Defense of the People of England, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
I Wiſh, Salmaſius, that you had left out this part of your Diſcourſe concerning the King's crimes, which it had been more adviſable for your ſelf and your party to have done, for I'm afraid leſt in giving you an anſwer to it, I ſhould appear too ſharp and ſevere upon him, now he is dead, and hath received his puniſhment. But ſince you choſe rather to diſcourſe confidently and at large upon that Subject, I'le make you ſenſible, that you could not have done a more inconſiderate thing, than to reſerve the worſt part of your cauſe to the laſt, to wit that of ripping up and enquiring into the Kings Crimes; which when I ſhall have proved them to have been true and moſt exorbitant, they will render his memory unpleaſant and odious to all good men, and imprint now in the cloſe of the Controverſie, a juſt hatred of you, who undertake his defence, on the Readers minds. Say you, His accuſation may be divided into two parts, one is converſant about his Morals, the other taxeth him with ſuch …lts as he might commit in his publick capacity. I'le be … to paſs by in ſilence that part of his life that he ſpent in Banque…tings, at Plays, and in the converſation of Women; for what can there be in Luxury and Exceſs, worth relating? And what would thoſe things have been to us, if he had been a private perſon? But ſince he would be a King, as he could not live a private life, ſo neither could his Vices be like thoſe of a private perſon. For in the firſt place, he did a great deal of miſchief by his example: In the ſecond place, all that time that he ſpent upon his luſt, and in his ſports, which was a great part of his time, he ſtole from the State, the Government of which he had undertaken. Thirdly and laſtly, he ſquandered away vaſt Sums of Money, which were not his own, but the publick Revenue of the Nation, in his Domeſtick Luxury and Extravagance. So that in his private life at home he firſt began to be an ill King. But let us rather paſs over to thoſe Crimes that he is charged with on the account of miſgovernment. Here you lament his being condemned as a Tyrant, a Traytor, and a Murderer. That he had no wrong done him, ſhall now be made appear. But firſt let us define a Tyrant, not according to vulgar conceits, but the judgment of Ariſtotle, and of all Learned Men. He is a Tyrant who regards his own welfare and profit only, and not that of the people. So Ariſtotle defines one in the Tenth Book of his Ethicks, and elſewhere, and ſo do very many others. Whether Charles regarded his own or the peoples good, theſe few things of many that I ſhall but touch upon, will evince. When his Rents and other publick Revenues of the Crown would not defray the Expences of the Court, he laid moſt heavy Taxes upon the people; and when they were ſquandred away, he invented new ones; not for the benefit, honour, or defence of the State, but that he might hoard up, or laviſh out in one Houſe, the Riches and Wealth, not of one but of three Nations. When at this rate he broke looſe, and acted without any colour of Law to warrant his proceedings, knowing that a Parliament was the only thing that could give him check, he endeavoured either wholly to lay aſide the very calling of Parliaments, or calling them juſt as often, and no oftner, than to ſerve his own turn, to make them entirely at his devotion. Which Bridle when he had caſt off himſelf, he put another Bridle upon the people; he put Garriſons of German Horſe and Iriſh Foot in many Towns and Cities, and that in time of Peace. Do you think he does not begin to look like a Tyrant? In which very thing, as in many other Particulars, which you have formerly given me occaſion to inſtance in, (though you ſcorn to have Charles compared with ſo cruel a Tyrant as Nero) he reſembled him extremely much. For Nero likewiſe often threatned to take away the Senate. Beſides, he bore extreme hard upon the Conſciences of good men, and compelled them to the uſe of Ceremonies and Superſtitious Worſhip, borrowed from Popery, and by him re-introduced into the Church. They that would not conform, were impriſoned or Baniſht. He made War upon the Scots twice for no other cauſe than that. By all theſe actions he has ſurely deſerved the name of a Tyrant once over at leaſt. Now