all the gunpowder into one hand, and keeping it in the Tower of London. 10. A design to bring in the use of brass money. 11. The fines, imprisonments, stigmatizings, mutilations, whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, and banishments, by sentence in the Court of Star-Chamber. 12. The displacing of judges. 13. Illegal acts of the Council-table. 14. The arbitrary and illegal power of the Earl Marshal’s Court. 15. The abuses in Chancery, Exchequer-chamber, and Court of Wards. 16. The selling of titles of honour, of judges, and serjeants’ places, and other offices. 17. The insolence of bishops and other clerks, in suspensions, excommunications, deprivations, and degradations of divers painful, learned and pious ministers.
B. Was there any such ministers degraded, deprived, or excommunicated?
A. I cannot tell. But I remember I have heard threatened divers painful, unlearned and seditious ministers.
18. The excess of severity of the High Commission-Court. 19. The preaching before the King against the property of the subject, and for the prerogative of the King above the law. And divers other petty quarrels they had to the government; which though they were laid upon this faction, yet they knew they would fall upon the King himself in the judgment of the people, to whom, by printing, they were communicated.
Again, after the dissolution of the Parliament May the 5th, 1640, they find other faults: as the dissolution itself, the imprisoning some members of both Houses, a forced loan of money attempted in London, the continuance of the Convocation, when the Parliament was ended; and the favour showed to Papists by Secretary Windebank and others.
B. All this will go current with common people for misgovernment, and for faults of the King, though some of them were misfortunes; and both the misfortunes and the misgovernment (if any were) were the faults of the Parliament; who, by denying to give him money, did both frustrate his attempts abroad, and put him upon those extraordinary ways (which they call illegal) of raising money at home.
A. You see what a heap of evils they have raised to make a show of ill-government to the people, which they second with an enumeration of the many services they have done the King in overcoming a great many of them, though not all, and in divers other things; and say, that though they had contracted a debt to the Scots of 220,000l. and had granted six subsidies, and a bill of poll-money worth six subsidies more, yet that God had so blessed the endeavours of this Parliament, that the kingdom was a gainer by it: and then follows the catalogue of those good things they had done for the King and kingdom. For the kingdom they had done (they said) these things: they had abolished ship-money *which cost the kingdom 200 thousand pounds a year*; they had taken away coat and conduct money, and other military charges, which, they said, amounted to little less than the ship-money; that they suppressed all monopolies, which they reckoned above a million yearly saved by the subject; that they had quelled living grievances, meaning evil counsellors and actors, by the death of my Lord of Strafford, by the flight of Chancellor Finch, and of Secretary Windebank, by the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Judge Bartlet, and the impeachment of other bishops and judges; that they had passed a bill for a triennial Parliament, and another for the continuance of the present Parliament, till they should think fit to dissolve themselves.
B. That is to say, for ever, if they be suffered. But the sum of all these things, which they had done for the kingdom, is: that they had left it without government, without strength, without money, without law, and without good counsel.
A. They reckoned, also, putting down of the High-Commission, and the abating of the power of the Council-table, and of the bishops and their courts; the taking away of unnecessary ceremonies in religion; removing of ministers from their livings, that were not of their faction, and putting in *their places* such as were.
B. All this was but their own, and not the kingdom’s business.
A. The good they had done the King, was first (they said) the giving of 25,000l. a month for the relief of the northern counties.
B. What need of relief had the northern, more than the rest of the counties of England?
A. Yes, in the northern counties were quartered the Scotch army which the Parliament called in to oppose the King, and consequently their quarter was to be discharged.
B. True; but by the Parliament that called them in.
A. But they say no; and that this money was given to the King, because he was bound to protect his subjects.
B. He is no further bound to that, than they give him money wherewithal to do it. This is very great impudence; to raise an army against the King, and with that army to oppress their fellow-subjects, and then require that the King should relieve them, that is to say, be at the charge of paying the army that was raised to fight against him.
A. Nay, further; they put to the King’s account the 300,000l. given to the Scots, without which they would not have invaded England; besides many other things, that I now remember not.
B. I did not think there had been so great impudence and villainy in mankind.
A. You have not observed the world long enough to see all that’s ill. Such was their remonstrance, as I have told you. With it they sent a petition, containing three points: 1. That his Majesty would deprive the bishops of their votes in Parliament, and remove such oppressions in religion, church-government, and discipline, as they had brought in; 2. That he would remove from his council all such as should promote the people’s grievances, and employ in his great and public affairs, such *persons* as the Parliament should confide in; 3. That he would not give away the lands escheated to the Crown by the rebellion in Ireland.
B. This last point, methinks, was not wisely put in at this time: it should have been reserved till they had subdued the rebels, against whom there were yet no forces sent over. ’Tis like selling the lion’s skin before they had killed him. But what answer was made to the other two propositions?
