SALMASIUS His Dissection and Confutation of the Diabolical Rebel MILTON, IN HIS Impious Doctrines of Falshood, Ma­xims of Policies, and destructive Principles of Hypo­crisie, Insolences, Invectives, Injustice, Cruelties, and Calumnies against his Gracious Soveraign KING CHARLES I.

Made legible for the satisfaction of all Loyal and Obedient Subjects: But by reason of the rigid Inquisition after Persons and Presses by the late merciless Tyrant Oliver Cromwel, durst not be sold publickly in this Kingdom, under pain of Imprisonment, and other intollerable Dammages.

Regi qui perfidus, nulli fidus.

London, Printed for J. G. B. Anno 1660. and are to be sold in Westminster-Hall, St. Pauls Church­yard, and the Royal Exchange.

To the Sacred Majesty of KING CHARLS II. King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland.

Most Gracious Soveraign,

WHilest Artaxerxes the mighty Monarch was marching tho­row the Fields, one Syneta a poor Countrey man ran for a hand­ful of water, with which he present­ed this Great Prince: Even such, is this, my Munus Levidense, for which most humbly I beg Your Majesties Pardon and Reception. The famous Author hereof could not undoubt­edly be unknown to Your Majesty beyond Sea; whose learned VVri­tings against Sedition and Rebellion (such was the rigid Inquisition after [Page] Persons and Printing-presses) were evermore deemed malignant and unsufferable, insomuch that to sell one of his Books was a Crime almost unpardonable; or to read one, a suf­ficient proof for Sequestration: For the Authors prophane Antagonist (John Milton, one of your Majesties grand enemies) I shall leave him un­der the rod of correction, where with God hath evidenced his particular judgment by striking him with blind­ness, and the Writings of the learned Author to solid and rational under­standings to censure, subscribing (with your Majesties leave) my self (as I ever have testified by writing) one of the humblest of

Your Majesties Votarie: and Vassals, John Garfeild, Bibliopola.


WHen the booke called Icon-basilice was com­ming foorth the Rebells guilt Suggested Suspitions to them of danger from the me­mory of his late Majest: as formerly they apprehended from his life, striving, that he might not appeare to posteritie out of those ignominious Circumstances, which they had contrived in the murther of him, and thence their rigid Inquisi­tion after persons and Presses. Rebells rise by flattery, rule by force, and they, that made so many appeales to the people, for­bid them now to know the groanes of a dead Martyr. Vpon the comming foorth of the booke, they found what they feared, that many, whose passion kept them from a right judgment in the heate of Action, saw their owne errours in that booke, and that the person, and cause of his late Majest: began to be more Gene­rally vnderstood, and being not able to strangle it in the birth, they sought how to cast itt foorth to be destroyed, raysinge ru­mours, that it was not the worke of his late Majest: thinkeing to make men lesse intent on the booke, if the author were su­spected, and that they might thereby take of all opinion of pietie, and wisedome from his late Majest: which might be collected from his writings, it being the Custome of Rebells to prevaile more by Calumnies vpon the disposition, then the Actions of Princes. They seeke to improve crueltie above nature for ha­ving by wicked hands destroyed the Lords anointed, they would deface the Memory of their owne vile Actions against him, hy­ring [Page 4] false Prophetts to curse him, & they grudge at his Crowne in heaven, as they usurped that on earth. Its no new thing for persons of most eminent vertue to fall into the obloquy, & suffer by the rage of the misled people, and therefore no wonder if in­nocence finde an oratour to accuse it, & Treason an Advocate, to defend it. Rebellion never wanted a Trumpet & though the con­trivance of it be in Caves, & vaults, yet successe makes it outface the light. His Majest: booke hath passed the censure of the greatest part of the learned world, being translated into the most spred Languages, and strangers honour his Memory, and abhorre his murtherers, but such, as regarde not the al seeing eye of God be­holding their wickednes, despise the judgment of the whole world, and there is a man found out, that will breake downe the united reason of mankinde, & he tells men, they must take his word above their owne, and all mens reason, this he vndertakes, that lookes on kings, as Ants, and the kings booke, as wanting all moment of Soliditie, and if, as he chose the Title of Iconocla­stes he had written his booke in a Forraigne, or learned language, his vnfaith fullnes, and impudence would be as open, and odious as his vanitie is ridiculous.

And though the exceptions against his Majest: booke fall away of them selves, and Traytours Apologies carry with them their owne Confutation, yet indignation at the shamelesse inso­lence, and vntruth of Iconoclastes provokes a just vindication of his late Majest: from the lewde slanders of the answearer. A Dumbe childe gott speech at the apprehension of an Injury to the father, and its a dead Loyaltie, that stands vnmoved at the cursing of a shimei, and those curses of shimei recorded in Scripture were lesse virulent, and more excusable, then this Authors language of his late Majest: through his whole Trea­tise, which is a Treason against God, and Man, Religion, Truth, and Iustice.

THE Preface Examined.

HIS First words are. To descant on the mis­fortunes of a person fallen from so high a di­gintie, who hath also paid his finall debt to nature, and his faults, is neither of it selfe a thing commendable, nor the intention of this Discourse.

That it is not a thing commendable is a greed by all, and that it is the intention of this Authors Discourse all men discerne by this very expression, and in every Pe­riod he insolently, and scorne fully speakes of the person of his late Majest: as fallen into that misfortune, and his whole booke is a continued Confutation of this false as­sertion. base natures delight in the misfortunes of persons in highest place: It is hatefull in any to descant on the misfortunes, of Princes, but in such, as have relation vnto them by service, or Subiection as this libeller to the late king is the Compendium of all vnworthynes, and vnna­turall insolence. Could he say his Majest: had paid his debt to his faults without descant on his misfortunes? But he giues timely warning, what is to be expected in his booke, [Page 6] where like a shameles theife taken in the fact he denies what he openly acts.

He saies it is not to get a name, for no man ever got ho­nour by writing against a King, being strong in Legions, weake in Arguments.

Some men have desired a name for Brutish arrogance against Princes, and that may be the Authors ambition, but however it have fared with others, that have spitt their venom in the faces of Kings, its certaine he hath lighted vpon the prediction of his owne successe, for he will gaine only in famy by this vndertaking. Never man found honour by raking in the ashes of dead Princes, but vnnatural crueltie seekes to Surfeit vpon the grave. This Author doth not only digg vp the bones of the dead King, but seekes to bring Destruction on al Kings, and bury them in the ruines of their Authoritie. depraved natures account the greatest wickednes the greatest glory, & more honour to subvert humane Societie, then destroy a Single person.

The first step, where by he mounts to Triumph over his sacred Majest: is for that he was a King, and that is vr­ged as proofe Sufficient, that he was weake at Arguments, Kings (he saies) being accustomed from the Cradle to vse their will only, as their right hand, their Reason alwayes, as their left.

Soe desperate is the wickednes of these men, that must vilifie the Ordinances of God for their defence. Had they matter of just exceptiō to his late Majest: they nee­ded not, they would not draw matter of Reproach from his Office, and had they any feare of God, or reverence to man, they would not thus Lewdly traduce this greate Institution of God for the governing of mankinde the Kingly Office. God him selfe saies the Kings heart is in the [Page 7] hand of the Lord, and he turneth it as Rivers of water. That a wise Sentence is in the heart of the King, and yet this man pretends to expect beleife in his Calumnies vpon the late King, when hee affirmes the kingly Office to bee a cause of weakenes of judgment, and insufficiencie, tur­ning all the promises of God in Scripture for assistance of Kings with his spiritt to meere Compliment, and wret­chedly belying the many Monarchs of the world, that have beene as farr above others in Wisedome, as they have beene in power.

Wee have lived to see that sore evill, which the Scrip­ture by the pen of a King, and the wisest of men com­plained of, to see Princes on foote, & Servants on horsebacke, when the Licentious insolence of the meanest tramples vpon the Soveraigntie of the highest, and the basest of the people revile their King.

He saies for their sakes, that have not more Seriously con­sidered Kings, then in the gawdy name of Majestie, and admi­red them, & their doings, as if they breathed not the same breath with other men he will (for it seemes, he saies, a Challenge both of him, and his partie) take vp the gantlet (though a Kings) in the behalfe of libertie, and the common wealth.

Loyaltie hath no friends, that so admire Princes, as if they breathed not common breath of nature, they wel know who hath said of Kings, I have said you are Gods & the guilt of their sin, that disobey, or revile thē, yet non are ignorant, that their breath is in their nosthrils, & that they shall dye, as others. They, that are best instructed, & most considerate give most reverence to Kings. They vnder­stand, that Princes have greater promises of wisedome frō God, & greater meanes to attaine it then others, & that by obeying them humane societie is maintained, though [Page 8] they breath the same breath with them. When Saul was made King of Israel, there were wicked men, that said, how shall this man save us, contemning his Authoritie, because he was taken from among them selves, & in our dayes there is a Confluence of all the Rebellious incli­nations, that troubled the world, pride of base people, and disdaine of all Authoritie. Because Kings are men, must they not therefore Rule? Must Gods vicegerents be despysed, because they are men? And because we know Kings to be men, must wee beleive, that seditious slanderers are more then men, which are carryed, as na­turall brute Beasts? The Archangell disputing with the Devill durst not bring against him a rayling accusation, and such, as take vp Rayling accusations against Prin­ces partake of the wickednes of the evill, and hate the holynes of the blessed Angell. When the woman told David, he was as an Angell of God, did shee thinke he breathed not the same breath with others? This Author by pretending to rectifie an errour, that never was of ad­miring Kings, as if they breathed not the common breath of men would perswade men to scorne, & despise kings, and Rebell against the king of kings God himselfe, who wilbe called king, and to style that Title a gaudy name expresseth rather a scoffing Atheist, then a profest Chri­stian. Ambitious Rebells, that sow the seedes of disaf­fection to their king among the people, begin with a plausible trueth, that kings are men, that they may erre, that they may be wicked, thence they come to applica­tion of particular Actions of their king, represented as deceitefully, as falshood can frame to the vnwary hea­rers, & because it may be so, therefore in their logicke it must be so, and experience it selfe hath made appa­rent, [Page 9] how few, or none admire Kings, as if they breathed not the common breath of men, and how many forgett their dutie to them, that in Scripture are called Gods. the prevalence of corrupt nature is so farr above reason, that men are sooner infatuated by the plausible discour­ses of ambitious aspirers to beleive absurdities making way for Rebellion, then mistaken of the nature of Kings by their sacred Title, or dignitie, for wee have seene men seduced to beleive they might make warr against the King, so as they said it was aganist his evill Coun­cellours, and for King, and Parliament, that because the two houses sate by the Kings authoritie, therefore him selfe had none. That they made warr in their owne de­fence against the King, and yet said they fought for King, and Parlament, and contrary to the knowledge of the whole world traduced his Majest: Government, which was the time, if ever, when his three Kingdomes attained the height of honour, strength, and wealth above their neighbours. As the Arts of those seedes-men of sathan were [...] by their Master to the ruine of mankinde: so how farr they have effected it in his Ma­jest: three kingdomes by this logicke of the Devill all men are wittnesses. All boundaries of right, and wrong broken downe, and any wickednes acted by authoritie, that serves to secure the Tyranicall power, & will of the Rebell Masters. What flouds of Christian blood, what starving, & pininge to death of poore Captives have our dayes been wittnes of in England? what jmpudent pre­tences of justice for publique Murthers, scenes of Iudica­ture, and theaters of slaughter? honour, and vertue pro­stituted to the Common Executioner, so as the miseries of former times were but an Epitome of those numerous [Page 10] evills, that have been brought vpon his Majest: Dominions in these sew yeares, & the facts would seeme incredible in after ages, did not such, as this Author undauntedly boast of the insolencies they have committed, no histo­rie yeilding on example of the like, whether we reguard the impudence, crueltie, insolence, and hipocrisie of the contrivers, deceite imposture & profannes of preachers, or credulitie, and precipitation, of the vulgar.

The author might have done well to shew, why his Majest: booke seemed a Challenge, it provokes no an­sweare, nor handles any thing by way of controversie but his very devotions, and instructions to his son seeme a Challenge, Evidence of worth in the sufferer torments the persecutour, and they cannot rest, while the vertues live, though the bodies are laid in the dust by their wic­ked hands.

But he wil take vp the gantlet (that no man threw downe) though a Kings. He lately said Kings were puny Antago­mists, and no honour to begotten by writing against them and now he will take vp the gantlet, though a Kings, it seemes he reckons it a condescention to stoope to take vp a Kings gantlet, those todes, that thus swell wil breake with their owne venom.

This Authors pen shewes what libertie he loves, to en­dure, no justice towards the living, or Charitie to the dead, and to breake those fetters of modestie, and truth, wherein a Christians libertie consists. Those pests of Go­vernment allwayes talke of libertie, but its only a licen­ce to exercise their own inperious Tyrany over the peo­ple, and when fire breakes out of the bramble to consu­me the Cedars, nothing can be expected, but insolence, and crueltie wee have seene the libertie vnder the Re­bells [Page 11] in England, which is to rayle, and Rebell against the King, and destroy such, as are loyall.

He saies its the drift of a factious, and defeated partie to make the same advantage of his booke, as before of his name, & authoritie and intend not so much the defence of his former Actions, as promoting future designes.

Those, whome he calls a defeated partie in so great con­tempt are never the neerer a faction for the successe, that confessed Rebells have gained over them. Though Ar­myes have been defeated, a good cause can never, and though he would have his Trayterous faction believe them, that followed the king a defeated partie yet it see­mes by his jealosie him selfe doth not. Tyrants cannot sleepe, while lawfull heires survive, and the guilt of their consciences, and vsurped power make their Enemies as terrible after they have lost Armyes, as before. When Rebells prevaile they declaime against Treason, and in contempt of God, and their consciences reproach such with their Crymes, that most oppose them in their first Actions, they made vse of the Kings name, and authoritie, their declarations cannot be retracted, wherein they profest to be for King and Parliament, that they fought not against the king, but his evil councell. The Cryme offighting against the king, was a Treason so knowne, that shame, as well, as feare would have lessened their partie, had they not made vse of the kings name, & pre­tended his authoritie, and vnles they thinke, that their assertions of apparent vntruths will have the same power over the reasons of men, as their Armes have gotten [...] their persons they would not patch vp discourses [...] such incongruities, objecting, that the kings partie [...] his name, and authoritie, which vndoudtedly they [...] [Page 12] and which those men professe to destroy, and which had been vseles to any, had it not been the acknowledged power of the kingdome, and a confessed Cryme to op­pose it, and which those Traytours would never have pretended, had not the evidence of its right been so ap­parent, nor have destroyed after so much vse of it, had they not exceeded all former Traytours, as farr, as he did his Predecessours, of whom the spirit of God saies, there was none like him, that sold himselfe to worke wickednes. Its the drift of the Rebell partie to confirme, and continue their power by the same Arts they have gained it, & deny justice to the memory of his Majest: as before obedience to his Government. Those whose power hath been gottē by the peoples credulitie would willingly deprive them of reason, whereby they might see their errour, which is the cause, that the Rebells having misled many into the present mischeyfe by Calumnies of insufficiencie in his Majest: and disaffection to the established Religion, account anyproofe published to the contrary the plot of a faction against their Rebell Common-wealth, and al­though their often accesses to him, and debates with him during his restraint, and the observation of his devotion gave such proofe of both, as diverse of their followers were vndeceived both in him, and the cause they had prosecuted, yet this they would have an effect of facti­on, & any relation of his Maj: afflictions a designe. His Maj: actions neede no defence, the Rebells impious acti­ons against him are incapable of any, & this Author hath some reason to coniecture, that all mention of the suffe­rings of his late Maj: tends to the ruine of the Rebell po­wer. True narrations of the horrid Actions of Traytours, though they recount the greatenes, & glory of theyr tri­umphs, [Page 13] sting them with an expectation of vengeance, & destruction of their power. There are a great number, that since they have seene that booke thinke it had been a great losse to the world, if it had perished, & yet they are farr from designe by it, and if it were published with any designe, it was an innocent one to publish what a murthered King, had left written of himselfe for the rea­son of his Actions, and cleering of mistakes.

The designe is now the third time to corrupt the people to the dishonour of the present Government, & retarde a generall peace so needeful to this afflicted nation.

They cannot say any were corrupted, that followed their King, vnles the lawes, their legall oaths, and Scrip­ture it selfe corrupted them, for theis were the guides they followed, and the Rebells may rest assured, that if there were not these bonds vpon the loyall English, hu­mane Treatises, though never so excellent would little move them to the losse of life, and fortunes.

For the dishonour of that, which he calls the present Government themselves have written enough, though the King, and his partie were silent. Their power was gotten by often repeated propositions, & protestations, of affection, and loyaltie to his late Majest: which they never meant to performe, many false pretences to the people to defend the King, and established lawes, and Religion, breach of oaths, murther of the King, and of theis nothing can be denyed by themselves, and there is nothing can be said of any to dishonour beyound swea­ring, and fore swearing, Treason, and Murther. And can they thinke their peace is retarded by the Kings, partie, when themselves have so often sworne by the name af God in hipocrisie to deceive, made Religion [Page 14] the Maske of sacriledge, and murther, and pretend pit­tie to the afflicted nation, while they afflict it & continue the same wickednes, where by they brought the miserie vpon it? They may be sure, though they destroy the King, and his partie, God will raise them Enemies they thinke not of, and prepare destroyers they feare not.

Its a Good deede (he sajes) to the living by remembring men of the truth of what they know to he misaffirmed to keepe them from entring into warr.

But it is wickednes to oppose truth, and offer that to be beleived by men which they know to be false. If this Author would remember men only of truth, he would finde no adversary, and if his partie would act according ly, there would be no neede of a new warr, for then they would restore King, and lawes, but this Author by falsifying of Actions, att corrupting of principles endea­vours to draw men into a state of Rebellion against God, and their King, and make the warr endles, & the people helpeles, and his pretended Charitie is more odi­ous, then the Hipocrites Almes, this respecting only selfe glory, that of this Author a snare to destroy others.

As to moment of soliditie (he sayes) in the booke it selfe stuft with nought els, but the Common grounds of Tyranny, and Po­perie, suguered a little over, or any neede of answearing in re­spect of stayed, and well principled men, I take it on me, as a worke assigned rather then by me chosen, or affected.

He would have it thought there was no moment of soliditie, because he hath none in this Iconoclastes stuft full of the common grounds of Rebellion, & confusion, which are only of Moment to the support of vsurpation, the measure of his well principeld men to whome a rayling libell is more convincing, then a Logicall Argument. [Page 15] That the booke is stuft with nought els, but grounds of Tyrany, and Popery, when the most part of his exceptions comprehended not those heads is an Hiperbole vnbefit­ting any, but such, as had sacrificed shame, and con­science to a wicked cause.

If the publishing of his Majest: booke as (he sajes) con­teyning nothing but grounds of Tyrany, and Popery were a designe of his partie, surely it must concurre with the Authors ends, for the cheife Calumnies, whereby the Rebells sought to draw the peoples affections from his Majest: were, that he would introduce Tyrany, and Popery and the publishing of such a booke in his Majest: name was most effectuall to make good, what was obiected. And the man, that thinkes the Kings partie so voyde of sense, may thinke them well principeld men, that swallow such crudities, as he hath provided for them, and they may be excused, if they be not moved with his Majest: booke, for it cannot be expected they should vnder­stand, and receive reason, and for those doubtles the Author writt his booke, for it could not be hoped, that they, who had any dram of reason, and had not resolved to continue in Rebellious vndertakings against all the light of Religion, and reason would be fit readers of such incoherent Barbarismes. Grounds of Tyrany, and Popery are not so subtile to escape all the world without the helpe of this authors finger to point att it, and had the booke conteyned any such matter, he would have vsed lesse rayling, and more reason, heate, & fowle language proceede from impotencie of defence, and thence is the greate noyse of words, and insignificant matter of Ico­noclastes. Common angers disorder reason, but vnnatu­rall furious distempers destroy it. The present Traytours [Page 16] att least as many of them, as sate in the beginning of his late Majest: Parliament, where this Rebellion was hatcht protested before God to defend with their lives, and fortunes the doctrine established in the Church of En­gland, and that must conteyne the grounds of Popery, or the author will finde none in that booke, but in the sence of Traytours: Church is Popery, & King, is Tyrany. If they, that assigned this worke on the Author differed not in judgment from him touching moment of soliditie in his Majest: booke, they shewed a very slight esteeme of a Champion so confident of his parts, but they knew his malice, not his soliditie, And they knew it was in vaine for them to seeke to answeare his Majest: booke with soliditie, falsities, and detractions being all their hopes, and they knew not a man els, whose credit they could more easily prostitute, nor any man more greedy of so base ane imployment.

He sajes if the late King, had thought sufficient those an­sweares, and defences made for him in his life time, they who on the other side accused his ilGovernment, judging enough had been replied, the heate of this controversie was in likelihood drawing to an end, and the farther mention of his deedes, not so much vnfortunate, as faultie had in tendernes of his late sufferings been willingly forborne, and perhaps for the present age have slept, while his adversaries calmed with succes had been lesse vnfavourable to his Memory:

The late King, thought those answeares, and defences made for him in his life time a bundantly sufficient, and so did all indifferent men, and it was not any thought of defect in theis, that moved him to write on particular occurrents of most moment in the time of his troubles, and as his memory will not stand, orfall att the Rebells [Page 17] courtesie, so their aspersions will rather increase, then diminish it. This Author thinckes, that men are daunted with his Contumelies, and that if the King, had knowne what words he would have written against his booke, he would not have adventured vpon such pikes, but as the Kingly Prophet David sang to his harpe, and wrote his Divine meditations, while his Enemies sent foorth their sharpe Arrowes, bitter words against him, and that of so much venom, as he sajes, the poyson of Aspes was vnder their lipps: so his late Majest: composed those his meditations, while his Enemies compassed him on every side, and cea­sed not to persecute him with their Tongues set on fire of Hell, and though his person suffered by them, his cause, and innocencie was a bove their reach.

His Majest: expected the vtmost of their malice after death vpon his name, as he had felt it in his life, and it was so farr from his desire, that mention of his deedes should be forborne, especially those his Enemies excep­ted to, that his endeavours were cheifely bent to make them manifest to the world with all the obiections, and invectives, that had been made against them, and time hath tought this Author, and others of his crew, that many have been convinced of the wickednes of theyr Rebellion, by the declarations, and replies they made against his late Majest: Truth feares nothing, but to be hidden, & his late Majest: needed noe other Advocate, then the cleere discoverie of his deedes, that he was vn­fortunate was the greate wrath of God vpon the nation, where so many in the middest of so great blessings of peace, and plentie, as they enioyed vnder his Raigne, continued murmuring, and vnthankefull, and it is not the least signe of the heavines of his displeasure, that ma­kes [Page 18] the people executioners of it, one vpon another, and that they should act such execrable wickednes by words, and Actions against that King, who was freest from personall vices, and publique pressures of all his Predecessours, that had Raigned so long, as he had done. The present age must nedes have a deepe sense of his losse, and posteritie, aswell, as strangers will wonder, when they reade his story, and finde such groundles slanders, and barbarous cruelties acted against so eminent vertue, and the confidence in obtruding such grosse absurdities, for reasons, as are vsed by this Author and others, wilbe the infamy of the present age, when such evident folly, and wickednes finde credit. Can any man be so stupid to thinke, that such wretches, as boast of their destroying the innocent, will cease to defame their memory? and that such, as had no mercie on their lives, will have a ten­dernes of their sufferings? That they, which suborned detractours, and raysed lewde reports to give colour to their crueltie, would have a tendernes to him they had tormented, and expresse no tendernes for their owne villanies? It had been contrary to his Majest: wisedome to have expected tendernes to himselfe, from such Mon­sters, and contrary to the nature of such savage beasts, to have their blood thirstines slakt, or their crueltie calmed with any successes.

But since himselfe hath left this booke, as the best Advocate, and interpreter of his Actions, and his friends by publishing &c. and almost adoring it, seeme to place therein the strength of their cause, it would argue doubtfullnes, and deficiencie of the other partie, not to meete his reason in any field, the force of whose Ar­mes they have so often mett victoriously.

This libell more evidently proves the deficiencie of [Page 19] the Rebell partie, then the omission of an answeare could have argued, and all men see, they are not doubt­full, but convinced by their owne reason of the lewdenes of their Actions. It might be exepcted from the libel­lers mention of the esteeme his Majest: booke hath amongst his friends, that his answeare should be of equall account with his Masters, and thereby the world may be informed how their cause hath been maintained. They pretend to meete reason in any field, but are resolved to contradict it, and the Author will reproach, and de­spise truth, and reason, as his Masters have fought against it, and since their impietie cannot be denyed, it must be avowed. They glory in their victories in the field, as thee­ves in their booties, and boast, that they can doe mischeife, their victories being no other, then the poysons and kni­ves of Assassins, that have destroyed Princes, and successe is the evidence of their faith, and reason.

He proceedes to say, that he who at the Barr stood ex­cepting against the forme, and manner of his Iudicature, and complained, that he was not heard, neither he, nor his friends shall have that cause now to finde fault being mett, and debated with in this Monumentall Court of his owne erectinge, and not only heard, but answeared.

But still he is vnwillingly heard, and they, which tooke his blood without hearing, are loath to heare the cry of it and they endeavoured the same course with his booke, they had taken with him, to condemne it vnheard, and as this worke was not chosen, nor affected by Icono­clastes, so was not the occasion acceptable to his Masters.

It hath been reported of some high way robbers, that they vse a forme of Judicature vpon the Traveller, when they take him, and condemne him solemnely to lose his [Page 20] purse, and Iconoclastes holds it strange, he should stand excepting at the forme, and manner of their Judicature. It was the prodigie of insolence, that Rebells presumed to bring their King to the Barr, and the Prodigie of im­pudence in this libeller, that imagines an expectation of the Kings submission to a Tribunall of Traytours. But with Traytours, where strength can act, right, and Ju­stice, are ridiculous considerations, otherwise those Mon­sters, that made themselves Judges without the least co­lour of authoritie (the lower howse being not able to punish a wandring Rogue, which the law allowes a Co­nestable) would not so presumptuously sit in Judgment vpon a King, and not only their own but of another Kingdome; and professe wonder, that any should thinke, that they cannot bring any King, to the blocke, that they get into their hands. Who may not defend the [...]s of intemperance to satisfie lust, aswell, as those of crueltie to satisfic ambition, and why might not Ric: 3: defame his mother, and Kill his nephewes to secure his Tyrany, aswell, as theis men reproach, and Kill their King? doe outward solemnities legitimate Murthers, and is a profest villanie innocent, & a secret only Cryminall?

Though those Murtherers, before whome he stood at the Barr excepting, had resolved, that neither feare of God, nor reverence to their lawfull king, nor impor­tunitie, that moves such, as the other respects doe not, should prevaile with them, yet he promises afaire de­bate, though he justifies them, and performes it with the same falshood, offring clamorous reproaches and sham­les vntruths, instead of answeares, erecting a Monu­ment for him selfe, wherein the defence of impietie, and scorne of truth have engraven his infamy in ever­lasting Characters.

[Page 21] Which he sajes to do effectually, if it be necessary that to his booke, nothing the more respect be had for being his, they of his owne partie, can have no just reason to exclaime.

Truly his owne partie had reason to expect, that from resolved Traytours, his booke would have lesse respect for being his, for having suffered greater crueltie in his person for being a King, could they thinke his booke would have more respect for being his? The Rebells themselves have published it a rule, that a man borne in Scotland, while the Kingdomes stood divided, was not subject to their Judicature, and therefore they vrged a­gainst Duke Hamilton, that he was naturalized, and yet they subjected the King to their will, whome they could not pretend to have had that Ceremony, and by the law of these miscreants, the King must be more subject to them then any of his subjects of that nation, and the Au­thor might have spared the paines to seeke a reason for his impudent language, for his Majest: partic know, it was for the interest of his Trayterous cause, and a necessary effect of a Rebellious disposition. The booke of any Author ought to finde respect according to its owne me­rit, and its folly, or injury to sleight, or reproach it for the Authors sake, and the like of a person for his office sake, but they, that reproach an office instituted by God, or the person, that beares that office for the office sake, will hate a booke for the good, that it conteynes, and the Kings partie will never exclaime for the Authors detrac­tion of the booke, which they expected from him, but they have just reason to detest his insolent language, and impious assertions.

It were too vnreasonable, that he because dead should have libertie to speake all evill of the Parliament, and they, be­cause [Page 22] living, or any for them have lesse Freedome.

Its too vnreasonable to bely the dead, and to affirme his Majest: to speake all evill of the Parliament, when he well knowes, that his Majest: speakes nothing of them, but what this breaker confesses to be true, and if his Ma­jest: had spoken evill of a faction in Parliament, its too vnreasonable for him to censure it, who not only speakes evill of a faction in Parliament, but is the Advocate of those, that not only speake evill of them, but have des­troyed them. What if his Majest: had spoken evill of the Lords house, have this Authors Masters done lesse, that have taken it away? What if he had spoken evill of a part of the lower house, have they done lesse, that have imprisoned, & expelled the Members? And if the King reprehend, or reprove his subjects in the capacitie of Par­liament, or otherwise, it is not only vnreasonable, but damnable for them to censure, and reproach him, and most detestable for every licentious Pamphletter to tra­duce, & vilifie him. Rebells vse not only feirce arrogan­cie, but impudent petulancie, and it makes for their de­signe, that the scum of the people cast of all reverence, and mention of superiours.

Have not the present Traytours reproacht, and con­demned the Parliament for their professions of loyaltie, and dutie to the King? Have they not made that the highest Cryme, which the Parliament judged their ne­cessary dutie to serve their King? And may not the King complaine of their dealing with him, as well, as this Au­thor with his new Masters? can Iconoclastes reprove the Parliaments vote, that it was Treason for the Army to overaw the Parliament, which he doth in being Advocate for the Army against them, And is it a Cryme in his [Page 23] Majest: to represent their evill Actions against him? The Parliament voted a Treatie with the King, and voted his concessions to be a sufficient ground for peace, the libel­ler taxes that vote for folly, and falshood. The Army remove that Parliament, and call some Creatures of their owne the Parliament, and they together take the per­son of the King, and murther him notwithstanding this Treatie, and vote of Parliament. If it were the Parliament, that voted the Treatie, and the concessions to be a suf­ficient ground for peace, they must be Traytours by the Parliaments Judgment, that dissolved them, and placed the name of Parliament vpon others, and this Author must speake more evill of them, then his Majest: doth, or more of his Masters, and might with farr more reason take on him the defence of the Tumults, as afterwards he doth, then the Parliament, for if the Parliament, may be modelled by Tumults, and are no longer a Parliament, then the leaders of the rabble, judge well of their Acti­ons, then the King, in speaking any thing against the Parliament, doth no more, then this Author confesseth the Tumults may doe, and himselfe too. He might have claimed a priviledge to speake for the dead, aswell, as write against the King, being dead, for his Masters murthered it, with the King, and its like he hath leave from his new Masters to name it yet, for it will not stand well heereafter with their Government to name a Parlia­ment, which may continue the memory of King, and Lords, and the new Representatives will, when the Masters are ready for it, make the name of Parliament, like an old Almanacke, and the Author wilbe forbidden to name it, as reason now forbidds the defence of their Actions against his Majest:

[Page 24] As he to acquitt himselfe hath not spared his adversaries, so to him in his booke no more Court [...]pp wilbe vsed, then he vses, but what is properly his owne guilt, not imputed any more to his evill Councellours (a Ceremony vsed longer by the Parliament, then he desired) shalbe laid heere without Circumlocutions at his owne doore.

Courtship, nor Civilitie could be expected from any, that tooke on them the defence of such a cause, as this Author hath done, and his Majest: moderation in spea­king of his adversaries, stigmatizeth this Author for his vnprovoked insolence, and malitious falshood, and the cause he maintaynes, that could not stand, but by [...]ay­ling, and slander.

In laying the ground worke of this horrid Rebellion, the Master worke men saw, that people are to be de­baucht by degrees, and they cannot suddenly beleive absurdities, till their passions by Custome be made Mas­ter of their reason, and confirmed in the pursuite of what was propounded to them, vnder pretence of their good. The people then held it a sin to offer violence to the person of their King, They thought they could not cut of the lappe ofhis garment. They held it odious to re­proach his person, and the Parliament had so often decla­red, that kings, can doe no wrong, and that the law for bidds the speaking of it, that though the wickednes of some were enough confirmed to wish his destruction, they durst not say it, but pretend desire of Justice against other persons, and they resolved, as Assassines to stabb him, while they kneeled to him, and to betray him pro­fessing dutie, and loyaltie, vndermininge his authoritie, with aspersions on his evill Councellours, as they called them. And as then they laid faults vpon his Councellours, [Page 25] that never acted, so now this slanderer will make the King guiltie of Actions, that were never done by him and vnder pretence of not sparing him in laying the guilt on him, that was properly his, seekes to lay all mens faults on him, and is as disloyall to truth, as Loyaltie.

To acquit himselfe his Majest: needed to be very care­full, for his adversaries by their declarations have done it, and they have acquitted his Councellours of these very Crymes they objected to them, for this Author wil have the faults they were charged with to be the Kings, and it is in his Language a Ceremonie to accuse men falsely, & by forged Calumnies to seduce the people to the spen­ding of their blood, and hazard of their soules. This Au­thor is the first, that sought to be beleived in an Apologie for falshood, and to defend the Parliament, and yet con­tradict it, sayes theise deceites, and lies were in Ceremo­nie. Its certaine the King endeavoured to vndeceive the people, that they might have knowne, that the malice of these Traytours was to himselfe, whatever they pre­tended against his evill Councellours, & this Author ma­kes traynes of Treason, framed of knowne vntruths to be only Ceremonies, and rankes the fifth, & ninth Com­maundement in the Ceremoniall law, & as many of the rest, as the breach may be made serviceable to their de­ceites. If the reproofe of evill speaking against Kings in Scripture be a Ceremonie, if dutie, and loyaltie be a Ce­remonie, if veracitie be a Ceremonie, what is morall in this Authors judgment? Those, whome he calls the Par­liament vsed those impostures, vntill they had drawne the people to establish their owne slavery, and the Em­pire of those miscreants over them, and now they laugh at these miserable people, that thus beleived them, as [Page 26] they doe at the finesse of their fraudes, and despise the power of God, as they doe his Precepts. It is sufficiently evident to the world, what promises, & professions those the Author calls the Parliament vented to make his late Majest: a glorious King, & besides their legall oaths, they devised new protestations of loyaltie, and this the Author calls a Ceremonie to make the world beleive they were loyall to their King, for the Actions they intended nee­ded strong Charmes to delude the people, & make them beleive those men loyall to the King, that raysed a warr against him. The Parliament in one of their declarations told the King, that if they should say, that the evill Acts they complained of were done by his Maj: they should speake contrary to the law, and the Testimonie of their owne hearts. In another, that they were ready to lay downe their lives, and fortunes, and spend the last dropp of their blood to maintaine his Crowne, and Royall per­son in greatenes, and glory, and cast themselves downe at his Royall feete. What would he have the world thinke of this so stoutly acted vehemence only a Cere­monie? Certainly one of the most pernitious, that ever was practised, and an impudent defence suites well with a discovered falshood. They professe themselves Ene­mies to stage playes, but it is, that they might engrosse the trade to themselves, for their Pulpits, aswell, as Pamphlets sound principally this representation of passion, & stage devotion, but it is a sollesisme in so greate an actor, as this Author, that speakes alowde, that all is but a Ceremonie, for he thereby gives the world to vnderstand, that he in­tends the same falshood in his slanders, then the faction in Parliament vsed in their professions of dutie, and loyaltie.

