fon you can prefume it to be a Defign to fubvert the Laws, fince you know he had fworn to defend them before, in the first Article of the Oath, from which I wonder how you can fuppose, that so wife a Prince (as you acknowledge him to be) could be fo irrational to believe himself abfolute by this Omiffion. But you are not without further Contradiction yet, for if he were fo perfidious a Violater of Oaths, as you would have the World believe, what reafon had he to be confcientious of taking them? Certainly he hath little Cause to be nice what Oaths he takes, that hath no regard what Oaths he breaks.

Nor can I poffibly understand your other Conftruction of his Refufal to take the Oath, as his Predeceffors had done, which you will have a Defign to refufe his Affent to fuch good Laws, rather than bad Ones, as the Parlia ment should tender; for befides the abfurd Conceits, that he must still-like the bad better than the good, if you confider what you fay afterwards, the charitable Sence will appear, by your own Words, to be the trueft; for you confefs he gave his-Affent to any bad G 2

one

one, elfe you had not been fain, for want of fuch, to accufe him of a few good ones, as you do there; which of thefe is most probable, let every rational Chriftian judge.

Your next Argument to prove the King's Defign to deftroy the Law, is thus order'd: Thofe Knights that were by an old Statute to attend at the King's Coronation, being promised by his Proclamation (in Regard of the Infection then spread thro' theKingdom) a Difpenfation for their Abfence, were after fined at the Council-Table; no doubt by the Procurement of fome of your own Tribe, where they pleading the Proclamation for their Indemnity, were anfwer'd, That the Law of the Land was above any Proclamation: Your Conclufion is therefore, TheKing had a Defign to fubvert the Laws: Sure there is no Man in his Wits but would conclude the contrary; fuch Arguments as thefe are much like the Ropes that Oeneus twifted only for Affes to devour.

But if this fhould fail, you know. you were provided with another, not lefs fubftantial, and that is, his Alteration of the Judges Commiffions, who

here

heretofore had their Places granted to them during their good Behaviour,but he made them but during Pleasure; of this you make a fad Bufinefs of a very imaginary evil Confequence; but if you had confidered before, what you fay presently after, that the King, and not the Judges, is to be accountable for the Injustice and Oppreflion of the Government, &c. you would have found it very juft that he fhould ufe his Pleasure in their Difmiflion as well as Choice; for Men of your Profeffion, that have lived long enough to be Judges, are not fuch Punies in Cunning, to play their Feats of Iniquity above board; and if they may fit ftill, they can be proved to have mif-behav'd themselves: The Prince that is to give an Account for all, may fooner know he is abused, than how to help himfelf.

All the Inconveniency which you can fanfic poffible to enfue it, is only to fuch bad Judges as buy their Places; of whofe Condition and Lofs you are very fenfible, as if they had too hard a Bargain of Injustice, believe they may have Reafon enough to give unjust Judgment, rather than lofe their Pla ces and their Money too, if they fhallG 3

re

receive fuch Intimation from the King. But you forget your-felf, when you put this in your Appeal to all Rational Men; for they will tell you this was a bold Affront done to your High Court of Juftice; for if it were potential Tyranny (as you will have it) in the King, to have but a Design to indure the Judges to give Sentence against the Law, which you fay brings the People the next Step to Slavery: What is it in those who prefume to give Sentence themselves, not only contrary to Law, but the declared Opinion of all the Judges, and thofe of their choosing too? And (I beseech you) whither, by your own Ductrine, does this bring the People that fubmit to it? Certain ly, if you that can accufe the King of this, had been a few heretofore, you would not only have ftoned your Fellows, but your Saviour too.

But if all your Arguments fhould mifcarry, you have a Referve left that does (as you fay) irrefragably prove the Defign; what's that? he is reftless to deftroy Parliaments, or make them ufelefs. Believe me, this is right Ignotum per ignotius, excellent Confequence to prove his Defign by his De

fres;

fires; you fhould have proved his Defires firft, (if you would prove his Thoughts by his Thoughts) for certainly if ever he defigned it, he defir'd it first. You had better have concluded plainly he did it, because he defigned it, for that is all one in Senfe: But if I might be but half fo bold with your Deligns, I should, with more Reason, guefs you have one to make us believe your familiar Acquaintance with the fecret Counfels of God, (which you fo often pretend to) elfe certainly het has given the Defires of Men fo private a Lodging, that without his own Difcovery, (which you can give us no Account of) you have no other way to know them. You'd do well, and if I may advise you, you fhall give over this unlucky thing called Reason, and betake yourself wholly to Revelations.

How thefe Arguments might prevail with your High Court of Justice I cannot tell; bat in my Opinion, they had little Reafon to thank you for this laft, for while you make the King a Traytor, and prove his meer Defire to deftroy the Parliament, or make it ufelefs, on purpose to fubvert the Laws, you do but tell them what they are

G4

that