A. What answer should be made, but a denial? About the same time the King himself exhibited articles against six persons of the Parliament, five whereof were of the House of Commons and one of the House of Lords, accusing them of high-treason; and upon the 4th of January, went himself to the House of Commons to demand those five of them. But private notice having been given by some treacherous person about the King, they had absented themselves; and by that means frustrated his Majesty’s intention. And after he was gone, the House making a heinous matter of it, and a high breach of their privileges, adjourned themselves into London, there to sit as a general committee, pretending they were not safe at Westminster: for the King, when he went to the House to demand those persons, had somewhat more attendance with him (but not otherwise armed than his servants used to be) than he ordinarily had. And would not be pacified, though the King did afterwards waive the prosecution of those persons, unless he would also discover to them those that gave him counsel to go in that manner to the Parliament House, to the end they might receive condign punishment; which was the word they used instead of cruelty.
B. This was a harsh demand. Was it not enough that the King should forbear his enemies, but that he must also betray his friends? If they thus tyrannize over the King before they have gotten the sovereign power into their hands, how will they tyrannize over their fellow-subjects when they have gotten it?
A. So as they did.
B. How long stayed that committee in London?
A. Not above two or three days; and then were brought from London to the Parliament House by water in great triumph, guarded with a tumultuous number of armed men, there to sit in security in despite of the King, and make traitorous acts against him, such and as many as they listed; and under favour of these tumults, to frighten away from the House of Peers all such as were not of their faction. For at this time the rabble *of people* were so insolent, that scarce any of the bishops durst go to the House for fear of violence upon their persons; in so much as twelve of them excused themselves of coming thither, and by way of petition to the King, remonstrated that they were not permitted to go quietly to the performance of that duty, and protesting against all determinations, as of none effect, that should pass in the House of Lords during their forced absence. Which the House of Commons taking hold of, sent to the Peers one of their members, to accuse them of high-treason. Whereupon ten of them were sent to the Tower; after which time there were no more words of their high-treason; but there passed a bill, by which they were deprived of their votes in Parliament; and to this bill they got the King’s assent. And, in the beginning of September after, they voted that the bishops should have no more to do in the government of the Church; but to this they had not the King’s assent, the war being now begun.
B. What made the Parliament so averse to episcopacy; and especially the House of Lords, whereof the bishops were members? For I see no reason why they should do it to gratify a number of poor parish priests that were Presbyterians, and that were never likely any way to serve the Lords; but, on the contrary, to do their best to pull down their power, and subject them to their synods and classes.
A. For the Lords, very few of them did perceive the intentions of the Presbyterians; and, besides that, they durst not (I believe) oppose the Lower House.
B. But why were the Lower House so earnest against them?
A. Because they meant to make use of their tenets, and with pretended sanctity to make the King and his party odious to the people, by whose help they were to set up democracy, and depose the King, or to let him have the title only so long as he should act for their purposes. But not only the Parliament, but in a manner all the people of England, were their enemies, upon the account of their behaviour, as being (they said) too imperious. *[For indeed the most of them so carried themselves, as if they owed their greatness not to the King’s favour and to his letters patent, which gives them their authority, but to the merit of their (own?) conceived (wit and?) learning (and had?) no less care of the praises of each other, than they showed irritability to defend the dignity of their jurisdiction and of their office, being ever highly offended with those that dissented from their spirit or their ideas; (and consequently?) … they were reputed a little too diligent in making the best of themselves.]* This was all that was colourably laid to their charge. The main cause of pulling them down, was the envy of the Presbyterians, that incensed the people against them, and against episcopacy itself.
B. How would the Presbyterians have the Church to be governed?
A. By national and provincial synods.
B. Is not this to make the national assembly an archbishop, and the provincial assemblies so many bishops?
A. Yes; but every minister shall have the delight of sharing in the government, and consequently of being able to be revenged on those that do not admire their learning and help to fill their purses, and win to their service those that do.
B. It is a hard case, that there should be two factions to trouble the commonwealth, without any interest in it of their own, other than every particular man may have; and that their quarrel should be only about opinions, that is, about who has the most learning; as if their learning ought to be the rule of governing all the world. What is it they are learned in? Is it politics and rules of state? I know, it is called divinity; but I hear almost nothing preached but matter of philosophy. For religion in itself admits no controversy. It is a law of the kingdom, and ought not to be disputed. I do not think they pretend to speak with God and know his will by any other way than reading the Scriptures, which we also do.
A. Yes, some of them do, and give themselves out for prophets by extraordinary inspiration. But the rest pretend only (for their advancement to benefices and charge of souls) a greater skill in the Scriptures than other men have, by reason of their breeding in the Universities, and knowledge there gotten of the Latin tongue, and some also of the Greek and Hebrew tongues, wherein the Scripture was written; besides their knowledge of natural philosophy, which is there publicly taught.
B. As for the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, it was once (to the detection of Roman fraud, and to the ejection of the Romish power) very profitable, or rather necessary; but now that is done, and we have the Scripture in English, and preaching in English, I see no great need of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. I should think myself better qualified by understanding well the languages of our neighbours, French, Dutch, and Spanish.—I think it was never seen in the world, before the power of popes was set up, that philosophy was much conducing to power in a commonwealth.
B. But philosophy, together with divinity, have very much conduced to the advancement of the professors thereof to places of greatest authority, next to the authority of kings themselves, in most of the ancient kingdoms of the world; as is manifestly to be seen in the history of those times.