l'le tell you why the word Traytor was put into his Indictment: When he aſſured his Parliament by Promiſes, by Proclamations, by Imprecations, that he had no deſign againſt the State, at that very time did he Liſt Papiſts in Ireland, he ſent a private Embaſſie to the King of Denmark to beg aſſiſtance from him of Arms, Horſes and Men, expreſly againſt the Parliament; and was endeavouring to raiſe an Army firſt in England, and then in Scotland. To the Engliſh he promiſed the Plunder of the City of London, to the Scots, that the four Northern Counties ſhould be added to Scotland, if they would but help him to get rid of the Parliament, by what means ſoever. Theſe Projects not ſucceeding, he ſent over one Dillon a Traytor, into Ireland with private Inſtructions to the Natives, to fall ſuddenly upon all the Engliſh that inhabited there. Theſe are the moſt remarkable inſtances of his Treaſons, not taken up upon hear-ſay and idle reports, but diſcovered by Letters under his own Hand and Seal. And finally I ſuppoſe no man will deny that he was a Murderer, by whoſe order the Iriſh took Arms, and put to death with moſt exquiſite Torments, above a hundred thouſand Engliſh, who lived peaceably by them, and without any apprehenſion of danger; and who raiſed ſo great a Civil War in the other two Kingdoms. Add to all this, that at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight, the King openly took upon himſelf the guilt of the War, and clear'd the Parliament in the Confeſſion he made there, which is publickly known. Thus you have in ſhort why King Charles was adjudged a Tyrant, a Traytor, and a Murderer. But, ſay you, why was he not declared ſo before, neither in that Solemn League and Covenant, nor afterwards when he was delivered to them, either by the Presbyterians or the Independents, but on the other hand was receiv'd as a King ought to be, with all reverence? This very thing is ſufficient to perſuade any rational man, that the Parliament entred not into any Councils of quite depoſing the King, but as their laſt refuge, after they had ſuffered and undergone all that poſſibly they could, and had attempted all other ways and means. You alone endeavour maliciouſly to lay that to their charge, which to all good men cannot but evidence their great Patience, Moderation, and perhaps a too long forbearing with the King's Pride and Arrogance. But in the month of Auguſt, before the King ſuffered, the Houſe of Commons, which then bore the only ſway, and was governed by the Independants, wrote Letters to the Scots, in which they acquainted them that they never intended to alter the form of Government that had obtain'd ſo long in England under King, Lords, and Commons. You may ſee from hen…e, how little reaſon there is to aſcribe the depoſing of the King, to the principles of the Independents. They, that never uſed to diſſemble and conceal their Tenents, even then, when they had the ſole management of affairs, profeſs, That they never intended to alter the Government. But if afterwards a thing came into their minds, which at firſt they intended not, why might they not take ſuch a courſe, tho before not intended, as appear'd moſt adviſable, and moſt for the Nation's Intereſt? Eſpecially when they found that the King could not poſſibly be intreated or induced to aſſent to thoſe juſt demands that they had made from time to time, and which were always the ſame from firſt to laſt. He perſiſted in thoſe perverſe ſentiments with reſpect to Religion and his own Right, which he had all along eſpouſed, and which were ſo deſtructive to us; not in the leaſt altered from the man that he was, when in Peace and War, he did us all ſo much miſchief. If he aſſented to any thing, he gave no obſcure hints that he did it againſt his will, and that whenever he ſhould come into power again, he would look upon ſuch his Aſſent as null and void. The ſame thing his Son declared by writing under his hand, when in thoſe days he ran away with part of the Fleet, and ſo did the King himſelf by Letters to ſome of his own Party in London. In the mean time, againſt the avowed ſenſe of the Parliament, he ſtruck up a private Peace with the Iriſh, the moſt barbarous Enemies imaginable to England, upon baſe diſhonourable terms; but whenever he invited the Engliſh to Treaties of Peace, at thoſe