[Page 27] This course of his in laying the faults on the King he sayes is, that they, who from the beginning, or but now of late by what vnhappines he knowes not are so much infatuated not with his person only but with his palpable faults, & dote vpon his defor­mities, may have none to blame, but their owne folly, if they live, and die in such a strok'n blindnes, as next to that of Sodom hath not happened to any sort of men more grosse, or more mis­leadinge.

Wee have found many by hellish impulsion hating his Majest: person, and authoritie, and seeme not to thinke, that God hath given them vp to a reprobate sense, and strong delusion, & would be thought to beleive all those, that love, or honour their King infatuated, and thence it is, that the Author knowes not by what vnhappines it is, that men are so infatuated, for he would have it beleived a greate happines to hate, and detest his King, to repro­ach not only his person, but his office Persecutors endea­vour to make them vnhappy, on whome they exercise their cruelties, and they wonder at those, that run not with them to the same degree of wickednes, & this Au­thor makes it an vnknowne vnhappines, that men runnot from their protested, and sworne Allegiance, and loyaltie into so disperate a Rebellion, as he maintaines, he may well say he knowes not by what vnhappines it comes, but it is an vnhappines of greater wonder, that soe many should renounce the very names of loyaltie, and obedi­ence, make Rebellion the most renowned vertue, and this after soe many vowes, and oaths to the contrary, that men, who some few yeares since professed the greatest hatred of a Traytour to their King, should now thinke no man soe prayse worthy, nor any blindnes soe neere to that miraculous stroke of the men of Sodom, as that of the opinion of loyaltie.

[Page 28] If his Majest: faults had been, as palpable, as this Au­thors falshood, it could not diminish his subjects dutie, nor excuse the Rebells impietie, nor the taunting scurri­litie of this Author, but his vertue being soe eminent, calls for vengeance on the heads of those, that call good evill, and evill good, this prodigious blindnes is a begin­ning of his punishment, that finding noe man abroade, or at home of learning, Religion, or sobrietie, that detest not the courses, which he seekes to defend, and this soe knowne to him, yet he objects blindnes to them all, and as those negroes, that paint the Devill white will have none free from blindnes, but such, as Rebell against him, that sent that blindnes vpon the men of Sodom, while they inhumanely pursued their wikednes, and while these men with fury breake downe the fences of humane so­cietie, and seeke to turne men into beasts, the spirit, that rules in the children of disobedience hath blinded their eyes, and taken possession of their soules confirming their sin not only without remorse, but with augmented impudence, their writings being composed of language to outface truth, and jeere at pietie.

If this Author had intended a right information of men, as he pretends, he would not have played the pain­ter in every period, as he hath done in making Chime­raes, and goblins to affright men. Can he hope, that any reading his booke, will conceive him rightly relating Ac­tions, or cases that tells men they are blinde, infatuated with the palpable faults of their Murthered King, and doting vpon his deformities? Doe not men see he bends his strength to misleade those, that see, & reteyne those in blindnes, that were like to recover.

Some men have by Policie accomplished after death that re­venge [Page 29] vpon their Enemies, which in life they were not able, and instances, that the will, and legacies of Caesar, being read, wrought more in the vulgar to the avenging of his death, then all the art he could vse to win their favour in his life.

Its true, that the vertue, and worth of many injured persons, hath appeared more evidently after their death, and hath caused greife, and repentance in their Enemies moving revenge in those, that were seduced to destroy them, and the cruelties exercised on his late Majest: and his eminent vertues in his sufferings have manifested vn­to many, how vnhappily they were mislead to the de­struction of a King, of so greate goodnes, and to place their confidence in such false, and bloody hipocrites. But he sajes those Apologies, and meditations are over late. Its true they cannot prevent the evill past, and the Au­thor holds their strength invincible, though he be not confident of mens inclinations without the efficacie of his pen. But would those Apologies, and meditations have been more powerfull, if sooner knowne? Truth will wrest some thing from him vnawares, for he must con­fesse, if men, that were drawne into this Rebellion against his late Majest: by slanders, had vnderstood what now they doe by this booke, they had stayed long before, and it wilbe a greate vnhappines to the poore people of his Majest: Dominions, if they be soe over late vndecei­ved, that they be not able to revenge his blood, nor re­deemce themselves from the yoke of those Traytours, vnder whome they serue.

This intent he sajes appeares by the conceited portraiture be­fore his booke drawne out to the full measure of a masking seene, and set there to catch fooles, and sily gazers.

And are Portraitures of the condition of persons, and [Page 30] their sufferings only to catch fooles, and silly gazers, to what end then is the portraict of the house of Commons with the speaker in his Eminence, and the rest set in a serious posture soe frequently published? And are the portraitures in MR. ffoxes booke of the Acts, and monu­ments of Martirs only to catch fooles, and silly gazers? The Authors catching at flies shewes the impotencie of his malice, and disorder in his vnderstanding.

Next this intent appeares by the latine wordes. Vota dabunt, quae bella negarunt. Intimating that what he could not compasse by warr, he should atcheive by his meditations, for in wordes, which admit of various sense, the libertie is ours he sa [...]es to chuse that, may best minde vs of what our restles Enemies endeavour.

In words of various sence that interpretation is to be chosen, which is most probable to be the Authors mea­ninge, an interpretation for politique ends is vninge [...]u­ous, and iniurious, and when it is against the apparent sig­nification odious, and the Author shewes with what can­dor he deales, that makes constructions to serve his turne, & least the truths conteyned in his Majest: booke should prevaile with any, he will make such a sense, as may prevent the right vnderstanding of them. His Ma­jest: prayers, and desires through his whole booke, whe­reto the latine words are referred were directed to God for blessings vpon his Kingdomes, and restoring right, and Justice to them, and all men may hope they will have a gracious acceptance, and returne from the Al­mightie, though the warrs procured it not, but this Au­thor will referr these wordes to the publishing of the booke, because it best mindes them to prevent what their Enemies end [...]avour, and because it may vsher in a conceite, which he makes much of.

[Page 31] For he sayes heere may be well observed the loose, and neg­ligent curiositie of those, who tooke vpon them to adorne the set­ting foorth of this booke, for though the picture in the front would Martir him, and saint him to befoole the people, the lattine Motto, which they vnderstand not leaves him as it were a po­litique contriver.

The lattine being taken in the right sense, what roome had there been for this curious observation? And if they, which set foorth his Majest: booke had been cu­riously, or stupidly negligent, the Author had detracted nothing from his Majest: It is not the picture but the crueltie exercised vpon him, that made him a Martir, and these miscreants are enraged to see their owne Actions in picture, which they shamed not to commit in the face of the world. The picture is farr short of the measure of his Majest: pietie, and sufferings, and wee may expect hard measure vpon the booke, when a picture in the front cannot escape the Image breaker. This Author its likely wrote from them, that vnderstood not lattine, that seekes to make the front, and lattine in the end so diffe­rent, when the front hath a picture in the posture of prayer, and the lattine in the end is applied to the effica­cy of prayer. If he had expected to worke on such, as vnderstood lattine, he would not have obtruded such an insignificant observation of misconstrued lattine. Doth the commendatious of a mans devotions shew him a po­litique contriver?

They that published his Majest: booke are heerein free from that negligent curiositie, the Author would have seene by contriving a sense, which himselfe will not affirme to be theirs, which vsed the words, but his owne by a libertie of choice, where are different senses to be [Page 32] made, but the Author shewes himfelfe, an vnpolitique contriver of detraction, when he inserts the detection of it in the relation.

Quaint Emblems, and devices begg'd from the old Pagean­try of fome twelf nights entertainment at white hall will doe but ill to make a saint, or Martir.

The Traytours are loath to see the Emblems of their owne inhumane crueltie, and how insteed of harmeles Pageantry they erected the Theatre, of their Barbarous villanie at white hall. The wickednes of those, that Mar­tired his Majest: may be shadowed by Emblems, but nei­ther art, nor wit can fully expresse it. Bloody Massacres are the Pageantry of Tyrants, and the scritches of Mar­tirs their Musique.

If the people resolve to take him sainted at the rate of such a Cannonizing, I shall he sayes suspect their Calender more, then the Gregorian.

He is very Kinde, that will suspect their Calender no more then the Gregorian, for that Calender which hath nothing peculiar, or notable, but the new account of the yeare is received by a greate part of the world for the truest, and if the Author have no greater aversion from the Calender he supposes, he is likely very neere the be­leife of it, but it seemes he had a minde to make a con­ceite from the word Calender & therefore produceth the Gregorian Calender of computation, insteed of the Calender of saints. The Authors Pageantry playing with a picture is not the way to vncannoinze a saint. The peoples opi­nion of his Majest: sanctitie is not wrought by a picture, and if they have any esteeme of such representations of his sufferings their just passion condemnes this Authors malitious detractions.

[Page 33] The Memoriall of the just shalbe blessed in despight of the malice, and scorne of men. God lookes on their sufferings, puts all their teares into his bottle, and their death is right deare in his sight. And if we looke vpon the eminencie of the Sufferer, the pride, and crueltie of the persecutors, the true causes on the part of the suffe­rer, or the pretended causes of suffering on the part of the persecutors, we shall finde few Parallells in Calenders among saints to that of his late Majest: and its memorable in his story, that his persecutors their expressions so much resemble the cursed Jewes, that crucified our blessed sa­viour. This man would make his Majest: after death a po­litique contriver, the Jewes our blessed saviour adeceiver. This Author pretends a plot to worke by this booke pu­blished after his Majest: death that revenge, which he could not obteine in his life, the cursed Jewes pretended the beleife of our saviours resurrection of greater danger, then his Miracles in his life time. Such as preserve the Memory of the sufferings of holy men in Calenders have Zeale for their warrant, and it was an ancient practice in the Church of God, and such, as deride that Custome to cast reproach vpon the persons, they have persecuted, will have their memories rott, as they have their faces hardned, and their consciences seared. We may see what answeare this Author intends to his Majest: booke, that makes such observations vpon the Claspe, & frontispice. Is it the way to confute a booke to revile the printer. Iconoclastes hath an indignation at any holy meditati­ons in his Majest: booke, and tells men there is danger of a Designe, and to keepe men from reading it gives Ca­veatts against the outside.

In one thing he must commend his opennesse, who gave the Title [Page 34] to this booke [...] that is to say the Kings Image, & by the shrine he dresses out for him, certeinly would have the people come, and worshipp.

Was man made to be worshipt, because the Scripture tells vs, he was created in the Image of god. And is this author so greate a stranger to the expressions of such, as writ the lives, & Actions of woorthy persons, who terme some men patternes, or Images of Kings, Captaines, Jud­ges, and the like? and when his Majest: booke contey­ned such Kingly meditations was it improperly named Icon-basilice. Such sorry Jests shew more will, then witt to speake fome what, and the confidence of his slan­ders are the same with his conceites, that binds this trivial scoffe with a certenly.

For which reason this answeare is intitled I conoclastes the fa­mous surname of many Greeke Emperours, who in their zeale to the commaund of god after long tradition of Idolatrie in the Church tooke courage, & brake al supperstitious Images to peices.

And the end of this answeare is to breake all good Emperours, aswell, as Kings to peices, and the Author made an improper choice, of the famous surname of good Emperours, that reproaches their calling, and justifies the violence done them for that very worthy Act of theirs in breaking superstitious Images, for if the people may judge their Kings for their Actions in Church, or State, how will this Author exempt the good Emperour Leo from the Jus [...]ice of the peoples violence against him for brea­king downe of Images, for he must confesse their power to vse violence, if he will erect a Tribunall in the people over their Kings, as he doth over his owne. Poets have fancied transformations, and men turned into Beasts, & noe age hath produced more Monsters in opinion touc­hing [Page 35] Religion, and moralitie, then this of ours, that glory in their defacing of the Image of God in man by Crea­tion, and in Kings, and governours by institution, and if every man may vse violence against his King vpon his owne authoritie, and the murther of Kings be an Act of Justice, whereto must mankinde be reduced, but to be Tigers, or Devills in destroying one another? And they cannot deny, but what may be done to a King, may be done to any other, schisme and Rebellion are insepera­ble Companions, and as this Author defames the Kingly Government, so the Church may not escape his fury, for rather, then it shall have any estimation, he will have a long tradition of Idolatry before those good Emperours, but if he had vouchsafed to reade the story, and depen­ded not vpon his spirits, he would have found, that not tradition, but an impious Rebellion stirred vp against a good Emperour brought the [...]perstitious Images into the Church, and that the good Emperour with stood the bringing in of them, not brake them downe after long Tradition, and thence he might have told vs what kinde of reformation must be expected from popular fury, and that as then by Tumultuous violence superstition was es­tablished, so now in England confusion, and prophane­nes. This Image breaker thinkes he may aswell vsurpe an Emperours surname, as his Masters their Kings power, and Estate, and while he magnifies the good Emperours corrects himselfe, least the people thence thinke on their reverence to their King. For he sayes the people exorbi­tant, and excessive in all their motions are prone oft times not to a Religious only, but to a Civill kinde of Idolatrie in Idoli­zinge their Kings, though never more mistaken in the object of their worshipp, heeretofore being wont to repute for saints those [Page 36] faithfull, and caragious Barons, who lost their lives in the field making glorious warrs against Tyrants for the common libertie.

Never time can better witnes this truth, then the pre­sent, that the people are exorbitant, and excessive in all their motions, nor ever man, that put pen to paper could more improperly lay it on their score, then this Author, that takes on him to defend the most exorbitant, and excessive motions of the people, that any Kingdome hath felt, the power of his Masters being founded on those motions, and if the people yet see not their errour, they cannot longer be deceived having such a Testimonie, as this Author a man without exception in that point, and its likely they begun to see, how they were made instru­ments of their owne slavery, that this Author gives so severe a Character of the people. If they be prone to a Religious Idolatric, as the Author sayes they are, they are very vnfit Reformers of the Church, and for that Civill kinde of Idolatrie in Idolizing their Kings, that is in an eminent degree of obedience, for such appeares his meanings, it wil never prove sin to them, and the contra­ry vice Rebellion is more frequent, and more dangerous to their salvation, and many will goe to heaven with this Civill kinde of Idolatrie, when Rebells, and despisers of Dominion wilbe excluded. The Author should have done well to tell, what this Civill kinde of Idolatrie is, if it differs from true, obedience, and whether it may not be given to others, aswell, as Kings. I beleive if there be such a Civill kinde of Idolatrie, the worst degree of it is in the reverence borne to King killers, and common de­stroyers of their Countrey, as the stories of all times testi­fie. Rebells never wanted pretentions, but libertie, and Justice were the common Maske of such Monsters, so [Page 37] this man wil have the world beleive the pretences of Re­bells, and that Rebellion was allwayes the lawfull side, and thence those faithfull, and couragious Barons, that had broken their faith, and Alleagiance to their King, Trayterously armed the multitude for private revenge, and ambition must be sainted, & those whome the cleere evidence of law judged Traytours, and their warrs Re­bellion must be the patrons of common libertie. I thinke the Author will hardly finde a Calender of such saints, if he receive a Connonization at such a rate, it will deserve far­lesse credit, then the Gregorian Calender, but he is not like to finde a Calender of saints for his purpose, vnles it be fil­led with such faithles Traytours. It hath been said of Po­liticians, that they love the Treason, and hate the Tray­tour, but these new Masters saint the Traytours, & make Treason the Canon of their Religion. Some men have pitied men of parts, whose passions have carried them in­to vnwarrantable Actions, but never till this age did Christians adore such saints. Rebellion is dearer to this Author, then Religion, and he will rather commend su­perstitious Actions of a blinde age, and the very dreggs of Popery against which he professeth so greate Zeale, then want an ingredient to the varnish of that horrid sin, and rather then that shalbe discountenanced, Popery, and Judaisme it selfe shalbe admitted. There were a pe­ople, that Idolized Todes, and vipers and all venemous creatures, and these men have resumed that Idolatry, that will have the most cruell, and destructive impieties to make men saints.

He instances in two particulars Simon de Montfort Earle of Leicester against Hen. 3. and Thomas Plantagenet Earle of Lancaster against Edward 2.

[Page 38] For the first of these, he was by the Testimony of the stories of that age the most ingrate full Rebell, that any state hath harboured, a man overloaden with his Masters favours, matcht to his sister, instrusted with his secretts, and his forces, yet this man, whome neither benifitts, af­fection, nor trust could oblidge, nor keepe from thrusting the King from his Throne, & assuminge the Government to himselfe for the common libertie, as the Author will have it, is enrolled for a saint. If there were any so exor­bitant, and excessive in their motions to saint such a faithlesse wretch, the Author will hardly finde any so much mis­taken in his Civill Kinde of Idolatry to their Kings, but whence comes Hen: 3: to be a Tyrant, of whome the stories report so much mildnes, and hardly so greate an errour, as the vnadvised advancement of that Rebell Montfort? But it is very vsuall with these men, that wher­ever they finde an Example of Rebellion there the King is a Tyrant, and all such Presidents, as were conveyed to our times to shew vs the mischeife, and wickednes of Re­bellion are produced, as authorities for the committing of it, and Garnetts straw wilbe a Miracle, and he a saint, & the Assassins of Kings glorious Champions for common libertie. For the secound, the stories are very silent of any com­mon libertie pretended by the Earle of Lancaster, or any Tyrany against that King, but it matters not what truth there be in an assertion so a King be made the Criminall, and though the mistake of such, as held the Earle of Lan­caster for some time a saint, were ridiculous to that very age, yet this Author will have it a lesse errour, then the keeping of the fifth Commaundement, and the people, that vsed a Civill Kinde of Idolatry to their good Emperour, that had the famous surname of Iconoclastes more mistaken in [Page 39] the object of their worshipp, then such, as Idolized the super­stitious Images he had broken, for the Author sayes they were never more mistaken in the object of their worshipp, then in the Civill Kinde of Idolatrie in Idolizing their Kings.

Its apparent in the stories of our nation, that supersti­tious Churchmen had their hands in those Rebellions the Author mentions, & therefore might induce the igno­rant rabble to adore the Calves they had set vp, & in our dayes wee finde they have successours, that teach the people doctrines of Devills and seduce them from obe­dience to those, that had the rule over them.

Now with a besotted, and degenerate basenesse of spirit, ex, cept some few, who yet reteine in them the old English fortitude, and love of freedome, and have testified it by their matchles dee­des, the rest embastardized from the ancient noblenes of their Aucestours are ready to fall flat, and give adoration to the Image, and memory of this man, who hath offred at more cun­ning fetches to vndermine our libertie, and put Tyrany into an Act, then any Brittish King before him.

Its very strange, that all except some few are so besotted, as not to love libertie so naturall to man, and those, that have so contended for it, as the English nation, but if it were possible for Iconoclastes to deale faithfully, wee might have expected, that he would have told vs, what that libertie was the people loved not, which is the liber­tie of those ambitious Traytours, that now lord it over them, which are those few he mentions, whose match­lesse villanies have wasted more English blood in these few yeares, then all our Kings in their victorious warrs since the conquest. The people doubtles love libertie, but they finde themselves cheated of their just libertie vnder a lawfull King, and brought vnder the slavery of [Page 40] many Tyrants who perswaded the poore people it was libertie to be without a King, though subject to the licen­tious will of vpstart vsurpers, and why is it degnerate ba­senes of spirit to vindicate their lawes, & liberties against Tyrants, that have vsurped it, and revenge the fraude, & iniury done them by deceivers, that vnder pretence of law, and libertie bereft them of both. The best of the Re­bells pretence, which this Author defends is to fight for libertie, and if the people finde their libertie taken away, is it vnlawfull to resume it from Tyrants, and vsurpers, which this Author holds lawfullKings? Its true men were besotted with the name of libertie, and those Mounte­banques infused the principles of Rebellion into the pe­ople by telling there could be no libertie vnder Monar­chy, as if the nature of Governments were vnknowne till our time, and thence this Author writes, as if none, but besotted people should reade him. If these vipers had professed in the beginninge of their Rebellion, that Si­mon Monford, & Thomas Earle of Lancaster had been saints, and that they intended to follow the Example of such Traytours, the people would not have been so besotted, the miseries brought on the Kingdome by such seducers being so largely delivred in story, but the people have now found by sad experience, that the leaders of the present disorders are the Progenie of those cursed Rebels, whose Actions made them odious to all posteritie, and dishonoured the times wherein they lived, and this Au­thor would brand the whole nation making Rebellion their fortitude, and love offreedome, when its plaine to all readers, that those Rebellions were the scourge of the nation, which langiushed vnder the burthens, that were encreased by those, whome they followed against their kings.

[Page 41] How the people have been Idolized by those Rebells, Tumults defended, and the power over their king pre­tended for the justification of this odious Rebellion, be­sides the declaration of those they call a Parliament, this Author frequently tells vs in this answeare, & yet is soe carelesse of truth, or shame, as heere their reason, and affection are as contemptible, as their right in Govern­ment, and some few must raigne over them. The greatest vnhappines of the English nation hath been in the mis­fortunes of their kings, & the greatest dishonour in the prevalcne of insolent, and sly Rebells, the noble blood of the most renowned persons being wasted in those dis­orders, and Civilitie for many yeares destroyed. If we place vertue in the insolent attempts of Rebells against lawfull Princes, not only Christian fortitude, but morall vertue grow contemptible, & rage, and venom will soo­ner get a saint-shipp, then Justice or innocence.

If so many are so ready to fall flat to the Image, and memory of his late Majefl: as the Author sayes, his Masterts have cause to vse new principles, and as they fought against their king by faining a power in the people, so they must now lay fetters on them, and cast away the maske a Ce­remony to be vsed no longer.

It was not a part of our liberties to be deprived of our king, nor to Rebell against him, such acts being contra­dictions not only to Christian, but English libertie, and such, as take that libertie to themselves, robb others of their just, & lawfull liberties. Doe the present, or did ever Traytours give libertie to any, but their faction? And doe they allow them any more, then libertie at the will of the Commaunder? And if libertie be so precious to these men, why should John lilborne bemore restrained, [Page 42] then Iconoclastes? And why should any be more Cry­minall, that write, or speacke against an vsurped power, then they, that wrote against the knowne legall authori­tie? Prisoners in Gayles hire persons of strong voyces to begg for them att the grate, and the Rebells have found this Authors rancour, and impudence so sublimated, as his falsities, and slanders were probable to infect the world, though to knowing, and honest men they sound the voyce of a Beast, and not a man; what one libertie of the English Nation is there now left? Doe not all men see, that their ridiculous howse, and state Councell act at the will of their sword Master, by whose act those Cy­phers are disposed of to signifie what he pleaseth? Doe not all men see, that the vse of the name libertie signi­fieth nothing, but a sound to fill the peoples eares, and deceive their vnderstandinge?

That Tyranny should be objected to the best King, in whose time fewer men suffred death, then in any time of like extent throughout all our Kings, shewes hellish rage, not common impudence. In his Raigne of sixteene yeares, vntill this abominable Parliament, one only Peere of the Kingdome suffered death, & that not for any pro­vocation, or offence against the Kings person, but for Crymes of another nature, a raritie in the stories of the best Kings, and yet so brutish is this man to say, that he hath offred at more cunning fetches to vndermine our liberties, and put Tyrany into an art, then any brittish King before him. Wherein should Tirany appeare, was there any violence vsed in taking away mens Estates? Can they object Co­vetuousnes, or luxury to his late Majest: they have not yet pretended it, but they would make Tyrany by ima­gination, & that Government which stands in their way [Page 43] must be called Tyrany, and the want of instances of Ty­rany makes them thus giddily stagger from side to side, and talke of offring at more cunninge fetches, what doth this signifie? Doth this Author thinke, that he wilbe beleived in his slanders of Tyrany, when all is resolved into offers, & offers at cunning fetches, and all is only their malicious, & inconsequent inferences? This Author well knowes this assertion of his, is so farr from truth, that he cannot name one Act of his Maj: wherevnto he, or his Masters have excepted, that wants Example of his best Predeces­sours, so wide hath he opened his mouth in saying more then any Brittish King before him. And his late Majest: tooke not such Examples, as those men, that make Acts of violence, and Rebellion Examples, but such Actions, as were by Councell, and in the way of law, and Iustice. But this Author having so lately mentioned the old English fortitude, how falls he to name the Brittish Kings? If he intend the Kings, which the Romans found at their com­ming, or which succeeded their departure, his comparison is not of any large signification, for the Catalogue is ve­ry short, and the Actions lesse, but perhapps he meanes to make Authenticke the story of Geoffry of Monmouth, where the Catalogue hath as litle truth, as the persons Actions, he doth not meane the Saxons to be Brittish Kings? If he doe, he will finde among them not only offers at fetches, but open rapines, and homicides, which when he thinkes on, what he hath written might shame him, if he could shame at any thing, and if he thought knowing readers would have the patience to pervse so much scurrilous language, and impudent vntruth, as he hath packt togeather in this booke, he would expect just reproach for offering at such a Comparison so imperti­nent, [Page 44] if he intended such Kings only, as were properly termed Brittish in regard of discent, whose persons, and Actions are so inconsiderable, and so lewdely false. If he intend all others, that have Raigned in England, whose stories conteine so evident a refutation of his vntruth.

In the first Parliament of King James, there was a de­bate touching the Kings Title, which he desired to have of greate Brittaigne in reguard of his Dominion over the whole Island, the lower howse then reputed wise, much opposed it, and would reteine the name of England, vn­der which name they said their Ancestours had been fa­mous. These men tell vs noe contentions are infallible, but the present, and they are in love with the name of Brittish Kings, of whome they know nothing, that the people may forget their English Kings, that made them famous.

Wee reade of some in Scripture, that wrought mis­cheife by a law, and this Author, that talkes of making Tyrany an art, strives to make Rebellion a law, and all Government a Tyrany, and having vndermined Monarc­hy with cantinge termes of Libertie, seekes to suppresse all Libertie by lawlesse power. He doth not wonder, though he pretend it at the change in the people, for the many odious lyes, and slanders his Masters have vsed of the King, the many promises they have falsified to the people, the cōtinual oppressions they exercise over them justly provoke hatred to such Tyrants, vnles the people were condemned to perpetuall stupiditie with their pre­sent slavery.

The Rebells, whome this Author reports to be Sainted, though they objected misgovernment to their Kings, ne­ver were so impudent to pretend their lawes slavery, but [Page 45] the present Traytours have improved all the impieties of former ages to extreamitie, and they call all the Govern­ment of England, for many hundreds of yeares Norman slavery, and will imagine a libertie that perisht by the flood, which they now resume. Their pretence of lawes is turned into sickely fancies of distempered braines, & though the leaders are hardened by their confirmed cor­ruptions, the people begin to recover their vnderstan­ding, and see the cunning fetches, whereby they were vn­dermined, and the Art, which Traytours vsed to be­tray them.

Which low dejection, and debasement of minde in the people, he cannot willingly ascribe to the naturall disposition of an En­glishman, but rather to two other causes.

And is it a low dejection, and debasement of minde to re­stue a mans selfe from a common cheate, or a malicious oppressour? Is it not dejection, and debasement of spirit to follow detected villaines, and common theeves? Is it the naturall disposition of an Englishman to betray, and kill his King, & put his necke vnder the yoke of his inferiours? Is the English disposition so base, as to leave a King, and be subject to a Iacke straw? And is stupiditie the English dispo­sition, that can swallow any deceites, and abuses, though never so palpaple? Doubtles whoever lookes, what Go­vernment was heeretofor lived vnder, & what now, must needes conclude, that such, as willingly forsooke the on, and submitted to the other, expessed as low dejection, and debasement of minde, as ever the English nation shewed for­titude and the many s [...]fferes for refusing their submission to this vsurpation, and the few, which the Author sayes re­taine the old English fortitude shewes, that it is not the disposition of an Englishman, but the vnnaturall, and de­generate [Page 46] inclinations of some, that assuminge the English name have sought to dishonour the nation, and trans­ferre the infamy of their Actions on the naturall disposi­tion, stiling the greatest Traytours the best Englishmen.

The first of his causes, whereto he ascribes this low dejection, he sayes is to the Prelates, and their fellow teachers, though of another name, and sect, whose pulpitt stuffe both first, and last hath been the doctrine, and perpetuall infusion of servilitie, and wretchednes to all the hearers.

Could the Prelates, and their fellow teacher, against whome not preachinge was cheifely objected by these Hipocrites, worke such Miracles by their pulpitt stuffe. And could those, whome they have excluded pulpits, for soe many yeares cause this new degeneration, of whose causes he seemes soe inquisitive. Pulpitt stuffe was a Terme only proper to their s [...]uffling Levites, which was an infusion of contempt of the persons, and detraction of the authoritie of their Rulers. How full were pulpitts, and Tubbs of these froggs, and vermin, Emissaries of hell, who decryed Christian patience, and allowed noe forti­tude, but what resisted Authoritie. The preaching of the Prelates in England will remaine to their honour, and the infamy of these hipocriticall Rebells, and their workes follow them, which schismaticall Lunacie vainely rages to de­fame, and all men can wittnes, that the ridiculous, and impertinent repetitions, vaine, and senselesse inferences, the common pulpitt stuffe of puritan Sectaries made prea­ching to many, as Elies sons made the offerings of the Lord; And the Rebellion, perjury, and Atheisme, that hath followed such sermonizers, shewes what spirit they are of, and that they waite on Ieroboams Calves, least men should returne to God, and their lawfull King, but this ray­ling [Page 47] at the Prelates is growne stale. The servilitie, and wretchednes he meanes, wee shall know more plainely heereafter, for obedience, & sufferinge are the servilitie and wretchednes, which he calls the pulpit stuffe of the Prelates. Wee may shortly expect, that as theis miscreants have altered state, & Church, soe they will compose an Index expurgatorius of the Bible, for it cannot be imagined, that they will object this hainous Cryme of preaching passive obedience to the Prelates, and leave soe many places in the Gospell, which commaund it, & themselves neede not the Gospell to make men obedient, they have the sword, and this Ceremony of Religion is abolished.

But what are these fellow teachers of the Prelates of ano­ther name, and sect? why did he not speake out, and name the Presbiterian? was it not as easie to name him, as de­scribe him? such termes are long in comming foorth, that carry with them the reproach of the speaker. The com­mon guilt, wherein theise sects, and parties were involved appeares in their division, and how they deceived the people, and one another. Its happy, if any men, that have gone farr in an evill way stopp, and returne to the right path. St. Paul gloried, that men said of him, that he now preacht the faith, which before he destroyed, & if there be any, though of another name, and sect in the sense of this author, that preach loyaltie, which before they de­stroyed, Its Gods greate mercy to them, and that they reduce others from the errours of their way. These Pres­biterians may hence observe, how vnhappily they were engaged against the Prelates, and with this other sect in settinge foorth contumelious, & scoffing libells, that now have the same language cast on themselves by theise brethren in evill. Schisme, & Rebellion have noe meane, [Page 48] and he is much deceived, that thinkes to retaine either of them in any bounds without force, and this the Pers [...]i­terian now findes to his losse, who is growne as contemp­tible to those he meant to rule, as he endeavoured to make the Prelates.

Besides their pulpit stuffe he sayes their lives the Tipe of all worldlines, and hipocrisie without the least true patterne of vertue, righteousnes, or selfe denyall in their whole practice.

Of those Markes, which the Scripture gives for the Tryall of Hipocrites, what one doe these Rebells want, their pride in assuming holines to themselves, & denying it to others, is held foorth by them on all occasions. Stand further from me, I am holier, then thou, was the old Jew, and Lord I thanke thee I am not, as other men, nor as this Publican was the reformed Pharisee, & how impiously these Tray­tours appropriate to themselves righteousnes, and selfe denyall, as if none, but Traytours could attaine the kuowledge of such graces? If righteousnes consist in Blas­pheming God, contempt of his ordinances, and scorning the doc­trine, and practice of his saints, these men may lay some claime to it, And if such, as deny not themselves the lives, and Estates of others, that deny not themselves any power, or pleasure they like, be the true selfe denyers, we cannot exclude this Author, and his Masters from attaining it? Doe these men imagine, that vsing the termes of righte­ousnes, and selfe denyall, which they have made much in fashion, induces any man to thinke they esteeme it, whose whole endeavours are selfe seeking? Can they per­swade any man, that when our blessed saviour would pay Tribute, though not due from him, that he might not give offence, that the righteousnes, which he commended to his servants was not only to deny Tribute, but to fight [Page 49] against those to whome it was due? Are they greater practisers of selfe deniall, that preach warr, and blood ra­ther, then obey, then those, that preach passive obedience, and suffering rather then violence? Certenly the Alcaron Religion of these men, cannot entitle them to that Evangelycall vertue of selfe deniall, and their Actions being soe opposite to it, theit frequent vse of the word proves their confirmed hipocrisie, & resolved impenitencie. He may well wonder, if such pulpit stuffe, and such lives, as he mentions should attract soe many from his old English fortitude. If he would have assigned a cause for such an eminent change, as he supposes, it should have been some way proportionable to the effect, and his best way had been to have advanced the knowledge, and subtile be­haviour of the Prelates, and their fellow teachers, but madd men only will beleive him, when he sayes men grosse in their doctrines, and offenfive in their lives per­swaded the most part from the olde English fortitude, this shewes only a will to rayle, not ane Argument to prove. It wilbe an hard taske for him to prove men the Tipe of worldlines, whome his Masters have stript of all worldly meanes of living, and exposed them, and their families to begg, or starve. Was there ever a time in any one King­dome, when soe many have endured the spoyling of their goods, & vndergone soe greate povertie from plen­tie, rather then renounce their faith, & former profession, as the Prelates of England, and their follow tachers? hipo­crisie, and worldlines consist not with that condition, and in this Estate they cannot charge the Prelates with ray­ling, & virulent language against their persecutors, as the Rebell Ministers vsed against their Governours.

The people now discerne the difference betweene [Page 50] the Prelates humilitie, and the pride of their present Im­posters, and that pride is lesse incident to just Titles, then vsurpations, and that popular insinuations never want am­bition, and arrogance. The Bishopps eminent vertues, and sufferings are soe conspicuous to all men, as cannot be obscured by malicious detraction. But such, as make it their sin to preach passive obedience will judge Martir­dome hipocrisie, and patience worldlinesse.

His next cause he attributes to the factious inclination of most men divided from the publique by serveral ends, and hu­mours of their owne.

Factious inclinations carry men to Rebellion, and dis­obedience, and private ends divided from the publique are excentrique to lawfull Government. All changes proceede from these ends, and humours, and submission to Rulers is inconsistent with them. But the Author will have the resistance of parricide, and Rebellion an effect of factious inclination, as patience, and passive obedience to be a worldly doctrine; By his account Rebells only have care of the publique, and all that oppose them have ends divided from it. This humour of seditious Traytours hath been anciently discovered, and yet by the peoples vnhappy credulitie never prevented, & thence it comes, that they complaine of faction, and innovation, while they are busie in contrivinge it. And it is noe wonder, that they, that have found soe many deceived by their dissembled passions, will offer such palpable absurdities to the people, that men oppose them for private ends, & that themselves seeke only the publique, whē by blood, and rapine they have got possession of all the wealth, & power of the Kingdome, and treade all vnder foote, that had right to rule They say truly they seeke the publi­que, [Page 51] but all men see it is for their private ends, and ambition.

At sirst noe man lesse beloved, noe man more generally con­demned, then was the King from the time, that it became his Custome to breake Parliaments at home, and eyther willfully, or weakely betray protestants abroade to the beginninge of those [...]ombustions.