B. I pray you cite me some of the authors and places.
A. First, what were the Druids of old time in Britanny and France? What authority these had you may see in Cæsar, Strabo, and others, and especially in Diodorus Siculus, the greatest antiquary perhaps that ever was; who speaking of the Druids (whom he calls Sarovides) in France, says thus:—“There be also amongst them certain philosophers and theologians, that are exceedingly honoured, whom they also use as prophets. These men, by their skill in augury and inspection into the bowels of beasts sacrificed, foretell what is to come, and have the multitude obedient to them.” And a little after—“It is a custom amongst them, that no man may sacrifice without a philosopher; because (say they) men ought not to present their thanks to the Gods, but by them that know the divine nature, and are as it were of the same language with them; and that all good things ought by such as these to be prayed for.”
B. I can hardly believe that those Druids were very skilful, either in natural philosophy, or moral.
A. Nor I; for they held and taught the transmigration of souls from one body to another, as did Pythagoras; which opinion whether they took from him, or he from them, I cannot tell.
What were the Magi in Persia, but philosophers and astrologers? You know how they came to find our Saviour by the conduct of a star, either from Persia itself, or from some country more eastward than Judea. Were not these in great authority in their country? And are they not in most parts of Christendom thought to have been Kings?
Egypt hath been by many thought the most ancient kingdom, and nation of the world; and their priests had the greatest power in civil affairs, that any subjects ever had in any nation. And what were they but philosophers and divines? Concerning whom, the same Diodorus Siculus says thus: “The whole country (of Egypt) being divided into three parts, the body of the priests have one as being of most credit with the people, both for their devotion towards the Gods, and also for their understanding gotten by education”; and presently after, “For generally these men, in the greatest affairs of all, are the King’s counsellors, partly executing, and partly informing and advising him; foretelling him also (by their skill in astrology and art in the inspection of sacrifices) the things that are to come, and reading to him out of their holy books such of the actions there recorded, as are profitable for him to know. It is not there as in Greece, one man or one woman that has the priesthood; but they are many that attend the honours and sacrifices of the Gods, and leave the same employment to their posterity, which, next to the King, have the greatest power and authority.”
Concerning the judicature amongst the Egyptians, he saith thus: “From out of the most eminent cities, Hieropolis, Thebes, and Memphis, they choose judges, which are a council not inferior to that of Areopagus in Athens, or that of the senate in Lacedæmon. When they are met, being in number thirty, they choose one from amongst themselves to be chief-justice, and the city whereof he is, sendeth another in his place. This chief-justice wore about his neck, hung in a gold chain, a jewel of precious stones, the name of which jewel was truth; which, when the chief-justice had put on, then began the pleading, &c.; and when the judges had agreed on the sentence, then did the chief-justice put this jewel of truth to one of the pleas.” You see now what power was acquired in civil matters by the conjuncture of philosophy and divinity.[5]
Let us come now to the commonwealth of the Jews. Was not the priesthood in a family (namely, the Levites) as well as the priesthood of Egypt? Did not the high-priest give judgment by the breastplate of Urim and Thummim? Look upon the kingdom of Assyria, and the philosophers called Chaldeans. Had they not lands and cities belonging to their family, even in Abraham’s time, who dwelt (you know) in Ur of the Chaldeans? Of these the same author says thus: “The Chaldeans are a sect in politics, like to that of the Egyptian priests; for being ordained for the service of the Gods, they spend the whole time of their life in philosophy; being of exceeding great reputation in astrology, and pretending much also to prophecy, foretelling things to come by purifications and sacrifices, and to find out by certain incantations the preventing of harm, and the bringing to pass of good. They have also skill in augury, and in the interpretation of dreams and wonders, nor are they unskilful in the art of foretelling by the inwards of beasts sacrificed; and have their learning not as the Greeks; for the philosophy of the Chaldeans goes to their family by tradition, and the son receives it from his father.”
From Assyria let us pass into India, and see what esteem the philosophers had there. “The whole multitude” (says Diodorus) “of the Indians, is divided into seven parts; whereof the first, is the body of philosophers; for number the least, for eminence the first; for they are free from taxes, and as they are not masters of others, so are no others masters of them. By private men they are called to the sacrifices and to the care of burials of the dead, as being thought most beloved of the Gods and skilful in the doctrine concerning hell; and for this employment receive gifts and honours very considerable. They are also of great use to the people of India; for being taken at the beginning of the year into the great assembly, they foretell them of great drouths, great rains, also of winds, and of sickness, and of whatsoever is profitable for them to know beforehand.”