very times with all the power he had, and intereſt he could make, he was preparing for War. In this caſe, what ſhould they do, who were intruſted with the care of the Government? Ought they to have betrayed the ſafety of us all to our moſt bitter Adverſary? Or would you have had them le… us to undergo the Calamities of another Seven years War, not to ſay worſe? God put a better mind into them, of preferring, purſuant to that very ſolemn League and Covenant, their Religion, and Liberties, before thoſe thoughts they once had, of not rejecting the King; for they had not gone ſo far as to vote it; all which they ſaw at laſt, (tho indeed later than they might have done), could not poſſibly ſubſiſt, as long as the King continued King. The Parliament ought and muſt of neceſſity be entirely free, and at liberty to provide for the good of the Nation, as occaſion requires; nor ought they ſo to be wedded to their firſt Sentiments, as to ſcruple the altering their minds, for their own, or the Nation's good, if God put an opportunity into their hands of procuring it. But the Scots were of … opinion; for they, in a Letter to Charles, the King's Son, call his Father a moſt Sacred Prince, and the putting him to death, a moſt execrable Villany. Do not you talk of the Scots, whom you know not; we know them well enough, and know the time, when they called that ſame King, a moſt …rable perſon, a Murtherer, and Traytor; and the putting a Tyrant to Death a moſt ſacred action. Then you pick holes in the King's Charge, as not being properly penn'd; and you ask why we needed to call him a Traytor and a Murtherer, after we had ſtiled him a Tyrant; ſince the word Tyrant, includes all the Crimes that may be: And then you explain to us grammatically and critically, what a Tyrant is. Away with thoſe Triſles, you Pedagogue, which that one definition of Ariſtotle's, that has lately beeen cited, will utterly confound; and teach ſuch a Doctor as you, That the word Tyrant (for all your concern is barely to have ſome underſtanding of words) may be applied to one, who is neither a Traytor nor a Murtherer. But the Laws of England do not make it Treaſon in the King to ſtir up Sedition againſt himſelf or the people. Nor do they ſay, That the Parliament can be guilty of Treaſon by depoſing a bad King, nor that any Parliament ever was ſo, tho they have often done it; but our Laws plainly and clearly declare, that a King may violate, diminiſh, nay, and wholly loſe his Royalty. For that expreſſion in the Law of St. Edward, of loſing the name of a King, ſignifies neither more nor leſs, than being deprived of the Kingly Office and Dignity; which befel Chilperic King of France, whoſe example, for illuſtration-ſake, is taken notice of in the Law it ſelf. There is not a Lawyer amongſt us that can deny, but that the higheſt Treaſon may be committed againſt the Kingdom as well as againſt the King. I appeal to Glanvile himſelf, whom you cite, If any man attempt to put the King to death, or raiſe Sedition in the Realm, it is High Treaſon. So, that attempt of ſome Papiſts to blow up the Parliament-Houſe, and the Lords and Commons there with Gunpowder, was by King James himſelf, and both Houſes of Parliament, declared to be High Treaſon, not againſt the King only, but againſt the Parliament and the whole Kingdom. 'T would be to no purpoſe to quote more of our Statutes, to prove ſo clear a Truth; which yet I could eaſily do. For the thing it ſelf is ridiculous, and abſurd to imagine, That High Treaſon may be committed againſt the King, and not againſt the people, for whoſe good nay, and by whoſe leave, as I may ſay, the King is what he is: So that you babble over ſo many Statutes of ours to no purpoſe; you toil and wallow in our Ancient Law-Books, to no purpoſe; for the Laws themſelves ſtand or fall by Authority of Parliament, who always had power to confirm or repeal them; and the Parliament is the ſole Judge of what is Rebellion, what High Treaſon (Iaeſa Majeſtas) and what not. Majeſty never was veſted to that degree in the Perſon of the King, as not to be more conſpicuous, and more Auguſt in Parliament, as I have often ſhown: But who can endure to hear ſuch a ſenſeleſs Fellow, ſuch a French Mountebank as you, declare what our Laws are? And you Engliſh Fugitives, ſo many Biſhops, Doctors, Lawyers, who