He would prove the people inconstant, who doubts it? there hath been proofe enough of it in their wretched levitie tossed to, and fro by these Rebells. Bene facere, male audire Regium est, will not be denyed by Icono­clastes to be a knowne truth, and that it is the common lot of good Princes to be misreported. That his late Ma­jest: suffered by the privy whispes of ambitious seducers to the credulous vulgar is easily graunted, but it was their ingratitude, not his merit, and the Authors lesse beloved and more generally condemned is a supposition voyde, of truth, as the Act it selfe was voyde of dutie, the causes he would have to be his Custome in breaking Parliaments, and betraying Protestants. Let vs examine what ground there was, for this aversion from the King vpon either of theis. There were in the time of King James, men, that made ill vse of Parliaments, and insteede of amending what was amisse strived to make the people beleive things were out of order, which they felt not, and to create discontents at the Government. This caused the breach of some Parliaments in that Kings time, his late Majest: finding the people possest with greate jealosies of his match with spaine, & greate desires to breake the peace with that nation in order to the recovery of the Palati­nate became the instrument of setling a right vnderstan­dinge betweene the King, and his Parliament in the [Page 52] 21. th. Yeare of his Raigne. Then was the Treatie of the match, and peace broken, the session of Parliament con­cluded to the greate joy of the people, and with their greate professions of affection to his late Majest: for soe happy a worke. King James was noe sooner dead, and his late Majest: by the Councell of the Parliament engaged in a dangerous warr, but the seditious contrivers, that had pretended such Zeale for the regaininge of the [...]a­latinate, cast about how they might ruine his Majest: by that vndertaking, and in his first Parliament without res­pect to their owne promises, his Majest: merit from them in procuringe their desires, or the publique necessities in­gratefully withdrew their assistance from him, and spread abroade rumours against his Government, and when he called a Parliament, the private annimosities, & personall thirst of revenge in some men were entertained in the house of Commons, to exclude the consideration of the pressing necessities of his Majest: affaires, and forreigne agents had their fingers with these leaders in Parliament, to divert all supplies from his Majest: that both Protes­tants, and all other his allies might be disappointed, and which by that meanes was effected. Its well knowne with what industrie, & difficultie his Majest: in the mid­dest of his necessities advanct releife to the Protestants, and if they were betrayed, the Treason must lie on the Parliaments credulitie to those vnderminers, that for­sooke their King in the prosecution of that worke.

To betray Protestants, theis Traytours know signifies much to the people, & therefore they make it a reproach to their King against the knowne evidence of the fact, and all sense, and though they hipocritically pretend af­fection to the Protestant Religion, the world knowes, they [Page 53] doe not asmuch, as give it a toleration, for the Protestants doe not account Iohn of Leidon, and the mad men of Mun­sters Protestants, & there is noe Religion, but theirs, now current in England.

This Author sees the cleerenes of the proofe against their malitious allegations of betraying Protestants, and therefore descends a little in his termes, and sayes either wilfully, or weakely. Could he betray them by impotencie of force, or Councell? thats a new found Treason, that the minde intends not, but its too much respect to such an absurd Calumnie to give it an answeare.

He goes on, all men inveighed against him, all men except Court vassalls opposed him, and his Tyranicall proceedings.

Inveighinge against the King was vnknowne in Eng­land before such Monsters, as this Author were hatcht by Rebellion, and made their words accord with their Actions, when their lying, and hipocrisie could noe lon­ger serve turne. Before this time malecontents muttered their censures of Government, and people that beleived them, thought it their sin, and shame to inveigh against their King. Though discontents were nourisht among many, few, or none were soe impudent to inveigh. There is noe Courtier, whose observance to his Prince, or his flatterie of him can binde him to like vassallage, as he is, that serves Rebells by false, and impudent detractions of Rulers. Noe slave soe base, as he, that wilbe hired to murther the fame, and honour of others. There are some Courtiers among his new Masters, whose falshood to their true Master, and base observance of the Traytours to him entitles them to the worst of vassallage. This Au­thor goes an ill way to prove Tyranicall proceedings, when he sayes they were soe opposed. Its strange a Ty­rant [Page 54] should suffer himselfe to be opposed, and how were those Tyranicall proceedings opposed? he will say by disputes in Courts of Justice, & was this Tyrany to admit contestations in ordinary Courts? There was never time, wherein there were not questions of right betweene King, and subject, & is it Tyrany in a Prince to be a par­tie in a Proces? And doth this Author hold malicious re­ports, and rumours notes of disgrace vpon King, or any other Magistrate? good Princes lives confute detrae­tours, and though the people for a time may be deluded, they will come to know a good King in his losse. Rebel­lious humours are an Epidemicall pestilence, whose vio­lence cannot continue.

This full Parliament was at first vnanimous in their dislike, and protestation against his evill Government.

This hath not the least colour of truth, and as there was never time, wherien somethinge was not to be amen­ded, soe in the beginninge of this Parliament, there were things of that nature, but not such, as laid Cryme vpon his Majest: Government, nor did the Parliament judge soe, but all corruptions of Courts, Errours of Councell, ill successes of Actions are charged by this Author, as his Majest: ill Government, and every judgment of Parlia­ment in a particular case made a protestation against it.

This Author cannot, but know, that the most vnami­mous protestation, that ever the Parliament made was to defend the Kings person, honour, and Estate, and they, that made this protestation could not be vnanimous in pro­testing against his evill Government, nor in destroying both him, and it. They protested to defend the lawes of the land, one of which they declared to be, that the King could doe noe wrong, and that if they should say his late Majest: [Page 55] did, they should speake against the law, & the affection of their owne hearts. Can this Author finde any roome heere for an vnanimous protestation of the Parliament against the Kings ill Government. And yet these were made long after the beginninge of the Parliament, but they, that have noe conscience of speaking truth, have noe shame to be convinced of falshood.

But when they, who sought themselves, and not the publique began to doubt, that all of them could not by one, and the same way attaine to their ambitious purposes, then was the King, or his name at least, as a fit propertie first made vse of, his doings made the best of, and by degrees justified.

He is very industrious to finde out causes, why soe many would not be Traytours, why could he not fall into the consideration of the oaths of Alleagiance, & supre­macie, that all members of Parliament take at their en­trance? why could he not thinke on the protestation themselves contrived to defend the King? how did he forget the Commaunds of obedience from God? If him­selfe, and his Masters had not preferred their ambitious ends before their dutie to God, or man, if they had not thought all oaths, and vowes of noe obligation against their ends, they would never have attributed other mens desertion of their courses to proceede from ambitious ends, Could men, that saw these Traytours making such oaths, and protestations of loyaltie with a resolution to breake them, run without remorse with them? Could any, that retained any sparke of Religion, or morall ho­nestie concurr with such persons in their lewde courses? But all could not attaine their ambitious ends by the same way. What way? by destroying the King? wee are sure some have attained their ambitious ends that way. And [Page 56] doth this Author thinke, that any men had higher ends of ambition, then they, that now have attained theirs? if he doe, he hath very few of his minde, how ever there was a way to ambitious ends, but it was not wide enough for all, and who had these ambitious ends they, that tooke the way, or they, that left it. They that had obligations of honour, and conscience for their wayes are vncharitably charged with ambitious ends, and they, that brake the bounds of dutie, and oaths to attaine their ends, are sot­tishly pretended to seeke the publique.

How the Kings name, and office hath been made a propertie, and all dutie, and oaths to him a Ceremony by the Traytours is knowne to the world. They have not spared any thing Religious, or Civill. They have made a propertie of the very name of God, of fasts, of thankes­giving, of prayers, of preaching. They have made a pro­pertie of Justice, of Delinquents, evill Councellours? how often have they made the lords house a propertie cal­ling it the Kings hereditary Councell? how often of loy­altie? And how frequently in this very libell doth he make a propertie of the name of Parliament. All men see there hath been nothing reall with them, but their am­bition, and crueltie.

Which begate him such a partie, as after many wiles, and struglings with his inward feares imboldened him at length to set vp his standard against the Parliament.

After many Messages to the Traytours, that possest both houses of Parliament. After many offers to relin­quish his just rights to take away all jealosies, and feares of his power, which were then pretended. After many Remostrances, of the Calamities, that attend Civill dis­tractions. After the vndutiful rejections of al his motions [Page 57] for peace. After the discovery of the vnsatiable ambition, and blood thirstie malice of the prevailing partie. After the violation of all priviledges of Parliament. After the compulsion of the better part of both houses to desert them. After the seizing of his Majest: forts, and Navy, and assuminge the Militia. After the longest, and most provokt patience, that ever King reteined, his Majest: set vp his standard against those Rebells, that tooke the name of Parliament.

But Iconoclastes remember, you have heere vpbrai­ded feares to the King, when you come to deny he had any. What wiles were vsed to seduce the people, what jealosies, & ridiculous feares were blowne vp to disorder them is yet fresh in Memory, and he well observes the Kings standard at length set vp, for there was just cause to have done it long before, and much disadvantage to his Majest: by the delay.

When as before that time, all his adherents consistinge most of dissolute swordmen, and suburb roysters hardly amounted to the making vp of one ragged Regiment strong enough to assault the vnarmed house of Commons.

What time doth he meane the setting vp of the stan­dard? If his Majest: had sooner declared against the Tray­tours, he had not wanted a greater Regiment. And if he had intended to assault the house of Commons, those he had with him were enough to have done it, though those, that then sate had been armed, otherwise those members would not have been absent, when he eame.

For the qualitie of the Kings adherents, as he Phrases it, the persons, that then waited on him were for the most part of better qualitie, then their Rebell Generall, whome now they adore. It was the art of one of the guides of [Page 58] this Treason at that time to stile such, as were about the King Cavileers, as a name vnagreeable to the prickeard Pu­ritan, whose supersilious demurenes made wry faces at such a name, it being the Custome of false Traytours to lay claime to those behaviours, that may hide their in­ward wolvish disposition, and defame others to ge [...] repu­tation to themselves, and thence suburb Roysters, and dis­solute swordmen became names for such, as followed the King to add terrour to the citizens of London, who have found more pride, crueltie, & robbery among their schis­maticall pretenders to pietie, then any such danger, as was threatned them from such, as followed the King.

Though this breaker would destroy the reason, and sense of his readers, yet its impossible by such incoherent Arguments, as he produceth. Can he hope any man will beleive him, that such, as followed the King at that time to the lower house, were all, that tooke offence at the proceedings in Parliament, and that none els were resol­ved to assist the King against the inivries offred him? That were too vnreasonable considering the Actions both then, and succeedinge, and because he had not en­deavoured to get more strength, therefore he could not? But if the number of them, that had a right vnderstan­ding of the Kings affaires were very small, doth it follow, that the contrary was the better because numerous? The Author refutes it himselfe in his next words, and surely the Argument is more strong against the cause he main­taines, that the people, that at first followed them have now left them, then the motions of the people carryed by rumours against their King in the beginning were of any Tyrany, or ill Government in him, for a people are easier stirred vp to follow an evill cause, then reduced af­ter [Page 59] they have begun, and the qualitie, & number of such persons, who have lost their lives, and fortunes in main­taining the Kings cause in regard of Estate, honour, and integritie, & in Comparison of such, as Rebelled against him, might justly have withheld this Authors hand from objecting against their condition, for his owne partie must admire his impudence having such evidence of the fact.

After which attempt seconded by a tedious, and bloody warr on his subjects, wherein he hath soe farr exceeded those his arbi­trary violences in time of peace, they, who before hated him for his misgovernment, nay fought against him with displayed Ban­ners in the field, now applaud him, & extoll him for the wisest, and most Religious Prince, that lived.

And let Iconoclastes shew other reason of this change, then the evidence of their former mistake. Could it be ambitious ends, that made men extoll him, whome they had offended, and that after his imprisonment, and mur­ther. After the defeate of his forces, & noe expectation, but of oppression vpon all such, as expressed a good opi­nion of him? surely he hath abundantly requited his scornefull expression of his late Majest: ragged Regi­ment in the beginning, that heere tells vs after all his los­ses, and lowest condition, nay after death his very Ene­mies changed their thoughts of him. Repentance is a gre­ate reproach among those Rebells, the preaching of that doctrine is worse to them, then passive obedience. That there were some, that hated his Majest: may be beleived, their tongues, and pens set on fire of hell have published it to the world. They that hate Christian vertues, hate such, as have them. They, that hate the ordinances of God, hate such, as are appointed to exercise them, But it [Page 60] was only in some fiery schismatickes; whose pride disgui­sed with profession of humilitie, at first appeared in their petulancy against their teachers, and at last came to exalt it selfe above all, that is called God. These men perfectly hated the King, that hated all Government, and by this measure Iconoclastes would comprehend all such, as through credulitie, or errour at first fell into this misfor­tune to beare Armes against their King. Doubtles, they, that after this tedious, and bloody warr became more af­fectionate to his Majest: descerned not such excesses on his Majest: part, as this Author supposes, for that had not been an Argument for a change. Its manifest to all, that his Majest: Actions in this warr were noe other, then such, as the necessitie of that condition drawes with it, and which the noblest Enemies vse, & his Enemies can­not produce one Act done by him, which themselves did not avow, and yet he sayes in the warr he exceeded his Arbitrary violences in time of peace, and if wee take the word of Iconoclastes, they were not irregular, that the necessary Actions of warr did exceede, and by the way neither Iconoclastes, nor his Masters for their justification have produced one Act of Arbitrary violence against his late Majest: though they make outcryes of Tyrany, and violence to hide the vglines of their villany.

By soe strange a Method amongst the madd multitude is a sudden reputation won of wisedome by willfullnes, and subtill shifts. Of goodnes by multiplying evill. Of pietie by endeavou­ring to roote out true Religion.

But is it only the multitude he meanes, in whome this strange change is? that cannot be, for the severe procee­dings of his Masters against eminent persons for deserting their side, their purging the Parliament, as they call it, & [Page 61] this Authors succeeding discourse denote others, besides the madd multitude. Its a strange Method, that the madd multitude should be moved to honour suffering vertue, which themselves had persecuted, were not the eviden­ces without exception? And its not strange, that such, as knew not the King, but by the sly insinuations of se­ducers, should come to the knowledge of their Errours by his eminent vertues in his sufferings. The Method, that Iconoclastes calls strange, is certainely as strange, as the Method he takes to be beleived, for will any man give him credit, that after such an aversion, as he men­tions in the people from the King vpon the pretence of his imprudence, and vnsoundnes in Religion, the people should be drawne to an opinion of his wisedome by will­fullnes. Of goodnes by multiplying evill. Of pietie by endeavou­ring to roote out true Religion. Though the people were de­ceived in his late Majest: yet take them at the worst, if they had hated him, because they thought him evill, they would not be drawne to love him, because they found him soe. Its not strange, that the multitude finding them­selves cheated should be ashamed of their errour, and among other seducements, that cry of rooting out Reli­gion made lowdest noyse in the beginning of this Rebel­lion, and this Author, and his fellowes have vndeceived the people, for they have rooted out all Religion, and left nothing, that hath the face of it. Did the people expect, that all the cry, that was made of Religion was to bring in Arrianisme, Anabaptisme, Socinianisme, & such sects, as they never heard of? was this the Religion they in­tended to fight for? Its not strange at all, that the mad multitude, who were inflamed with the reputation, and Authoritie of the Parliament comminge to see, that the [Page 62] orders, votes, & other Trumperie, with which they were led on, were only the contrivance of a factious crew, should abhorre them. That comminge to see the aboli­tion of Parliaments, and scorne of the peoples Power, which at first was preached to them over their King, they should bewayle their owne miserie, that was soe vnhap­pily brought on them by their owne precipitation. The proofes of his late Majest: wisedome, goodnes, and pietie are obvious to the meanest capacitie, and the sublimest vnderstandings have made his vertues, aswell, as his mis­fortunes their wonder, and though wee have lived in an age, where prodigies of villany are every day acted, this Author is a wonder to wisemen, that makes a Method of lying, and dissimulation: But as the Government of hell is confusion, soe are the Arts and Method of the Mini­sters of that Enemy of mankinde, which confound rea­son, and sobrietie, and soe, as they may contradict truth, care not to contradict themselves.

But it is evident, that the cheife of his adherents, never loved him, never honoured him, nor his cause, but as they tooke him to sett a face vpon their owne malignant designes, nor bemoane, his losse at all, but the losse of their owne aspiring hopes.

Its evident the Author sayes it, and evident, that it is without ground, or colour of truth. would men, that ne­ver loved him, never honoured him, nor his cause, not only hazard, but loose thier lyues, & fortunes in defence of him, and his cause, and that when the best successes they could hope for, could not equall the perils they ran? If there be either honour, or gallantry in any of those, that call themselves souldiers, & Enemies to their King, and that Rebeilion hath not vnnaturalized them, they would hate such an impudent Parasite, that seekes to [Page 63] please them with such impotent Calumines of persons (whose worth, and honour they have soe often tryed) because they were Enemies to his partie. What Malig­nant designes would he have imagined, such, as noe man ever dreamt of? Doth not this man beleive, that his rea­ders see, he followes the common places of detraction without respect to the proprietie of persons, or Actions? May not this language, that he vsed of any persons, that follow a partie? was there ever in the world an Example of a cause prosecuted vpon more disadvantage on be­halfe of the Kings partie?

When a King is prosecuted by his subjects, Iconocla­stes tells vs they that adheare to him doe it for malignant designes. Its certaine the Rebells had noe other, but wick­ed, and malignant designes, and whence came malignant designes in such, as opposed them? Because they Rebel­led, other men had malignant designes, and if any had malignant Designes, & secrett disaffections to the King, or his cause, doth he thinke it adds any weight to his slanders against the King? will he lay on him the faults of his partie? It seemes he thought some madder, then the multitude would reade his booke, otherwise such trash would not have been worth his binding vp, but he tooke this to make vse of his Greeke, how the Captive women seemed to lament Patroclus, though in truth their owne condition, and thats the best of his evidence for this as­sertion, and therefore he notes the booke, where it is.

It must needes be ridiculous to any judgement vnin­thrald, that they, who in other matters expresse soe little feare either of God, or man, should in this one particular outstrip all Precisianisme with their Scruples, & fill mens eares continually with the noyse of conscientious loyal­tie, [Page 64] and Alleagiance to the King, Rebells in the meane while to God in all their Actions besides.

It is ridiculous to any judgement vnin thrald, that such, as Rebell against their King should pretend they are not Rebells to God, and that such, as professe Precisianisme in crying downe dances, and May-games should expect to be beleived, that they feare God, or man, when in the meanetime they violate all oaths., and duty to God, and man. Have not this generatiō shewed to the world, that all their outward formalities were noe other, then the washing cleane of the outside of the vessell? Are such fitt judges of conscience, that pretended this Precisia­nisme he mentions, who made greate scruples, and cases touching Ceremonies, and make noe bones of robbery, murther, and Rebellion? It was our saviours judgement, that they which neglected the greater matters of the law were most properly Hipocrites. Notwithstanding their Precisianisme, that all men of any partie, or societie should be free from scandalous offences, where there are multitudes is without Example, and it could not be hoped in the best, and cleerest cause, that all, that follo­wed it should have sincere ends, but none could have lesse feare of God, or man, then he, that would make all guiltie of the Crymes of some, that for particular crymes of men will take the Devills office to accuse all their Ac­tions. He makes it not in among the number of scruples, & cases, whether Rebellion be a sin, but holds it a cleere case to be none? And then why not Idolatry, adulterie, and what not? Its possible, & probable to any judgment vninthrald, that some men may make scruples of some sins, & are peccant in diverse others, and its farr from ri­diculous, that mē have greatest remorse of sins, the great­nes [Page 65] of whose guilt it most evident to their consciences. But this Author doth not love the noyse of consciencious loyaltie, & had rather noe conscience then any loyaltie. The particular Cry­mes of some, that followed his Majest: cause, and made warr against him by their sins have been lamented, and reproved out of Christian zeale, not hipocriticall austeritie, nor can any judgement from thence draw any conclusion against the cause they have followed, nor convince them of sinister ends in following it.

But is not a Rebell to his King a Rebell to God? The prea­chers among those Rebells have had a long heart rising a­gainst their Rulers, & to take men of from being tender in Re­bellion against their King, when ever they reproved any sin that terme of Rebellion against God came with it, insinuating a distinction of Rebellion against Princes, from Rebellion against God, yet Rebellion against Princes is a sin against God, & they cannot free themselves of the greatest guilt of sin, that seduce men into it, & handle the word of God deceitefullie, & such, as open a gate to Rebellion against Princes by transferring the Terme from the most ordinary signification, and applying it wholy to the borrowed sense, seeke to get slaves to hell, not saints to heaven: These were the infusions of their ordinary lecturers, and serves aptly for the Rebell Politiques.

Much lesse, that they, whose professed loyaltie, and Alleagiance led them to direct Armes against the kings person, & thought him nothing violated by the sword of hostilitie drawne by them against him, should now in earnest thinke him violated by the vnsparing sword of Iustice.

What meanes he in this? Is it much lesse ridiculous in these latter, then the former? The forme of his Period went, as if he meant to make a gradation to the greater, and I thinke he in­tended it, and an errour of the presse; for sure nothing is more ridiculous, then to thinke the King nothing violated by the sword of hostilitie, whome he meanes wee must guesse, for he [Page 66] cannot name them, but by circumlocution. There is a greate difference betweene the sword of Rebellion, and the sword of ho­stilitie, & betweene the sword of lawles violence, & the sword of justice, & Christians never thought, that any sword drawne by subjects against their King did not violate their loyaltie, & Alleagiance, much lesse, that their professed loyaltie, and Al­leagiance led them to direct Armes against the Kings person: If loyaltie leade to hostilitie, it were an ill foundation of obe­dience. Truth is not lesse wounded by lying, then loyaltie by Armes against the King. Some doubtles foresaw not the con­sequents of their beginnings, and being deceived by wrong principles fel into vnhappy conclusions, which they suspected not to follow from their premisses, but as they are deceived, that wil sever absurd conclusions from erroneous premisses, so are they, that wil hope to avoyde desperate consequents from ill grounded Actions.

Doth Iconoclastes hold it necessary, that al they, that have fallen into an impietie, must be impenitent, and because they have been sinners, must they become Blasphemers, and Apo­stats? There have beene Examples of many Rebells, that yet abhord the shedding of their Kings blood. But Iconoclastes holds it a dishonour to be a smal villaine, & he that wilbe wic­ked must act Crymes of the highest degree, & if he faile in the last Act, he must be thrust from the stage. The more impious the Actions of Traytours are, the more evident the guilt of them, the greater prayses they give them, and most magnifie that, which is most abominable, & they stile their most outra­gious crueltie vnsparing Iustice. As they will spare noe mans blood to passe to their ends; soe they wil not be sparing in the Titles of their villanies; If this shameles man had not been sensible of the vinversall detestation of the fact, he mentions, & that it was acted in defiance of Religion, law, & Justice, he would never have chosē this expressiō of the vnsparing sword [Page 67] of Iustice. If Rebels may judge of Justice, the cleerest Justice wil become the fowlest Cryme, & the Justice that inflicts punish­ment on their Rebellion the greatest Tyrany; Lawes are op­pression, where Malefactours have got the Tribunall. The vn­sparing sword of Rebellion will noe more appeare the sword of Justice, then the vnsparinge virulency of a lewde tongue ap­peare a legall condemnation of a lawfull Magistrate. Is it vn­sparing Iustice, that gives the sword into every hand, that would kill, and reproachfull language into every false tongue? If there be offenders, they, that without authoritie take one them to punish, are more guiltie, then the offender: But wee may be assured, where Rebels, & vsurpers are Judges, innocence wilbe the greatest Cryme, and horrid Murthers vnsparing Justice.

But he proceedes to say, which vndoubtedly soe much the lesse in vaine shee beares among men, by how much greater, and in highest place the offender.

This neede explication. He spake but now of the sword of Iustice, and now sayes shee beares, this is fome new speculation. St. Paul sayes the Magistrate beares not the sword in vaine, and this man would have every man the Magistrate, and the sword borne without an hand to strike with it, & Justice exe­cuted by a Metaphor. He makes Iustice some wandring spirit, that invisibly carries a sword. Whence comes the sentence of this Iustice from the mouth of the Cryminall, or the Judge? for by those motions both may lay equall claime to it, & because justice ought to be administrated impartially, such, as are in highest place, & from whome alone the administration of Ju­stice is derived to all others must be murthered by those that are subject to them? Justice hath noe sword, but the power of the lawfull Magistrate, which is called the sword of Justice from the Magistrates duty, & becomes the sword of violence, & murther in the hands of another, but the is men thinke they may vse the sword without a calling as preach, and administer [Page 68] the Sacraments vncalled. Would Iconoclastes be content, that the Bayliffe of westminster should draw the impartiall sword of Justice against his new Masters, that are in highest place?

Els Iustice, whether morall, or politicall were not Iustice, but a false counterfeite of that impartiall, and godlike vertue.

Iustice cannot become noe Iustice, but the Acts of men may be just, or vnjust, as they follow, or forsake the Rules of Iustice. And what greater contempt of Justice, then to pretend it for the ruine of mankinde? What grater reproach to that God­like vertue, then to prostitute it to all the execrable Parricides of the world? Doth the Image breaker thinke, that having called it a Godlike vertue, he hath well defined it by King kil­ling, for that is the sense of his highest place? Its a part of his Method to insinuate an opinion of his esteeme of Justice by the prayse of it, & that such, as he opposes were lesse Zealous of it, but his context shewes, that Iustice is defyed by him, and he seekes to wash the bloody hands of the worst of Traytours by casting their odious acts on his imaginary Iustice. But whēce comes I conoclastes to assume the expressiō of a Godlike vertue, and is soe angry with Iconbasilice? Is there more warrant for his Godlike vertue of Justice, then for the Godlike office of Kings? And he is as much Iconoclastes of the one, as the other, for they, that will wrest the sword out of the hands of Gods vice­gerents will not sticke to wrest that Godlike vertue to their owne impieties

The only greife is, that the head was not strucke of to the best ad­vantage, and commoditie of them that held it by the haire.

Doubtles they, that struke it of did it for their owne advan­tage, and commoditie without respect to Justice, or feare of God, and sure if some were greived, that it was not strucke of to their advantage, they, that strucke it of did it to that purpose, and to the fatisfiction of their owne crueltie, and laying the foundation of their Tyrany, this followes from Iconoclastes [Page 69] for that commoditie, which some had, and others missed caused the Murther. They, that hold it by the haire, and they, that strucke it of have cause of greife, though Iconoclastes, and his Masters, that have, as they thinke the advantage, and Commoditie of it, now laugh at their partners, whome they put by, and at the wickednes they acted, and himselfe gives stronger evidence, that the ring-leaders of this horrid Rebellion sought their owne commoditie, and advantage, then can be supposed of Ma­lignant designes in any of his Majest: partie.

Which observation, though made by a common Enemy, may for the truth of it heereafter become a proverbe.

Wicked Actions are not the lesse odious for Companie, and the observation, which it seemes he intends, that some of their partie, that now forsake them, were equally guiltie with them of the Kings death, will noe way excuse them, that pro­ceeded to that high degree of impietie. But why is the obser­vator called a common Enemy? Why is he more an Enemy, then they, that reproach the present Murtherers, as much, as he? Their Enemies are now all man kinde, and such, as beleived not their intentions, nor Actions cannot be deceived of them now they are defended by this Author. If that observation become a proverbe, will not the wickednes of theis Murtherers become a Proverbe to denote the greatest degree of villany?

But as to the Author of those soliloquies, where it were the late King, as is vulgarly beleived, or any secret Coadiutor, and some sticke not to name him, it can add nothing, nor shall take from the weight (if any be) of reason, which he brings. How the Champion traver­ses his ground. At first he looked with greate scorne to have such an Antagonist, as a King, then he condescends to take vp the gantlet, then as an induction to his Trayterous reproaches craves excuse for not vsing Courts hip, & now he makes a doubt, whether the King, or some coadiutor be Author of those soliloquies, and he sayes some sticke not to name him. Truly its noe secret, or [Page 70] strange thing, that there be not men wanting, that would not sticke at any Action, or word against the King. Is it the neerer truth, when some sticke not to name the man, when Icono­clastes stickes not at soe many vntruths? He, that reades this Authors booke will rest assured, that he will sticke at the affir­mation of nothing, that may dishonour his late Majest: But its strange he thought his insinuation of any weight, that some sticke not to name him, when all men see the licence taken by so many lewde persons, & noe restraint from saying any thing against the King, whereat should they sticke, their impudence is commended, and rewarded? Would they sticke at truth, thats out of fashion in the new state? But perhapps they sticke to name a man, least they have a conviction from him, or some els, that could discover the Circumstances about it. But since he makes a scruple, if there be not reason in the booke, why is he soe vnwilling to admit the King to be the Author, surely it were for his advantage to make the King author of such a booke, and if they were a Coadiutors, why doth he lay his weakenes, or errours, as he pretends vpon the King. The Author doth not add, nor take away from the reason in the booke, but the booke commends the Author, and shames the answeare.

But allegations, not reasons are the maine contents of this booke, and neede noe more, then other contrary allegations to lay the ques­tion before all men in an even ballance.

The allegations in his Majest: booke are either such, as are only knowne to himselfe, or such, as were evident to all men by the light of reason, or notorietie of Actions. And Icono­clastes vainely flatters himselfe, that his contrary allegations wilbe of any weight to move the scale. Sober men take his ostentation of confidence rather as an effect of frensy, then a perswasion of reason, But through his whole booke he offers allegations against apparent rea [...]ous.

[Page 71] Though it were supposed, that the Testimony of one man in his owne case affirminge, could be of any Moment to bring in doubt, the authoritie of a Parliament denying a contrary allegation against this, would weigh downe the ballance in most mens judgment.

The periuries, impostures, cruelties, & devastations of those he calls the Parliament are soe knowne, & common abroade, that the mention of them is a name of infamy, and takes a­way all credit from their Actions. Their owne journalls tell the world, that they never speake truth, but for their advan­tage, and omit noe falshood, that will serve their turne. But doth Iconoclastes thinke any Parliament infallible, or that all men condemned by Parliament had Justice done them? He wil then finde, that they condemne one another, and for this last misnamed Parliament, their bloody executions have such apparent markes of Injustice, and crueltie, as themselves can­not deny it, vnles they will deny the records themselves have made, & the Testimony of former Parliaments. There are in his Majest: booke many particulars, that the Parliament nei­ther did, nor could deny, and through the whole booke the Author hath produced few, or none of their denyalls. There hath been much vse made of the name of Parliament, but the Author must thinke he hath an inchanting pen, if after the murther of the king, abolishing the Lords house, plucking out the members from the lower house, prostituting the very con­stitution of Parliament to the lawlesse multitude, and packing the Roome with a few meane persons, eyther terrified by po­wer, or flattered by promises, he can perswade any, that such a Company sitting on the vsuall seates of the lower house be the Parliament, he may as well give the name of Parliament to a Parish vestry, as that Convention, all the odds is the place of their meetinge.

But if these his faire spoken words shalbe heere fairly confronted, and laid parallell to his owne farr differing deedes manifest, & visible to the whole nation, then &c.

[Page 56] His Majest: words he sayes are faire spoken, and will appeare sincere against al the fowle spokē words of this author to con­front them; And his actions are soe wel knowne to the whole nation, as he doth in vaine appeale to them, as witnesses of the truth of those false, and incongruous Calumnies, that he hath produced. His Majest: Actions being laid parallell to this Au­thors different expressions shew the lewdnes of the Libellers impudence, that will appeale for the truth of what he sayes to those, that best know the contrary, and in a case, where the evidence of the fact excludes all appeale.

The Author concludes, that wee may looke on them, who not­withstandinge shall persist to give to bare words more credit, then to open Actions, as men, whose judgment was not rationally evinced, & perswaded, but fatally stupified, & bewitched into such a blinde, and obstinate beleife, for whose cure he sayes it may be doubted, not whe­ther any charme, though never soe wisely murmured, but whether any prayer can be availeable.

If after the reading of this Authors booke any man thinke him a modest man, that he hath dealt ingeniously with his Majest: booke, or person, he may be sure, that such a person were not rationally evinced, but eyther maliciously prepossest, or stupidly infatuated, and neither vnderstood words, nor Actions, And this Author meanes not to cure, but to charme expressing his delight in the terme of murmuringe, which was the Custome of witches in their Charmes, never vsed by servants of God, though wicked men are compared to the deafe adder, whose eare is stopped to the murmuring Charmer, as theirs to the holy advice. But Iconoclastes may aswell hope to turne men into ftones by his absurd assertions, or into serpents by his lewde reproaches, as perswade men of his reason, or honestie. We know the prayers of the wicked are abominable, aswell, as their wilfull falhood, and slander, & while he seekes to place those, that will not be led by him, among those that Charmes, cannot cure, nor pra­yers profit, declares his prayers, noe other, then Charmes, and himselfe a man, that can neither cure, nor pray, and sets prayer among those things he scoffes at, aswell, as the Titles of him, that is only to be prayed to.


Vpon the KINGS Calling this last PARLIAMENT.

THat, which the King lajes downe, as his foun­dation, that he called this last Parliament not more by others advice, and the necessitie of his affaires, then by his owne choice, and inclination, is to all knowing men so ap­parently vntrue, that a more inauspicious Sentence could hardly have come into his minde.

That his Majest: intention could be apparent to all knowing men, must have better Authoritie, then this Authors word to be beleived. His Majest best knew his own intentions, and ought to be credited against the Malicious conjectures of such, as seeke matter of slander against him to shelter their owne impieties, never King of England shewed greater affection to Parlia­ments, then his Majest: and never King found greater ingratitude. His frequent coming to Parliaments in his Fathers Raigne. His many good offices done the houses, and the larg acknowledgments of their obliga­tions to him are vpon the Records of both houses. Vpon the death of his Father he instantly called a Parliament, seeking to continue the same vnderstanding betweene him, and his houses, as there had been in the time of his Father. He had then entred into a dangerous warr with Spaine vpon the Parliaments Councell, was in preparation of a greate fleete, stood charged with a greate debt left on him by his Father, besi­des deepe engagements to his Allies abroade, the supplies the then Parliament gave him were two Subsidies, he then desired an addition [Page 58] only of fortie thousand pound, which was refused him. If any man shall say now, that the King called not that Parliament of his owne in­clination, because he was discontented to be so dealt with by them, knowing men wil hardly beleive him, & such men, as are justly displea­sed with factions in Parliament, might truly affect them, when they are rightly disposed, and this Sentence, which I conoclastes holds so inau­spicious imports not that, which his false Augurie Prognosticates, for though his Majest: received provocations, and causes of dislike from severall Parliaments, it followes not, that he could have no intention to call one, when there was a probabilitie of removing the causes of for­mer disorders, which his Majest: expresses in his ensuing discourse.

The inclination of a Prince is best knowne by those next about him, or by the current of his Actions. These neerest this King were Courtiers, and Prelates, and it was their Continuall exercise to dispute, and preach against them.

For the Actions of others Iconoclastes would thinke them a weake proofe of his intentions, though the persons were very neere him, and though there were preaching, and disputes against the proceedings of some Parliaments, its no proofe of the Kings intentions, nor theirs, that vsed them against the right vse of Parliaments, and the proceedings of some Parliaments might give just occasion to men to say the King (they hoped) would have no more neede of them and it is a very greate happinesse of any state not to neede them, the necessitie of them proceeding from want, and danger, and there was a time, when people held Parliaments a burthen to hem, and those in Parliament claimed it, that they were not bound to attend the Parliament above fortie dayes, and our owne stories tells vs of an indoctum Parliamentum, and insanum Parliamen­tum. And doth Iconoclastes thinke, that all such, as were out of love with such Parlaments had no affection to any.