The same author, concerning the laws of the Æthiopians, saith thus: “The laws of the Æthiopians seem very different from those of other nations, and especially about the election of their Kings. For the priests propound some of the chief men amongst them, named in a catalogue, and whom the God (which, according to a certain custom, is carried about to feastings) does accept of; him the multitude elect for their King, and presently adore and honour him as a God, put into the government by divine providence. The King being chosen, he has the manner of his life limited to him by the laws, and does all other things according to the custom of the country, neither rewarding nor punishing any man otherwise than from the beginning is established amongst them by law. Nor use they to put any man to death, though he be condemned to it, but to send some officer to him with a token of death; who seeing the token, goes presently to his house, and kills himself.” And presently after: “But the strangest thing of all is, that which they do concerning the death of their Kings. For the priests that live in Meroe, and spend their time about the worship and honour of their Gods, and are in greatest authority; when they have a mind to it, send a messenger to the King to bid him die, for that the Gods have given such order, and that the commandments of the immortals are not by any means to be neglected by those that are, by nature, mortal; using also other speeches to him, which men of simple judgment, and that have not reason enough to dispute against those unnecessary commands, as being educated in an old and indelible custom, are content to admit of. Therefore in former times the Kings did obey the priests, not as mastered by force and arms, but as having their reason mastered by superstition. But in the time of Ptolemy II., Ergamenes, King of the Æthiopians, having had his breeding in philosophy after the manner of the Greeks, being the first that durst despise their power, took heart as befitted a King; came with soldiers to a place called Abaton, where was then the golden temple of the Æthiopians; killed all the priests, abolished the custom, and rectified the kingdom according to his will.”
B. Though they that were killed were damnable impostors, yet the act was cruel.
A. It was so. But were not the priests cruel, to cause their Kings, whom a little before they adored as Gods, to make away themselves? The King killed them, for the safety of his person; they him, out of ambition, or love of change. The King’s act may be coloured with the good of his people; the priests had no pretence against their kings, who were certainly very godly, or else would never have obeyed the command of the priests by a messenger unarmed, to kill themselves. Our late King, the best King perhaps that ever was, you know, was murdered, having been first persecuted by war, at the incitement of Presbyterian ministers; who are therefore guilty of the death of all that fell in that war; which were, I believe, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, near 100,000 persons. Had it not been much better that those seditious ministers, which were not perhaps 1000, had been all killed before they had preached? It had been (I confess) a great massacre; but the killing of 100,000 is a greater.
B. I am glad the bishops were out at this business. As ambitious as some say they are, it did not appear in that business, for they were enemies to them that were in it. *[Though they pretended a divine right (not depending upon the King’s leave) to the government of the Church, yet being but few in number, and not much in favour with the people, how could they choose but be (on the King’s side?)]*
A. I intend not by these quotations to commend either the divinity or the philosophy of those heathen people; but to show only what the reputation of those sciences can effect among the people. For their divinity was nothing but idolatry; and their philosophy (excepting the knowledge which the Egyptian priests, and from them the Chaldeans, had gotten by long observation and study in astronomy, geometry, and arithmetic), very little; and that in great part abused in astrology and fortune-telling. Whereas the divinity of the clergy in this nation, considered apart from the mixture (that has been introduced by the Church of Rome, and in part retained here) of the babbling philosophy of Aristotle and other Greeks, that has no affinity with religion, and serves only to breed disaffection, dissension, and finally sedition and civil war (as we have lately found by dear experience in the differences between the Presbyterians and Episcopals), is the true religion. But for these differences both parties, as they came into power, not only suppressed the tenets of one another, but also whatsoever doctrine looked with an ill aspect upon their interest; and consequently all true philosophy, especially civil and moral, which can never appear propitious to ambition, or to an exemption from their obedience due to the sovereign power. *[That reputation they have in the sciences, hath not proceeded from anything they have effected by those sciences, but from the infirmity of the people that understand nothing in them, and admire nothing but what they understand not. There was lately erected a company of gentlemen for the promoting of natural philosophy and mathematics. What they will produce, I know not yet, but this I am sure of, that the authority of licensing the books that are to be written of that subject, is not in them, but in some divines, who have little knowledge in physics, and none at all in mathematics.]*
After the King had accused the Lord Kimbolton, a member of the Lords’ house; and Hollis, Haslerigg, Hampden, Pym, and Stroud, five members of the Lower House, of high-treason; and after the Parliament had voted out the bishops from the House of Peers; they pursued especially two things in their petitions to his Majesty: the one was, that the King would declare who were the persons that advised him to go, as he did, to the Parliament-house to apprehend them, and that he would leave them to the Parliament to receive condign punishment. And this they did, to stick upon his Majesty the dishonour of deserting his friends, and betraying them to his enemies. The other was, that he would allow them a guard out of the city of London, to be commanded by the Earl of Essex; for which they pretended, they could not else sit in safety; which pretence was nothing but an upbraiding of his Majesty for coming to Parliament better accompanied than ordinary, to seize the five seditious members.
B. I see no reason *why* in petitioning for a guard, they should determine it to the city of London in particular, and the command by name to the Earl of Essex, unless they meant the King should understand it for a guard against himself.
A. Their meaning was, that the King should understand it so, and (as I verily believe) they meant he should take it for an affront; and the King himself understanding it so, denied to grant it, though he were willing, if they could not otherwise be satisfied, to command such a guard to wait upon them as he would be responsible for to God Almighty. Besides this, the city of London petitioned the King (put upon it, no doubt, by some members of the Lower House) to put the Tower of London into the hands of persons of trust, meaning such as the Parliament should approve of, and to appoint a guard for the safety of his Majesty and the Parliament. This method of bringing petitions in tumultuary manner, by great multitudes of clamorous people, was ordinary with the House of Commons, whose ambition could never have been served by way of prayer and request, without extraordinary terror.
