majesty and crown of England to be bound by any coronation oath in a blind and brutish formality, to consent to whatever its subjects in parliament shall require." What tyrant could presume to say more, when he meant to kick down all law, government, and bond of oath? But why he so desires to absolve himself the oath of his coronation, would be worth the knowing. It cannot but be yielded, that the oath which binds him to performance of his trust, ought in reason to contain the sum of what his chief trust and office is. But if it neither do enjoin nor mention to him, as a part of his duty, the making or the marring of any law, or scrap of law, but requires only his assent to those laws which the people have already chosen, or shall choose, (for so both the Latin of that oath, and the old English, and all reason admits, that the people should not lose, under a new king, what freedom they had before) then that negative voice so contended for, to deny the passing of any law which the commons chose, is both against the oath of his coronation, and his kingly office. And if the king may deny to pass what the parliament hath chosen to be a law, then doth the king make himself superior to his whole kingdom; which not only the general maxims of policy gainsay, but even our own standing laws, as hath been cited to him in remonstrances heretofore, that " the king hath two superiors, the law, and his court of parliament." But this he counts to be a blind and brutish formality, whether it be law, or oath, or his duty, and thinks to turn it off with wholesome words and phrases, which he then first learnt of the honest people, when they were so often compelled to use them against those more truly blind and brutish formalities thrust upon us by his own command.

As for his instance, in case "He and the house of peers attempted to enjoin the house of commons," it bears no equality: for he and the peers represent but themselves; the commons are the whole kingdom.

Thus he concludes "his oath to be fully discharged in governing by laws already made," as being not bound to pass any new, " if his reason bids him deny;" and so may infinite mischiefs grow, and a whole nation be ruined, while our general good and safety shall depend upon the private and overweening reason of one obstinate man, who, against all the kingdom, if he list, will interpret both the law and his oath of coronation by the tenor of his own will, which he himself confesses to be an arbitrary power, yet doubts not in his argument to imply; as if he thought it more fit the parliament should be subject to his will, than he to their advice; a man neither by nature nor by nurture wise. How is it possible, that he in whom such principles as these

were so deep-rooted, could ever, though restored again, have reigned otherwise than tyrannically.

Of the Eikon Basilike, Milton says, that it had the same effect upon the affections of the English, as the famous will of Julius Cæsar had on those of the Roman people. It is said to have passed through fifty editions, at home and abroad, in one year. It has been attributed to bishop Gander; probably without reason. From the defence of it by Wagstaffe, one would be induced to infer, that the king himself was the author. There are many occasional pieces of Charles in the collection of his works in folio.

Though the extracts already given from Milton may be deemed sufficient for the purpose I have in view, I shall venture to select one more. Milton was accused of expressing himself too bitterly in controversy. He excuses himself from the example of the apostles, and of Christ himself, from his natural temperament, and from the interests of truth, which demand the high tone of enthusiasm and zeal. The passage is taken from his Apology for Smectymnuus; and might have been inserted under that article; but it will come better here, as a sort of emollient to the preceding.

If the question were in oratory, whether a vehement vein throwing out indignation or scorn upon an object that merits it, were among the aptest ideas of speech to be allowed, it were my work, and that an easy one, to make it clear both by the rules of best rhetoricians, and the famousest examples of the Greek and Roman orations. But since the religion of it is disputed, and not the art, I shall make use only of such reasons and authorities as religion cannot except against. It will be harder to gainsay, than for me to evince, that in the teaching of men diversly tempered, different ways are to be tried. The baptist, we know, was a strict man, remarkable for austerity and set order of life. Our Saviour, who had all gifts in him, was Lord to express his indoctrinating power in what sort him best seemed; sometimes by a mild and familiar converse, sometimes with plain and impartial home-speaking, regardless of those whom the auditors might think he should have had in more respect; otherwhiles with bitter and ireful rebukes, if not teaching, yet leaving excuseless those his wilful impugners. What was all in him, was divided among many others, the teachers of his church; some to be severe, and even of a sad gravity, that they may win such, and check sometimes those who be of nature over confident and jocond; others were sent more cheerful, free, and still as it were at large, in the midst of an untrespassing honesty: that they who are so tempered may have by whom they might be drawn to salvation, and they who are too scrupulous and dejected of spirit, might be often strengthened with wise consolations and revivings: no man being forced wholly to dissolve that ground-work of nature which God created in him; the sanguine to empty out all his sociable liveliness, the choleric to expel quite the unsinning predominance of his anger; but that each radical humour and passion, wrought upon and corrected as it ought, might be made the proper mould and foundation of every man's peculiar gifts and virtues. Some also were induedwith a staid moderation and soundness of argument, to teach and convince the rational and sober-minded; yet not therefore that to be thought the only expedient course of teaching; for in times of opposition, when either against new heresies arising, or old corruptions to be reformed, this cool unpassionate mildness of positive wisdom, is not enough to damp and astonish the proud resistance of carnal and false doctors, then (that I may have leave to soar awhile as the poets use) zeal, whose substance is ethereal, arming in complete diamond, ascends his fiery chariot, drawn with two blazing me