This was (he sajes) but the Coppy, which his Parasites had industriously ta­ken from his owne words, and Actions, who never called a Parliament, but to supply his necessities.

Such, as have observed the inclinations of persons neere his Majest: finde non greater Parasites, then such, as proved Traytours to him, and Parasites are not wanting to other powers, as wel, as Kings, for we finde by this Author what men will do to please their Masters eyther by of­fitiousnes to their persons, or the performance of villanie against others. This Author spends his mouth in vaine following his common place of Parafites, and Courtiers, when the Actions he mentions are so farr from reflecting vpon his Majest: as they leave the blemish vpon the Relatour. That his Majest: had necessities, when he called a Parliament is knowne to all, & the causes of them, but that he was ready all wayes to heare, and redresse the just greivances of his people could never yet be contradicted by the experience in any Parliament, al though the Author say, having Supplied these, he suddenly, and nominiously dissolved [Page 59] it without redressing any one greivance of the people. But if the Parliaments never presented to him on greivance to be redressed, which he denyed, where lies the ignominie? It seemes the Author takes not the petition of right to be of that nature, for that was graunted by the King, and that concession of his was then judged as greate an Act to the redresse of greivances, as ever King of England graunted his people. His Ma­jest: summoned three Parliaments before the short Parliament at the beginning of these troubles, and in non of these were there any grei­vances presented by the Parliament to the King to be redressed, but that petition of right, vnles a Remonstrance against the Duke of Buc­kingham be reckned in that number, and if the people, had just grei­vances to be redressed, they had just cause of complaint against those Conventions, and of late repentance for their credulitie, that depended so much on them, that so little regarded their Sufferings. If we looke vpon the length of time, wherein these Parliaments sate, wee shal finde sessions concluded, & diverse good lawes made in the like space of time in the Raignes of former Kings, and whoever lookes to the journalls of the houses in these Parliaments of his late Majest: or whoever was present in them must confesse, that those, that governed in the lower house minded nothing lesse, then the redresse of greivances, or making of lawes, which were formally talked of to entertaine time, while pri­vate annimosities, and personall revenges were made the sole busines of importance, & in the space of fower moneths no one greivance was prepared to be presented to his Majest: and Iconoclastes heapes vp vntruths without respect to the apparence of their detection, for this first Parliament was so far from being suddenly dissolved after the King was supplyed, that the greate Plague not permitting them to sit longer at west minster, his Majest: adiourned them to Oxford, and in ano [...]her Parliament after the supply given him, there was a second meeting, which might have had a longer continuance, if it had insisted on the redresse of greivances, but whence takes he the occasion to say Ignomi­niously dissolved. Where was the Ignominie? Had not his Majest: a le­gall right to do it? And if the houses would not agree in the redresse of greivances, and supply of the necessities of the Kingdome, their con­tinuance would prove ignominious, not their dissolving.

Sometimes chusing rather to misse of his subfidies or to rayse them by illegall courses, then that the people should not still misse of their hopes to be releived by Parliaments.

Iconoclastes in his Preface talked of laying parallel actions to words, and heere he vses words of actions, that never were, for among those Parliaments of his late Majest: where can he finde a number to make vp his Sometimes, vsing a language, as if the King had called as many Parliaments, as he had raigned yeares? And where can he finde, that the King chose to misse his subsidies, that the people should not be re­leived [Page 60] by Parliaments. Two of the Parliaments are already mentioned. In the third, where he had non, he was so farr from chusing to misse of his subsidies, if he might have had them, that his reiterated Messages to the then house of Commons to prepare their greivances, that he migh [...] apply just remedies to them, sufficiently prove, that nothing was wanting of his part to have received the subsidies, and releived the people; Its well knowne, that his Majest: had at that time a warr with Spaine, and France, and that nothing, but inevitable necessitie on his part, could have made him decline the obtainnig of subsidies from that Parliament. And after the house of Commons had declared, that they would supply him in such a way, and in so ample a measure, as should make him safe at home, and feared abroade, they agreed vpon the number of subsidies, but voted, that the Bill should not come into the house, till their greivances were answeared. His Majest: sent them there vpon severall Messages to hasten them to present the greivances, which nothing wrought on them, but without any reason after long expecta­tiō, they denyed to have the bil of subsidies brought into the house. Its wel known, that no Kingdome had lesse greivances, then that of England vnder his late Majest: And the people were perswaded into an opi­nion of greivances, not by sence of Suffering, but the disputes of Pragmaticall Incendiaries, and they would have rested quiet, had they not been seduced by such Craftsmen, and there is no on thing, that this breaker can name for a greivance, which his Masters, that now Lord it, do not encrease.

The first he broke of at his coming to the Crowne for no other cause, then to protect the Duke of Buckingham against them, who had accused him, besides other hainous Crymes, of no lesse, then poysoning the deceased King his Father.

This Author takes himselfe not concerned in speaking Truth, for the publike Records of the Kingdome, and some late declarations of the pretended Parliament would have held his hand from this false as­sertion, if he had valued Truth at the rate of perusing them, for the Duke of Buckingham was not at all accused by the first Parliament of the King, nor in any Parliament for poysoning the deceased King. He might have found, that in the second Parliament of the King, Among other Articles against the Duke of Buckingham, he was accu­sed for a Transcendent Presumption, and of dangerous consequence touch­ing Phisicke applyed to the deceased King, but the malice of such, as hated the Duke of Duckingham did not extend to an accu­sation of poysoning the deceased King, yet the venome of Treason in this Author makes him madd, and say, that a fact of presumption, and of dangerous consequence was a poysoning. If such were the wisedome of a house of Parliament to call poysoning of a King, a presumption of dangerous consequence neither King nor people neede be troubled to want their Councell. This is the first instance, though not the first [Page 61] falshood of Iconoclastes, but to the matter of what he sajes in that se­cond Parliament, wherein the Duke of Buckingham was accused, his Ma­jest: by Message to the lower house told them, he was well pleased they should proceede against the Duke of Buckingham they did ac­cordingly give vp their Articles to the Lords, the Duke of Buckingham made his answeare, which was sent down to the Commons, who being vnable to reply to it, such, as then swayed the house contrary to the Councell of a greate number of the most experienced amongst them resolved to hinder al proceedings, and necessitate the King to a Disso­lution of the Parliament. This is no secret, the journall bookes of that house sufficiently [...]vince it.

Still the latter breaking was with more affront, and indignitie put vpon the house and her worthyest members, then the former.

This appeares not by his subsequent reason, but if this breaker had thought either the dissolving of Parliaments, or indignitie, and affront to members any offence, why does he take on him the defence of those, that have Ignominiously excluded the whole house of Lords, and so ma­ny of the Commons, and among them some, whome he termes the worthiest persons in the Parliament he speakes of, but his reasons, and narrations are of the same stuffe; And if any man compare the affronts, and indiginties offered his Majest: by some persons in parliament, and his proceedings against them, he will judge, that their provacations exceeded his passion, and their owne sufferings.

In so much, that in the fifth yeare of his Raigne in a Proclamation he seemes offended at the very Rumour of a Parliament divulg'd among the people, as if he had taken it for a kinde of slander, that men should thinke him that way exo­rable much lesse inclined.

What strawes this man pickes vp. If the King did seeme offended at a factious Rumour, doth it follow, that he held it a Scandall to act that, which was Rumoured. Because a King doth forbid Rumours of his intended Actions, doth he not therefore intend them? And must his Councells be the subject of common Rumour? It is a factious prac­tice to spreade a Rumour of a parliament, before the King please to declare it, and tends to the precipitation of his Councells by sedition. But as his premisses are (he seemes) so his conclusions are (as if) and men may as well beleive him on his bare word, as such inferences he appearing inexorable to speake Truth, or forbeare slander.

And forbidds it, as a presumption to prescribe him any time for Parliaments that is to say, eyther by perswasion or petition, or so much, as the reporting of such a Rumour, for other manner of Prescribing was at that time not suspected.

His Majest: therein forbad no more then the law forbidds, and accounts it a presumption to Prescribe him any time for Parliaments. But such, as have destroyed King, and Parliament would [Page 62] have it esteemed strange, that they should not prescribe what they list, and the breaker, that would have the King Prescribed will allow non to Prescribe his now masters. His explanation signifies nothing, for doth he thinke, that the King ought to be petitioned, or perswaded by every on, that will, or that the spreading of a Rumour is a fit mea [...]es to in­duce him to call a Parliament? He endeavours to defame the King for restrayning popular licence, and Sedition, and when he seekes to con­firme the Tyranny of his Masters, he reproaches the people with Le­vitie, and violence; And the wayes of Prescribing by him mentioned were vnorderly, and by him particularised as Plausible, not sound, other manner of Prescribing was then not Suspected, he intends the force of a scotts Army, and though he commend that way of Prescribing, and attribute the calling of the Parliament to it, and accuse the King for re­sisting it, yet he will charge the King with beginning the warr.

By which feirce Edict, the people forbidden to complaine, as well, as forced to suffer began from thence foorth to despaire of Parliaments.

The people have now greater cause to dispaire of Parliaments then ever they had in the time of his late Majest: for if these men prevaile, they are sure never to have more, for they professe to introduce a new form of Government which hath nothing of the Parliament of England & however the people by seditious practices, or false apprehensions de­spaired of Parliaments, that proves nothing of his Majest: inclination, or aversenes to Parliaments. How an edict can be called feirce, where no punishment of the breach of it appeares to be denounced, nor any se­veritie ensuing it, cannot be imagined, but its well knowne what Titles this Author wil give to any of his Majest: Actions respecting only the reproachfullnes of the Termes, not their proportion, or [...] to what they are applyed, and whoever lookes on the time, while Parlia­ments were intermitted, the sufferings of the people were lesse, then when Parliaments were frequent, & they neede not be forbidden to complaine, when their peace, & plentie were a reason strong enough to restraine them, however querulous murmurings wrought by seditious contrivers, may happē, & ought to be forbiddē in al just Governments.

Where vpon such illegall Actions, and especially to get vast summs of mony were put in Practice by the King, and his new Officers, as Monopolies, compul­sive knighthoods, Coate, Conduct, and Shipmony, the seezing not of on Nabaoths Vineyard, but of whole inheritances, vnder the pretence of forrest, or Crowne lands, Corruption, & bribery compounded for with impunities graunted for the future, as gave evident proofe, that the King never meant, nor could it stand with the Reason of his affaires ever to recall Parliaments.

All the pretences of Tyranny, and oppression, wherewith the Re­bells have sought to maske their disloyaltie are reduced to this on summe to get money. That Princes must have supplies from their pe­ople for support of the Kingdome cannot be doubted, and where the [Page 63] lawes have given the King a richt to demaund money of particular persons in certanie cases, or of the whole people, theis are no illegall exactions, but due debts. The King of England is entitled by law to diverse dues from his subjects, and of such things his learned Coun­cell, and his Judges have the care, that he loose not his rights, and they are bound by oath to preserve them, & if in any cases they saile in their judgment, their King cannot be guiltie of illegall exactions in follo­wing their Councell, and of such nature are the particulars he menti­ons, vnles Coate, and Conduct money, which had been disbursed by the Counties for the present, where souldiers were raysed, and was of inconsiderable value and to be repayed, and only of practice in case of warr when necessitie requires greater contributions, and such Actions, as theis the best Governments could never avoyde, and those formes of Government, which theis Rebells Preferr before Monarchy ordi­nairly practis, but they must supply with exclamations, what they want of matter, and having broken all bounds of dutie, Justice, and humani­tie, they seeke to make the common meanes, which necessitie compells Governnours to vse for publique support, the height of oppression, and Tyranny. The vast summs received by all the wayes were farr short of that greate charge, which the Kingdome required, and of what for­mer Kings had received in the like space, but inconsiderable in regard of the present exactions. He resembles the legal proceedings in cases of civil right to Nabaoths vineyard; so as al suites for recovery of deteined rights is the getting of Nabaoths vineyard, but they that by the blood of many Naboaths have gotten their inheritances would have Civill Controversies, not bloody murther the sin of Ahab. Corruption, and bribery compounded for with impunitie for the future is a denomination, which cannot be fixt to any Actions of Majest: That his Majest: hath a power to pardon was never denyed, and therefore no act of grace in that kinde can be illegall, but this, which they call corruption, and bribery was no other, then the fees, which some officers received, and were questioned to be above their due, & had they been convict, their mulct was pecuniary, and due to the King. They vrged long Custome in their defence, and in a case of that nature, where only errour, not corruption, or bribery can be admitted, it was neerer to justice, then favour to forbeare prosecution; And as the fact was not illegal, so had it been, it was only theirs, by whose Councell it was done, and theis men, that professe such zeale against corruption, and bribery, pretend, that it was necessary to take away the starr chamber, where such Cry­mes were punisht, and from whence comes it, that it could not stand with his majest: affaires te recall Parliaments, when his Majest: desired to continue nothing, but what was necessary for the Kingdome?

Having brought by theis irregular courses the peoples interest, and his owne [...] so direct an opposition, that he might foresee plainely, if nothing, but a [Page 64] Parliament could save the people, it must necessarily be his vndoing.

The King had no interest, but that, which was common to the people with him, and nothing, that was their interest could be opposite to his. The people were very farr from any such apprehensions of being Destroyed, or that they might not be saved without the Kings vn­doing; And wherein could the King foresee his vndoing by Parliament, must he necessarily foresee, that a Parliament would follow Traytours against him? Or must he necessarily foresee that a Parliament would vn­dertake an illegall, and vn just power? Must he necessarily foresee, that a Parliament would produce a Rebellion, when no Action was desired to be continued by him, which was not according to law, nor any greivance duely proved vnredressed? But because in the Parliament, which he called a faction destroyed him, and hath vndone the King­dome, therefore Iconoclastes would have it plainely to be foreseene. Such, as know the difference of the last from former Parliaments, know likewise, that it was not from the condition of the Parliament, but the conjuncture of affaires at the time of calling it, that produced those wicked effects filling the mindes of many with ambitious thoughts, and desire to lay the foundation of their private greatenes in the publique ruines. It is impossible, that the interest of a King can have an opposition to that of his people which is vainely fancied hy him, or that any thing by him alledged should worke such opposition. And although there have been disputes in Courts, and Parliaments touch­ing the profitts, and rights of the Crowne, yet before this Rebell ge­neration, non were so shameles to pretend them causes of the subjects violence, and necessarily destructive to the King, or people, which had the people imagined would have been the issue of a Parliament, they would have had a greater aversion to it, then Iconoclastes supposes in his late Mejest: And as the preservation of the people is the Kings, in­terest, so his preservation is theirs, which the people now finde to late, and could not foresee, that such, as made vse of the pretence of their interest, minded it least.

Till eight, or nine yeares after proceeding with a high hand in these enormi­ties, & having the second time levied an injurious warr against his native coun­trey Scotland, and finding all those other shifts of raysing money, which bore out his first expedition now to faile him, not of his own choice, and inclination, as any childe may see, but vrged by strong necessities, and the very pangs of State which his owne violent proceedings had brought him to, he calls a Parliament.

Iconoclastes is very industrious to shew, that he can expresse the malice of his heart with his pen, and can give false denominations to Actions with greater confidence, then true, where it may advantag his Masters. The gentle hand wherewith his Majest governed during the nine yeares he mentions, brands that high hand of slander, and de­ [...]action, which this breaker stretches out against him, and it will fill [Page 65] posteritie with amazement at the folly of the present age, that should take such things for enormities, as fines for knighthood, Coate, conduct, and shipmony, whereof some of them were scarce felt, or observed, and the rest easily borne; And submit themselves to contributions, excises, loanes, and taxes, to which those, which he calls enormities hold no proportion. But not contented with the false appellations of his Majest: Civill Actions, he proceedes to defy, and reproach his Actions for preserva­tion, and defence of his Kingdome, and calls it an injurious warr to resist an invading Enemy. That the Scotts were entred neere a hund­red mile into the Kingdome, at the time he mentions, he cannot be ig­norant, and to call the warr injurious on his Majest: part cannot come from any, that thinkes any thing injurious, that Rebells commit, or any thing just that Governours commaund. When any Actions are rehear­sed of his Majest: against the Scotts, the Traytours call them vnjust, and amplifie their slander with the Circumstance of his native Coun­trey. When the Scotts offer obedience to the King, or he concurr with them, they decry such Actions, in respect they are of his native Coun­trey, thus shifting, saying, and gainsaying to deceive the people. If there any yet remaine, that will trust such common Cheates. His col­lection, that necessitie, and not choice brought the King to call a Parlia­ment followes not from any of his premisses. His Majest: doth not ex­clude the necessitie of his affaires from moving him to call the Parlia­ment: When he sayes, that be called the Parliament not more by necessitie, then his owne choice, doth he exclude necessitie, or affirme his owne choice only without consideration of Circumstances. Parliaments ought not to be called, but vpon greate occasions, and their too often Convention is a burthen, not an ease to the people, and such was the judgment of the late Parliament at the beginning. It is not new, that necessities, have caused Kings to call Parliaments, which yet was never made an Argument to prove their owne vninclination to call a Parlia­ment. His descant vpon strong necessities, and pangs of state layes open the Treason of these conspiratours, that plotted how their Country might pine, and languish, that so vnnaturall Emperickes might exercise their bloody practice, and a mercilesse Tyrany could only be exspected from such, as sought their power by their Countreyes sufferings: And if his Majest: proceedings had been violent, they had not produced that necessitie.

First in Ireland, which only was to give him four subsidies, and so to expire, then in England, where his first demaund was but twelue subsidies to maintaine a Scotch warr condemned, and abominated by the whole Kingdome, promising their greivances should be considered af [...]erwards.

The Parliament in Ireland he might have knowne was not the first, that was, called in the nine yeares he mentions, but falshood are so common, that mistakes are not worth the observation, and if the King [Page 66] had called that Parliament in Ireland to obtaine [...]ower subsidies, where had been the fault: May not a King call a Parliament to be supplyed? But if Iconoclastes had patience to know truth, or speake it, he might ea [...]ily have found a greate number of good lawes made in that Parlia­ [...]ent, to worke a conformitie of that nation to England, and he vnsea­sonably produced this instance of the Parliament of Ireland, which so mainely contradicts his assertion, for the necessities alone he supposes could not worke the calling of that Parliament, where Parliaments had been so frequent before. In England, where he sayes his Majest: first de­maund was, but twelue subsidies, he hath lost his expectation, and his Iro­nicall but hath lost its mirth for he cannot thinke, that the people now apprehend twelue subsidies so greate a demaund by the King, when they see a farr greater proportion given the Scotch for invading the Kingdome, and aftersuch an execrable warr, and barbarous prodigali­tie their greivance is increast, and all, that is effected, or pretended to be done for them is the Destruction of King, and Church, and divi­ding the Estates of both among the Master Rebells, vpon whose Ar­bitrary, and vnlimited power they must now depend. That those twe­lue subsidies were demaunded to maintaine Scotch warr hath no co­lour of truth, it being not at al propounded; And as it had been a sot­tish, and perverse disposition to have condemned the warr against the Scotts, when they were in preparation to invade England, so it is as shamelesly said by Iconoclastes, that it was condemned and abominated by the whole people. Himselfe if a wicked obduration had not made him love lying, must have conffessed, that the late Earle of Essex, though afterward in Rebellion against the King, with greate demonstrations of Zeale, and affection to his Majest: went a Commaunder in that ex­pedition; And if we respect the qualitie, or number of noble, & wor­thy persons that engaged themselves in that first warr, our stories have rarely remembred an Army, that went into Scotland of greater num­ber of eminent persons, so as Iconoclastes hath just cause to condemne, and abominate himselfe for the Lewdenes, and evidence of this vn­truth, and if the then Parliament had not been abused by some repre­senting his Majest: desires, the designes of such, as meant to make ad­vantage of the breach of that Parliament had been disappointed, and the Calamities ensuing had been prevented; And as there were no greivances then in the Kingdome, but might admit longer delay of re­dresse, then the publique necessities of supply, so his Majest: might just­ly demaund subsidies in the first place with promise to redresle their greivances afterwards; And Iconoclastes too late observes the order of that demaund of his late Majest: to be amisse, when the late Parliament graunted so many subsidies for the Scotts without expectation of any such promise.

Which when the Parliament, who judged that warr it selfe on of their maine [Page 67] greivances, made no haste to graunt, not enduring the delay of his impatient will, or els fearing the conditions of their graunt, he breakes of the whole session and dismisses them, and their greivances with scorne and frustration.

That the Parliament judged that warr any of their greivances, that never mentioned it in their debates, or resolutions is fit for the affirma­tion of this Author only. But if the Parliament had judged that warr one of their maine greivances, the rest, whereof so greate noyse hath been made, will hardly be thought weightie. This warr was then new­ly begun, the King had received no fupply from the people for the charge past, and could this be a maine greivance? Wee see at what rate this man makes greivances, and to what ordinary accidents he applies his exorbitant expressions. The then Parliament would not have been slow in his Majest: supply, if some false Ministers had not interposed, and some seditious persons had not plotted to impose a necessitie vpon his Majest: to dissolue the Parliament. They had not presented him any greivances and therefore there could be no such dismission with scorne and frustration, as he Phrases it. There were evident tokens of greife, and discontent in his late Majest: that he was necessitated to that act, but there was reioycing, and insolence amongst the turbulent Secta­ries for it.

Much lesse therefore did he call this last Parliament by his owne choice, and inclination, but having first tryed in vaine all vndue wayes to procure mony, his Army of their owne accord being beaten in the north, the Lords petitioning, and the generall voyce of the people all most hissing him, and his ill acted Regali­tie of the Stage, compelled, at length both by his want, and by his feares, vpon meere extreamitie he summoned this last Parliament.

This man acts the part of a Lord of misrule to stirre the passions of the people with taunts, and abuses, and for his over acted petulant scur­rilitie fitt to be whipped of the stage. If he had ever given proofe of his owne courage, hee would not thus barbarously reproach his late Ma­jest: with feares, who was so well knowne to have hazarded his person in so many perills, and these Phrases are the froth of a base insultation, not the censure of a just Ennemy. But why for feare should the King summon a Parliament if he fore saw, as the libeller sayes it would be his vndoing? Could he have greater feares, then that? He hath not in­stanced one vndue way of his late Majest: to get money for the warr against Scotland, & therefore his repetitions import his impertinence, as well, as his malice but gaine no credit by their frequency. The peo­ples hissing, which the Traytours desired, had been as inconsiderable, and vndutifull, as his assertions are false, but as it no way contradicts, what his Majest: sayes, if the allaying of popular discontents, & recti­fying mistakes were one end of calling the Parliament, so the petitioning of the Lords instructs all reasonable men to thinke, that feares and wants were not the sole cause of summoning that Parliament and that his Ma­jest: [Page 68] choice was not excluded. And as the beating of his Majest: Army had not so disabled him, but that they were in number, and courage superiour to their Enemies, so if his Majest: choice had not guided him, he might with lesse hazard in common appearance have tryed the suc­cesse of a battell at that time, then he did at diverse tymes afterwards. That, which he sayes of the Armyes, being beaten of their owne ac­cord is little to their honour, if it were true, but infamous to this Au­thor being false, & if there were any so perfidious to betray their own, and their nations honour vnto strangers, they could not be many, for its a knowne truth, that the most eminent persons in that service, and the greatest number of common souldiers served his Majest: afterward in his warrs, not only against the English Rebells, but the Scotts.

And how is it possible, that he should willingly incline to Parliaments, who never was perceived to call them, but for the greedy hopes of a whole nationall bribe, his subsidies, and never loved, never fulfilled, never promoted the true ends of Parliaments, the redresse of greivances, but still putt them of, and prolonged them, whether, gratifyed, or not gratifyed, and was indeede the Author of all those greivances.

It hath been already shewed, how his Majest: was perceived to call Parliaments out of his owne choice, and inclination, and it was not on­ly in his Majest: time, but in the time of Queene Elisabeth, that Par­liaments were said to be only called to give subsidies, there never wan­ting malecontents, and slanderers of the Actions of Princes, and the case may be such, that subsidies may be the cheife motive, to call Par­liaments, considering the sufficiency of the lawes in force, and the small number of greivances complained of. Malitious detraction is accom­panied with absurditie, and Iconoclastes becoming a Champion of Re­bellion reckons Tributes, and supplies of the soveraigne by subjects, which is their duty among the number of scandalous sins, and that which was practised by our saviour, and commaunded by his Apostles he calls nationall bribes. This braine sicke, and prophane Libelling can be acceptable to none, but such, as are delighted with the vnhappy distempers of Bedlam. He hath not so much passion to have greivan­ces redrest, as love to the word, because, as he thinkes, it imports mat­ter displeasing to the people, who yet are now satisfied, that those, which abused them by the frequent vse of the word greivances, never intended the remedy, but by multiplying complaints sought to leade them into discontents against the Government, whereby they might become Captive to ambitious vsurpers. That, which he sayeth is the true end of Parliaments to reforme greivances justly condemnes those, he now calls a Parliament, who, he well knowes sitt to no other end, but to encrease greivances, and in eight yeares time never redressed one. Though Kings take notice of greivances in Parliament, and take, order to redresse them, yet that cannot be called the true end of calling Par­liaments [Page 69] for there are often occasions of calling Parliaments in respect of publique safetie against Enemies, and conspiratours, addition, & al­teration of lawes, publique supplyes, the redresse of greivances is acci­dentall to the Parliament, and the pretence of greivances hath proved the greatest greivance, that ever the people suffered, and his scurrilous objection of greedy hope to his late Majest: on whome malice it selfe hath not yet layd such a Cryme encreaseth the Libellers infamy, not the weight of his charge.

To say therefore, that he called this Parliament of his owne choice, and in­clination argues how little truth, wee can expect from the sequell of this booke, which ventures in the very first period to affront more, then one nation, with an vntruth so remarkeable.

If the venturing vpon an vntruth in the first period be an argument to expect little in the sequell of the booke, what may we expect of this Author, whose whole booke is a confutation of his first period, not to descant on the Kings misfortunes? That in seeking to disprove this first period adventured on so many palpable vntruths, and stickes not to pervert the very period it selfe, and affront not only more, then one nation, but all indifferent men? For if his Majest: had been necessita­ted either through the disorder of persons to dissolve Parliaments, or for beare them, he might yet call a Parliament by his owne choice, considering, that not the condition of Parliament, but the male volence of some persons were cause both of the dissolution, & forbearance. The often Parliaments in Ireland, & the precedent Parliaments in England to that, which he mentions, maintaine the truth of that first period against the many remarkeable falsities of this Image breaker.

And presumes a more implicit faith in the people of England, then the Pope ever commaunded from the Romish laitie, or els a naturall sottishnes fitt to be abused, and ridden.

Kings may expect credit to their words from their people, Rebells cannot though experience hath confirmed that if a greate part of the people of England had not followed them with a more blinde, and ob­stinate beleife, then ever Romish laitie did their Pope, they could never have been ridden, and jaded, as now they are. And Iconoclastes could never presume the beleife of his extravagant assertions, if he thought not his readers of worse, then naturall sottishnes to be abused, for while they lye groveling vnder the Tyrany of their present oppressours, and lament the losse of their happines vnder the Kingly Government, this man will perswade them out of their sense, and memory.

While in the judgment of wisemen by laying the foundation of his defence on the avouchment of that, which is so manifestly vntrue, he hath given a worse foyle to his own cause, then when his whole sorces were at any time overthrowne.

Surely there wisemē shewed as little reason, in judging an assertion, as knowledge in military affaires, that made by comparison of this period to the defeat of an army. If his Maj: have given so greate a foyle to his cause [Page 70] by the first period of his booke whence comes the danger, that Ico­noclastes would prevent? Was this first period vnintelligible without his comment, and what is it to the Kings, cause, whether he called the Parliament of his owne choice, or not. Its very likely his wife men heere are the same with his wel principled men he mentioned els where, & their principles, or impiety being the same with his, their judgment is as cor­rupt, as their conscience, and as farr from wisedome, as the libeller from modestie, and if any had such a judgment, they might soone finde their errour, which all others descerne, and such a judgment were a greater foyle to their wisedome, then to his Majest: cause.

They therefore, who thinke such greate service done to the Kings affaires in publishing this booke will finde themselves in the end mistaken, of sense, & right minde, or but any mediocritie of knowledge, and remembrance hath not quite for saken men.

They will finde themselves no whit mistaken if sense, right mi [...]de, and mediocritie of knowledge, and remembrance have not quite for saken men, but the libeller, will finde himselfe very much mistaken, if he expect, that his sense shalbe so received against apparent truth, as to give a greater foyle, then the defeate of Arimes, and vnderstanding must have left the world, where the Author of such a comparison findes credit.

He comes now to prosecute his Majest: discourse in pursucance of that period, and first to what his Majest: affirmes of Parliaments to have allwayes thought the right way of them most safe to his Crowne, and best pleasing to his people, he sayes we felt from his Actions what he thought of Par­liaments, or of pleasing his people.

The people feele now, that, which makes them confesse, that they had just cause by what they felt from his Majest: Actions to be well pleased with them, & to beleive, what he affirmes heere to be his judg­ment of Parliaments, and if any people were pleased with the ill way of Parliaments, they have seene their errour by the evill consequents, and now thinke the right way of them only most safe for the Crowne, & them, and that nothing, but ruine to the Kingdome can be expected from disorderly Parliaments.

He goes on to that, which his Majest: adds, that the cause of forbearing to Conveene Parliaments was the sparkes, which some mens distempers there studied to kindle. To this the libeller sayes, they were not temperd to his temper, for it neither was the law, nor Rule, by which all other tempers were to be tryed, but they were chosen for sittest men in their Counties to quench those distampers, which his inordinate doings had inflamed.

Is the choice in Counties the law, and rule whereby rempers are to be tryed? And would the libeller have it beleived, that all such, as are chosen in the Counties, are of better temper, then the King. If choice be the law of temper, why doth he justifie those men, which have affron­ted, scorn'd, and punished such, as have been chosen by the Counties? [Page 71] If all a [...]e so well temperd, why are some so ill handled, and excluded? And if there may be distempers, as he must confesse in despight of im­pudence, why was it not a just reason of his Majest: fo [...]ebearance, if he found it? We know what fires small sparkes kindle in greate Assem­blies, and we have felt the flame of them like the sudden eruption of burning Mountaines, when all was quiet, and there were men, that studyed to turne the Parliament into confusion having not the temper to quench, but to enflame.

Were these men, that were of the two Parliaments in the first yeare of his Majest: Raigne; The first called within two moneths after he begun, the second within twelue, chosen to allay those distempers, which his inordinate doings had inflamed, what were these inordinate doings, that could inflame so suddenly? We neede not argue this Authors credit from one vntruth, but he would obtaine some credit, if one entire truth could be found in him.

If that were his refusing to conveene till those men had been quallified to his will, wee may easily conjecture what hope there was of Parliaments, had not feare, and his insatiate povertie in the middest of his excessive wealth constrai­ned him.

His Majest: might with reason exspect, that many, who through errour had caused distempers, might returne to a right minde seeing his temper, and their little reason to desire such Parliaments, as make it their whole worke to divide the peoples affections from the King, and follow the Councells of such, as are malecontents for want of pre­ferment, and if men had been quallified to his Majest: will, Parliaments would have had happier, successe, and the people pleased with their agreement, that now groane vnder the miseries of their division. But whence his insatiate povertie in the middest of his excessive wealth should constraine him is not vnderstood, wants, and wealth are incon­sistent. This libeller hath greate povertie of sense in the middest of his excessive expressions. He goes an ill way to prove that the King was so vninclined to Parliaments, and that povertie compelled him, if he had wealth certainly that would have kept him from hazarding a course so disliked. He shalbe rich, and poore, that some may contemne his povertie, others may grudge his wealth.

The King hoped by his Freedome, and their moderation to prevent misvn­derstandings. To this sayes Iconoclastes, wherefore not by their Freedome, and his moderation.

The Champion cannot fuffer a King to passe without signifying to him, that there is no difference betweene King, and subject. The King had resolved to vse Freedome in his concessions, and hoped they would vse moderation in their demaunds. This man would have him say, that they should vse Freedome in their demaunds & he would vse moderation in his concessions, hath he not made it a proper speech? Will his wise, [Page 72] and well principled men thinke him a fit Champion to breake Bell, & the Dragon? But he gives a reason, why the King would speake sense, for he thought sayes he Freedome to high a word for them, and moderation to [...] meane for himselfe, and he concludes, this was not the way to prevent misvn­derstanding. Its sure this man tooke the way to make misvnderstan­dings, that would have Freedome applyed to the people, what ever the subject be, that is spoken of, and its like he would be well pleased, that they had Freedome from law, prosperitie, loyaltie, and obedience, which might be as well spoken, as the sense he hath framed to prevent mis­vnderstandings.

He sayes the King still feared passion, and prejudice in other men, not in himselfe, and doubted not by the weight of his owne reason to counterpoise any faction, it being so easie for him, and so frequent to call his obstinacie reason, and other mens reason faction.

He had greate reason to feare passion, and prejudice in others, which he had so often tryed, and which they, that then feared not have since found true, and the concessions the King purposed, and performed might make him confident to counterpoyse any faction, but the libel­ler will have it beleived, that he, which graunted more, then any of his Predecessours was obstinate, and they, that demaunded what former Parliaments thought vnreasonable, and impious, had reason. But the King was deceived, that had to doe with Monsters, not reasonable men.

We in the meane while must beleive, that wisedome, and all reason came to him by Title with his Crowne: Passion, prejudice, and faction to others by being subjects.

Kings have advantages above others for wisedome, and reason, they are assisted with diverse Councells, and in publique affaires reason must be presumed in Kings, and faction feared in subjects, nature being a­verse to submit, and interests, and partialities incident to all greate Assemblyes, and the detraction from the wisedome of Rulers in the Rebells foundation, and a sure signe of corrupt intentions.

He was sorry to heare with what popular heate elections were carryed in ma­ny places. To these words of the Kings he sayes sorry rather, that Court, letter, and intimations prevailed no more to divert, or to deterre the people from their free election of those men, whome they thought best affected to Religion, & their Countryes libertie, both at that time in danger to be lost.

They were in danger to be lost by a Trayterous conspiracie with an invading enemy, but no other danger imaginable to any. There was never lesse cause to complaine of Court letters, and intimations, nor ever greater mistakes of persons chosen, the Countryes affections to Religion, and libertie making way for the insinuations of Hypocri­ticall seducers, and had the Countryes knowne the dispositions of the men they chose, as their Actions have since discovered, they would not have trusted them with their Religion, and libertie, which they [Page 73] have betrayed. This Image breaker declaimes against the violence, & levitie of the people, and heere calumniates his Majest: for observing the popular heate, whereby elections were carryed in some places, it being a most knowne truth, that popular, heate is as frequent vpon such occasions, as any other, witnes the long annimosities between families, and the greate contentions, that arise from such Elections.

Among the many clamours in the late Parliament, where malice was as busie, as this Author is now to finde out Court letters to divert, or deterre the people from free Elections, there was not one instance produced of such letters or intimations. How wickedly industrious many were to blow abroade jealosie, & suspition of the danger of Religion, & libertie, & how causelessely the people in many places were drawne into passion by vaine surmises, is too well knowne, and it is too late, for the Image breaker to seeke to reduce the people into those misopini­ons, which they have detected by too deare bought experience, for they well see, that there was no way so certaine to endanger Religion, and libertie, as that they were seduced into, vpon pretence to pre­serve them.