pretend that all Learning and Ingenuous Literature, is fled out of England with your ſelves, was there not one of you that could defend the King's Cauſe and your own, and that in good Latin too, to be ſubmitted to the judgment of other Nations, but that this brain-ſick, beggarly Frenchman muſt be hired to undertake the Defence of a poor indigent King, ſurrounded with ſo many Infant-Prieſts and Doctors? This very thing I aſſure you, will be a great imputation to you amongſt Foreigners; and you will be thought deſervedly to have loſt that Cauſe that you were ſo far from being able to defend by Force of Arms, as that you cannot ſo much as write in behalf of it. But now. I come to you again, good-man gooſe-cap, who ſcribble ſo finely; if at leaſt you are come to your ſelf again; for I find you here towards the latter end of your Book, in a deep ſleep, and dreaming of ſome voluntary Death or other, that's nothing to the purpoſe. Then you deny that 'tis poſſible for a King in his right wits to embroil his people in Seditions, to betray his own Forces to be ſlaughtered by Enemies, and raiſe Factions againſt himſelf. All which things having been done by many Kings, and particularly by Charles the late King of England, you will no longer doubt, I hope, eſpecially being addicted to Stoiciſm, but that all Tyrants, as well as profligate Villains are downright mad. Hear what Horace ſays, Whoever through a ſenſeleſs Stupidity, or any other cauſe whatſoever, hath his Underſtanding ſo blinded, as not to diſcern truth, the Stoicks account of him as of a mad-man: And ſuch are whole Nations, ſuch are Kings and Princes, ſuch are all Man kind? except thoſe very few that are Wiſe. So that if you would clear King Charles from the Imputation of acting like a Mad-man, you muſt firſt vindicate his integrity, and ſhow that he never acted like an ill man. But a King, you ſay, cannot commit Treaſon againſt his own Subjects and Vaſſals. In the firſt place, ſince we are as free as any People under Heaven, we will not be impos'd upon by any Barbarous Cuſtom of any other Nation whatſoever. In the ſecond place, Suppoſe we had been the King's Vaſſals; that Relation would not have obliged us to endure a Tyrant to Reign and Lord it over us. All Subjection to Magiſtrates, as our own Laws declare, is circumſcribed, and confined within the bounds of Honeſty, and the Publick Good. Read Leg. Hen. 1. Cap. 55. The Obligation betwixt a Lord and his Tenants, is mutual, and remains ſo long as the Lord protects his Tenant; (this all our Lawyers tells us) but if the Lord be too ſevere and cruel to his Tenant, and do him ſome heinous Injury, The whole Relation betwixt them, and whatever Obligation the Tenant is under by having done Homage to his Lord, is utterly diſſolv'd and extinguiſh'd. Theſe are the very words of Bracton and Fleta. So that in ſome Caſe, the Law it ſelf warrants even a Slave, or a Vaſſal to oppoſe his Lord, and allows the Slave to kill him, if he vanquiſh him in Battle. If a City, or a whole Nation may not lawfully take the Courſe with a Tyrant; the Condition of Freemen will be worſe than that of Slaves. Then you go about to excuſe King Charles's ſhedding of Innocent Blood; partly by Murders committed by other Kings, and partly by ſome Inſtances of Men put to Death by them lawfully. For the matter of the Iriſh Maſſacre, you refer the Reader to foreign, and I refer you to Eiconoclaſtes. The Town of Rochel being taken, and the Townſ-men betray'd, aſſiſtance ſhown, but not afforded them, you will not have laid at Charlos's door; nor have I any thing to ſay, whether he was faulty in that buſineſs or not; he did miſchief enough at home; we need not enquire into what Miſdemeanors he was guilty of abroad. But you in the mean time would make all the Proteſtant Churches, that have at any time defended themſelves by force of Arms againſt Princes, who were profeſs'd Enemies of their Religion to have been guilty of Rebellion. Let them conſider how much it concerns them for the maintaining their Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, and aſſerting their own Integrity, not to paſs by ſo great an Indignity offered them by a Perſon bred up by and amongſt themſelves. That which troubles us moſt, is, that the Engliſh likewiſe were betray'd in that Expedition. He, who had deſign'd