« VorigeDoorgaan »
But what need we any further search after the law of other lands, for that which is so fully and so plainly set down lawful in our own? Where ancient books tell us, Bracton, Fleta, and others, that the king is under law, and inferiour to his court of parliament ; that although his place “ to do justice” be highest, yet that he stands as liable “ to receive justice," as the meanest of his kingdom. Nay, Alfred the moft worthy king, and by fome accounted first abfolute monarch of the Saxons here, fo ordained; as is cited out of an ancient law-book called “the Mirror;" in " rights of the kingdom," p. 31, where it is complained on, “as the fovereign abuse of all,” that “ the king should be deemed above the law, whereas he ought to be the subject to it by his oath.” Of which oath anciently it was the last claufe, that the king “should. be as liable, and obedient to luffer right, as others of his people.” · And indeed it were but fond and senseless, that the king should be accountable to every petty fuit in leffer courts, as we all know he was, and not be subject to the judicature of parliament in the main matters of our common fafety or destruction; that he should be answerable in the ordinary course of law for any wrong done to a private person, and not answerable in court of parliament for destroying the whole kingdom. By all this, and much more that might be added, as in an argument overcopious rather than barren,' we see it manifest that all laws, both of God and man, are made without exemption of any person whomsoever; and that if kings presume to overtop the law by which they reign for the public good, they are by law to be reduced into order ; and that can no way be more justly, than by those who exalt them to that high place. For who should better understand their own laws, and when they are tranfgreft, than they who are governed by them, and whose consent first made them? And who can have more right to take knowledge of things done within a free nation, than they within themselves?
Those objected oaths of allegiance and supremacy we fwore, not to his person, but as it was invested with his authority; and his authority was by the people first given him conditionally, in law, and under law, and under oath
also for the kingdom's good, and not otherwise; the oaths then were interchanged, and mutual; stood and fell totogether; he swore fidelity to his trust; (not as a deluding ceremony, but as a real condition of their admitting him for king; and the conqueror himself swore it oftener than at his crowning :) they fwore homage and fealty to his person in that trust. There was no reason why the kingdom should be further bound by oaths to him, than he by his coronation 'oath to us, which he hath every way broken : and having broken, the ancient crown oath of Alfred above-mentioned conceals not his penalty.
As for the covenant, if that be meant, certainly no discreet person can imagine it should bind us to him in any stricter sense than those oaths formerly. The acts of hostility, which we received from him, were no such dear obligements, that we should owe him more fealty and defence for being our enemy, than we could before when we took him only for a king. They were accused by him and his party to pretend liberty and reformation, but to have no other end than to make themselves great and to destroy the king's person and authority. For which reason they added that third article, testifying to the world, that as they were resolved to endeavour first a reformation in the church, to extirpate prelacy, to preserve the rights of parliament, and the liberties of the : kingdom, so they intended, so far as it might consist with the preservation and defence of these, to preserve the king's person and authority; but not otherwise. As far as this comes to, they covenant and swear in the fixth article, to preserve and defend the persons and authority of one another, and all those that enter into that league; so that this covenant gives no unlimitable exemption to the king's person, but gives to all as much defence and preservation as to him, and to him as much as to their own persons, and no more; that is to say, in order and subordination to those main ends, for which we live and are a nation of men joined in fociety either christian, or at least human. But if the covenant were made absolute, to preserve and defend any one whomfoever, without respect had, either to the true religion,
or those other superiour things to be defended and preserved however, it cannot then be doubted, but that the covenant was rather a most foolish, hasty, and unlawful vow, than a deliberate and well-weighed covenant ; swearing us into labyrinths and repugnances, no way to be folved or reconciled, and therefore no way to be kept; as first offending against the law of God, to vow the absolute preservation, defence, and maintaining of one man, though in his fins and offences never so great and heinous against God or his neighbour; and to except a person from justice, whereas his law excepts none. Secondly, it offends against the law of this nation, wherein, as hath been proved, kings in receiving justice, and undergoing due trial, are not differenced from the meanest subject. Lastly, it contradiéts and offends against the covenant itself, which vows in the fourth article to bring to open trial and condign punishment all those that shall be found guilty of such crimes and delinquencies, whereof the king, by his own letters and other undeniable testi- : monies not brought to light till afterward, was found and convicted to be chief actor in what they thought him, at the time of taking that covenant, to