And such men they were, as by the Kingdome were sent to advise him, not sent to be Cavilled at, because elected, or to be entertained by him with an vndervalue, and misprision of their temper, judgment, or affection.

Though such, as were elected, were not sent by the Kingdome, but by the respective places, one not intermedling with another, yet if Ico­noclastes had not been more forward to expresse his impotencie, then warry in producing reason, he would not have spokē of being Cavilled at, whereof he had not montioned the least colour, and if he hold the persons of men elected so sacred, & the King faultie for not esteeming them, as he ought, what is the reason, that he defends the Tumults, that reproacht, and assaulted them [...] What is the reason he professes so much honour to those Masters, that plucked them out of the house, & kicked them into prisons? Kings send for their subjects to advise with them, and Iconoclastes might finde by the Elections of members of the lower house, that they were sent to doe, & consent to such things, as should be ordained with the common Councell of the Kingdome, and therefore mistakes their directions, that sayes they were sent to ad­vise him, & with what childish levitie doth he insult on his soveraigne, for vndervaluing of the temper, judgment, or affection of persons cho­sen, as if their Elections refined their natures, & sublimated their tem­pers, as this mans Rebellion hath inflamed, and besotted him.

In vaine was a Parliament thought fittest, by the knowne lawes of our nation to advise, and regulate vnruly Kings, if they insteede of hearkning to advice, should be permitted to turne it of, and refuse it by vilifying, and traducing their advisers, or by accusing of a popular heate, those that lawfully elected them.

If a Parliament were thought fittest by the knowne lawes of our Kingdome, [Page 74] to regulate vnruly Kings, it was certainly in vaine, for such Kings, as stories report most irregular, were least regulated by Parliaments, but on the contrary the Parliaments concurd to their desires, and in such extrava­gant Actions, as were the greatest blemishes of their Government, & [...]conoclastes doth well to make a supposition of knowne lawes, for he knowes not any, that thought his supposition true, for the knowne, la­wes will not suppose an vnruly King, and therefore cannot thinke, of a way to regulate what they will not suppose, but were it supposed, that a Parliament were the fittest way to regulate vnruly Kings, doth it follow, that there wilbe no heate in elections, nor noe misadvice in persons elec­ted? Must the King take all for truth, and reason, that any of these ad­visers will tell him? Or is a Major part of them so infallible, as the whole Kingdome must stand, or perish by the advantage of a few voy­ces, & perhaps one onely? But this breaker hath broken out into this vnnaturall heate, vpon the alone mention of heate in Elections, a matter not only of possibilitie, but knowne truth.

His owne, & his Childrens interest oblidged him to seeke, & preserve the love, and welfare of his subjects. To this of his Majest: he sayes. Who doubts it, but the same interest common to all Kings, was never yet availeable to make them all seeke that, which was indeede best for themselves, & their posteritie.

But if it be the interest of Kings to preserve the love, and welfare of their subjects, in vaine doth Iconoclastes from the transgressions of par­ticular persons defame the sacred office of Kings, and endeavour to set vp vsurpers, whose interest cannot so much oblidge them to the love, & welfare of the people. He sayes all men are oblidged by their interest to honestie, and Iustice, but that consideration workes litle in private men. It seemes by his writing, it workes litle in him, that so litle regards ho­nestie, and Iustice. But his interest is not to regard it, for the interest of his profitt; and esteeme with his Masters cannot be maintained by ho­nestie, and Iustice, and that interest is more prevalent with him, then the interest of a good conscience, or heaven it selfe. He might well have descerned, that his Majest: argued from the Humane, or Civill interest, which men are apt to judge strongest, and the breaker impertinently diverts the sense to talke of mens fayling in the exercise of vertue, when their temporall interests are the cause of their miscarriage, and therefore his Majest: reason was strong, that since his interest, as well, as right carried him to the inclination he mentioned, it might be more probable to others. But the Image breaker admits no reasons, nor gi­ves any, but magisterially layes downe his position, that Kings have lesse consideration of honestie, & Iustice then other men. It were an injury to that high calling to offer an answeare to such a barking detractour against the most approved, most ancient, and most sacred office for the preser­vation of Humane societie, that will deprave that, which God hath sanctified, and will make those, by whome God dispenseth the bles­sings [Page 75] of peace vnto men, the greatest Enemies to God, and goodnes.

He intended to oblidge both friends, & Enemies, and to exceede their desires, did they but pretend to any modest, and sober sense. To this he sayes mista­king the whole busines of a Parliament, which meete not to receive from him obligations, but Iustice, nor he to expect from them their modestie, but their grave advice vttered with Freedome in the publique cause.

This man mistakes the whole busines of a Parliament, that would exclude modestie from the advice, and libertie from the advised. The freedome, that the libeller intends is inconsistent with modestie, as­well, as Monarchy, Trayterous dispositions having an Antipathy to morall vertues. How often have Parliaments made petitions to their King for graces, & were they not oblidged, when they were graunted? But it cannot be expected, that such, as despi [...]e dutie should willing­ly acknowledge the right of those, to whome it belongs, and such, as vse no modestie will acknowledge no gratitude, or obligation. If their advice had been grave, their behaviour would have been modest, and they whose dutie was only to advise, had no pretence to Commaund, and dictate, nor they, that were to receive Justice from their King, to snatch what they desired, and become judges of their owne demaunds. Such as wil not be oblidged by lawes, nor oaths cannot by benefites, & favours, and such, as have robbed a King of his power, grow quickely to that heigth of impudence to deny he had ever any, as this Author, that is so Brutish to affirme, that Kings cannot oblidge their subjects, & thence it followes, that they owe no thankes to God for a good King, as they professe to owe him none for his good Government.

His talke of modestie in their desires of the common welfare argues him not much to have vnderstood, what he had to graunt, who misconceived so much the nature of what they had to desire.

His excepting at the talke of modestie shewes how little he vnder­stands other modestie, or the right, or practice of Parliament. Is not humilitie a word of larger signification, then modestie, and yet this breaker will make modestie contrary to the nature of the Parliaments desires, and the Kings graunts, when humilitie is the common expres­sion of the Parliaments petitions to the King. And he might well have said the King vnderstood not, what he had to graunt, if he had not ex­pected his subjects desires to have a modest, and sober sense. Can there be desires of the common-welfare, that exclude modest, & sober sense? But the truth is the desires of the late faction in the name of Parlia­ment had neither modest, nor sober sense, and thence the libeller would inferr it vnnecessary, and it was very farr from the nature of what they had to desire to demaund their Kings Crowne.

And for sober sense the expression was too meane, and recoiles with as much dishonour vpon himselfe to be a King, where sober sense could possible be so wan­ting in a Parliament.

[Page 76] And must it be the Kings dishonour, if an Assembly of Parliament want sober sense, how does that recoile vpon him, can he make them otherwise? Iconoclastes lately reprehended his mention of heate in E­lections, and now its the Kings dishonour, if the Parliament want so­ber sense, was there never experience of a Parliament, that wanted sober sense, or was any man so savage, as to hold sober sense too meane for a greate Councell? Wee have seene not only sober sense, but al Religi­on, reason, law, & Justice, wanting in a Parliament, being taken for the prevalent partie, and Histories record it to have happened, more, then once. Kings have been vnhappy in such Parliaments, but the disho­nour, and infamy rests vpon such Assemblyes, and these Apologists are the Trumpetts of their shame, not the covers of their nakednes.

The odium, and offences, which some mens rigour, or remissenes in Church, & state had contracted vpon his Government, he resolved to have expiated with bet­ter lawes, and regulations. To this he sayes the worst misdemeanours of rigour or remissenes he hath taken vpon himselfe, as often as the Clergy, or any other of his Ministers felt themselves over-burthened with the peoples hatred. He instan­ces in the superstitious rigour of his sundayes Chappell, remissenes of his sundayes Theatre, that reverend statute for Dominicall Iiggs, & Maypoles derived from the Example of his Father Iames, which testifies, that all superstition, and re­missenes in Religion issued from his authoritie, and the generall miscarriages in state imputed cheifely to himselfe.

That the remissenes and rigour of some men may contract odium, and offence in the best Governments was never doubted, but that this libeller would take occasion from his Majest: intention to expiate them with better lawes, to cast them on his Majest: shewes that this Rebellion arose not from offences in Government, but wicked inclinations of ambition, & Covetuousnes, and that amendments were not desired but confusion. It was just, & honourable, that the King should take on him the defence of his lawes against Sectaries, and the protection of officers, in the exercise of just authoritie, against the hatred of frenitique per­sons. The hipocrisie of the schismaticall partie, that professed greate tendernes of conscience, and greife to see Children whipp a top on a sunday, was ridiculous to al sober men, yet theis are the motives to em­broyle a state. That, which he calls the superstitious rigour of his sundayes Chappell is noe other, then observation of the order of the Church of England, which none, but the Bedlam Brownists ever called supersti­tious. His Majest: Chappell had nothing in the exercise of Devotion, but what the lawes of his Predecessours had appointed, and this must be his rigour. That, which he calls his sundayes Theatre it seemes are recreations vpon sundayes, and to that he prophanely, and scurrilously adds his Dominicall Jiggs. Can a Christian, that hath respect to the day, make Dominicall the matter of his jest, but having abused sacred titles to impious Actions, they proceede to scoffe with them. He inti­mates [Page 77] a booke published touching recreations, wherein his Majest: followed the example of his Royall father, and the advice of the most learned Divines. Judaisme, and ridiculous superstition of the hipocri­ticall sectaries cheifely occasioned that booke both in the time of his Majest: and King James. Permission of sunday recreations is more agreeable to the doctrine, & practice of other Churches, then the pro­hibition, & the pretended tendernes of conscience in the Sectaries, ap­peares as false, as frivolous, and these Sectaries, that make this imagi­nary rigour, and remissenes a foundation to overthrow a Kingdome al­low noe limits to their owne rigour, and remissenes, taking all libertie to themselves, & denying any to others. Why are theis doughty objec­tions made against his Majest: when all know it touches not him parti­cularly (if it were considerable) but his Father, & queene Elizabeth, in whose times recreations on sundayes were more practised, then in the time of his Majest: & by the way we may take notice of his scornefull appellation of his Father James. And for the miscarriages in state, wee may expect, that as the Actions will be by this Author vnfaithfully re­lated, soe they will appeare of as litle weight for a ground to those Ca­lumnies, which he frames vpon them.

His Majest: disavowed none of these acts, till this Parliament, and heere see­kes to wipe of the envy of his evill Government vpon his substitutes.

His Majest: allwayes disavowed illegall Acts, and whatever other mens rigour, or remissenes had contracted. And must a King satisfie the curiositie, & malice of all, that cast envy on his Government [...] And was there ever a Parliament, wherein lawes were not made to expiate the odium contracted. When his Majest: seekes to take away the occa­sions of evill in his substitutes, he deserves the love, and thankes of his people, but it is the practice of Rebells to cast the rigour, and remis­senes of the substitutes vpon the Government. His Majest: ought not to beare the evill of other mens Actions, and his Government wilbe glorious to posteritie, as it was happy to them, that enjoyed it in despight of envy, and his Author, and such, as seeke to wipe of the guilt of this lewde Rebellion, by pretences of evill Government, which can noe more justifie their fact, then provocation a private Duell, sufficiently cleere his Majest: of their reproaches by the light­nes of these objections, and by offering vulgar envy, as a reason to destroy the Kingdome. He goes on jeering the Kings promises, for reforminge Religion, as too late, and because popular confusions had overtopt reason, therefore he concludes their Justice in working mischeife, and breaking all the bonds of faith, and Religion. The purposes, which his Majest: had for reforminge Religion, could not by him be expressed artificiallie to gaine abatement of that violence, vn­der which he suffered, for they are noe other, then what he had of­ten proposed in the beginninge of the Parliament, and the workes [Page 78] of the dead King lose not their weight, because they declare to the world the vnjust vsurpation of his authoritie.

All his vndertakings heeretofore declared him to have little, or no judgment in that worke of Religion. This libellers booke declares him to have lit­tle conscience of Religion, & no wonder, if schismatickes are so sham­les in the contempt of the greatest judgments, that differ from them, when they acknowledge the authoritie of no person over them, and that, which Iconoclastes pronounces heere of the King, he will not sticke to determine of all the world besides, that agree not with his sect. Sectaries are no lesse insolent, and cruell, then false, and fantasti­que, there being not any like excesse in such, as attaine to highest pre­ferments in Church, or state by ordinary wayes, as in those popular se­ducers, presumption being of more force, then truth with vulgar spi­rits, and thence this Champion of schismatickes not only vilifies his Majest: judgment in Religion, but tells the world, That his breeding, or course of life could not acquaint him with a thing so spirituall. The breeding, and course of life of this generation of sectaries is not vnknowne, and they seeke to supply with impudence, what they want of abilitie. It were a fault to mention heere his Majest: parts, learning, and pietie, and the Scripture, which directs vs to try the spirits hath given vs such markes of the false, and lying spirits, as wee should be much wanting to ourselves, if wee could not judge those men, that are proud-boasters, despisers of Parents, despisers of Dominion, Traytours, faith-breakers to be such, as descerne not the things of the spirit, though they pre­tend to them.

The Reformation, they could expect from him must be some politique forme of an imposed Religion, or perpetuall vexation to such, as comply not with that forme

And let all the Churches, that professe the name of Christ through the world be produced, and there is none of them, but have a forme of Religion which this libeller heere calls politicke, and an imposed Religion, and the observation of such formes are in all Churches exacted with some penalties, and heereby all men may see, that wee have not to doe with a confined Rebell, that hath only disaffection to the Government of the place, where he lives, but one, that accuses all Churches, but his owne Conventicle to have litle, ore no judgment in Religion, and not acquainted with a thing so spirituall, for the ground of this repro­ach is from his Majest: resolution to vse formes in the publique duties of Religion in the Church.

The like amendment, he sayes, he promises in state, not a step further, then his reason, and conscience told him was fitt to be desired, wishing he had kept with in those bounds, and not suffered his owne judgment to have been overborne in some things, And this he sayes is to set vp an Arbitrary Government, & all Brittany to be chained to the conscience, judgment, and reason of one man, as [Page 79] if those guifts were entayled vpon him, with his Fortune to be a King.

Wee know not the Misteri [...]s of this mans Religion, otherwise we might demaund of him, why the King should goe further, then his reason, and conscience directed him, and why the libeller, & his Mates should hould it lawfull for them to spurne at al lawes both in Church, and state vpon pretence of their reason, and conscience against them, he cannot deny to have [...]oue this, & they should doe well to shew, how the King may goe against his reason, & conscience. Is it intayled vpon him with his Fortune, as a King to have lesse priviledge, then they? & must he renounce his owne reason, and conscience to the advice of a Parliament? And must they controll him, and the Parliament? Sure­ly the King must give an account to God for the Talents, he hath lent him. But how can the breaker conclude, from the Kings forhearance of Acts, wherein he is vnsatisfied in his conscience, that is to set vp an Arbitrary Government when as nothing is introduced? And why must not all Brittaine be chained to the judgment, reason, and con­science of the King, as well, as all Israell, Gods owne peouliar people, and not only all Brittaine, but the whole world are Chained to the reason, judgment, and conscience of their Rulers be they one, or many, And the seducers would perswade vs, that Brittaine could not be hap­py, vnles it were reduced to its [...], and governed by a multitude of Kings, & Religions. God had promised peculiar assistance to Kings, and Commaunds the peoples obedience to them, & the mi­series of the Kingdome many be imputed in a greate part to what his Majest: observed, that he had suffered his owne judgment to be over­borne in some things.

A Tyrant may make this pretense, and it were in vaine for any Parliament to have reason, judgment, or conscience, if it th [...]arted the Kings will.

It were much more tollerable for a Tyrant, to pretend conscience in governing, then for a people to pretend conscience in rebelling, and this libeller hath reprehended the peoples levitie, and violence so shar­pely, as he cannot if he pretend reason, subject the reason, judgment, and conscience of the Rulers to the controll of the subjects. Because Tyrants may pretend conscience, therefore by good logicque no King may vse it, and because some Kings may not rightly governe, therefore he will have the right judgment in the people, which he so much de­spises, and which, as it hath been the meanes of the Rebells present po­wer, so it hath been in all ages the cause of confusion, and miserie to states, and Kingdomes. The reason, judgment, and conscience of a Parliament is not therefore in vaine, because not infallible, it is most probable, that a King will follow the best Councell, but it cannot be presumed that in Parliaments, the greater part will continue subjects, if they may be Kings by saying they wilbe, and it was the wisedome of our Ancestours, that would have no lawes made without the will of [Page 80] their King, and they never trusted such, as they chose further, then to present their desires, and offer their Councell vnto him, and consent to what should be ordeyned by him with advice of the Lords, & it were in vaine to have a King, if he were not impowred to judge of Coun­cells, or if lawes might be obtruded vpon him, and the people without him. The present Calamities testifie how vnhappily, and absurdly a Parliament seekes to Commaund, whose office is to Councell, and pre­tend Councell vseles, vnles they may deprive him, whome they advise of the benifit of Councell, taking away his power to vse it. To what end doe they Councell, if there be none to be Councelled, but all to be commaunded?

That thus these promises made vpon experience of hard sufferings, and his most mortified retirements being thorowly sifted, containe nothing much diffe­rent from his former practices.

His Majest: expressions being thorowly sifted containe nothing in them, but pious, and Princely considerations, and from this libellers owne mouth all men may see, that his Majest: practices, against which they maliciously exclaime were consonant to Religion, and Justice, and only opposite to Trayterous, and schismaticall licence. It was the libellers profession to parrallell his Majest: faire spoken words, as he calls them to his owne farr different Actions, and now his words, and deedes being sifted by malice it selfe are not much different, the libel­ler is some what ingenuous to discover his owne vanitie, and falshood.

He leaves it to prudent foresight, what fruites in likelyhood his Majest: re­storement would have produced.

We have seene already the fruites of the inhumane cruelties exercised vpon him, and the continuance, and encrease of those abominable im­pieties, that attend such Actions, where of the libeller makes a large profession, who confidently obtrudes lavish lyes, for knowne truths, petulant insolence, for sober sense, & maximes of villany, for sound Ar­guments, which are the bitter fruites of disobedience, and Rebellion.

To that part of the section, which he calls the devout of it, and model­led into the forme of a private Psalter, he objects nothing, but his spleene, that it is not to be admired, more then the Arch-Bishopps late Breviary, and other manualls, and handmaides of Devotion, and these he calls the lip worke of every Prelaticall leiturgist, quilted out of Scripture Phrase, with as much ease, and as litle neede of Christian diligence, or judgment, as belongs to the compi­ling of any ordinary, & saleable peece of English Divinitie, that the shopps value.

The Authors of leiturgies, and helpes to devotion, have their memo­ry blessed by the benefit, which many devout soules have acknowled­ged to have received from their labours, and the crueltie, which bloo­dy Rebells exercised on the person of the late Arch-bishopp, and their other barbarismes, towards the Prelates, to please that kennell by whome they acted their Rebellion, hath satisfied the world of the na­ture [Page 81] of Sectaries, of whose bloody disposition, many by sheepes-clo­thing were much deceived. Quilting of Scripture Phrase was wont, to be the prayse of their long winded Lecturers, who vsed it more for sound then sense, but it seemes their spirit is changed. The libeller will hard­ly gett credit, vnles with those, for whose sake he doth not professe to write, that is his wise, and well principled men the Sectaries, if he af­firme, that there is more neede of Christian diligence in the bold, and extempore bablinge of their senseles zealots, then the compiling of those Leiturgies, and Manualls, he mentions. And such, as have observed the presumption of this rabble in their prayers, will beleive they hate dili­gence, as much, as they want judgment. Why English, or saleable should dininish the esteeme of Divinitie is not vnderstood, but be­cause they are common termes, he would have his readers vnderstand, that they signifie nothing, but common matter, and he expects, that some will thinke English, and saleable Divinitie of no regard, though they vnderstand no other.

But he proceedes such a kinde of Psalmastry, or other verball devotion, without suteable deedes, cannot perswade any of Zeale, and righteousnes in the person.

But such, as make Psalmastrie a word of contempt, relish not the Zeale of the sweete singer of Israell, and their deedes are odious to all good men, that seeke matter of reproach vpon the devotions of others, and make their malitious surmises positive truths. The instances of Ty­rants counterfeiting Religion are frequent, and that hipocrisie is inse­perable from Tyrants, by vsurpation such as this libellers Masters, whose want of right, seekes protection from dissembled vertue, but this seldome happens to Kings by just Title, whose power wants not that support. His comparing his late Majest: to knowne vsurpers, that confirmed their Crownes, gained by robbery, and kept with falshood, & blood shewes his odious shamelessnes in the dissimititude, & who­ever observes the prophane assumption of the Titles of pietie, by these Monsters, & their hipocriticall professions, to maske their wicked ends, shall finde, that Andronicus Comnenus; and our English Rich. 3. Came short of them, not only in counterfeiting Religion, and conscience, but in falshood, and crueltie. Insteede of shake speares scene of Rich. 3. The libeller may take the Parliaments declaration of the 29. May, where their words are. The providing for the publique peace, and prosperitie of his Majest: and all his Realmes, we protest in the presence of the all-seeing Deitie to have been, and still to be, the only end of all our Councells, & endeavours, wherein wee have resolved to continue freed, and enlarged from all private aimes, perso­nall respects, or passions whatsoever, and againe in their petition of the second of June, they tell him, that they have nothing in their thoughts, and desires more pretious, and of higher esteeme next to the honour, and immediate service of God, then the just, and faithfull performance of their dutie to his Majest: and [Page 82] the libeller will not finde in historie, or poet words of a deeper hipo­ [...]risie in the mouth of a villaine, nor more contradicted by their Acti­ons. That which he adds from his Testimony out of shakespeare of the imagined vehemence of Rich. the 3. In his dissembled professions, holds noe proportion with, theis hipocrisies, really acted, not fancyed by a poet, and this libeller hath learnt to act a part out of shakespeare, and with Rich. 3. accusing loyaltie, and innocency for high Crymes, and crying out against their wickednes, that sought to restore the dis­posessed heires of the Crowne to their right, and amplifying their of­fence, as the highest against God, and man, and wherein comes the li­beller short of his patterne in this scene.

He sayes heerein the worst of Kings professing Christianisme have by far [...] exceeded him, and he gives his reason, for that the King hath, as it were vn­hallowed, and vnchristned by borrowing to a Christian vse prayers offred to a heathen God.

And doth saint Paul exceede the worst of Kings professing Christia­nisme by borrowing to a Christian vse the words of an heathen Philo­sopher, and poet, did he thereby vnhallow, and vnchristen Scripture?

His meaning is, as followes afterward, that the King vsed a prayer taken out of S. Philip Sydnies Arcadia. After the first Edition of his Majest: booke, the Printers finding the greate vent of them, in the fol­lowing Editions Printed prayers, and other things in the Kings name, not belonging to the booke. Among these prayers, there is a prayer taken out of the Arcadia. That prayer is neither made by a heathen, woman, nor to a heathen God, but is composed by the Author a Chri­stian without reference to any heathen Deitie, and the Author is not thought to vnchristen prayer by it, the libeller himselfe saying the booke in its kinde is full of worth, and wit, but as his outcry hath noe cause from the matter, so heere is no evidence of the fact, that his Ma­jest: made vse of that prayer, or popt into the Bishopps hands as a re­lique of his exercise, though he might warrantably have vsed it and professed it.

But he goes on to shew what he can say vpon this occasion. Who would have imagined so litle feare in him of the true alseeing Deitie, so litle re­verence of the holy Ghost, whose office is to dictate, and present our Christian prayers, so litle care of truth in his last words, or honour to himselfe, or to his friends, or sense of his afflictions, or of that sad hower, which was vpon him, as immediately before his death to pop into the hand of that grave Bishopps, who attended him, as a speciall relique of his saintly exercises a prayer stolne, &c.

All men, that have observed this Authors practice hitherto rest as­sured, that he hath so litle feare, or reverence of the allseeing Deitie, so litle care of truth, or honour, as he stickes not to charge his Majest: with facts neverdone, and innocent Actions, with transcendent guilt. If his Majest: had vsed the prayer, or delivered it, as he imagines, no [Page 83] man of Christian sobrietie could charge the fact with Cryme, what one word, or sentence is there in that prayer, which a Christian may not vse, but the Image breaker hath a greate quarrel to al formes of prayer, and by the reason he produces, that the office of the holy Ghost is to dic­tate, and present our Christian prayers, all set prayers want reverence to the holy Ghost, so tender is he of the best reformed Churchs, of whome he so often makes a propertie. And whence concludes he no care of truth in his last words, when the King never spake of it. He aggravates this fact by the person of the grave Bishopp, who had been a Prelati­call leiturgist, had it not been to paint a slander. The laughter, which he conceives is caused by the thought of this, that he, which acted so Tra­gically should have such a ridiculous exit might rather strike horrour in the libeller, for his malitious opposition to truth, that will so contrary to his owne knowledge charge him to act tragically, that had governed so mildly, and to have a ridiculons exit, that left the world with so greate pietie, and such vniversall greife of the people for his sufferings, but desperate wretches laugh at the wickednes they act. His Majest: friends have had good experience, that his Enemies, who have spared no paines to traduce him, would not forbeare any occasion of detrac­tion. His Majest: enduring afflictions with admired patience, his suffe­ring death with Christian fortitude, his vertuous life, & holy Martyr­dome, cannot be blasted by an Atheists scorne, nor a Rebells malice.

His conclusion in the begging of the question, that it is cleere the King was not induced, but constrained to call the last Parliament, which by his owne shewing is apparently false, for if there had been such a con­straint, the Lords in vaine petitioned, and all the necessities, that he hath supposed may concurr with the Kings inclination to call a Parlia­ment, and if necessitie had constrained him to call a Parliament, what should hinder, but he might avouch in the eares of God, that he did it with an vpright intention to his glory, and his peoples good. If necessitie of his peoples preservation, or welfare cause him to call a Parliament, may he not vse these words; Whence would the Image breaker have it a cause of trembling, more, then any thing spoken in the presence of God. The permitting mans wickednes is no approbation of it, nor a token of his hatred to those, that are afflicted by it. There are some, whome God hath given over to delusion, and of that the libeller appeares to have a greate measure, who not only beleives lies, but is the Author of them, making the names of Religion, and conscience, and the feare of God baites to dec [...]ive, and venom to reproach


THis chapter he sayes is a penitent confession of the King, and the strangest, if it be well weigbed, that ever was auricular, for he repents heere of giving his con­sent, though most vnwillingly to the most seasonable, and solemne peice of Iustice, that had been done of many yea­res in the land: But his sole conscience thought the contrary.

Impieties that were strange heeretofore, are common with this libeller, and it is vnheard of that repentance of an act conceiveded sinfull by the athour, was reproached by any before this Atheist, he never weighed neither repentance, nor confession, if he had, he would never have thought it strange, that his Majest: should confesse, that he sinned in following a multitude to doe evill, and if the murther of the Earle of strafford had been Justice, is it strange, that such, as had acted in it without sufficient satisfaction to their conscienc, should confesse their sin in concurring to such an Action? Was it not an injustice, that was done vnwillingly, and ought it not to be repen­ted of? If his Majest: sole conscience thought the contrary, was it not sin in him to consent to the fact, and is it without experience, that a single man in an Assembly hath judged the right, and the rest procee­ded in the wrong, but he applies himselfe to readers, whose affections, and capacities, are proportioned to his expressions, and therefore his Majest: confession is the strangest, that ever was auricular. He would have them beleive, that his Majest: discourse in this Chapter was po­pish auricular confession, els his Jnigly of auricular, had no congruitie with a written confession. For the merit of that, which he calls solemne piece of Justice, no age had produced such a solemne, and formall peice of villany, which is by so much more odious, as it had the figures of law, and Justice.

[Page 85] And thus was the welfare, the safetie, and within a litle the vnannimous de­maund of three populous nations, to have attended still on the Singularitie of one mans opinionated conscience, if men had allwayes been so tame, and spiritles, and had not vnexpectedly found the grace to vnderstand, that if his conscience were so narrow, and peculiar to it selfe, it was not fit, his authoritie should be so ample, and vinversall over others, for certainly a private conscience, sortes not with a publique calling.

The welfare, and safetie of these three populous Kingdomes, had been probably preserved, if they had attended on his Maj: conscience, and what hath been the consequence of that spirit, and grace, which he sayes they found, and was indeede the infusion of impious inclinations into many by the spirit of errour, & disobedience, but the most despe­rate, & languishing miserie, & danger, that ever lay vpon the Kingdome. And these graceles miscreants sport at the nam af grace, & prophane the profession of it. He would be vnderstood a litle modest in adding with in a litle to vnannimous, but being weighed, his impudence wil appeare litle lesse in this, then former passages. If the three Kingdomes be con­sidered in comparison to that small number, that vnderstood the case of the Earle of Strafford, it was a very litle part of the Kingdomes, that made the demaund he mentions, & if he would advantage his cause by the cryes of those, that were stirred vp by the Seditious Seducers, to cry Justice, their giddy wilfullnes, aswel, as ignorance, & lewdenes, wil add litle to the weight, though it encreas the number of these demaunders. But this man thinkes conscience vnfitt for a King, & therefore would not have so narrow a conscience have so large an authority, for he sayes a private conscience sorts not with a publique calling, & declares that person rather meant by nature for a private fortune. The must profest Atheists, & loose debauches, never avowed a greater scorne of Christia­nitie, neither is there an Author extant, that hath adventured so farr vpon the reasons of men, as to complaine vpon a King for Tyrany, and errours in Religion, & with the same breath, charging him with vnfitnes to be a King, for want of a wide conscience. These mē are true to their principles, to make vehement professions of Religion, though they hate it, and in the middest of their prophane fasts, & presumptuous thankes giving, they jeere at al Religion, & conscience, & professe to the world, that a publique conscience ought not to be narrow, nor sticke at any thing, & as their conscience is, so is their practice, & they, that made no conscienc of their loyalty, mak no conscienc of exercising their power.

He, whose conscience thinkes it sin, to putt to death a Capitall offender, will as oft thinke it meritorious, to kill a righteous person.

If his Majest: had thought the Earle of Strafford, a Capital offender, he had made no conscience of his death, and this libeller vainely sup­poses conscience of sin, to put to death a Capital offender, which cannot consist, with a conscience so informed, neither doth an erroneous [Page 86] conscience in sparing blood, as oft thinke it meritorious to kill vnde­servedly, though it be nothing to the present purpose, for he can fasten neither vpon his Majest: conscience of sparing a Capitall offender, or killing a righteous person. But in this whereof he repents.

That the sin of signing the Bill of straffords execution, he would not have matter to trouble the Kings conscience, and his reasons are, That all men looked vpon him, as one of the most impetuous instruments to ad­vance any illegall designe.

The Earle of strafford was a man, that the Seditious disturbers of the state hated, and feared, and sought, vnderhand to rayse the malevo­lence of others against him. If any men have so farr lost reason, as to measure the Ministers of Kings by the libells of Traytours, they are li­kely to take the best men for most guiltie, and if a King should sacri­fice his faithfull Servants, because they are not looked vpon with a good eye by the multitude, he may not expect to be served by men of fidelitie, or merit, and we have seene, how the peoples lookes have been won, and lost.

That he had rul'd Ireland, & some part of England in an Arbitrary manner.

The word. Arbitrary in the beginning of the late Parliament was vsed to scare the people, and made to signifie greate affrightments to them, but that bugbeare is now growne rediculous to children, for all men see, that in all places of Government much is left Arbitrary to the Governour, and it was evident to the world, that the Earle of strafford did nothing in an Arbitrary manner, without President of his Prede­cessours, and the Judges in Courts of equitie, might be aswell made Cryminall for proceeding in an Arbitrary manner as he. That he had endeavoured to subvert fundamentall lawes was a supposition, not a fact, and if the Image breaker looke over the Articles, where with he was charged at his Tryall, he will finde nothing of such a Cryme. To subvert Parliaments, and incense the King, against them was not as much, as vrged against him at his Tryall, that Article being declined by his accusers in regard of knowne falshood, and that the Earle of strafford advised the King, to call the former Parliament. That he had endeavou­red to make histolitie betweene England, and scotland was a legend devised for vulgar temper, not rationall consideration, for both Kingdomes being vnder one King, they must be Rebells in either Kingdome, that make warr against one another without him, and what dreamer can fancy that any Minister of state, that were affected to the Kings desig­nes, as this libeller supposes the Earle of strafford to be, would stirr vp hostilitie betweene the nations. They have not yet adventured to charge the Earle of strafford with stirring vp the scotch hostilitie, and if he endeavoured to refist them, is that to make hostolitie be tweene the nations, It hath been the practice of these Rebells to stile men incendi­aries, and malignants, that opposed their Rebellion, and such evill [Page 87] Counsellours that advised any course to prevent their attemps, and the following confusion but though this vaine delusion were cast abroade among the people, it was never offred, as a charge against the Earle.

That he had councelled the King, to call over that Irish Army of Papists, which he had cunningly raysed to reduce England, as appeared by good Testi­mony then present at the consultation, is vnseasonably remembred by the libeller after those Rebells, whome he serves, have severall times drawne in forraigne Armies into England, reduced the nation to serve an vsurped power, set vp an Arbitrary Government, subverted the fun­damentall lawes, and destroyed both King, and Parliament. It may astonish Knowing men to reade this Author, objecting Capitall offen­ces to the Earle of strafford, and numbring vp for instance the same Ac­tions himselfe defends: soe as it cannot be an humane errour, but hel­lish-fury, that hurles him into such mad contradictions, and its worth the observing, that to this particular he adds, as appeated by good Tes­timony then present at the consultation, well Knowing, that the Testi­mony was not only single, but subject to most just, and apparent excep­tion in regard of knowne enmitie, and former prevarication in severall examinations vpon oath, and it no way helpes a false Testimonie, that he knew the truth, or that he was present at a fact, whereof he makes an vntrue relation, and if the Earle of strafford had councelled the King to make vse of the Jrish Army in either Kingdome in case of Rebel­lion, how comes that to be an offence, though that was not the truth, that he spake of England, nor the Army raysed against England, and is it a commendable cunning, to rayse an Army against a Rebellion.

His reference to 28 Articles directs vs how to know, that he trusts on number more then weight, and those Articles remaine a Testimo­nie to posteritie of the ridiculous pretences which effected such mis­cheife. He sayth the Commons by farr the greater number cast him, and yet is so absurdly impudent to charge the King with singularitc of con­science, and alledge presently a part of the lower house of the same opinion. The Lords, he sayth, after they had been satisfied in a full discourse by the Kings solicitour, and the opinions of many Iudges delivered in their house agreed likewise to the sentence of Treason. Those Lords, that condemned the Earle of strafford, might be satisfied by terrour of the Tumults, and their owne corrupt passions, never by law, nor reason. Its well knowne, that the Lords, and Commons were assaulted, and threatned by the vn­ruly rabble of the Citie, and Suburbs, if they condemned him not, they had not freedome in their coming, or going to the house, or sitting there. There was no one judge, that gave his opinion for the sentence against him, and the Sollicitours discourse was very strong against the present Rebells, wholy impertinent to the case of the Earle of strafford, and shewed his owne deceite, and the sottishnes of them, that relyed on what they vnderstood not. Diverse lords for sooke the house having [Page 88] not libertie to be present, soe farr were the lords from being satisfied. That which he calls a sentence of Treason, was an act of power, it being a Bill to take away his life, but an exception of all men els, from being proceeded against for the same matters, in ordinary Justice, and this very Action, soe scandalous in it selfe, and soe greivous to many, that consented to it, must be drest out with a shamelesse commenda­tion, to accuse the King, for his repentance of a fact, which soe much afflicted him. That the people vniversally cryed for justice is noe wonder, if we consider former examples, and they had a President in the people of the Iewes, that cryed Crucifie. If we believe this libeller, telling vs how light, and violent, they are in their motions, or if we looke vpon the acts of a powerfull faction, then prevayling with them, that could easily make them cry, what was put in their mouth, we may easily judge the injustice of their cry, and their ignorance of the cause, and a sober author would have hated, to borrow an Argument of Justice, from popular outcryes, which are the most evident proofe of injustice, and oppression of innocence.