long ago to convert the Government of England into a Tyranny, thought he could not bring it to paſs, till the Flower and Strength of the Military Power of the Nation were cut off. Another of his Crimes was, the cauſing ſome words to be ſtruck out of the uſual Coronation-oath, before he himſelf would take it. Unworthy and abominable Action! The Act was wicked in it ſelf; what ſhall be ſaid of him that undertakes to juſtifie it? For, by the Eternal God, what greater breach of Faith, and Violation of all Laws can poſſibly be imagin'd? What ought to been more ſacred to him, next to the Holy Sacraments themſelves, than that Oath? Which of the two do you think the more flagitious Perſon, him that offends againſt the Law, or him that endeavours to make the Law equally guilty with himſelf? Or rather him who ſubverts the Law it ſelf, that he may not ſeem to offend againſt it? For thus, that King violated that Oath which he ought moſt religiouſly to have ſworn to; but that he might not ſeem openly and publickly to violate it, he craftily adulterated and corrupted it; and leaſt he himſelf ſhould be accounted perjur'd, he turn'd the very Oath into a Perjury. What other could be expected, then that his Reign would be full of Injuſtice, Craft, and Misfortune, who began it with ſo deteſtable an Injury to his People? And who durſt pervert and adulterate that Law which he thought the only Obſtacle that ſtood in his way, and hindred him from perverting all the reſt of the Laws? But that Oath (thus you juſtify him) lays no other Obligation upon Kings, then the Laws themſelves do; and Kings pretend that they will be bound and limited by Laws, tho indeed they are altogether from under the Power of Laws. Is it not prodigious, that a Man ſhould dare to expreſs himſelf ſo ſacrilegiouſly, and ſo ſenſeleſly, as to aſſert that am Oath ſacredly ſworn upon the Holy Evangeliſts, mary be diſpenſed with, and ſet aſide as a little inſignifi cant thing, without any Cauſe whatſoever! Charles himſelf refutes you, you Prodigy of Impiety: Who thinking that Oath no light matter, choſe rather by a Subterfuge to avoid the force of it, or by a Fallacy to elude it, than openly to violate it; and would rather falſifie and corrupt the Oath, then manifeſtly forſwear himſelf after he had taken it. But, The King indeed ſwears to his People, as the People do to him; but the People ſwear Fidelity to the King, not the King to them. Pretty Invention! Does not he that promiſes, and binds himſelf by an Oath to do any thing to, or for another, oblige his Fidelity to them that require the Oath of him? Of a truth, every King ſw…ears Fidelity, and Service, and Obedience to the People, with reſpect to the performance of whatever he promiſeth upon Oath to do. Then you run back to William the Conqueror, who was forced more than once to ſwear to perform, not what he himſelf would, b…t what the People, and the great Men of the Realm requir'd of him. If many Kings are Crown'd without the uſual Solemnity, and Reign without taking any Oath, the ſame thing may be ſaid of the People; a great many of whom never took the Oath of Allegiance. If the King by not taking an Oath be at Liberty, the People are ſo too. And that part of the People that has ſworn, ſwore not to the King only, but to the Realm, and the Laws, by which the King came to his Crown; and no otherwiſe to the King, than wh…ſt he ſhould act according to thoſe Laws, that the Common People, that is, the Houſe of Commons, ſhould chuſe; (quas Vulgus elegerit.) For it were folly to alter the Phraſe of our Law, and turn it into more genuine Latin. This Clauſe (Quas Vulgus elegerit;) Which the Commons ſhall abuſe, Charles before he was Crown'd, procured to be razed out. But, ſay you, without the King's aſſent the People can chuſe no Laws; and for this you cite two Statutes, viz. Anno 37 H. 6. Cap. 15. and 13 Edw. 4. Cap. 8. but thoſe two Statutes are ſo far from appearing in our Statute-books, that in the years you mention, neither of thoſe Kings enacted any Laws at all. Go now and complain, That thoſe Fugitives who pretended to furniſh you with matter out of our Statutes, impoſed upon you in it; and let other People in the mean time ſtand aſtoniſh'd at your Impudence and Vanity, who are not aſham'd to pretend to be throughly vers'd in ſuch Books, as it is ſo