After the King had waived the prosecution of the five members, but denied to make known who had advised him to come in person to the House of Commons, they questioned the Attorney-General, who by the King’s command had exhibited the articles against them, and voted him a breaker of the privilege of Parliament; and no doubt had made him feel their cruelty, if he had not speedily fled the land.
About the end of January, they made an order of both Houses of Parliament, to prevent the going over of popish commanders into Ireland; not so much fearing that, as that by this occasion the King himself choosing his commanders for that service, might aid himself out of Ireland against the Parliament. But this was no great matter, in respect of a petition they sent his Majesty about the same time, that is to say, about the 27th or 28th of January, 1641, wherein they desired in effect the absolute sovereignty of England; though by the name of sovereignty they challenged it not whilst the King was living. For to the end that the fears and dangers in this kingdom might be removed, and the mischievous designs of those who are enemies to the peace of it might be prevented, they pray: that his Majesty would be pleased to put forthwith, first, the Tower of London, secondly, all other forts, thirdly, the whole militia of the kingdom, into the hands of such persons as should be recommended to him by both the Houses of Parliament. And this they style a necessary petition.
B. Were there really any such fears and dangers generally conceived here, or did there appear any enemies at that time with such designs as are mentioned in the petition?
A. Yes. But no other fear of danger, than such as any discreet and honest man might justly have of the designs of the Parliament itself, who were the greatest enemies to the peace of the kingdom that could possibly be. It is also worth observing, that this petition began with these words, “Most gracious Sovereign”: so stupid they were as not to know, that he that is master of the militia, is master of the kingdom, and consequently is in possession of a most absolute sovereignty. The King was now at Windsor, to avoid the tumults of the common people before the gates of Whitehall, together with their clamours and affronts there. The 9th of February after, he came to Hampton Court, and thence he went to Dover with the Queen, and the Princess of Orange, his daughter; where the Queen with the Princess of Orange embarked for Holland, but the King returned to Greenwich, whence he sent for the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, and so went with them towards York.
B. Did the Lords join with the Commons in this petition for the militia?
A. It appears so by the title; but I believe they durst not but do it. The House of Commons took them but for a cypher; men of title only, without real power. Perhaps also the most of them thought, that the taking of the militia from the King would be an addition to their own power; but they were very much mistaken, for the House of Commons never intended them sharers in it.
B. What answer made the King to this petition?
A. “That when he shall know the extent of power which is intended to be established in those persons, whom they desire to be the commanders of the militia in the several counties; and likewise to what time it shall be limited, that no power shall be executed by his Majesty alone without the advice of Parliament; then he will declare, that (for the securing them from all dangers or jealousies) his Majesty will be content to put into all the places, both of forts and militia in the several counties, such persons as both the Houses of Parliament shall either approve, or recommend unto him; so that they declare before unto his Majesty the names of the persons whom they approve or recommend, unless such persons shall be named, against whom he shall have just and unquestionable exceptions.”
B. What power, for what time, and to whom, did the Parliament require,[6] concerning the militia?
A. The same power which the King had placed before[7] in his lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants, in the several counties, and without other limitation of time but their own pleasure.
B. Who were the men that should have this power?[8]
A. There is a catalogue of them printed. They are very many, and most of them lords; nor is it necessary to have them named; for to name them is (in my opinion) to brand them with the mark of disloyalty or of folly. When they had made a catalogue of them, they sent it to the King, with a new petition for the militia. Also presently after, they sent a message to his Majesty, praying him to leave the Prince at Hampton Court; but the King granted neither.
B. Howsoever, it was wisely done[9] of them to get hostages (if they could) of the King, before he went from them.
A. In the meantime, to raise money for the reducing of Ireland, the Parliament invited men to bring in money by way of adventure, according to these propositions. 1. That two millions and five hundred thousand acres of land in Ireland, should be assigned to the adventurers, in this proportion:
| For an adventure of | 200l. 1,000 acres in Ulster. |
| """ | 300l. 1,000 acres in Connaught. |
| """ | 450l. 1,000 acres in Munster. |
| """ | 600l. 1,000 acres in Leinster. |
All according to English measure, and consisting of meadow, arable, and profitable pasture; bogs, woods, and barren mountains being cast in over and above. 2. A revenue was reserved to the Crown, from one penny to three-pence on every acre. 3. That commissions should be sent by the Parliament, to erect manors, settle wastes and commons, maintain preaching ministers, to create corporations, and to regulate plantations. The rest of the propositions concern only the times and manner of payment of the sums subscribed by the adventurers. And to these propositions his Majesty assented; but to the petition of the militia, his Majesty denied his assent.