He sayes none were his friends, but Courtiers, and Clergimen, the worst at that time, and most corrupted sort of men, & Court ladies, not the best of women.

His fer friends, and many Enemies, render the proceedings against him more, then suspected, and men may easily beleive, that in such a condition furie was the accuser, and malice, and cowardise the judge. The confining his friends to Court, and Church, is the effect of the li­bellers engagement to schisme, and Rebellion, who holds such loyaltie, and affection to the King, and conscientious reverence to the Church, for the markes of greate offenders. If multitude of Ennemies be a Tes­timony of guilt, the best men will become the worst of sinners. But having noe friends, as he sayes, it adds much to the right of his cause, that soe many who were neither Courtiers, nor Clergymen, nor any way obliged by him, or the Court, should in discharge of their con­scienc declare their dissent to that bloody law, though they were there­by objected to popular fury. His impertinent rayling at Courtiers, and Clergymen argues his malice, not Cryme in them. His mention of Court ladies was for want of matter, and their activitie in state affaires belongs not to this occasion.

The King declared to both houses, that noe feares, or respects what so ever, should make him alter that resolution, founded vpon his conscience, and sayes either then his resolution, was not founded vpon his conscience, or his conscience recieved better information, or both strucke sayle, for within few dayes after, fo­wer of his Bishopps pickt the thorne out of his conscience, and he was perswaded to figne the Bill.

Men, that are sincere often fall, but such never have consciencie, nor sinceritie, that jeere at it, and make the falls of men, and their wounds of conscience matter of their mirth. Though his Majest: did that, [Page 89] which he had formerly professed to be against his conscience, could he not repent of that frailetie of falling from his resolution? Or might he not afterwards discover the errours of those reasons, that induced him to it? If feares were any motive to what he did, the curse lies on them, that caused it, and on them, that reproach him with it. Poets have not fancied a higher degree of wickednes in fends of hel, then in their ma­litious glory of compelling others to sin, and reproaching their repen­tance for sin. Experience hath represented his Majest: fortitude, and that not his personall feares, but his apprehension of the Kingdomes miserie wrought most on his passion, and wee cannot finde Parallell ex­pressions to those of this libeller in his Scoffes at conscience, and pic­king the thorne out of it, vnles amongst those desperate, and prophane Atheists, that make it the highest pitch of wit to render things sacred most ridiculous.

Perhapps, it wrung his conscience to condemne the Earle, not because he thought him guiltles, had halfe these Crymes been committed against his personall inte­rest, as appeared by his charge against the six members, but because he was princi­pall, and the Earle but accessory, and thought nothing Treason against the Com­mon wealth, but against himselfe only.

Playing with conscience he cannot part with, whose owne is insen­sible. In those particulars he hath rehearsed against the Earle of Straf­ford, no one of them could be charged vpon the King, and the nature of most of the Articles coud not admit a supposition of the Kings acti­vitie in them. The charge against the six members conteyned matter of direct Treason against knowne lawes, & his Majest: cannot be sup­posed to thinke the Earle of Strafford guiltie, because he charged the six members, with some offences laid to the charge of the Earle of Strafford, but never proved, yet it was an infamous injustice of them that so violently proceeded against the Earle of Strafford, and would not admitt an accusation for the same offences against others. If his Majest: thought, that noe Treason could be committed, but against himselfe, he thought no otherwise then the law hath provided, & the accusers of the Earle of Strafford maintained at his Tryall. And the libeller must checke himsefle for his imagination of Treason against the Common wealth, which had not a being, vnles he wil make a Trea­son by Prophesie, & antedate his ordinance. He well knowes England was a Monarchy, and that his Masters professe the change of it into a supposed free state. Theis Traytours, that would imagine some Trea­son against the King are come to affirme, that there are no Treasons a­gainst the King, for they are sure they have committed all, that con­cerne his person. His impertinency is very tedious in demaunding, why the King should seeme satisfied to signe the Bill by those Iudges, and Ghostly Fathers, as he calls them, of his owne chusing, and now pretend, that it was the importunities of some, and feare of others made him signe.

[Page 90] He does not produce any Testimony, that the King professed him­selfe satisfied, or had he been satisfied, it was no barr to his future in­formation, & repentance, but an instance can hardly be produced, that ever any mans repentance of a knowne fact was traduced, or scorn'd by any, before this libeller, & he might aswel jeere at many famous saints, and Martyrs, that fell from their resolutions, and after recovered, as at his Majest: And the picking out of his thorne, striking sayle to his feare, and a fleeting conscience, may vpon the same grounds be the most eminent penitents in the Church of God. To make his Calumnies sticke, he sayes. That his Majest: ensuing Actions declare he could dissemble satisfaction, for that he had the cheife hand in a conspiracie against the Parliament, and Kingdome. How the King could conspire against his Kingdome, or what should be his end is not intelligible, & when a King is traduced by Rebells for a conspiracy against the Parliament, and Kingdome, no men of common reason can receive such a palpable fiction, but this greate conspiracy, which he sayes came to light by the examinations of Per­cy, Goring, and others was to rescue the Earle of Strafford by seizing the tower of Londen, to bring up the English Army from the north, joynd with eight thou­sand Irish Papists rays'd by Strafford, & a french Army to be landed at Ports­mouth against the Parliament, and their friends. And where is the offence in all this, if it were true, and a powerfull faction assume the name of Parliament? No wise man will blame the King, if he had done such an Action to prevent the miseries, which he foresaw, and the Designes, that were plotted against him, but this story is now stale, though it then served the turne to distemper the people. The examinations, which he speakes of, doe not yet charge the King with the knowledge of this de­signe, but the readers of Iconoclastes must be of miraculous stupiditie, if they thinke it a Cryme in the King to intend the bringing vp of his Army from the north, or any other force, and thinke it lawfull for the Rebells against him to bring vp their Army against the Parliament, and plucke them out of the house. Was not the Tower of London all­wayes in the Kings possession, and might he not make it good against Traytours.

For which purpose he sayes the King though requested by both houses refu­sed to disband those Irish Papists. Though there were many reasons, why his Majest: refused to disband the Irish, and the request of the houses were a vote constrained by Tumults, not the result of a free debate, yet had it been so, that his Majest: had refused to disband them to prevent the plots of the Trayterous faction in Parliament, he had just reason to doe it. And as the Religion men professe, though true, doth not privi­ledge them from offending, though they are thereby a scandall to their profession: So Irish Papists, or any others of contrary Religion may be imployed against such, as have stained their profession by such Ac­tions. These Rebels sought shelter from their Religion for their Trea­son, [Page 91] & perswaded the people of their sinceritie, because Papists fought against them, but it was in truth their infamy, that gave the reason, and the frequent repetition of Irish Papists shewes, that it is a stale to mis­leade the weakest capacities, that can only suspect, not prove, nor descerne.

He concludes the King as Criminous, as the Earle, and therefore he sa­yes, insteed of detesting his ambition, evill Councell, violence, and oppression of the people, he falls to prayse his greate a bilities.

It had been a Kinde of slander to forbeare the due commendation of such abilities, as all men admired, and an vnexcusable injustice to re­proach the memory of the innocent with the false accusations of ma­licious Enemyes. If his Majest: had recounted any faults of the Earle, it had byn no satisfaction to his conscience for consenting to his death, but it had been a signe of an vnsound minde to seeke matter of excuse for an illegall sentence from the disposition of the suffering partie, and such Actions, as the law had not made the merit of such a sentence. The world is well informed now, that those Rebells account the due performance of just authoritie violence, and oppression, and that their cheife hatred against the Earle of Strafford was for his fidelitie to king, and Kingdome, and his opposition of Rebellion his evill Councell.

That beneath the decency of a King, he compares him to the sun which in all figurative vse beares allusion to a King, not to a subject.

If such be the Kingly Prerogative, that the sun beares allusion only to Kings, not to subjects, then must this libeller confesse himselfe to be of that sordid generation, which by that influence are raysed out of sin­kes, and puddles to obscure that gloryous luster, and his observation of this allusion might justly make him reflect vpon himselfe with detes­tation contending against such cleere light, and s [...]andring truth it selfe. But vertue in other persons besides Kings hath been set foorth by allu­sion to the sun, and his triviall exception at the decency of that allusion shewes him as insignificant, as will full.

He hath a conceite, that the King Knitts contradictions as close, as words can lie togeather, not approving in his judgment, and yet approving in his sub­sequent reason, all that Stafford did, as driven by the necessitie of times, and the temper of that people The Kings words are, I cannot in my judgment ap­prove all he did, driven it may be by the necessitie of times &c. And let the reader judge, whether this libellers falsification be not Knit, as close, as words can lie togeather, and its like he knew it by his impertinent vse of the Phrase close Knit to his supposed contradictions. Though the King justly excused some things, which he could not approve, doth he therefore approve all, and doth the libeller thinke, that what a man can­not approve, he must thinke inexcusable, and that Circumstances doe not alter the qualitie of Actions?

But he sayes it is the marvell, and may be the astonishment of all, that have [Page 92] a conscience, how he durst with the same words of contrition, wherewith David repented the murthering of Vriah, repent his lawfull compliance to that just Act.

It is noe marvell to men, that know theis Rebells, though heereto­fore it might have been the astonishment of all, that such should offer to perswade others of their esteeme of conscience, that make it their common scoffe, and while this libeller, charges the King with no lesse then murder in consenting vnwillingly, and consequently in him to an vnjust sentence, makes an exclamation, why he should repent in Davids words for the like Cryme. The libeller well knowes, that if it had been to a lawfull sentence of condemnation, yet blood guiltines lies, where consent with the tongue, had not the perswasion of the heart, & when the King, thought blood lay on him, should he thinke to hide his sin from God? & this prophane Sectary wonders a sinner durst repent. These miscreants are loath to behold their murders in those bloody colours, which the truth of God gives them, & therefore they wil call that Act just against the cry of their Consciences, as they stirred vp the people to cry justice without knowledge of the fact.

It would have taken much from the heavines of his sin to have told God in his confession, how he laboured, what darke plots he had contrived, into what a League entred, and with what conspiratours against his Parliament, & King­dome to rescue so notable an instrument, &c.

Doubtles the King would have taken that course, if he could have charg'd himselfe with any sinfull labour in that kinde. That he ought to have vsed all his power, and skill to have rescued that Earle, was his dutie to God, and a person so cruelly, & shamelessely oppressed; And all men know what false feares were pretended, what ridiculous plots were imagined to disorder the people, and when there is such apparent discovery of Trayterous plots, and such avowing of Trayterous Acti­ons, there can be none so infatuated to beleive, that all necessary pre­vention of such wicked designes was not to withstand the ruine of the Parliament, and Kingdome.

It was feare, which made him fayne both the scruple, and the satisfaction. And what feare could make him fayne a scruple, whome could he feare, if he had not scrupled, but God only? and where doth it appeare, that he fayned satisfaction, but its the libellers want of the fear of God, and men, that makes him thus feareles of slandering, and contradicting.

Repentance came not on him, till a long time after, when he saw, he could have suffred nothing more, though he had denyed the Bill.

Though the King say, he could have suffred nothing more, though he had [...]ed the Bill, he never finds, that repentance came not from him till long after, but knew very well, his repentance followed the fact close at the heeles.

He askes a question, how he could vnderstandingly repent of letting that [Page 93] be Treason, which the Parliament, and whole nation so judged. He hath already told vs it was al thost the whole nation, and the greater part of the Par­liament, but he finds now, that any diminution induces doubt, and it must be the Parliament, and whole nation. May not a man vnderstan­dingly repent, because the whole nation was in the same fault? how many Acts of Parliament have been made, whereof it had been happy for King, and people, they had repented? there neede not an cnumera­tion in so Knowne a truth.

It was a worldly repentance, not a consciencious, or els a strange Tyrany, which his conscience had got over him to vex him like an evill spirit for doing one act of Iustice to fortefie his resolution from ever doing so any more.

We may see what account this man makes of sin, or conscience, that thus derides the terrours of conscience. We may beleive their conscien­ces cauterized, that are such strangers to vexations of conscience, and that sin, and Rebellion have got a strange Mastery of them, that forti­fies their resolutions against all repentance, and the approbation of it in others. This libeller cannot perswade himselfe, that when he calls murther Justice, and Rebellion loyaltie, that he is beleived, though he professe admiration, that men disrelish those his prime qualities, and ma­kes the execration of such wickednes to be strange infatuation, and hard­nes of heart, and so calls the Kings vnwilling, and forced consent to an act, he judged evill, the tasting of a just deede, and his repentance for it, he calls spattring at it. The Devills are tormented with the repentance of others, and their Agents blasphemously deride it, and its doubtfull, whether the pittie, or detestation ought to be greater to wards such desperate persons, that call the consent to an execrable murder, tasting of one good deede, and the resolution against the like spattring at it, no doubt this man spatters at conscience, & direlishes all repentance, no­thing being so naturall to him, as the opposition to pietie.

That wo is denounced to the Scribes, and Pharisees for straining at a gnat, and swallowing a Cammell. We scarcely finde so greate a Cammel swallo­wed by the Scribes, and Pharisees, as many, that are greedily devoured by this libeller. His prophane, and malitious scornes, and reproaches of repentance in this very section, and magnifying an execrable Murther are Cammells in the Judgment of true Christians, though it seeme not so to that sense, which is wholy reprobate, the straining at gnats, and swallowing Cammels was never more apparent in any sect of men, then this libeller, and his crew, and if the ruine of three Kingdomes be soe big, & bulky, as he confesses, and would falsely have to be the deedes of his late Majest: and that a wo belongs to them, what may this libeller, & his Complices expect, that have strained at formes, and Ceremonies, & swallowed downe not only periuries, and Murthers, the desence of odious sins, and the reproaching of Christian duties, but have vndoub­tedly brought this ruine vpon his Majest: three Kingdomes.

[Page 94] He followes his common place of reproaching his Majest: con­science, and sayes, if it were come to that vnnaturall di [...]rasie to digest poy­son, it was not for his Parliament, and Kingdomes to feede with him any longer. This Chapter the libeller hath composed for a satyre against con­science to make it more a bhord by his crew of Caniballs, with whome none can feede, but blood thirstie savages. Could he name a greater discrasie then what he commends, that consines conscience to shed blood, exludes it from sparing. These Traytours had made falshood, and disobedience unnaturall to them, and thereby they caused such, as sought to preserve themselves from that pestilence, to avoyde them, & those venemous persons according to their malitious qualitie sought to infect with their disposition, or destroy by their rage all that came neere them, or restrained their Company.

That the King would perswade vs, that the Parliament escaped not some touches of remorse for putting Strafford to death in forbidding it to be a Presi­dent for the future; but he sayes in faire construction that act implyed rather a desire to pacifie the Kings minde, not imagining, that this after Act should be retorted on them, whether it were made a President, or not, no more then the want of a President for this.

Its some what strange, that the Image breaker finding his rigour only to rayle would medle with this Argument, but it seemes he ap­prehended the hope of a fallacie in the word after, & would insinuate, that this Act was made after the murther, which was made to autho­rise it, and in a faire construction it hath not the least shadow of a desire to pacifie the King, for it did not diminish any of their power, or pur­poses, that contrived that Act, but only to exclude this fact from or­dinary Justice, which in a faire construction implyes, that it was not law, but will, and power, whereby they proceeded. The truth was them­selves saw, that by the consequence of that fact of theirs, all mens lives, and fortunes were exposed to danger, and ruine, and no Magistrate, or officer, but might be drawne within the compasse of Treason, by the Rules they had held with the Earle of Strafford, & all they, that were present at the debates of that busnies know well, that their proper fea­res caused that provision in the Act, and though themselves were not bound to Presidents, they were affraid, that others would follow their Presidents, as in truth they ought, if this President had been according to law. He would not have, that this Act argued in the Parliament, their least repenting, when it argued so litle in the King, who accused the six members for the same Crymes, which he would not thinke treasonable in the Earle.

The accusation of those six members was of other, and higher Cry­mes, besides some of those objected to the Earle of Strafford, and vpon better grounds, and if it had been only those it shewes apparently, that they, that would not proceede vpon that accusation, repented of what they had done against the Earle of Strafford, or had no conscience at [Page 95] all, but were only guided by corrupt respects of person, and interest, and his Majest: might try what they would doe against persons evi­dently guiltie of that, which they had judged so high a Cryme in ano­ther. For the discovery of their former false proceedings; that the King held nothing Treason, but against himselfe. He hath been already told, was the judgment of the accusers of the Earle of Strafford, and he might have knowne it to be so farr from a Tyranicall principle, as he calls it, that it is the rule of law, and Government, for have not his Masters chan­ged the stile of proceedings against offenders, which the law formerly vsed in regard of their change of Government, and devised one accor­ding to their new modell? Its possible they, that devised that clause in the Act, did not expect, it would be retorted vpon them, they were blinded with their fury, and precipitation. But the Image breaker might have observed, that a greater evidence of their injustice could not have been provided. He that is so shamelesse to insinuate the Kings instigation to that clause in the Act for the death of the Earle Strafford, which were a madnes in any man to suppose, may aswell pretend it for his death. The six members must stand condemned, if he acquit them, for the contrary of what he affirmes is constantly true. And it were fol­ly to aske him, why he should conclude the six members guiltles, that never were tryed, when they were accused of such facts, as he him­selfe sayes were Treason in others, for he will certainly say it, though he thinke it not.

He concludes against the Kings conscience in saying, that he bare that touch of conscience with greater regret then any other, in regard of the prodi­tory aide (he supposes) sent to Rochell, and Religion abroade, and a Prodiga­litie of shedding blood at home (as he phrases it.)

There cannot be a greater evidence of the Kings innocence, and the Rebels lewdenes then their absurd accusations of him who after their barbarous reproaches, and crueltie make his greatest Cryme the resi­stance of their Rebellion, and the misfortune of an expedition in fa­vour of Rochell, and Religion. No man is so senseles to beleive that Rochell could have defended it selfe without other aide, then their owne, & if the King had not intended their releife, he needed not have vndertaken such chrageable, and dangerous expeditions, & whence can any reasonable man, collect that the Kings assistance to them could beproditory, when they were not their by hindred to vse their vtmost endeavours, besides the English succours, and heereby wee may see how miserably the people of England have been misled by hipocriti­call Traytours who while they made profession of conscience and Re­ligion, acted the greatest villanies against Religion and conscience that the worst of Atheists ever attempted, and shame not at such assertions of falshood as common States blush to be detected of.

The reason he sayes is worth the notinge, why the King would have [Page 96] notice taken of so much tendernes, which is, he hoped, it would be some evidence before God, and man to all posteritie, that he was farr from bearing that vast loade, and guilt of blood laid vpon him by others, which hath (he sa­yes) the likenes of a subtill dissimulation.

When the Prophet David humbled himselfe, and put on sackcloth even that was turned to his reproach, and his Majest: teares, and afflic­tions of soule are no lesse reproached by theis vipers, then the greatest sins, that could be repented of. Cursed shimi will call David a man of blood, and his repentance for the murther of one man with bitternes of soule shalbe counted a dissimulation, rather then the wretch will allow it any evidence, that he was innocent of that blood, he would lay to his charge. This was not the first time his Majest: charged himselfe with that innocent blood, the Rebells published his Cabinet, wherein they found it, and he might well hope, that God would cleere his in­nocence, as the light, and his righteousnes, as the noone day. Prayers may be made for mercy to a mans name, and a penitent may piously hope God will make his repentance evident to men, and his sorrowes for one sin, an evidence he was not guiltie of many of the same Kinde. His Majest: hopes not, that his expressions heere wilbe evidence, but that his regretts, which were Knowne not only to God, but men could be evidence, how farr he was from the guilt of what his Enemies char­ged him with, and to declare a hope of the benifit of repentance is no more like a dissimulation, then repentance is like a justification. If his Majest: had shed the blood of thousands, whome he counted Rebells, as this Author mentions, he could not suffer regretts of conscience, though he had a sorrow of heart, his vnderstanding being satisfied of the Ju­stice, and necessitie of the fact. But those horrid Traytours, that im­brewed themselves in the blood of that innocent King, were hardned against the sparing of multitudes, and would secure their consciences by reproaching his Majest: repentance, and transferring the blood of warr vpon him, which their Rebellion, and crueltie had spilt. This li­beller in this very page within few lines told vs, that strafford was by him put to death vnwillingly and presently concludes, thus by dipping voluntarily the tipp of his finger in the blood of strafford whereof all men cleere him, he thinkes to escape that sea of blood, wherein his owne guilt hath plun­ged him.

And may not a mans owne conscience strike him for that, which all men cleere him of? but that himselfe hath related to be otherwise in this case, where so many concurred in Judgment against the death of the Earle of Strafford, and when so many have made confession of their owne vnhappines in the consent to that Action, and so few at present, that doe not abhorre it, and thinke it a greate cause of Gods displeasure against the nation, it is farr from truth, that all men cleere him. The Libeller holds a single murther, but dipping the tip of the finger in [Page 97] blood, & gives just cause to conclude, that his conscience is not toucht with shedding a [...]ea of blood. Al men must confesse, it a cause of grea­ter regret to have his hand in the blood of one man against the perswa­sion of his conscience, then erroneously to enter into a warr, where ma­ny are distroyed vpon the opinion of Justice, but the knowne Justice of his Majest: cause, layes the blood of this warr at the Rebells doores, whose malice, and Treason, not ignorance, or errour drew vpon them the guilt of that blood of Strafford, & those thousands, which the warr hath devoured. If the King had never published his repentance for the blood of Strafford, all knowing men would have judged he had cause to doe it, and if he had never gone about to purge himselfe of that blood which the warr had shed, all men would have cleered him of it.

Vpon his going to the HOUSE OF COMMONS.

COncerning his vnexcusable, and hostile march from the Court to the house of Commons, there needs not much be said.

There neede litle to be said for his Majest: de­fence in going to the house of Commons, who had so high a provocation to make an hostile March, and tooke the way of so milde, and pea­ceable a comming to it, but this Authors impu­dence in calling it vnexcusable after the many violences, and hostile Marches of his Masters vnto that house, and their taking out, and dri­ving away the members will never be excused. How shameles is this man to call his Majest: going to the house of Commons with an ordi­nary guard without Pike, or Muskett an hostile March, after the March of a compleate Army led by his Rebell Masters against that house. But he vrges for proofe, that his Majest: confesses it to be an Act, which most men cryed shame vpon, which his Majest: sayes not at all, but that his Enemies loaded it with obloquy, indifferent men grew jealous of, & [Page 98] fearefull, and many of his friends resented, as a motion rising rather from pas­sion, then reason.

The cryes of his Enemies prove nothing, but their owne passion, & partialitie, and the jealosies of men are oftner resolved into their owne mistakes, then the truth of Actions. The opinion of his Majest: friends condemned not the Action as injurious, though they might thinke it passionate, and if this Author could set aside the malice, and corruption of his heart, he might justly learne from his Majest: cleerenes in stating his owne Actions, with observing all the Circumstances of them that make to his disadvantage, to forbeare these fayned discourses of every Action he writes of.

That in one of his answeares to both houses, he made profession, that he was convinced that it was a plaine breach of the priviledge, it was greater satis­faction, then ever King gave his houses of Parliament, and it must have been an inexcusable disloyaltie in them, to presse him after such a pro­fession, and make it matter of complaint. Tis true his Majest: denyed any intention to breake their Priviledges in that Act. But no man yet could assigne a reason to exclude the King from any of his Courts, or Counsells, and why he might not aswell come to the lower house as to the higher, and speake to the Commons in their owne, aswell, as send for them to the higher house, or els where, as was both law, & Custome. And as no priviledge of Parliament doth extend to Treason, but that a Conestable may apprehend any member of that house being accused of that Cryme, so why the King should be forbidden to come to the house to cause Traytours to be apprehended, none but Traytours, will finde a cause, but heere he sayes he represents it fraudulently. We have found already it hath been fraudulently expressed by the libeller. He sayes the King would make some benificall vse of his worst Actions And surely his Ac­tions, which were most charged with guilt appeare just, and shame his accusers.

These men meaning his friends knew not the just motives, and pregnant grounds with which I thought my selfe furnished. To these words of his Majest: which he hath interlaced with meaning his friends, he sayes, his best friends knew not, nor ever could know, and it would have tended to his justi­fying to have named them in this place, and to shew his owne impertinence the next words he cites of his Majest: are, that, he had discovered, as he thought vnlawfull Correspondencies, which they had vsed, and engagements to imbroyle his Kingdomes. What more would he have had in this place? But he sayes suppose them reall, and knowne, what was this to that violation, and dishonour pu [...]t vpon the whole house, whose doore was forcibly kept open, & all passages neere it besett with swords, & pistolls cockt, & menc'd in the hands of about three hundred swaggerers, and Ruffians, who but expected, nay audibly called for the word of onse [...]t to begin a slaughter.

But suppose them reall, was it not a matter of more importance to [Page 99] apprehend such conspiratours, then to omitt the opening the doore of the house of Commons? Is it a dishonour to have Traytours taken from them. There neede not any answeare to his pretended tendernes of the house, that approves such open violence against them with Pikes, and Musketts, but reproves swords, and Pistolls. Doth not he thinke, that all men looke vpon him, as a common prostitute, that vses such aggra­vations of a cause, which himselfe defends, though accompanied with outrage, and violence. A word of onset to begin a slaughter could never be expected by such an inconsiderable number, armed only with swords, and pistolls, a strange preparation for a Massacre, but there are men apt to be disordred by any rumours of danger, and some are willing to have a pretence for vnwarrantable Actions, & thence proceede these onsets in the ayre. He would willingly perswade the Rebell rowte, that whatever the King may doe for the securing of himselfe, & Kingdome, Rebells may doe to destroy him, and vsurpe his Kingdome, and there­fore to that, which his Majest: sayes of the correspondencies and enga­gements, which the accused members vsed to imbroyl his Kingdomes, the Libeller answeares, that he remembers not his owne conspiracies with the Irish, and. French, English and scotch Army to come against the Parliament, the least of which attempts by whomesoever he sayes was no lesse, then manifest Treason against the Common whealth.

To imagine a Monarchy, and Commonwealth, or Republique in the same state can enter into none, that vnderstand eyther, nor that a King can commit Treason with his subjects, or against them. Kings have been charged with Tyrany, never with Treason, till those brutish vndertakers. If there had been any law to make such a Treason, this libeller would never have added the word manifest, for tis a sure Rule with him to add most vehement asseverations, where he knowes there is no colour of truth. He well knowes how carefull the people of Eng­land were, that Treason should not be made Arbitrary, and therefore they were confined into one positive law, and in that law this Author findes not his fantasticall Treason. Can any, but mad men dreame, that when the priviledge of Parliament extends not to Treason, that they cannot committ Treason. Its Treason by the law to leavy warr against the King, and that this libellers Masters have acknowledged, and can he finde it consistent in the same Government, that there can be Trea­son in the King to leavy warr against the Parliament, and because a King may have confederations, and Alliances with Forraigne Princes can subjects have so too? These are not the opinions, but the Stratagems of Rebels. The people of England are bound to assist their King against any without distinction, and the law hath provided for their indemni­tie, though the King miscarry, but lawes are chaffe, when Rebells Raigne. The particulars he mentions, if they had been reall on his Majest: part, as they are only imaginary, the Actions of the Re­bells [Page 100] have given Testimonie to their Justice, and necessitie.

To demaund Iustice against the five members, there needed not so rough assi­stance. But the successe tells vs there needed more, for these members were guarded with an Army, and a fleete, and insteed of being com­mitted on such an accusation, which themselves resolved could, not be denyed by law, they protected them against law.

If he had resolved, meaning the King, to beare that repulse with patience, wherefore did he provide against it with such an armed, and vnusuall force. Is a Kings guard any vnusuall force, and though he resolved to beare a re­pulse with patience, he could not resolve to tempt the malice, and in­solence of those, that wayted, but opportunitie to destroy him. But had he provided any force to secure himselfe against insolence, does that condradict his bearing the repulse with patience, and heere the li­beller casts away his Argument, that he may vse his scurrilitie, that the Kings heart served him not for such a desperate Scuffle. Soe the greate hostilitie, and provisions for a Massacre is come to noe more, then to have hazarded a desperate Scuffle with the vnarmed house of Com­mons. The Kings heart served him for the highest hazards, where he held his courses just, and honourable, but it never served him to act such violences, as these Rebells have fayned, he intended.

There were two statutes, that declared he ought first to have acquainted the Parliament, who were the accusers. These statutes this Author, nor any man els ever read, and if there had been such statutes, that men ought not to be accused, before the Parliament be acquainted, who were the Accusers, they were much to blame that committed so many for Treason without any Accusers, and that these two statutes should never be practised, or knowne before now? How comes it, that the King, nor his Attorney generall can accuse a man of high Treason, when the meanest subject of the Kingdome may doe it? Its well knowne, that the house of Commons vpon the word of MR. Pym, without the least knowledge of the fact, or any accuser, or witnes, charged the [...]arle of Strafford of high Treason, where were these la­wes then? His Majest still professing to governe by law, as he sayes, did no way breake it, and he was noe way oblidged to name any accusers, especially to the Parliament, where a Rebellious, and potent faction vnited themselves to the Accused members, that had contrary to their owne Rules denyed that proceeding, which they declared just, and ac­cording to law.

The faire tr [...]all, which was offred, was noe other, then to take oppor­tunitie for justifying those members, what ever the proofe were. Had it been thinkes he a prudent Act in the King to have accused Tray­tours, and made a Commission to their fellowes to judge of the fact. He could not doubt of the same Justice from these men, which he found in many other occurrents. Could he suppose, that they would [Page 101] condemne a Traytour, that had combined to prosecute the Treason, and it was not for want of just matter, but the forefight of injustice, that caused his Majest: to lett fall his proceedings. When Rebells are protected by open force, when the power, and impetuositie of Tu­mults are boasted of by this Author, when the inclination of the po­tent faction vnto the members is confessed, he would yet have the King chuse such a Tryall.

He would have it a thirst of revenge in the King against the members for opposition against his Tyranous proceedings. If their innocence of the Treason had been as evident, as his Majest: of Tyranous proceedings, they had never been accused, and if they had not been conscious of their guilt, they would never have sought Tumultuary protection, and if his Majest: had thirsted for revenge, he needed not have gone to the house of Commons to have satisfied it, but Malefactours count legall pcoceedings the malice of Enemies, and effects of dis­pleasure.

To that the King (sayes he) missed but litle to have produced wri­tings vnder some mens hands, the libeller sayes he missed, though their chambers trunkes, and studies were sealed vp, and searched, which though al­togeather false, there might be such writings, and its like there were, which caused the house of Commons to be soe jealous, least their chambers, should have been searched, that they made an order to vse violence against any, that should search, a very grave vote, and a sure signe of good Justice, if the fact had been brought before them that would prevent the discovery, and deny a search of persons accused for Treason.

The King sayes Gods providence would have it soe, and to that the Li­beller joynes, that curbes the raging of proud Monarchs, aswell, as of madd multitudes.

Is it the curbing of proud Monarchs, when the misse of evidence against Traytours? If the King had produced this writing, he menti­ons, had that been a Monarchs rage? But why doth he joyne the madd multitudes, whose rage was then soe feirce, he may beleive, as he sa­yes, that God will set bounds vnto it, and turne them against their mislea­ders. Why pregnant grounds, and probabilities, may not both concurr in one cause noe man vnderstands, though this Author would have proba­bilities a diminution after pregnant grounds had been vsed. His resem­blance of Queene Maries cushion, whereto he likens the Kings proofes, would have suted with the clout, and pistoll, the stables vnder ground, the Danish fleete, and their many other ridiculous devised Conspira­cies, the bringing vp of the northerne Army, the landing of the french at Portsmouth, cutting throates by the Papists, and the disignes of the spanish fleete, fitt only for the story of the knight of the Son, or the wandring Jew.

[Page 102] As Kings goe now, what shadowy conceite, or groundl [...]s toy will not create a jealosie. And was his Majest: jealosie created by a toy, when those persons have acted that, which he was then jealous of. Can this brea­ker accuse him of causeles jealosie, when he defends the fact? And is it a shadowie conceite, if Kings ar jealous of such Rebellious inclina­tions, as this Rebell vaunts of? And if these Rebells might have their will, there should not be a King left to be jealous, and while they pro­fesse their purposes, accuse Kings of vnjust jealosie, and if subjects goe now in other places, as in England, the world will have cause to know, that al the jealosies of Kings were necessary to the preservation of man­kinde, & that there is no jealosie of any King so causles, as the attempts of ambitious Reformers.

That his Majest: denies, he hath design'd to assault the house of Commons, is not contradicted by his answeare to the Citie, that any course of vio­lence had been very justifiable, The libeller guesses, it was not farr from his designe, because it might be soe, and concludes as senselesly, that be­cause his Majest: forbare an act, which he held justifiable, it discovered in him an excessive eagernes to be aveng'd on them, that crossed him, and that to have his will, he stood not to d [...]e things never soe much below him. Soe eager is the man to rayle himselfe out of reason. If he had an eagernes to be revenged, he would have done high things, and not below him. It was no becomming sight to see the King of England so affronted, and abused by his owne subjects, many beholding disobedience, and vulger insolence with sad hearts, and greiving at the ruine of Government, and that his Majest: was constrained to call for Justice, and be denyed it. Such as lament the misfortunes of Princes, cannot but abhorr the Rebellion of subjects, and this vnbecoming sight to see the King of England one while in the house of Commons, by, and by in the guild-hall among the Liveries this li­beller doth not remember out of affection to the Kings person, or of­fice, but out of joy, that he was enforct to such extreamitie. If he had had any sense of duty, or regret at any Action ill becomming a King in reguard of his place, or dignitie, he would not so scurrilously descant on his misfortunes, with the termes of Sollicitor, pursivant, apparitor for that prosecution, and it is a plaine Testimony of the Rebellion then begun, when the King was driven to Actions beneath his Majest: & this libeller wil hardly allow a King more, then such offices, for he sayes the Kings office is to execute the Parliaments Commaund, and eyther in that he beleived not what he said, as is most certen he did not, or els he vainely objects the doing of Actions beneath him, but it appeares his desires are to reduce all Kings to the lowest of the people.

That though the King in his answeares to the Parliament said, that as he once concieved he had ground enough to accuse them, so at length, that he found as good cause to desert any prosecution of them, yet heere he seemes to reverse all.

[Page 103] He seemes soe to none, though some out of willfull malice would have it seeme soe,' The King found, that he had good cause to desert the prosecution in regard of the injustice, and violence of the Rebell faction, And is there any thing said heere to the contrary of it? Could the King finde any cause to continue the prosecution vpon the cleer [...]t evidence, that could be produced?