evident you have never look'd into, nor ſo much as ſeen. And that Clauſe in the Coronation-Oath, which ſuch a brazen-fac'd Brawler as you call fictitious, The King's Friends, you ſay your ſelf, acknowledge that it may poſſibly be extant in ſome Ancient Copies, but that it grew into diſuſe, becauſe it had no convenient ſignification. But for that very reaſon, did our Anceſtors inſert it in the Oath, that the Oath might have ſuch a ſignification as would not be for a Tyrant's conveniency. If it had really grown into diſuſe, which yet is moſt falſe; there was the greater need of reviving it; but even that would have been to no purpoſe, according to your Doctrine: For that Cuſtom of taking an Oath, as Kings now-adays generally uſe it, is no more, you ſay, then a bare Ceremony. And yet the King, when the Biſhops were to be put down, pretended that he could not do it by reaſon of that Oath. And conſequently, that reverend and ſacred Oath, as it ſerves for the Kings turn or not, muſt be ſolemn and binding, or an empty Ceremony. Which I earneſtly entreat my Country-men to take notice of, and to conſider what manner of a King they are like to have, if he ever … back. For it would never have entred into the thoughts of this Raſcally-foreign Grammarian to write a Diſcourſe of the Rights of the Crown of England unleſs both Charles Stuart now in Baniſhment▪ and tainted with his Fathers Principles, and thoſe Proſ…igate Tutors that he has along with him, had indu…uiouſly to ſuggeſted him what they would have writ. They dictated to him, That the whole Parliament were liable to be proceded againſt as Traitors, becauſe they declar'd without the Kings Aſſent all them to be Traitors, who had taken up Arms againſt the Parliament of England; and that the Parliaments were but the King's Vaſſals: That the Oath which our Kings take at their Coronations, is but a Ceremony: And why not that a Vaſſal too? So that no reverence of Laws, no ſacredneſs of an Oath, will be ſufficient to protect your Lives and Fortunes, either from the Exorbitance of a furious, or the Revenge of an exaſperated Prince, who has been ſo inſtructed from his Cradle, as to think Laws, Religion, nay, and Oaths themſelves ought to be ſubject to his Will and Pleaſure. How much better is it, and more becoming your ſelves, if you deſire Riches, Liberty, Peace, and Empire, to obtain them aſſuredly by your own Virtue, Induſtry, Prudence, and Valour, than to long after, and hope for them in vain under the Rule of a King? They, who are of opinion that theſe things cannot be compaſs'd, but under a King, and a Lord; it cannot well be expreſſed how mean, how baſe; I do not ſay, how unworthy thoughts they have of themſelves; for in effect, what do they other than confeſs, that they themſelves are lazy, weak, ſenſeleſs, ſilly Perſons, and fram'd for Slavery, both in Body and Mind? And indeed all manner of Slavery is ſcandalous and diſgraceful to a freeborn ingenious Perſon; but for you, after you have recovered your loſt Liberty by God's Aſſiſtance, and your own Arms; after the performance of ſo many valiant Exploits, and the making ſo remarkable an Example of a moſt Potent King, to deſire to return again into a Condition of Bondage and Slavery, will not only be ſcandalous and diſgraceful, but an impious and wicked thing; and equal to that of the Iſraelites, who for deſiring to return to the Egyptian Slavery, were ſo ſeverely puniſh'd for that ſordid, ſlaviſh Temper of mind, and ſo many of them deſtroy'd by that God, who had been their Deliverer. But what ſay you now, who would perſwade us to become Slaves? The King, ſay you, had a Power of pardoning ſuch as were guilty of Treaſon, and other Crimes; which evinces ſufficiently, that the King himſelf was under no Law. The King might indeed pardon Treaſon, not againſt the Kingdom, but againſt himſelf; and ſo may any body elſe pardon wrongs done to themſelves; and he might, perhaps, pardon ſome other Offences, tho not always; but does that follow, becauſe in ſome Caſes he had the Right of ſaving a Malefactor's life, that therefore he muſt have a Right to deſtroy all good Men? If the King be impleaded in an inferior Court, he is not obliged to Anſwer, but by his Attorney: Does it therefore follow, that when he is ſummon'd by all his Subjects to appear in Parliament, he may