B. If he had not, I should have thought it a great wonder. What did the Parliament after this?
A. They sent him another petition, which was presented to him when he was at Theobald’s, in his way to York; wherein they tell him plainly, that unless he be pleased to assure them by those messengers then sent, that he would speedily apply his royal assent to the satisfaction of their former desires, they shall be enforced, for the safety of his Majesty and his kingdoms, to dispose of the militia by the authority of both Houses, &c. They petition his Majesty also to let the Prince stay at St. James’s, or some other of his Majesty’s houses near London. They tell him also, that the power of raising, ordering, and disposing of the militia, cannot be granted to any corporation, without the authority and consent of the Parliament; and that those parts of the kingdom, which have put themselves into a posture of defence, have done nothing therein but by direction of both Houses, and what is justifiable by the laws of this kingdom.
B. What answer made the King to this?
*A. He gave them a flat denial, not only of the militia, but also of the Prince’s residence about London. After which they presently fell to voting as followeth: first, That this his Majesty’s answer was a denial of the militia. 2. That those that advised his Majesty to it were enemies to the State. 3. That such parts of this kingdom, as had put themselves into a posture of defence, had done nothing but what was justifiable.
B. What is it which they called a posture of defence?*
A. It was a putting of themselves into arms, and under officers such as the Parliament should approve of. 4. They vote that his Majesty should be again desired that the Prince might continue about London. Lastly, they vote a declaration to be sent to his Majesty by both the Houses; wherein they accuse his Majesty of a design of altering religion, though not directly him, but them that counselled him; whom they also accused of being the inviters and fomenters of the Scotch war, and framers of the rebellion in Ireland; and upbraid the King again for accusing the Lord Kimbolton and the five members, and of being privy to the purpose of bringing up his army, which was raised against the Scots, to be employed against the Parliament. To which his Majesty sent his answer from Newmarket. Whereupon it was resolved by both Houses, that in this case of extreme danger and of his Majesty’s refusal, the ordinance agreed upon by both Houses for the militia doth oblige the people by the fundamental laws of this kingdom; and also, that whosoever shall execute any power over the militia, by colour of any commission of lieutenancy, without consent of both Houses of Parliament, shall be accounted a disturber of the peace of the kingdom. Whereupon his Majesty sent a message to both Houses from Huntingdon, requiring obedience to the laws established, and prohibiting all subjects, upon pretence of their ordinance, to execute anything concerning the militia which is not by those laws warranted. Upon this, the Parliament vote a standing to their former votes; as also, that when the Lords and Commons in Parliament, which is the supreme court of judicature in the kingdom, shall declare what the law of the land is, to have this not only questioned, but contradicted, is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament.
B. I thought that he that makes the law, ought to declare what the law is. For what is it else to make a law, but to declare what it is? So that they have taken from the King, not only the militia, but also the legislative power.
A. They have so; but I make account that the legislative power (and indeed all power possible) is contained in the power of the militia. After this, they seize such money as was due to his Majesty upon the bill of tonnage and poundage, and upon the bill of subsidies, that they might disable him every way they possibly could. They sent him also many other contumelious messages and petitions after his coming to York; amongst which one was: “That whereas the Lord Admiral, by indisposition of body, could not command the fleet in person, he would be pleased to give authority to the Earl of Warwick to supply his place;” when they knew the King had put Sir John Pennington into *that employment* before.[10]
B. To what end did the King entertain so many petitions, messages, declarations and remonstrances, and vouchsafe his answers to them, when he could not choose but clearly see they were resolved to take from him his royal power, and consequently his life? For it could not stand with their safety to let either him or his issue live, after they had done him so great injuries.
A. Besides this, the Parliament had at the same time a committee residing in York *both* to spy what his Majesty did, and to inform the Parliament thereof, and also to hinder the King from gaining the people of that county to his party: so that when his Majesty was courting the gentlemen there, the committee was instigating of the yeomanry against him. To which also the ministers did very much contribute; so that the King lost his opportunity at York.
B. Why did not the King seize the committee into his hands, or drive them out of the town?
A. I know not; but I believe he knew the Parliament had a greater party than he, not only in Yorkshire but also in York. Towards the end of April, the King, upon petition of the people of Yorkshire to have the magazine of Hull to remain still there, for the greater security of the northern parts, thought fit to take it into his own hands. He had a little before appointed governor of that town the Earl of Newcastle; but the townsmen, having been already corrupted by the Parliament, refused to receive him, but refused not to receive Sir John Hotham, appointed to be governor *there* by the Parliament. The King therefore coming before the town, guarded only by his own servants, and a few gentlemen of the country thereabouts, was denied entrance by Sir John Hotham, that stood upon the wall; for which act he presently caused Sir John Hotham to be proclaimed traitor, and sent a message to the Parliament, requiring justice to be done upon the said Hotham, and that the town and magazine might be delivered into his hands. To which the Parliament made no answer, but instead thereof published another declaration, in which they omitted nothing of their former slanders against his Majesty’s government, but inserted certain propositions declarative of their own pretended right: viz. 1. That whatsoever they declare to be law, ought not to be questioned by the King: 2. That no precedents can be limits to bound their proceedings: 3. That a Parliament, for the public good, may dispose of anything wherein the King or subject hath a right; and that they, without the King, are this Parliament, and the judge of this public good, and that the King’s consent is not necessary: 4. That no member of either House ought to be troubled for treason, felony, or any other crime, unless the cause be first brought before the Parliament, that they may judge of the fact and give leave to proceed, if they see cause: 5. That the sovereign power resides in both Houses, and that the King ought to have no negative voice: 6. That the levying of forces against the personal commands of the King (though accompanied with his presence) is not levying war against the King, but the levying of war against *his politic person,* viz., his laws, &c., though not *accompanied with* his person, is levying war against the King: 7. That treason cannot be committed against his person, otherwise than as he is entrusted with the kingdom and discharges that trust; and that they have a power to judge whether he *have* discharged this trust or not: 8. That they may dispose of the King when they will.