It is the Method of the false Sectaries to infinuate an opinion of their vertue by rigid censures of others, whereby they draw men from observation of their owne lewdenes, & they seeme very sharpe against sins of most common obloquy, & offensive to sobrietie, and thence the libeller calls his Majest: guard the spawne, and shipwracke of Tavernes. Such, as were of his Majest: guard may not thinke to escape these false tongues, when their King hath tasted soe largely of them, and these hi­pocrites thinke to hide their blood guiltines, pride, robbery, perjury, & oppression by reproaching their Enemies with Stewes, and Tavernes. The principall zealotts of this Rebellion were the tags, and raggs of the people, who were glad to heare voluptuous living, and riott ob­jected to the Kings partie, that they might compare their beggery, and base condition before other mens vices, whether true, or fayned. If the house of Commons declar'd, that the comming of those Souldiers, Papists, and others with the King was to take away some of their members, and in case of op­position, or denyall to have falne vpon the house in a hostile manner, they shew­ed themselves men of as litle creditt, as this Author, for the world knowes, that they neither had, nor pretended proofe of such a purpose, & their declarations in that kinde are no truer, then their professions of loyaltie. If the house had denyed their members, and opposed, was it [...]esse then Treason?

He inferrs from the Kings profession, if he purposed any violence, or op­pression against the innocent, then let the Enemy persecute my soule, & treade my life to the ground, & lay my honour in the dust, that God hath judged, and done according to the verdict of his owne mouth. The king well knew his Ene­my persecuted his soule, when he wrote this, and that he was in the hands of those, that would take away his life, but assassination was noe proofe of his guilt, nor of Gods judgment of his cause, and these word [...] vsed by the prophett, and him are not an imprecation for tryall, but a deprecation of the offence, and it was not to satisfie men, but to ac­knowledge his judgment of the Cryme to God. The kings partie are assured, that the proceedings against him were odious to God, & man, and this Action touching the members was noe other, then necessary Justice, and there appeares not any purpose of violence, or oppression of the innocent, and in vaine doe murderers seeke to shelter themselves from the guilt of their impieties by pretending Gods secret Counsells, The sinceritie of his Majest: heart is noe lesse manifest, because he fell into the hands of wicked men, who cannott treade his honour in the [Page 104] dust, which outluies their fury, and though they murthered him, his life is with the Lord, and their infamy endles. God wi [...]l bring their wic­kednes vpon their owne heads in his due time.

The Kings admirers may see their madnes to mistake this booke; But all men see his madnes to traduce the booke, and to prophane, and pro­stitute all things sacred to his lewde detractions, who sayes it is his doomesday booke not like that of William the Norman his Predecessour. Thus making the common appellation of the greate day of the Lord an inducement to vilifie the kingly office, which must be a day of wrath to such mockers, as aske, where is the promise of his comminge, which did theis Traytours expect, they would not proceede soe presumptuously in their wickednes, and compile a booke of it against that day. The Admirers of the kings booke are noe white mista­ken, but they see the breaker very much mistaken in his confidence, that thinkes all men madd, because himselfe is soe, and they were madd indeede, if they received his sense, or saw not, that only rage att the excellency of the kings Booke, not right vnderstan­ding made him seeke these silly objections, and face them with such ostentation.


HE must confesse to have heere a neate, and well couch'd invective against Tumults, which su­rely ought not to be answeared with a impudent defence of them. The misfortunes of Princes are the mirth of Rebells, and therefore he sayes Rehoboam the son of Solomon could not have compo­sed a better. It was not only the son of Solo­mon, but his Father David, and himselfe too, that felt the fury, and danger of Rebells, and Rehoboams misfortune doth not mittigate the sinfull Revolt of the ten Tribes, which the Scripture calls Rebellion, and this [Page 105] Author scoffing at his haste to escape their fury shewes how affectionate: he is to Rebelliaon. That the Tumults at whitehall were not soe dangerous, as these at sechem he cannot affirme, for those Tumults at whitehall have produced greater impieties, and Calamities, then those at sechem, and those Tumults have since, felt the scourge of their violence, as those at sechem soone did; their revolt being punisht by God, who gave them a King in his rage, that brought in Idolatry with their Rebellion, which after many sore afflictions at last rooted them out of their land, and they ceased to be a people.

He would insinuate, that because this is a neate invective, therefore the Kings Houshold Rhetorician made it, but this hath as litle credit, as his exceptions have truth, or weight.

That the matter considerable is, whether these were Tumults, or noe, next, if they were, whether the King himselfe did not cause them. Doubtles he would not have it beleived, that there could be any Tumults, nor any Rebel­lion against him, for if there could be any, he knowes themselves have committed it. The knowne lawes allow noe causes of Tumults from provocation, for if soe, tumults may judge of lawes, and law makers, as these defended tumults presumed to doe. His first cause is the Kings vn­willingnes to call the Parliament, but theis tumults were after a parliament called; His not enduring to be overswayed by them. Were this a cause of Tu­mult, or Rebelliō, ther would never be cause wanting of such disorders in any kingdome, or state, when the Councells of kings must be sub­ject to vulgar appeales, & Tumults must reforme the kings Judgment.

His often repeated imposture of the Kings tempting the English, or scotch Armyes is grossely introduced for a cause of the Tumults, when the Tumults preceded these suppositions, and we may see what causes this man will have of Tumults, that will make subsequent Actions the grounds of them.

The profering the fower northerne Counties to the scotts was an inven­tion as ridiculous, as the Authors commendation of an honest discovery of a thing never acted. He formerly spake of Timpanies, and Queene Maries cushion, which might have caused him to have forborne such a grosse, and exploded a forgery.

That the Parliament, or people descerned a malignant partie was no other, then the artifice of the conspiratours in Parliament to devise names, which the people vnderstood not, and suggest terrours to them from things, that had not entred into their thoughts, and of that nature was this name of malignant-faction brought foorth by the Junto to amuse the people, but he might well remember, that not as much, as the name of malignant partie was hatch'd, when the Tumults begun.

The Rebellion in Ireland was then broken out, which was not till neere fix moneths after the insolence of the Tumults began, and that Rebel­lion in all probabilitie tooke example, and encouragement from these Tumults

[Page 106] The imaginary conspiracie of Scotland while the King was there is not of a peece, the tumults having preceeded the Kings journey thither, & that conspiracie he knowes vanisht into ayre, & could give noe more occa­sion of Tumults, then of this Authors remembrance.

That greate numbers of vnknowne persons resorted to the Citie was as vn­knowne to such, as were then there; as the persons to this Author, and as such resort is knowne to be noe cause of such Tumults.

The King being returned from Scotland dismisses that guard, which the Parliament thought necessary in the middest of soe many dangers to have about them. Its true the conspiratours in Parliament eyther from the guilt of their consciences, or advantage to their plots pretended apprehension of danger, that they might have a guard, which they might make vse of to execute their designes, and affront the members of the house [...]hat refused to cuncurr to their plotts, and therefore noe guard pleased them, but such, as were composed cheifely of such persons, as made vp the Tumults.

The King dismissed the guard, which the Parliament thought necessary, & put in another contrary to the priviledge of that high Court, and by such a one commaunded as made them noe lesse doubtfull of the guard it selfe. Its very likely, that they had as litle doubt of danger, from any other, as from the guard, for they sought to create dangers to others, feared none to themselves, but from their owne guilt. Its well knowne there was not the least appearance of danger, but from what that faction intended, and such desire of a guard was noe lesse vnknowne, then ridiculous to all former Parliaments, and it was soe farr from being a priviledge to that high Court, that the leaders of the faction in the lower house pro­cured a vote to desire it of the king. And how could it be contrary to the priviledge of that high Court for him to change the guards, that had first placed them? The guard, which the king appointed was com­maunded by the cheife officer of that guard, and because he gave commaund to keepe of the Tumults, therefore the Rebell faction, conclu­ded their busnies could not be done by such a guard, nor such a Com­maunder. Which they therefore sayes he discharge, deeming it more safe to sitt free, though without a guard in open danger, then enclosed with a suspected safetie. And in what safetie sate they, that were threatned, and abused by those Tumults every day. The visible cause of a guard was the Tu­mults, but the cause, why guards were desired was to act the same for which the Tumults were raysed, and the danger pretended was a de­ceite, for they, that desired a guard would rather be without one, then not have a Commaunder of their owne faction, and the houses found noe inconvenience in the want of a guard, but in the insolencie of the Tumults, which the seditious faction invited, & would not have them hindred by any guards.

The people therefore least their worthyest, and most faithfull Patriotts, who had exposed themselves for the publique, and whome they saw now left naked, [Page 107] should want aide, or be deserted in the middest of these dangers, came in multi­tudes, though vnarm'd to wittnes their fidelitie, and readines in case of any vio­lence offred to the Parliament. It hath been aldeady observed, that these Tumults preceded the desire of guards, and they were soe farr from being acceptable to the Parliament, thar the house of Lords desired their restraint, and invited the lower house to concurre with them to suppresse these Tumults, and though the factious partie withstood the motion, yet it was thought necessary by a greate part of that house to joyne with the Lords in that desire. And how could they wittnes their fidelitie to the Parliament, when soe greate a part thought them a greivance? And why did they menace, and assault the members of both houses? Why did they prescribe resolutions to the Parliament, and in case their demaunds were not graunted, denounce terrour to the opposers? Is this fidelitie to the Parliament? This Author neede not seeke such blinde excuses for Tumults, that justifies open Treason, noe doubt those his faithfull Patriots well vnderstood, that their greatest danger was from the law, which they had violated, and they would be secure by subverting it, and engaging, multitudes in their owne guilt. The king had reason to send into the Citie to forbid such resorts, and nothing, but sedition could encourage, or permitt them.

The supposition of the kings envying to see the peoples love devolved on another object, shewes, that Rebellious inclinations were the desire, and strength of the leaders in the lower house, & the envying may be pro­perly changed into indignation, that subjects should breake their du­tie, and become workers of their owne miserie such Tnmultuous li­cence had not soe much probabilitie to hinder any action of the King to­wards the Parliament, as to ruine the Parliament, & kingdome. The faction feared not any action of his Majest: but endeavoured to promote their owne designes against him.

He is now come to tells vs some reasons, why the Parliament peti­tioned the king for a guard after they were content to sit without one, and while be maintanies a power in his imaginary Parliament to mur­ther the king, he presents them petitioning the king for a guard, and their words, which he will not take notice of are worth observing. The Knights Cittizens, and Burgesses of the house of Commons, your faithfull, and loyall subjects, who are ready to lay downe their lives, and fortunes, and spend the last dropp of their blood to maintaine your Crowne, and royall person in greatnes, and glory, doe cast themselves downe at your Royall feete, with such elaborate deceites did they hope to perswade the king to give them a guard to oppresse himselfe. Their subsequent actions have been a full Comment vpon theise wicked dissimulations, and theis false pro­fessions convince the present shamelesse challenges of power in theis, that thus addresse themselves.

That blood was drawne in a fray, or two at the Court gate, and even at their [Page 108] owne gate in Westminster hall. Are not these proper motives for a Parlia­ment to call for guards? A Constable of a Parish might more reasona­bly set a guard about his house after the parting of a fray, then the Par­liament seeke for an armed guard vpon such an occasion. If the tumults were soe seditious, as to shew their insolencie at the gate of white hall, or Westminster hall, and any of them were wounded in such disor­derly resorts, it had been just, and necessary to forbid their comming in such numbers, and provoking such danger, and their continuance is a mainfest signe, that these tumults were not the voluntary mo­tion of the people, but the instigation of the factious partie in Par­liament.

That it was reasonable, and just for the Parliament to make choise of their owne guards, and Commaunder will only appeare to such, as had trayterous plotts against the King, and the choice, that they made of the Earle of Essex shewes by their after imployment, and his ensuing Actions, that the King had just reason for the refusall, and though this Author thinke, that he hath said somewhat by naming him the Kings owne Chamberlaine, yet all men see, that these obligations, which the King had put vpon that Earle, could not with hold him from being a leader to the mad multitude against King, and Kingdome.

It is the right of inferiour Courts to make choice of their owne guards, which is vtterly false, but can he tell, that ever an inferiour Court vndertooke to be guarded by a Militia, or that ever they had other guards, then from Constables, and inferiour officers, whome they might require to keepe the peace, and doe their dutie, and noe Court could ever make choice of any guard either for number, or Commaunder.

He sayes, that why the King refused the guard desired, the next day made mainfest, for then he came to blocke vp, or assault the house of Commons. It soone appeared, wherefore they desired a guard, to protect Tray­tours, & destroy the King. That the King came to blocke vp, or assault, the libeller hath already confessed to be false, for he did it not, when it was in his power, & if he had refused a guard for that reason, he would have performed it, & its impertinently alleadged for the cause of those tumults, when he hath shewed, that those tumults were begun long before, for he lately told vs of the blood drawne at the gate of white hall, and Westminster hall, which himselfe knowes was in the tumults.

He proceedes to say, that he had begun to fortifie his Court, and enter­tained armed me [...]. How absurdly doth he produce any acts of his Majest: which were occasioned by the tumults to be causes of the tumults? fortifying his Court, and entertaining armed men, there was good cause for, and what could it signifie, that the King fortified his owne house? B [...]t an app [...]hension of danger. And how could it offend any, vnles such, [...] were disaffected to his safetie?

He sayes these men soe entertained standing at his Pallace gate reviled, [Page 109] and with drawne swords wonnded many of the people, as they passed by in a pea­ceable manner, whereof some died. His owne relation makes it more then probable, that such, as were wounded gave the occasion of the hurt they had, for they were not drawne to the Palace gate, and might have quietly passed by though any of his Maj: Servants stood at the gate, & the truth is they dayly provoked his Maj: with insolent, & menacinge words, & Actions, & enforced such, as guarded the Court to repel them with force, & if they were reviled, they gave the provocation by their seditious carriage, & these armed men are now come to drawne swords there being no armes found by this Author, but swords, wherewith the persons vsually walked, & which were necessarily drawne against that rowt.

The passing by of a multitude, though neither to St. Georges feast, nor to a til­ting of it selfe was no Tumult. The expression of their loyaltie, and stedfastnes to the Parliament, whose lives they doubted to be in danger was noe Tumult. but wherefore should such a multitude resort, that had nothing to see, vnles they were tumults? If a multitude, of people either at St. Geor­ges feast, or a tilting should threaten the King, or with violence presse into his Court, and reproach, and assault such, as they found there, this would be a tumult, & somewhat more, but this was not al these tumults acted, they assaulted the members of both houses neere their doores, they threatned them, that consented not to what they would have, they prescribed to the King, and both houses, what they should doe, & doth this triviall discourser make no difference betweene such Actions, that are the most pernitious disorders in states, & the comming of a multi­tude to see a tilting. If the purpose of such multitudes had been preser­vation of the lives, or safeties of any members in Parliament, it was very vnsuteable to their pretence to enquire into the proceedings of the houses, & assault, & menace the members. The loyaltie, which he sayes they bare to the Parliament was il exprest by breaking the priviledges, & wronging the members, their loyaltie was due to their King in the first place, & they owed nothing to the Parliament, but as their Kings Court, & Councel, but the Author thinkes fit they should breake their sworne loyaltie to their King to maintaine a faction against him.

If it grew to be so, the cause was in the King, & his retinue, who by hostile pre­parations, and actuall assailing the people gave just cause to defend themselves. can himselfe beleive this dreame of his, when he reades it over, that the kings preparations against the tumults after a long continved insolence against him, should more excuse them for encreasing their violence, then justifie their first attempts? Neede they come to white hall, or Westminster to defend themselves, but theis disorderly, & absurd pre­tences are fit Apologies for a tumultuous rowt.

These petitioning people needed not have been so formidable to any, but to such, whose consciences misgave them, how il they had deserved of the people, and doe non forbid such petitioning people but those, wose consciences misgave [Page 110] them, how il they had deserved of the people? why then were the ken­tish petitioners, and others soe roughly handled comming vnarmed, & more peaceably, then these Tumults? And doe the libellers Masters permitt such petitioning people at present, vnles it be some of their owne suborning? And are the people, which he soe lately described to to be exorbitant, and excessive in their motions become such exact jud­ges of al mens meritt, and determine of punishment without respect to their Rulers. If the libeller would have shewen what these Tumults wanted to make them Cryminall, and wherefore other Tumults were condemned, he would have found meanes to have come to himselfe, & have sayd, that Tumults, were necessary, Preparations to Rebellion.

That the King was soe Empha [...]icall, and elaborate on this Theame will re­dound lesse perhaps then he was aware to the commendation of h [...] Government, for in good Governments they happen seldomest, and rise not without cause. It is more then perhapps, that this libellers commendation of the Tu­mults will condemne his defence. If Tumults never happen without cause, we must accuse the best Governments of giving that cause, we are sure Davids Government wanted them not, but Absolon, and Sheba shall condemne the man after Gods owne heart. Did this libeller thinke any truth in scripture, or was he at all acquainted with it, that will have a just cause for all Tumul, s, when we reade soe many against Moyses by the children of Israell? And if he had pleased to have pe­rused the Roman story, he must acknowledge many causses Tumults in that state. Its like he holds, that Demetrius, and his Craftsmen had a cause for their Tumults, and surely it was not soe violent, as the Tu­mult he defends. And if all Tumults, and Rebellions be caused by ill Government, we may reasonably conclude, that the people needed not Governours, that knew soe well how to governe themselves, and did never judge a misse of the Actions, or Councells of their Governours. The libeller at first said he tooke vp the gantlet for libertie, and the Commonwealth, which he hath now expounded to be for destruction of libertie, and Kingdome by Tumults.

If they prove extreame, & pernicious (that is the Tumults) they were never counted so to Monarchy, but to Monarchical Tyrany. Who doubts, but Rebels wil pretend Tyrany, & oppression. Did ever reasonable man befor this vnreasonable creature pretend, that Tumults were not pernicious to all governments, & can any mā conceive, that they wil not grow extream, if not prevented, but left to their owne violence? what is become now of his judgment of the peoples excessive, and extravagant motions, are there none in Tumults? Can any Rebellion want a pretence, if the ex­treamitie of it be a proofe of Tyrany in the Rulers? There can hardly be supposed an assertion more vo [...]de of truth, & modestie. What publi­que wickednes was there ever acted to the subversion of Kingdomes, but by Tumults? How many vsurpations, how many murthers of [Page 111] most vertuous Princes have been acted by Tumults? But this libellet glories in those exploites of the rabble, and makes the Calamities they have brought on others the matter of his mirth.

Extreames he sayes are at most Antipathy. If then the King soe extreame­ly stood in feare of Tumults, the inference will endanger him to be the olliert ex­treame. Where doth he finde in his learning, that Tumults, and Tyrany are at any Antipathy, which are but one, and the same thing, for was there ever greater Tyrany exercised, then by Tumults? And are not the lawes of all states most severe against Tumults? And can there be any inference from thence, that the Government is Tyrany, are not Government, and Tumults at most Antipathy? Its a certen Rule, that all watchfull Governours wil feare Tu [...]ults. The King had just cause to fea [...]e the Calamities ensuing the violence of Tumults, and this trif­ler vainely infers his fancied extreames from a prudent foresight, and if there were noe other example of causeles, and mischeivous Tumults then those the King complained of, they only were sufficient to instruct the world vpon what mistaken rumours they are raysed, and vnto what desperate impieties they proceede.

He never thought any thing more to presage the mischeifes, that ensued, then those Tumults. To this sayes the libeller. Those Tumults were but the milde effects of an evill, and injurious Raigne. Tumults the prodigious, and pesti­lentiall raignes get vp in a milde, and gracious Government, wherein seditious, and trayterous factionists take libertie to defuse their venom among the people, and milde tumults, and loyall Rebellion are phrases agreable to this mans modestie.

Those signes were to be read more apparent in his rage, and purposed revenge of those clamours of the people. That those tumults might overcome the patience of any King, the severitie vsed vpon lesse provocations by others is a full evidence, but his Majest: moderation was constant, rage, and revenge being only legible in his Enemies. That tumults did pre­sage the mischeifes ensuing, al knowing men concurr with his Majest: and descerne the libellers servile defence of popular clamours.

Not any thing portends more Gods displeasure against a nation, then when be suffers the clamours of the vulgar to passe all bounds of law, and reverence to Authoritie, to this he sayes, it portends rather his displeasure against a Tyra­nous King. As God sometimes gives an evilKing to a people, soe when­ever he destroyes that King by the contemptible vulgar, it is a signe of the encrease of his displeasure, and seldome, or never was any King good, or evill soe destroyed, but the peoples sufferings were encreased.

That those, whome he calls a supplicating people, and that did noe hurt to law, or authoritie, but stood for it in the Parliament were a Rebell rab­ble cannot be doubted, since the libeller defends them, and he cannot be beleived they did noe hurt to law in as much, as he defends the sub­version of law, and the attempts of this supplicating people, that were in [Page 112] order to that end. This supplicating is one of his abolisht Ceremonies, The libeller tells, that they ought to have stood for law, the world knownes they did the contrary, and he is wittnes both of their guilt, and his owne falshood.

That they invaded the honour, and freedome of the two houses. To this he sayes, It is his officious accusation, not seconded by the Parliament, who, had they seene cause, were best able to complaine. And how were they able, when they were threatned, if they did complaine, and because the Parliament is overawed by Tumults, that they cannot complaine, therefore their fre­dome is not invaded. But how shamelesly he charges the King with the officious accusation, he tells vs in the next words, for he sayes, if they strucke, or menaced any, as the King said, they were such, as had more relation to the Court, then to the Common wealth, Enemies, not Patrons of the people. Is not the honour, and freedome of the two housce invaded, when their mem­bers ar strucke, and menaced? And is it an officious accusation to say soe? Can this man pretend the name of Parliament, when he will allow the base rabble to abuse them at pleasure? And could any man but he tell the King, that persons elected were not sent to be Cavelled at by him, or en­tertained with an vndervalue of their temper, judgment, or affection, and heere defend the rascallitie in striking, and menacing the members, and not only vndervaluing their temper, judgment, and affection, but handling them, as cullions. Never was libeller more passionately malicious, more blindly absurd, more wilfully false, yet he thinkes he hath a reserve against all opposition, for he sayes, if their petitioning vnarmed were an in­vasion of both houses, what was his besetting it with armed men. Is striking, and menacing soe quickly returned to petitioning, Is it a way of answeare not to speake to the question? Did ever Kings of England come with­out an armed guard to the Parliament, and doe they beset the house, when the guard is at the doore? And can he say, that the Kings com­ming with his guard to the house is a greater invasion of the honour, & freedome of the houses, then the striking, and menacing the members by the Tumults? Doubtles he had consulted better to his credit to have said nothing, then that, which was soe different from the case himselfe had stated, and his repetition of petitioning, and supplicating people is noe other, then the noyse of the Ephesian Rabble, that greate is Diana of the Ephesians.

The King sayes, They forbore not rude deportments, contemptuous words, and Actions to himselfe, and his Court. And to this the libeller sayes. It was noe wonder, having heard what treacherous hostilitie he had designed against the Citie, and his whole Kingdome, that they forbore to handle him, as people in their rage have handled Tyrants heere to fore for lesse offences. The supplicating, and petitioning people may vse rude deportments, contemptuous words, and actions. To what purpose hath he minced his Tumults into supplicating, & petitioning people, when he defends their highest vio­lence? [Page 113] The King design'd Treacherous hostilitie against the Cittie, and King­dome. The last thoughts, that madd men had before their destraction run most in their fancie in the time of their frensie, and these Traytours having lost all reason inculcate still those ridiculous fraudes where­with at first they seduced the people. The designes of Treacherous hostilitie was one of the Ceremonies, which its now time to give over. Who but an I diot can beleive, that the King can have Treache­rous designes against his Kingdome, whereof shal he be King, & whome shall he have to execate hostilitie against his owne Kingdome? but these dreames of the blowing vp of Thames, and tales of winde mills, and fiery Dragons are over, and its become the peoples sorrow, and shame to looke backe vpon the cheates, whereby they were deluded. He cannot name any Tyrant ill handled by tumults vpon such preten­ces, as he makes, & the most wicked Tyrant was not soe guiltie, as that people, which exercised their rage vpon him, yet the libeller determi­nes, that the tumults fury is as justifiable, as the Parliaments order, for he ascribes noe more to the one, then the other.

They were not a short ague, but a feiree quotidian feaver. And the libeller sayes he may best say it who most felt it. He will rather boast of the greate­nes of their villany, then reprove the impietie of it, and therefore he sports himselfe with the injuries of it, after his appellations of mildnes, and supplicating people, and extolls the highest of their violence, as a feirce quotidian feaver, and he is soe Lunatique, that out of his malice to the King, he calls them milde, & out of his insolence confesses them violent, and deadly.

The King would perswade vs, that men scared themselves, & others without cause. And al men are now satisfied of the truth of it, the fraudes being soe apparent, and confessed by this breaker.

Wise feare, and suspition would finde weapons. And we have found by experience, that Rebells by suggesting vaine feares, and suspitions have gotten weapons, and armed the people to their owne destruction.

Vpon the Kings repeating the mischeifes done by the tumults, that they first petitioned, then protected, dictate next, and lastly overaw the Parlia­ment. They removed obstructions, they purged the houses, cast out rotten mem­bers. He sayes, if there were a man of Iron such as Talus by our poet spencer, is fain'd to be the Page of Iustice, who with his Iron flaile could doe all this, and expedititiously without those deceitefull formes, and Circumstances of law worse, then Ceremonies in Religion, I say God send it done, whether by one Talus, or by a thousand. Religion, & lawes are lesse then Ceremonies in this Authors account, and when Pages follow not, nor acknowledge, Masters Justice wil be ill waited on, such cut-throates are not the Pages of Justice, but the furies of hell, and theis this libeller prayes to God for; what will not such call Justice to satisfie their ambition, and crueltie? Poets are short in their fancies of what the English Rebells have acted. Their [Page 114] Gyants were Pigmyes to theise Monsters, and their Hidra too few heads, & too litle venom for the service of these Enemies of mankinde. What a silly propertie does this libeller make Parliament, and lawes, that subjects them to Tumults, and how barbarous are their procee­dings, that made endeavour to subvert fundamentall lawes a Capitall Cryme, and heere he commends the fact, & calls them deceitefull for­mes, and Circumstances of law. Might he not better have said, they would make good their villanies by the sword, then prevaricate, and say, and vnsay, and pretend Religion, and yet pray God to send Tu­mults, and Confusions to breake all lawes in order to their designes?

The King sayes, they subdued the men of conscience in Parliament, backed, and abetted all seditious, & schismaticall proposalls against Government Eccle­siasticall, and Civill. To this he sayes. That it was not the Kings grace, but this Iron flaile, the people, that drove the Bishopps out of their Baronies, Cathe­dralls, Lords house, Coopes, surplisses, papisticall innovations, threw downe high Commission, starr chamber, gave vs a trienniall Parliament, and what we most desired. And is not this brave? Is it a credit to a Church to be thus reformed? Is this the Christian Religion to glory in oppression, robe­ry, and Rebellion? There is noe doubt, but many things graunted by his Majest: in the late Parliament, were Acts of grace in respect of his compliance with importunitie, in hope thereby to preserve the people from a Civill warr, not in respect of the nature of the things graunted. The libeller might have remembred, that the King never consented to drive the Bishopps out of their Baronies, or Cathedralls, and his Trienniall Parliament, which he soe much commends is repealed by his new Masters, for the people must not looke for the execution of any such law. And this Iron slaile, the rashnes, and crueltie of a disor­dered multitude hath thresht, and broken the bones, & sinewes of the people, and made them know the difference betweene a golden Scep­ter, and an Iron flaile.

In revenge whereof he sayes he now soe bitterly inveighs against them. And how can the libeller thinke it bitter, when their Actions, which he confesses exceede in impietie the greatest Crymes, that ever were inveighed against? And if we could wonder at any thing, we might wonder at his mention of Schismaticall proposalls consented to by the King, when he wel knowes, noe one thing by him mentioned of Cathedralls, or Ceremonies was consented to by the King, & noe lesse strange is it, that the other particulars are by him recited, as intended by the King to be the Sedi [...]ious proposalls, though all of them are not free from that name, when as there were soe many seditious, and Trayterous propo­salls besides these.

That these Tumults played the hastie midwives, and would not stay the ripe­ning, but went streight to ripping vp, and forcibly cut out abortive votes, to this he opposes, that the Parliament complained not, and therefore those confluxes [Page 115] were not by them thought Tumultuous. And were they not thought Tumul­tuous by such, as they had expelled, and driven away from the Parlia­ment? And did he but in his last words call them an Iron flaile, and recount the wonders, which they wrought, and now would not allow them to be Tumults? We may besure the seditious faction in Parlia­ment stirred them vp, and such, as differed in judgment, or affection from them, were enforced eyther to be absent, or silent,

But what good man had not rather want, any thing the most desired for the publique good, then attaine it by such vnlawfull, and irreligious meanes, which is sayes the libeller had not rather sit still, and let his Contrey be Tyranized, then like men demaund their rights, and liberties, And that is the people ought, when they thinke fit to Rebell against their Governours, and say their lawes are deceitefull, and their Government Tyranicall.

This is the artificiallest peice of finenes to perswade men to be slaves, that the Court could have invented. Is it not Scripture, that we may not doe evill, that good may come of it, And what other thing doth the King say, or this libeller make the artificialest finenes of the Court, Traytours perswade men, that they demaund their right, while they seeke only to oppresse the right of all men by a lawles vsurpation, and noe man can doubt, but such, as Rebell will make pretences, and not spare the lawes of God by prophane interpretations, nor the Actions of their Rulers by false representations.

The morall of this lesson would better serve the teacher, and it is the libel­lers sense. What good man had not rather want a boundles, and arbitrary power, and those fine flowers of the Crowne called Prerogatives, then for them to vse force, and perpetuall vexation to his faithfull subjects, nay to wade for them through blood, and Civill warr. And have not these Rebells waded through blood, and Civill warr to place theise Prerogatives, & flowers of the Crowne vpon themselves, and continue force, and perpetuall vexation vpon the people of England to set vp a boundles, & arbitrary power. The Kings just Prerogatives, and flowers of his Crowne were of absolute necessitie for his peoples safetie, & they could be a vexation to noe faithfull subjects This libeller hath inherited Cains lurce, a rest­les motion, and discord within himselfe, that heere talkes of faithfull subjects, and by, and by will allow none to be subjects, nor faithfull, but the King is their officer, and noe oaths binde them to him.

The King sayes, who were the chiefe Demagogues to send for those Tumults, some alive are not ignorant, he sayes the King cannot coine English as he could money, & tis beleived this wording was above his knowne stile, and ortography, and accuses the whole composure to be conscious of some other author. And this learned observation vpon the word Demagogue deserves the Laurell. Why is demagogue amore hob goblin word, then Pedagogue? And why should the one be above the kings knowne stile, & ortography more then the other? And why may not the king make an English word current, [Page 116] as well as another, There are very many whose knowne stile, and orto­graphy is beneath the Kings, that could have transcribed Demagogue out of many English Authors without offending against ortogra­phy.

If these Demagogues were men of reputation with the rabble, it adds not to their reputation with knowing men, nor lessens the guilt, nor danger of those tumults, but rather made them more mischeivous; & the ba­ser sort of people have such most in reputation, as are neerest to their owne condition being strangers to vertue, and true worth.

The King sayes complaints were made, yet noe redresse could be obtained. To this he returnes the Parliaments complaint of danger, and that it cheered them to see some flore of their friends, and in the Roman, not pettifog­ging sense, their Clients soe neere about them. Though he sometimes vse the names of Justice, and Patriotts, and love of Countrey, yet he affects nothing more, nor prayses any thing soe much, as seditious contrivan­ces, and exploits, and to defend the Tumults, while he would deny there were any, and the seditious Gracchy, Catilnie, and other conspi­ratours against the Roman Senate shalbe commended, for what were these Clients in the Roman sense, but a powerfull number of such per­sons, as were readie to fire the state at the commaund of their Patron. The Senate never made vse of such Clients, but the power of private men by them became the ruine of that state, and he hath given him­selfe a full answeare, why the Parliament complained not of the Tu­mults, when he boasts, that they were cheered to see them.

The Parliament, and people demaunded Iustice for those assaults, if not mur­thers, meaning those pretended brawles at the Court gate. If any had demaunded Justice they might have had it, for what should hinder? the procedings of noe Court were shutt but by the Rebells. And it is not Poeticall fury, but Bedlam distraction to compare the hurts done in a fray, ptrovoked by an vnruly rabble to the sheddinge of the blood of Nabaoth, and the murther of the king to the revenge of Nabaoths blood. Their choise of the place for that execrable Act before the kings Pallace gate is only an evidence of the pride, and malice of their hearts, and of their selfe condemning consciences, that contrived Circumstances to disguise their crueltie with a counterfaite of Justice.

The king complaines, that he found noe declarations of the Bishopps could take place against the Tumults. To this he askes, was that worth his consi­dering, that foolish, and selfe vndoing declaration of twelue Cypher Bishopps, who were immediately appeacht of Treason for that audacious declaring? Surely it was worth the considering in reguard of the Justice of the declaration, and the Injustice towards those Bishopps, and there can hardly be produced a more impudent Act by an assembly of men, that would allow tumults to offer violence to their members, and charge their members for complaining of the injury with Treason. [Page 117] And as they proceeded without shame, or truth, soe they make it their mirth, that they could by such a ridiculous meanes, effect soe greate a villanie. That declaration, which he calls foolish, and self vndoing will stand a perpetuall Monument of the vertue, and courage of these Bishopps, and the infamy of those Cipher Lords, that committed them. And if the Bishopps were pulled by their Rochetts, as he admitts, was not this a just cause in feare in his Majest? And doth this pulling by the Rochetts amount to nothing but petitioning? This libeller sayes, the Bishopps deserved another kinde of pulling. And noe doubt he would have justified their murther in the streetes, as well, as the Kings since, and that must not have been the blood of Nabaoth. He would inferr, that the King had noe cause of feare, because he came the next day after his going to the house of Commons into the Citie without a guard. The King be­leived at that time the Citie was not soe totally debaucht, but that he might finde some, that would guard him against the disloyaltie of o­thers, and those humble demeanours, which he mentions are well knowne to be most insolent provocations of base people, and though at that time the infection was not soe venemous, as it grew afterwards, yet the king found disloyaltie very apparent.

Though the King might have feared in reguard of his owne guiltines, yet he knew the people soe full of awe, and reverence to his person, as he dared to com­mitt himselfe single among them. If the King had knowne guiltines in himselfe, he could not have hoped for that awe, and reverence, but his going single at such a time, and after soe many affronts shewes the audacious scurrilitie of this Author, that hath taunted at him soe of­ten for seares, and terrours, and now sayes he dared goe single among such outragious tumults. And if awe, and reverence to his person were a commendation to the people, as this libeller would have it, it must be the brand of infamy vpon him, and his Rebellious packe, that have troden awe, and reverence vnderfoote, and wickedly despised, and murthered him.

He would prove, that the King had no feares after all the reproach­full scoffing at his feares, because he went into Scotland after the Bishopps had been worse handled, then in England, and after two Armies had entred England against him, and this he sayes argues first, that he was a stranger to England, and full of diffidence. To the Scotts only a native King in his con­fidence, though not in his dealing, next he sayes, which shewes beyound doubting, that all his feare of Tumults was but a pretence. Wee can­not boubt, that this Authors braine is as Giddy, as the Tu­mults, for to prove, that the King had noe feare of the Tu­mults, he affirmes him diffident to the English confident of the Scotts, and labours much to make periods of non sense, that he may vse words of Calumnie. Might not the King have cause to feare in reguard of their malice, though [Page 118] not his personall suffering? And doth not his libeller shew his vaine falshood, that heere makes the king feareles, and soe lately made mirth of the terrours of the Tumults. The libeller doubted he should not finde credit to his many contradictions touching the tumults, & there­fore turnes about to another theame of the Kings relation to the scotts, and is so voyde of sense, as having affirmed within ten lines before, that the king was confident of the awe, and reverence of the people of Eng­land to his person, heere sayes he was full of diffidence.