chuſe whether he will appear or no, and refuſe to Anſwer in Person? You ſay, That we endeavour to juſtify what we have done by the Hollander's Example; and upon this occaſion, fearing the loſs of that Stipend with which the Hollanders seed ſuch a Murraine and Peſt as you are, if by reviling the Engliſh, you ſhould conſequentially reflect upon them that maintain you, you endeavour to demonſtrate how unlike their Actions and ours are. The Compariſon that you make betwixt them, I reſolve to omit (tho many things in it are moſt falſe, and other things flattery all over, which yet you thought your ſelf obliged to put down, to deſerve your Penſion.) For the Engliſh think they need not alledge the Examples of Foreigners for their Juſtification. They have Municipal Laws of their own, by which they have acted; Laws with relation to the matter in hand, the beſt in the World: They have the Examples of their Anceſtors, Great and Gallant Men for their imitation, who never gave way to the Exorbitant Power of Princes, and who have put many of them to Death, when their Government became inſupportable. They were born free, they ſtand in need of no other Nation, they can make what Laws they pleaſe for their own good Government. One Law in particular they have a great Veneration for, and a very Ancient one it is, enacted by Nature it ſelf, That all Humane Laws, all Civil Right and Government muſt have a reſpect to the ſafety and welfare of good Men, and not be ſubject to the Luſts of Princes. From hence to the end of your Book, I find nothing but Rubbiſh and Trifles, pick'd out of the former Chapters; of which you have here raiſed ſo great a heap, that I cannot imagine what other design you could have in it, than to preſage the ruin of your whole Fabrick. At laſt, after an infinite deal of tittle tatle, you make an end, calling God to witneſs, that you undertook the defence of this Cauſe, not only becauſe you were deſired ſo to do, but becauſe your own Conſcience told you, that you could not poſſibly undertake the Defence of a better. Is it fit for you to intermed…le with our matters, with which you have nothing to do, becauſe you were deſired, when we our ſelves did not deſire you? to reproach with contumelious and opprobrious language, and in a Printed Book, the Supreme Magiſtracy of the Engliſh Nation, when according to the authority and power that they are entruſted with, they do but their duty within their own Juriſdiction, and all this without the leaſt injury or provocation from them (for they did not ſo much as know that there was ſuch a man in the world as you)? And I pray by whom were you deſired? By your Wife, I ſuppoſe, who, they ſay, exerciſes a Kingly Right and Juriſdiction over you; and whenever ſhe has a mind to it (as Fulvia is made to ſpeak in that obſcene Epigram, that you collected ſome Centoes out of, Pag. 320.) cries, Either write, or let's fight; That made you write perhaps, leſt the …ignal ſhould be given. Or were you asked by Charles the Younger, and that pro…ligate Gang of V…gabond Courtiers, and like a ſecond Balaam call'd upon by another Balak to reſtore a deſperate Cauſe by ill writing, that was loſt by ill fighting? That may be; but there's this difference, for he was a wiſe underſtanding man, and rid upon an Aſs that could ſpeak, to curſe the People of God: Thou art a very talkative Aſs they ſelf, and rid by a Woman, and being ſurrounded with the healed heads of the Biſhops that heretofore thou hadſt wounded, thou ſeem'ſt to repreſent that Beaſt in the Revelation. But they ſay that a little after you had written this Book, you repented of what you had done. 'Tis well if it be ſo; and to make your repentance publick, I think the beſt courſe that you can take will be, for this long Book that you have writ, to take a Halter, and make one long Letter of your ſelf. So Judas Iſcariot repented, to whom you are like; and that young Charles knew, which made him ſend you the Purſe, Judas his Badg; for he had heard before, and found afterward by experience, that you were an Apoſtate and a Devil. Judas betray'd Chriſt himſelf, and you betray his Church; you have taught heretofore that Biſhops were Antichriſtian, and you are now revolted to their party: You now undertake the Defence of their Cauſe, whom formerly you damn'd to the pit of Hell: Chriſt