B. This is plain dealing and without hypocrisy. Could the city of London swallow this?
A. Yes; and more too, if need be. London, you know, has a great belly, but no palate nor taste of right and wrong. In the Parliament-roll of Henry IV., amongst the articles of the oath the King at his coronation took, there is one runs thus: Concedes justas leges et consuetudines esse tenendas; et promittis per te eas esse protegendas, et ad honorem Dei corroborandas, quas vulgus elegerit. Which the Parliament urged for their legislative authority, and therefore interpret quas vulgus elegerit, which the people shall choose; as if the King should swear to protect and corroborate laws before they were made, whether they be good or bad; whereas the word signifies no more, but that he shall protect and corroborate such laws as they have chosen, that is to say, the Acts of Parliament then in being. And in the records of the Exchequer it is thus: “Will you grant to hold and keep the laws and rightful customs which the commonalty of this your kingdom have, and will you defend and uphold them? &c.” And this was the answer his Majesty made to that point.
B. And I think this answer very full and clear. But if the words were to be interpreted in the other sense, yet I see no reason why the King should be bound to swear to them. For Henry IV. came to the Crown by the votes of a Parliament not much inferior in wickedness to this Long Parliament, that deposed and murdered their lawful King; saving that it was not the Parliament itself, but the usurper that murdered King Richard II.
A. About a week after, in the beginning of May, the Parliament sent the King another paper, which they styled the humble petition and advice of both Houses, containing nineteen propositions; which, when you shall hear, you will be able to judge what power they meant to leave to the King, more than to any one of his subjects. The first of them is this:
1. That the Lords and others of his Majesty’s privy-council, and all great officers *and ministers* of state, both at home and abroad, be put from their employments and from his council, save only such as should be approved of by both Houses of Parliament; and none put into their places but by approbation of the said Houses. And that all privy-councillors take an oath for the due execution of their places, in such form as shall be agreed upon by the said Houses.
2. That the great affairs of the kingdom be debated, resolved, and transacted only in Parliament; and such as shall presume to do anything to the contrary, be reserved to the censure of the Parliament; and such other matters of state, as are proper for his Majesty’s privy-council, shall be debated and concluded, by such as shall from time to time be chosen for that place by both Houses of Parliament; and that no public act concerning the affairs of the kingdom, which are proper for his privy-council, be esteemed valid, as proceeding from the royal authority, unless it be done by the advice and consent of the major part of the council, attested under their hands; and that the council be not more than twenty-five, nor less than fifteen; and that when a councillor’s place falls void in the interval of Parliament, it shall not be supplied without the assent of the major part of the council; and that such choice also shall be void, if the next Parliament after confirm it not.
3. That the Lord High Steward of England, Lord High Constable, Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy-Seal, Earl Marshal, Lord Admiral, Warden of the Cinque Ports, Chief Governor of Ireland, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Wards, Secretaries of State, two Chief Justices and Chief Baron, be always chosen with approbation of both Houses of Parliament; and in the intervals of Parliaments by the major part of the privy-council.
4. That the governors of the King’s children shall be such as both Houses shall approve of; and in the intervals of Parliament, such as the privy-council shall approve of; that the servants then about them, against whom the Houses have just exception, shall be removed.
5. That no marriage be concluded or treated of for any of the King’s children, without consent of Parliament.
6. That the laws in force against Jesuits, priests, and popish recusants, be strictly put in execution.
7. That the votes of Popish lords in the House of Peers be taken away, and that a bill be passed for the education of the children of Papists in the Protestant religion.
8. That the King will be pleased to reform the Church-government and liturgy in such manner as both Houses of Parliament shall advise.
9. That he would be pleased to rest satisfied with that course that the Lords and Commons have appointed for ordering the militia; and recall his declarations and proclamations against it.
10. That such members as have been put out of any place or office since this Parliament began, may be restored, or have satisfaction.
11. That all privy-councillors and judges take an oath (the form whereof shall be agreed on and settled by act of Parliament), for the maintaining of the Petition of Right, and of certain statutes made by this Parliament.
12. That all the judges and officers placed by approbation of both Houses of Parliament, may hold their places quam diu bene se gesserint.
13. That the justice of Parliament may pass upon all delinquents, whether they be within the kingdom or fled out of it; and that all persons cited by either House of Parliament, may appear and abide the censure of Parliament.
14. That the general pardon offered by his Majesty, be granted with such exceptions as shall be advised by both Houses of Parliament.
B. What a spiteful article was this! All the rest proceeded from ambition, which many times well-natured men are subject to; but this proceeded from an inhuman and devilish cruelty.
A. 15. That the forts and castles be put under the command of such persons as, with the approbation of the Parliament, the King shall appoint.