be overruled only by evil counsellors; and those, or whomsoever they should discover to be principal, they vowed to try, either by their own “fupreme judicatories,” (for so even then they called them,) " or by others having power from them to that effect.” So that to have brought the king to condign punishment hath not broke the covenant, but it would have broke the covenant to have saved him from those judicatories, which both nations declared in that covenant to be fupreme against any person whatfoever. And besides all this, to swear in covenant the bringing of his evil counsellors and accomplices to condign punishment, and not only to leave unpunished and untouched the grand offender, but to receive himn back again from the accomplishment of so many violences and mischiefs, dipped from head to foot, and stained over with the blood of thousands that were his faithful fubjects, forced to their own defence against a civil war by him first raised upon them; and to receive him thus, in this gory pickle, to all his dignities and honours, VOL. III,
may be concourt
easily this and
covering the ignominions and horrid purple robe of innocent blood, that fat so close about him, with the glorious purple of royalty and fupreme rule, the reward of highest excellence and virtue here on earth; were not only to swear and covenant the performance of an unjust vow, the strangest and most impious to the face of God, but were the most unwise and unprudential act as to civil government. For so long as a king shall find by experience, that, do the worst he can, his subjects, overawed by the religion of their own covenant, will only prosecute his evil instruments, not dare to touch his person; and that whatever hath been on his part offended or tranfgreffed, he shall come off at last with the same reverence to his person, and the same honour as for well doing, he will not fail to find them work; seeking far and near, and inviting to his court all the concourse of evil counsellors, or agents, that may be found : who, tempted with preferments and his promise to uphold them, will hazard easily their own heads, and the chance of ten to one but they shall prevail at last, over men so quelled and fitted to be slaves hy the false conceit of a religious covenant. And they in that superstition neither wholly yielding, nor to the utmost refifting, at the upshot of all their foolish war and expense, will find to have done no more but fetched a compass only of their miseries, ending at the fame point of slavery, and in the fame distractions wherein they first begun. But when kings themselves are made as liable to punishment as their evil counsellors, it will be both as dangerous from the king himself as from his parliament, to those that evil counsel him: and they, who else would be his readicft agents in evil, will then not fear to dissuade or to disobey him, not only in respect of themselves and their own lives, which for his fake they would not seem to value, but in respect of that danger which the king himself may incur, whom they would seem to love and serve with greatest fidelity. On all these grounds therefore of the covenant itself, whether religious or political, it appears likeliest, that both the English parliament and the Scotch commissioners, thus interpreting the covenant, (as indeed at that time they were the best and most authentical interpreters joined
rom himialy declared long them
together) answered the king unanimously, in their letter dated January the 13th, 1645, that till security and satisfaction first given to both kingdoms for the blood spilled, for the Irish rebels brought over, and for the war in Ireland by him fomented, they could in nowise yield their consent to his return. Here was fatisfaction, full two years and upward after the covenant taken, dedemanded of the king by both nations in parliament for crimes at least capital, wherewith they charged him. And what satisfaction could be given for so much blood, but justice upon him that spilled it? till which done, they neither took themselves bound to grant him the exercise of his regal office by any meaning of the covenant which they then declared (though other meanings have been fince contrived) nor so much regarded the safety of his person, as to admit of his return among them from the midft of those whom they declared to be his greatest enemies; nay from himself as from an actual enemy, not as from a king, they. demanded security. But if the covenant, all this notwithstanding, swore otherwise to preserve him than in the preservation of true religion and our liberties, against which he fought, if not in arms, yet in refolution, to his dying day, and now after death still fights again in this his book, the covenant was better broken, than he faved. And God hath teftified by all propitious and the most evident fign, whereby in these latter times he is wont to testify what pleases him, that such a folemn and for many ages unexampled act of due punishment was no mockery of justice, but a moft grateful and well-pleasing facrifice. Neither was it to cover their perjury, as he accuses, but to uncover his perjury to the oath of his coronation...
The rest of his discourse quite forgets the title ; and turns his meditations upon death into obloquy and bitter vehemence against his “judges and accufers ;" imitating therein, not our Saviour, but his grandmother Niary
queen of Scots, as also in the most of his other scruples, · exceptions and evasions; and from whom he seems to
have learnt, as it were by heart, or else by kind, that which is thought by his admirers to be the most virtuous, most manly, most christian, and most martyr like, both