delivered all men from Bondage, and you endeavour to enſlave all mankind. Never queſtion, ſince you have been ſuch a Villain to God himſelf, his Church, and all mankind in general, but that the ſame fate attends you that befel your equal, out of deſpair rather than repentance, to be weary of your life, and hang your ſelf, and burſt aſunder as he did; and to ſend before-hand that faithleſs and treacherous Conſcience of yours, that railing Conſcience at good and holy men, to that place of torment that's parpared for you. And now I think, through God's aſſiſtance, I have finiſhed the Work I undertook, to wit, the defence of the Noble Actions of my Country-men at home and abroad, againſt the raging and envious madneſs of this diſtracted Sophiſter; and the aſſerting of the common Rights of the People againſt the unjuſt domination of Kings, not out of any hatred to Kings, but Tyrants: Nor have I wittingly left unanſwered any one argument alledged by my adverſary, nor any one example or authority quoted by him, that ſeem'd to have any force in it, or the leaſt colour of an argument. Perhaps I have been guilty rather of the other extreme, of replying to ſome of his fooleries and trifles, as if they were ſolid arguments, and thereby may ſeem to have attributed more to them than they deſerved. One thing yet remains to be done, which perhaps is of the greateſt concern of all, and that is, That you, my Country-men, refute this adverſary of yours your ſelves; which I do not ſee any other means of your effecting, than by a conſtant endeavour to out-do all men's bad words by your own good deeds. When you laboured under more ſorts of oppreſſion than one, you betook your ſelves to God for refuge, and he was graciouſly pleaſed to hear your moſt earneſt Prayers and Deſires. He has gloriouſly delivered you, the firſt of Nations, from the two greateſt miſchiefs of this life, and moſt pernicious to Vertue, Tyranny and Superſtition; he has endued you with greatneſs of mind, to be firſt of mankind, who after having conquered their own King, and having had him delivered into their hands, have not ſcrupled to condemn him Judicially, and purſuant to that Sentence of Condemnation, to put him to death. After the performing ſo Glorious an Action as this, you ought to do nothing that's mean and little, not ſo much as to think of, much leſs to do any thing but what is great and ſublime. Which to attain to, this is, your only way; As you have ſubdued your Enemies in Field, ſo to make appear, that unarmed, and in the higheſt outward peace and tranquility, you of all mankind are beſt able to ſubdue Ambition, Avarice, the love of Riches, and can beſt avoid the corruptions that Proſperity is apt to introduce; (which generally ſubdue and triumph over other Nations) to ſhow as great Juſtice, Temperance and Moderation in the maintaining your Liberty, as you have ſhown courage in freeing your ſelves from ſlavery. Theſe are the only Arguments by which you will be able to evince that you are not ſuch perſons as this fellow repreſents you, Traytors, Robbers, Murderers, Par…icides, Mad-men; that you did not put your King to death out of any ambitious deſign, or a deſire of invading the Rights of others, not out of any ſeditious Principles or ſiniſter ends; that it was not an act of fury or madneſs; but that it was wholly out of love to your Liberty, your Religion, to Juſtice, Vertue, and your Countrey, that you puniſhed a Tyrant. But if it ſhould fall out otherwiſe (which God forbid) if as you have been valiant in War, you ſhould grow debauch'd in Peace, you that have had ſuch viſible demonſtrations of the Goodneſs of God to your ſelves, and his Wrath againſt your Enemies; and that you ſhould not have learned by ſo eminent, ſo remarkable an example before your eyes, to fear God, and work Righteouſneſs, for my part, I ſhall eaſily grant and confeſs (for I cannot deny it) whatever ill men may ſpeak or think of you, to be very true. And you will find in a little time, That God's Diſpleaſure againſt you, will be greater th…n it has yet been againſt your Adverſaries, greater than his Grace and Favour has been to your ſelves, which you have had larger experience of, than any other Nation under Heaven.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Milton, Defense of the People of England (1692)