16. That the extraordinary guards about the King be discharged; and for the future none raised but according to the law, in case of actual rebellion or invasion.
B. Methinks these very propositions sent to the King are an actual rebellion.
A. 17. That his Majesty *be pleased to* enter into a more strict alliance with the United Provinces, and other neighbour Protestant Princes and States.
18. That his Majesty be pleased, by act of Parliament, to clear the Lord Kimbolton and the five members of the House of Commons, in such manner as that future Parliaments may be secured from the consequence of that evil precedent.
19. That his Majesty be pleased to pass a bill for restraining peers made hereafter, from sitting or voting in Parliament, unless they be admitted with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
These propositions granted, they promise to apply themselves to regulate his Majesty’s revenue to his best advantage, and to settle it to the support of his royal dignity in honour and plenty; and also to put the town of Hull into such hands as his Majesty shall appoint with consent of Parliament.
B. Is not that to put it into such hands as his Majesty shall appoint by the consent of the petitioners, which is no more than to keep it in their hands as it is? Did they want, or think the King wanted, common sense, so as not to perceive that their promise herein was worth nothing?
A. After the sending of these propositions to the King, and his Majesty’s refusal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for war. The King raising a guard for his person in Yorkshire; and the Parliament, thereupon having voted that the King intended to make war upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the people in arms, and published propositions to invite and encourage them to bring in either ready money or plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain numbers of horse, horsemen, and arms, for the defence of the King and Parliament (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws); promising to repay their money with interest of 8l. in the 100l. and the value of their plate with twelve-pence the ounce for the fashion. On the other side, the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his standard royal, and sent out commissions of array to call those to him, which by the ancient laws of England were bound to serve him in the wars. Upon this occasion there passed divers declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the legality of this array, which are too long to tell you at this time.
B. Nor do I desire to hear any mooting about this question. For I think that general law of salus populi, and the right of defending himself against those that had taken from him the sovereign power, are sufficient to make legal whatsoever he should do in order to the recovery of his kingdom, or to the punishing of the rebels.
A. In the meantime the Parliament raised an army, and made the Earl of Essex general thereof; by which act they declared what they meant formerly, when they petitioned the King for a guard to be commanded by the said Earl of Essex. And now the King sends out his proclamations, forbidding obedience to the orders of the Parliament concerning the militia; and the Parliament send out orders against the execution of the commissions of array. Hitherto, though it were a war before, yet there was no blood shed; they shot at one another nothing but paper.
B. I understand now, how the Parliament destroyed the peace of the kingdom; and how easily, by the help of seditious Presbyterian ministers, and of ambitious ignorant orators, they reduced this government into anarchy. But I believe it will be a harder task for them to bring in peace again, and settle the government, either in themselves, or in any other governor, or form of government. For, granting that they obtained the victory in this war, they must be beholding for it to the valour, good conduct, or felicity of those to whom they give the command of their armies; especially to the general, whose good success will, without doubt, draw with it the love and admiration of the soldiers; so that it will be in his power, either to take the government upon himself, or to place it where he himself thinks good. In which case, if he take it not to himself, he will be thought a fool; and if he do, he shall be sure to have the envy of his subordinate commanders, who *will* look for a share either in the present government, or in the succession to it. For they will say: “Has he obtained this power by his own, without our danger, valour, and counsel? and must we be his slaves, whom we have thus raised? Or, is not there as much justice on our side against him, as was on his side against the King?”
A. They will, and did; insomuch, that it was the reason why Cromwell, after he had gotten into his own hands the absolute power of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by the name of Protector, did never dare to take upon him the title of King, nor was ever able to settle it upon his children. His officers would not suffer it, as pretending after his death to succeed him; nor would the army consent to it, because he had ever declared to them against the government of a single person.
B. But to return to the King. What means had he to pay, what provision had he to arm, nay, means to levy, an army able to resist the army of the Parliament, maintained by the great purse of the city of London, and contributions of almost all the towns corporate in England, and furnished with arms, as fully as they could require?
A. ’Tis true, the King had great disadvantages, and yet by little and little he got a considerable army, with which he so prospered, as to grow stronger every day, and the Parliament weaker; till they had gotten the Scots, with an army of 21,000 men, to come into England to their assistance. But to enter into the particular narration of what was done in the war, I have not now time.
B. Well then; we will talk of that at next meeting.
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ obscure men that could.
- ↑ After “democratical assemblies,” there follows in the MS. an illegible word and these further words: “and generally in all assemblies,” which have been erased.
- ↑ The words of A: “Besides … Courts,” have been transposed to a wrong place, after “release them of their oath,” in the former edd.
- ↑ Keen against them that were against the King edd. which has been corrected as above, by the author’s own hand, in the MS.
- ↑ B. Was this kind of government and judicature in Egypt used in the time that [Jews] Moses lived there?
A. [Yes.] I know not. This question and answer have been erased in the MS. by H.’s own hand.
- ↑ did the Parliament grant.
- ↑ which the King had before planted.
- ↑ the men that had this power?
- ↑ it was well done.
- ↑ Pennington in it before.