Prosecutions of Warres betweene a King and his Parliament, are the direfull dilacerations of the world, the cruell Catastrophes of States, dreadfull to speake of; they are nefanda & n' agenda: I know no grounds can be given of them but two: Either upon Reason founded upon some surmisall of Treason, which my reason cannot reach: I could never conceive why a rationall King should commit Treason against a reasonable Parliament; or how a faithfull Parliament against their lawfull King: the most I can imagine, is a misprision of Treason, upon a misprision of Reason. Hee that knows not the Spirit of his King, is an Atheist. Our King is not Charles le simple sometime of France: he understands not our King that understands him not to bee understanding. The Parliament is supposed Omniscient, because under God they are Omnipotent: if a Parliament have
not as much knowledge and all other vertues, as all the Kingdome beside, they are no good Abridgement of the Common-wealth. I beleeve Remonstrances have demonstrated enough concerning this point of Reason, to give satisfaction to such as satisfaction will satisfie.
Or upon Will.
The Will of a King is very numinous; it hath a kinde of vast universality in it, it is many times greater than the will of his whole kingdome, stiffened with ill Counsell and ill Presidents: if it be not a foot and half lesser than the Will of his Councell, and three foot lesser than the Will of his Parliament, it is too big. I think it were well for a King if hee had no will at all, but were all Reason. What if he committed his morall will to Divines, that were no Bishops? his Politicall, to his Parliament, and a Councell chosen by Parliament? that if ever it miscarry, they may blame themselves most, and him least. I scarce know any King that hath such advantage as ours; his three kingdomes lye so distinct and entire, that if he please, he might keep them like three gardens without a weed, if he would let God keep his will, without wilfulnesse and rashnesse.
I have observed men to have two kindes of Wills, a Free-hold will, such as men hold in Capite of themselves; or a Copy-hold will, held at the will of other Lords or Ladies. I have read almost all the Common Law of England, and some Statutes; yet I never read, that the Parliament held their will in such
a Capite: their Tenure is Knight-service, and good Knight-service too, or else they are to blame. And I am sure, a King cannot hold by Copy, at the will of other Lords; the Law calls that base tenure, inconsistent with Royalty; much more base is it, to hold at the will of Ladies: Apron-string tenure is very weak, tyed but of a slipping knot, which a childe may undoe, much more a King. It stands not with our Queens honour to weare an Apron, much lesse her Husband, in the strings; that were to insnare both him and her self in many unsafeties. I never heard our King was Effeminate: to be a little Uxorious personally, is a vertuous vice in Oeconomicks; but Royally, a vitious vertue in Politicks. To speak English, Books and tongues tell us, I wish they tell us true, that the Error of these Wars on our Kings part proceeds only from ill Counsellours.
Ill Counsellours are very ill Gamesters; if they see their own stake a losing, they will play away King, Queen, Bishops, Knights, Rooks, Pawnes, and all, before they will turne up the board: they that play for lusts, will play away themselves, and not leave themselves so much as a heart to repent; and then there is no Market left but Hell; if the case be thus, it is to no end to look for any end, till one side make an end of the other.
They that at stake their Crownes and Honours set,
Play lasting games, if Lust or Guilt doe bet.