But he sayes he tooke occasion from the Tumults of absence from the Par­liament, to turne his disorderly bickerings to an orderly invadinge. That the King might be absent without shewing a reason why, from his Parlia­ment, noe man of knowledge, or common reason ever doubted, and he might, as well goe to Yorke, as into Scotland. But he must be persecu­ted by disorderly Tumults, if he stay, and followed with a formed Ar­my, if he depart, and they, that sought Colours, and disgiuses for the Tumults grow soe impudent to rayse an Army for the King to fight against him.

The King sayes he would not have weakened himselfe by soe many former, and after Acts, if he had meditated warr, as some suspected, when he left white hall. The libeller sayes his former Acts did not weaken him, & it might come into his minde after passing these Acts. That which strengthened the Re­bells must weaken him, and was the Act for continuance of the Parlia­ment, without which they could not have sate, nor acted, nor deluded the people, nor part of their strength, nor the Kings weakenes? But he that objects cunning fetches, and evill Councellours to the king now allowes him nothing, but improvidence, and feare.

The King doubted not, but all had gone well, if the Parliament had sate still free, as it was in its first election, and sayes the libeller, his not doubting was all good mens greatest doubt. And theis are the good men, that could not endure a free Parliament, and the libellers Parliament, that must governe is a new modell, not a free Parliament, as it was at first elec­ted; that stood not with their Rebellious disignes, and his good men doubted, that all would not soe well with them, if that sate still free, & therefore the Iron flaile must thrust the Bishopps out of the Lords house, and purge the lower house, and yet it is still Tyrany, and obsti­nacie in the King by this mans judgment not to accept all the Dictates of this ridiculous packe, and he hath a narrow conscience, and not fitt for the publique, that follows not the cry of this kennell.

To the Kings resolution to heare reason, and consent, as farr, as he could comprehend. The libeller askes, what if his reason comprehend nothing, but his owne advantages, was this a reason to be trusted with the common good of three nations? Yes truly, and it is noe Paradox, that if the King compre­hend his owne advantages, it is sufficient for the common good of the three nations, for whatever is their common good is his advantage, and [Page 119] whatever is his advantage is their Common good, but all his Patriotts for whome the libeller is soe Zealous have advantages of their owne, that are opposite to the Common good of the three nations.

The King sayes, as swine are to gardens, soe are Tumults to Parliaments To this sayes the libeller. The Parliament could best have told vs, had they found it so. And doubtles such of the Parliament, as found it not, may be accounted among the number of these swine, or the herdsmē of them.

But he sayes one greate hogge may doe as much mischiefe in a garden, as many litle swine. And it seemes, that the like evill spirit, as entred into the heard of swine hath possest this libeller, and driven him on head long in his Rebellious impudence.

The King sayes, he was some times prone to thinke, that had he called this last Pa [...]liament to any other place in England, the sad consequences might have been prevented. To shew, that the place could have made noe change, the libeller instances in his Majest: first Parliament at oxford, which was dissolved. What doth that prove to contradict what his Majest: sa­yes, that if he had called the Parliament at another place, these sad con­sequences might have been prevented? Does the libeller thinke, that because there was misvnderstanding betweene the King, and some of his Parliaments, that they would therefore have run to the same extrea­mities, that the faction in this last did, or that these factionists could have brought this mischeife vpon the kingdome, by like Tumults in another place.

He goes on to say, that the King called his last Parliament at Oxford a Mungrell Parliament consisting all of his friends. Noe doubt there were in that Parliament many loyally affected to his Majest: but it cannot be denyed, for time hath tryed it, that there were many among them, that were spyes, and disturbers corrupted by the Rebell faction at West­minster, and their owne base inclinations, who sought to disorder all Councells, and consultations.

The libeller would comprehend the whole people of England within the Tumults, & interprett the Kings prayer against the tumults to be a prayer against his people. Is it not God, that stilleth the raging of the sea, & madnes of the people? And is not a prayer for the people to pray they may be delivered from such madnes, and yet this libeller sayes, that the king praying to be delivered from the Tumults prayeth to be delivered from the people, and blasphemously concludes, God save the people from such intercessours. And we cannot beleive, that God is in his thoughts, whose mouth soe often abuseth his name.

Vpon the Bill for TRIENNIALL PARLIAMENTS, and for setling this, &c.

HE sayes the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments was a good Bill, and the other for setling this at that time very expedient. And this he sayes in the kings owne words was noe more then what the world was fully con­firmed he might in Iustice, reason, honour, and conscience graunt them, for to that end he affirmes to have done it. This man hath a confirmed enmitie against truth, & cannot make a right recitall. The kings words are, that the world might be fully confirmed, in my purposes at first to contri­bute what in Iustice, reason, honour, and conscience I could to the happy succes of this Parliament, I willingly past the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments. The greatenes of the trust, which his Majest: put vpon the people by passing that Bill was a strong Argument, that he would deny nothing, which in Justice, reason, honour, and conscience he might graunt, not that the world was confirmed he might graunt that Bill in reason, honour, and conscience in respect of the matter of it, for a greate part of the world was of opinion, he might with better reason have denyed it, had not his desire to shew his purposes of contributing what he could to the hap­py successe of the Parliament moved him. And they might be confir­med thereby of his purposes to deny nothing, which in Justice, rea­son, honour, and conscience he could contribute to the happy successe of the Parliament.

It is the Kings manner to make vertues of his necessities, and that neither prayse, nor thankes are due to him for these beneficiall Acts. It cannot be ex­pected, that Rebells will retaine gratitude, that have cast of loyaltie, but let vs looke on his reasons, and the first is, that this first Bill graunts much lesse, then two former statutes yet in force by Edw. the 3. that a Parlia­ment should be called every yeare, or oftner, if neede were. Either the libeller is vaine in producing this instance, or in commending the Bill, that gave much lesse, then two former lawes in force, and he must make the [Page 121] Parliament very inconsiderate, that would soe much importune a law soe farr short, of what former lawes had enacted. His ancient law booke called the mirror, and his late Treatise, that Parliaments by our old lawes were to be twice a yeare at London, carry as litle Authoritie, as cleerenes, what those Parliaments were they mention, but neither the statutes, nor law bookes did ever affirme the right of calling Parliaments in any other then the King, or that he might not deferr the calling of them, if he saw cause, and these statutes were made to declare the subjects dutie to attend the King in his Parliament once a yeare, or oftner, if neede were, and there was noe reason why oftner should have been inserted into the law, if any obligation were intended thereby vpon the King. And its contrary vnto the writt, whereby Parliaments are called, that the time of Parliaments should be defined, for it is recited to be an Act of Councell to call a Parliament, which needed not, if it were necessary at a prefixed time.

The second Bill he sayes was soe necessary, that nothing in the power of man more seemed to be the stay of all things from ruine, then that Act. We are sure, that nothing did more confirme the designes of the Traytours nor has­ten that ruine of the Kingdome they have wrought, then that Act. All men descerne the fraudulent artifices vsed to gaine that Bill by preten­ding publique debts, which seditious faction had contracted, and inten­ded to encrease for the carrying on of their Rebellion, and his Majest: in graunting that Bill hoped to take of those occasions of it? the Re­ports, which they cast out among the people of his vnwillingnes to rayse money for discharge of the Armyes. These charges were occasioned by the Kings ill stewardshipp, but the world is satisfied, it was from a tray­terous conspiracie of the guides of this Rebellion. He alleadges his needeles raysing of two Armies to withstand the Scotts, which noe man, but a profest Rebell can soe call, for should he have raysed noe Army, but left all to the mercy of the invader? next he had beggerd both himselfe, & the publique. When by this libellers owne confession the King had recei­ved noe supplies from the publique for raysing those Armies, and these shameles Traytours blush not to talke of the Kings beggering of the people, when the greate plentie his Government had enriched them with, is soe visible in those vast leavies, which the Rebells have since made vpon them.

The King left vs vpon the score of his needy Enemies. If they had not been too much friends to the traytours of England, there had been noe score to them, for all men know whatever they received from England was by the contrivance of the Trayterous faction in Parliament to accom­plish their ends. To diseng age him greate summs were borrowed. Which its well knowne was not to disengage the King, but to advance the desig­nes of the Traytours, who dealt vnder hand with some of the Scotts to protract the Treatie, that the charges might be encreast.

[Page 122] The errours of his Government had brought the Kingdomes to such, extreames, as were incapable of recovery without the absolute continuance of this Par­liament. They never did one act after that Bill, but in order to the King­domes confusion, and all men saw there were noe extreames to be re­covered at the time of passing that Bill, but the returne of the Scotts, and the disbanding the faction in Parliament, and the only recovery had been by setting an end to the Parliament, which they, that made it their propertie could not endure.

The King past these Acts vn [...]illingly. It cannot be doubted, but the King foresaw the danger of both, and the libeller might have seene in the first section of this Chapter, that his Maj: was not without doubt, that what he intended for a remedy might prove a disease beyound all remedy, and though to avoyde a Civill warr he made some concessions in hope to bring the people to see their owne good, which might turne to his, and their greater mischeife, if by them ill applyed, yet his Majest: de­serves prayse, and thankes for such Acts of grace, and the necessitie, which this libeller soe impudently vrges to take of his Majest: just thankes. was the danger of a Civill warr, which his Majest: sought by these Acts to prevent, and might have entred into with lesse hazard be­fore the passing of these Bills, then after. The libeller only encreases the infamy of the Rebells ingratitude, and his owne impudence by ob­t [...]ding necessities to take of the Kings grace in passing those Bills, and it had not the shape of a Masterly brow, but gracious aspect in his Ma­jest: saying the greatnes of the obligation above their deserts, that he had put vpon them by passing the first Bill, and the Masterly brow suites not with the following scurrilous conceite, that the kings recital of the obligation he had putt vpon them by that Act was, as if he had beggd an office to a sort of his desertles groomes, and these desertles groomes now Rule the new Republique, there being none, that had the least desert that would accept such a Traytorous office.

That the King passed the latter Bill to prevent the oncroase of the present disorders, not out of consideration of the fittnes of that Bill, he neede not spend time to prove, and his consent was moved from the reason of the time, not the matter, and the [...]ller hath well observed, that they had offended him much more after the passing of the former Bill, which is not to their creditt, but shame.

It was feare made him passe the Bill, least the Parliament, and people [...]neen­fed by his conspiracies should resent his doings, if he had added the de [...]all of this only meanes to secure themselves. Either his memory is short, or his absurditie vnnaturall that soe lately said the kings feares were preten­ces, and does he thinke, that his Majest: could feare their resenting more at that time, then afterward, besides his supposed fantasticall con­spiracies were not as much, as named, or spoken of to Parliament, or people at the time of passing that Bill, and there cannot be imagined [Page 123] any cause of his Majest: passing that Bill, but his earnest desire to a­voyde a Civil warr, and assure his people of his purpose by committing so greate a trust vnto them, neither can there be imagined other cause, why the passing of that Bill was soe much importun'd by the Rebells, but to secure themselves, for being conscious of their owne guilt they knew themselves vnsecure, vnles they gained a power over King, and lawes. The libeller cannot excuse neither the ingratitude, nor disloy­altie of the Rebel partie in Parliament, from the Kings consent to these lawes to present disorders, and mischeifes, which in themselves had not been fitt, for his consent at another time, and their insolence in binding him first of all his Predecessours, shewes their corruption, and guilt, that would vse soe much violence, & difloyalite to a Prince whose, gratious Government had least of all his Predecessours provoked it.

The King taxes them with vndoing what they found well done. The li­beller sayes. They vndid nothing in the Church, but Lord Bishopps, Litur­gies Ceremonies, high Commission judged worthy by all true Protestants to be throwne out of the Church. These Protestants, which are true only to him will judge the like of all Kings, and Rulers of State, and all orders of the Church, that are not of their Bedlem patterne. These false Secta­ries talke of Church, & true Protestants just as they doe of Parliament, as long, as it consists of their owne limbs, it must be obeyed, but if it dissent from their Commaunds, then they are worse, then Ceremonies in Religion. Doubtles al true Protestants abhorre this den of Schisma­tickes, that boast of their Rebellious defacing of the Church, and hate their societie, there having not been yet any true Protestant, Church, that ever pretended, that Lord Bishopps, Leiturgies, Ceremonies, or high Commission were worthy to be throwne out of the Church the greatest part of Protestants retaining the like.

They vndid nothing in the state, but irregular, and grinding Courts. The Courts they tooke away were judged by al wisemen to have been pro­fitable to the Kingdome, and fitt to be continved, and the best Gover­nours sometimes graunt that to the peoples irregularities thereby to preserve them from proceeding to their owne ruine, which were sitt to deny at another time, & its their Zeale to publique safetie, not feare, and dissimulation, as the libeller calls it.

It was a greater confidence of the people to put into one mans hand a power to Summon, and dissolve Parliaments, then the King put in the people by the Act of continuance of the Parliament. And if the libeller could shew the Act, whereby the people put that power in the King, he had said some thing. But how had they put it into his hands, or what confidence was it, if they might take it away, when they list? This man cannot see truth through his owne contradictions, & while he acknowledges the Kingly power to Summon, and dissolve Parliaments forthwith adds, that Kings could not dissolve Parliaments till all greivances were redressed; [Page 124] and then where was the kings power to dissolve, or the peoples confi­dence?

This is he sayes not only the assertion of this Parliament, a strong proofe, but of our ancient lawe bookes, that noe man ever read, which averr it to be an vnwritten law of Common right soe engraven in the hearts of our Ancestours, and by them soe constantly enjoyed, and claimed, as that it needed not enrolling. this is pretty poetry, that because a law is no where to be found, there­fore it was engraven in the hearts of our Ancestours, where are those law bookes? But how many hundred yeares since was this engraving worne out, surely if there had been either such an vnwritten law, and soe constantly enjoyed, and claimed, it would have been often enrol­led ere now, but the libeller expected applause for his conceite, not creditt to his assertion.

If the Scotts could charge the King with breach of their lawes for breaking vp that Parliament without their consent, it were vnreasonable, that the wise­dome of England should be soe wanting to it selfe, as not to provide against the not calling, or arbitrary dissolving of Parliaments. If they had provided against it, where was the confidence he talked of? It followes not, that because the Scotts charged the King with breaking of the Parliament without their consent, that therefore the King offended in it, neither was the wisedome of the English nation wanting to it selfe in leaving the calling, and dissolving of Parliaments Arbitrary to the King, it being a power essentiall to Monarchy, and we have seene, that the ta­king away of that power dissolves the Government, and drawes confu­sion, and miserie vpon the state, and it cannot be avoyded, but that from a power erected to affront the soveraigntie, there must follow se­dition, and Civill discord. People must depend vpon their Kings grace, and goodnes for redresse of their greivances, whose power, and safetie consists in their welfare, not seeke by violence to be their owne Car­vers, and the people never found soe greate suffering by submission to their, Kings, as by seeking wayes to oppose them.

It appeares, that if this Bill of not dissolving were an vnparalleld act, i [...] was a knowne, and Common right. That it was an vnparalleld Act he doth not deny, that it was a Common right noe where appeares, and how can that be an vnparalleld Act, that is a Common right? He sayes its not enrolled, and how then shall it appeare to be Common right?

What needed written Acts, when as it was anciently esteemed part of his Crowne oath. His Crowne oath is well knowne, and may not be tryed by estimation, but inspection. The libellers estimation hath as litle proofe, as authoritie. He referrs the lawerlie mooting of this point to a booke called the rights of the Kingdome written it seemes by some Author of as much fidelitie in his quotations, as this libeller in his narrations, and to other law Tracts being neither his Element, nor proper worke, since the booke, which he hath to answeare pretends to reason, not to Authoritie. [Page 125] And he holds reason to be the best Arbitratour, and the law of law it selfe. And it appeares by his writings, that reason is neither his Element, nor worke heere, for had he vse of reason, he would not referr vs to bookes, that are onely of Authoritie to prove the ignorance, and bold­nes of the writer, neither could reason judge it a law, that a king should not dissolve a Parliament, till all particular greivances were considered, though the setting of it might prove an incurable greivance, but his reason would have the Parliament defend the Kingdome with their vo­tes, as the Roman Senatours their Capitall with their robes against the Gaules.

The King must not be at such distance from the people in judging what is better, and what worse. That the people are not the best judges of what is better, and what is worse the libeller himselfe acknowledges, saying they are excessive in all their motions, and is it not reason, that the King then should be at such distance in judging, but the libeller see­kes to be at greate distance with truth, that sayes the Kings owne words condemned him, that he had not knowne as well with moderation to vse as with earnestnes to desire his owne advantages. Where as the King spake not of himselfe, but others, his words were, If some men had knowne as well with moderation to vse, as with earnestnes to desire advanta­ges of doing good, or evill. Doth this man thinke reason the law of law, or falshood the Master of both law, and reason, that soe palpably be­lyes the booke before him.

The King sayes a continuael Parliament, he thought would keepe the Com­monwealth in tune. To this sayes the Libeller. Iudge Commonwealth, what proofes he gave, that this boasted profession was ever in his thought. The king doubtles thought not, that every Parliament would keepe the Com­monwealth in tune, but a Parliament, that preferred publique good before private faction.

The King saith, as he relates him, some gave out, that I repen­ted me of that setling Act. The Libeller sayes, his owne Actions gave it out beyound all supposition, for he went about soe soone after to abrogate it by the sword. Heere the Libeller omitts a materiall word, which the King vsed, which was soone, for the Kings words are, that I soone repen­ted. It is well knowne that the wicked vse, which the Traytours made of that setling Act, might give the king just cause to repent him of it, but as the king vsed not the sword till many Moneths after the passing of that Bill, soe the cause of his Armes were the vio­lent, and Trayterous Actions of a faction, not the abrogation of that Bill.

The King calls those Acts, which he confesses tended to their good noe more Princely, then friendly contributions, as if sayes the Libeller to doe his du­tie were of Courtesie, and the giving backe of our Liberties stood at the mercy of his contribution.

[Page 126] He would have it beleived, that Parents can doe nothing for their chil­drens good out of favour, all is of dutie, and noe thankes belongs to them from their children, nor any from subjects to their Soveraignes, or rulers, for the greatest benefitts they receive by good Government, and all the vigilance, watchfullnes, & pietie of Princes for the peoples good is not at all thankes worthy, theis are the Maximes of Rebells, and if Kings will not yeelde vp their power, they may be compelled, and the quitting of Government, for which Kings must give account to God, is by theis mens Divinitie the giving backe of liberties, being noe other, then to give licence to all wickednes, and beare the sword in vaine.

The kings sayes he doubts not, but the affections of his people will compen­sate his sufferings for those Acts of confidence. To this sayes the libeller, not his confidence, but his distrust brought him to his sufferings, and he trusted nere the sooner, for what he tells of their pietie, and Religious strictnes, but rather ha­ted them as Puritans, whome he allwayes sought to extirpate. The libeller himselfe cannot deny, but that if the king had not had confidence that those Acts of his would not have beē abused, he would not have graun­ted them, for if he had not been so confident, it had been much more eligible for him to hav run the peril of a war without graunting them, and wee have seene by experience, that many as well as the king were deceived in those, that profest pietie, and Religious strictnes, and though the king had just cause to hate the faction of the hipocriticall Puritan, yet he thought, that there could not soe much impietie lurke in many vnder such profession of pietie, and Religious strictnes, as hath since excee­ded the most blasphemous Atheist, and had the king sooner distrusted, he had in humane reason prevented much of the Calamitie, that hath befallen himselfe, and his kingdome.

That those Acts of the Kings did not argue, that he meant peace knowing, that what he graunted out of feare, he might assoone repeale by force. It is noe argument, that he would doe it, because he might doe it, but it is one of the libellers vsuall Arguments to conclude from the possibilitie to the being, and there cannot be a greater Argument of a mans desire of peace, then to part with his right to prevent a warr, and by this rule of the libeller there must never be peace, nor end of Rebellion but by the destruction of the king, because their guilt is still vnsecure.

That the Tumults threatned to abuse all acts of grace, and turne them into wantonesse. This sayes the libeller is abusing of Scripture not becomming such a saint to adulterate sacred words from the grace of God to the acts of his owne grace. And is it an abuse of Scripture to say the King did Acts of grace? and whence then comes it to be an abuse of Scripture to say the people abused the Kings grace, or turned it into wantonesse? was it not a sin of wantonesse in the people and may it not be soe exprest without any abuse of Scripture. Scripture is abused, when it is applyed to a pro­phane, [Page 127] & ludicrous sense, but the words heere are not transferred from a right signification. There are diverse words, that signifie both divine, and humane Actions, & there is noe abuse of them in either sense And the libeller having excepted to the vse of an expression of Scripture, presently makes bold with Scripture saying, that Herod was eaten vp with wormes for suffering others to compare his voyce to the voyce of God. when as the Scripture sayes, he was eaten vp of wormes, because he gave not God the glory. And is not this to adulterate Scripture but nothing is sacred to Rebells.

That the King by this Phrase gives jealosie, that he likens his owne Acts of grace to the Acts of Gods grace cannot be vnderstood, noe more then the vse of the name of mercy, or justice should give jealosie of likening humane vertues to divine Attributes, though there be a difference be­tweene resembling, and comparing,

The libeller sayes from prophanes he scarce comes of with perfect sense, To prove, that he shewes himselfe senseles. The Kings words are, that being not in a Capacitie to have taken r [...]ge in a hostile way, he could not have given his Enemies a more desired advantage, then by soe vnprincely incon­stancie, to have assaulted them with Armes, thereby to scatter them, whome but lately he had solemnely setled. And where is the libellers exception? he sayes what place could there be for his inconstancie to doe a thing, wherein he was in noe capacitie? There was place for inconstancie, if he had endea­voured to vndoe that, which he had done, though he were not in a ca­pacitie to have effected it, and if the libeller had sense he would not have missed it & come of without it.

He would not have, that considerations of hazard, and dishonour, with-held the King from that course, and that he would prove, because he made a warr, & yet objects feares to him for the cause of all his Ac­tions, and [...]om then [...] might well conclude that nothing but extrea­mitie caused him to defend himselfe by warr.

The king sayes his letting some men goe vp to the Pinnacle of the Temple was a temptation to them to cast him downe headlong. By this sayes the li­beller, he compares himselfe to Christ who is not at al named. The Par­liament to the Devill, which is not neither, and that [...]ling Act his letting them goe vp to the Pinnacle of the Temple. The libeller sayes its a goodly vse of Scripture. Similitudes of Actions imply noe Comparisons of persons, but the congruitie of the allusion made the libeller angry, and yet he may not be beleived, that the Actions of some Traytours, and particu­larly his Masters may not be resembled to that of Judas without com­paring the person betrayed to Christ.

He sayes, it was noe Pinnacle of the Temple, but a Nabucadnezars Pallace, from [...] and Monarchy fell headlong togeather. Those Rebells have robbed, and ruined the Temple, as Nebucadnezar did, and they, that glory in casting king, and Monarchy headlong have the spiritt of that [Page 128] tempter, which perswaded our saviour to cast himselfe downe. The people now, as theis of old finde it the extreamitie of desolation to be without King, and Church, and it is an horrour to them, that the vn­cleane spiritts of Rebellion inhabite the Kings Pallaces.

The King sayes All the Kingdomes of the world are not worth gaining by wayes of sin, which hazard the soule. And sayes the Libeller, he left nothing vnhazarded to [...]pe three. He hazarded nothing, but what he was bound to God, and his people for the preservation of his Kingdomes, and these Rebells left noe wickednes vnattempted to gett them.

The Act of setling was noe sin of his will, and the Libeller sayes, It was a sin of his vnwillingnes. But his fals hood is proved willfull in this, as in most of his assertions. The King confesses the ill consequence of that

Act, but he sayes it was not a sin of his will, because it proceeded from other mens malice, and though he willingly past the Act, yet he judged the Evill ensuing, not the Act of his will, and it was a sin of the Libellers will, that soe knowingly perverted his meaninge.

The Libeller sayes, that at his prayers, he had before him the sad presage of his ill succes. And is it his fault to descerne his Enemies crueltie, and his owne afflicted condition?

But he sayes his prayer books noe sooner shutt, but other hopes flattered him, and that was his destruction. Its not impossible, but he might have hopes, but his misfortunes will be the guilt, and destruction of them, that caused it without Gods greate mercie which they yet despise.


THe King sayes, I staid at white hall till I was driven away by shame more then feare. And sayes the Libeller in his Messages, and declarations and in the whole Chapter next but one before this he aff [...]rmes, that the danger, wherein his wife, children, and his [...]e person were by those Tumults, was the maine cause, that drove him from white hall, and affirmes heere, it was shame more then feare, from whence, and the Ld. Dig­bies [Page 129] speech to the same purpose, he sayes, wee may descerne, what false, and fri­volous excuses are avowed for truth. We may see, how willfully, and ab­surdly this Libeller will contradict truth, and himselfe, that not only in one Chapter, but in every Chapter past vpbraids his Majest: with feares, boasts, that by feares he was compelled to consent to the death of the Earle of Strafford, and to passe those Acts, for which he deser­ved noe thankes, because he did them for feare of the Tumults, and is now soe shameles to call them false, and frivolous excuses.

The King formerly exprest, that valour is not to be questioned, for not scufling with the sea, or an vndisciplined rabble. And though he had not a base feare he could not be vnapprehensive of violence intended by that rabble, and it cannot be doubted, but that a King must have a greater measure of shame then feare to see such insolencies, and if this libeller had any shame, he would not have argued from that expression of his Majest: a contradiction of what he said of danger from these Tumults. But he thinkes his readers have a short memory, as well as sense, and therefore he reguards not the repugnancie of his owne Periods.

He magnifies the courage, and severitie of Zeale to Iustice in Rebells of for­mer times, and calls them our fore Fathers, and that their folly, & wicked­nes may have some excuse in following subtile conspiratours against their King, he calls it courage, and severitie of Zeale, and that he may au­thorize their lewdnes, he sayes their courage was against the proud con­tempt, and misrule of their Kings.

He sayes, that when Rich. the 2. departed, but from a Committee of Lords, who sate preparing matter for the Parliament, not yet assembled to the removal of his evill Councellours, they first vanquished, and put to flight Robert de Vere, his cheife favorite, and then comming vp to London with a huge Army requi­red the King, then withdrawne for feare, but noe further of then the Tower to come to Westminster, which he refusing they told him flatly, that vnles he came they would chuse another. And who can reade this relation, but must judge, that it was a Trayterous conspiracie of these Lords, and a giddy, wicked Rebellion in the people? By what law was the king bound to attend these Lords, or what authoritie had they to prepare matter for the Parliament, more then any others of the Kingdome? Is it not a knowne Treason to endeavour to depose the King, and did not the late Parliament professe to abhorre the thought of it? And how comes it to passe, that these Lords have a power to threaten the King with de­posing him? What Rebells can be convicted by any law, if this Action be not Treason? The libeller getts nothing by this example, but an evidence against his Masters, for these Lords, and their assistants had their pardon for that Rebellion. And wherein did this Rebellion of these Lords differ from that of Jach straw, and other Traytours men­tioned by Mr. Sollicitour against the Earle of Strafford. His folly in seeking to draw an Argument from the Actions of Rebells, to prove a [Page 130] Cryme in the King is ridiculous to any reasonable man, and its not imaginable, that the king should be bound to attend any meeting of his Peeres, and Councellours, which did tend towards a Parliament, for by that Rule he must attend in as many places, as there are factions noe sober time ever pretended, that the king was bound to attend the Parliament, which was to be called, and dissolved by him, and our An­cestours would be esteemed as voyde of reason, as loyaltie, if their Par­liaments were governed by a Tumultuous rabble, and the king were oblidged to doe what they would have, though the whole kingdome were bleeding to death of those wounds, which their impious, and in­considerate violence, and fury had inflicted.

The king sayes the shame was to see the barbarous Rudenes of those Tu­multe to demaund any thing. And this the libeller believes was the truest cause of his deserting the Parliament. And was it not a just cause for him to desert the Parliament, or faction in it, when either they could not, or would not restrayne that barbarous rudenes.

The worst, and strangest of that any thing they demaunded was but the vn­lording of Bishopps, and expelling them the house, and the reducing of Church discipline to a conformitie with other Protestant. Churches. And this the li­beller would have noe Barbarisme. What did the Parliament there, if the Tumults may demaund the alteration of the Government of Church, or state? Can it be presumed, that a rowte of Mechannicks could determine what, was conformitie to other Protestant Churches. The libeller at first remembred Mr. Solicitours discourse against the Earle of Strafford, there he might have found, that it was Treason to goe about, & assemble a multitude to alter the Government of Church, or state; And to seeke the vnlording of Bishopps by force, in that manner they did was Treason by the law, and we have seene, that this desperate rabble, whose demaunds the libeller sayes were but the vn­lording of Bishopps, and the like thinke the murther of the king, and destruction of his family noe other then a but.

They were demaunded by the Parliament, which is vntrue, but they were demaunded by a factton, who suborned these Tumults to overaw, and drive away the greatest part of the members of both houses.

The King in a most tempestuous season forsooke the helme, and steerage of the Common wealth. He withdrew himselfe from that storme, which the Traytours had raysed against him, and admitted not any steerage, when all was whirled by tempestuous Tumults. The libeller would willing­ly mince the causes of his Majest: departure, and therefore he catches hold of the mention of shame to exclude feare, & from the barbarous rudenes of the Tumults to demaund any thing, he would conclude; there were only demaunds, & noe barbarous rudenes, and would make the last word to exclude all, that went before.

To be importuned the removing of evill Councellours, and other greivances was [Page 131] to him an intollerable oppression. To offer violence to him for his protec­tion of faithful Councellours, & the support of Government in Church, and state was intollerable, and though the libeller doe commend the violence of the Tumults, yet heere he calls it only importunitie, and the Kings denyall of the impetuous demaunds of a rabble to change the Government in Church, and state denyall, and delay of Justice. If violence be lawful, as he oftē affirmes, why doth he mince his defence, and soe often fly to these termes of importunitie, and petitioning?

The advice of his Parliament was esteemed a bondage, because the the King sayes of them, whose agreeing votes were not by any law conclusive to his judgment, for sayes the libeller, the law ordaines a Parliament to advise him in his greate affaires, but if it ordaine also, that the single judgment of a King shall outballance all the wisedome of his Parliament, it ordaines that, which frustrates the end of its owne ordaining. There is no doubt, but in a Monarchy the dependence of the people is vpon the King the greate­nes of whose interest in the prosperitie of the Kingdome is more likely to oblidge him to their preservation, then any number of private men can be encleined to, and as the law ordained a Parliament to advise him, soe it forbidds them to commaund, or prescribe him, though the Major part of Parliament involve the whole, Its against all reason to include the King, who is allwayes furnisht by law with his other Councells, & may see good reason to preferr the Counsell of the smaller number, and that law, which ordained the Parliament to be called, and dissolved by the King had destroyed what it ordained, if the King had been bound to consent to all advices given him by the Parliament. Such a restraint vpon the King not only makes voyde, and vseles those select Councells, which by law are continually to advise him, but destroyes the Govern­ment of Monarchy, which the law cannot intend, and gives the Par­liament the absolute soveraigntie, which the people would not live vn­der being contrary to their desires, and dispositions, & the trust reposed in such, as they elected.

The Kings judgment may dissent, he sayes, to the destruction of himselfe, and Kingdome, And soe doubtles may the judgment of a major part in Parliament, and we have found by long experience, that Parliaments have produced Acts to the preiudice of the state, and corruption of Re­ligion, but this libeller holds all meanes frustraneous, that beget not Rebellion, and as in his affection he preferrs the judgment of the Par­liament, before the Kings; soe any Company, or committee of Lords, that conspire against him, as appeares by his late remembred instance against Rich: the 2: And what power he would have in the Parlia­ment over the King, he would place in the Tumults, his admired Iron flaile over the Parliament, and prayes vnto God to send them, that they may purge the Parliament, and prescribe lawes both to the King, and them, and therefore he judges, that it is vnlawlike, that a remedy soe slen­der [Page 132] should be the vtmost meanes of publique safetie. And we are sure, that Rebellion, the only remedy, which he approves, is the destruction of al publique safetie, and shewes the Libeller as vnable to judge of law, as vnwilling to obey any.

He concludes, that the Kings negative voyce was never a law, but a rea­sonles Custome growne vp from flattery, or vsurpation. And how shall wee judge, that soe long a Custome without contradiction was noe law? & that the contrary was an vnwritten law, and constantly enjoyed, & clai­med. Can he thinke, that because the support of Rebellion is a subver­sion of law, that therefore Rebells reasons are the rule of law? And yet he is confident, it is better evidence, then Rolls, and records, & as they deale with law, soe with Scripture making their fantasticke dreames, & Dia­bolicall infusions the Canon of their Religion. And the Monarchy of David, and his successours ordeined by God, and that had both a nega­tive, and affirmative voyce, was a reasonlesse Custome from flattery, or vsurpation.

He proceedes to shew the strength of his Argument. Because the ne­gative voyce is claimed to one man, not as a wise, or good man, but as a King. And how doth he claime the power of the Parliament as to wise, or good men, or as to elected men? And it may be easily supposed, that the Major part of the Parliament may not be soe wise, and good, as their King, especially soe assisted by other Councells, as kings are, and it were noe abusive thing to Summon Parliaments, though the King doe take their advices by weight, & not by number, but it were an abusive thing, that such, as were called to advise, should take vpon them to determine.

The King sayes. The whole Parliament represents not him in any kinde. To this sayes the Libeller. If the Parliament represent the whole kingdome, the king represents only himselfe, and a king without his kingdome in a Civill sense is nothing, nor without, nor against the representative, and soe his negative as good, as nothing, and though we should allow him something, yet not equall to the whole kingdome, nor them, that represent it. But what answeare is this to the King, that being not represented, cannot be bound by the votes of them, that represent him not? Is the Libellers making him nothing, or not equall to the representative any reason why he should be bound by their votes? The King is by law, & reason the representative of the Kingdome, & as this sottish libeller cannot deny it out of Parliament, so he might well see, that the election of persons to advise him, doth not take away that supream representation, which the law hath given him. there can be nothing more absurd, then that an elected company repre­senting subjects to their King, should take away the Kingly representa­tion, & it is a ridiculous sophistrie, that because the king is not the sub­ject, therefore he is without his kingdome. The people in Parliament are represented petitioning, and consenting, not commaunding, and re­volting, & it is repugnant to their condition to be equall, or not inferi­our [Page 133] to their King, which were to destroy the relation of king, & subject.

The king maintaines to be no further bound to agree with the votes of both houses, then he sees them to agree with the will of God, with his just rights, as a King, and the generall good of the people. The Libeller would allow him freedome with due bounds, but not, that he should have a negative, vpon that, which is agreed by the whole Parliament. Where are his bounds now? for if he have noe freedome, where they agree he hath none at al, for if they doe not agree, he can neither consent, nor dissent, but such poore so­phismes are the reason of these popular Tribuns, and they will have both affirmative, and negative in the Tumults, but not in the King.

To know the will of God better then his whole Kingdome, whence should he have it? The Libeller doubtles will, affirme, that himselfe knowes the will of God better, then many whole Kingdomes, and why will he de­ny that possible to a King? I may aske him, why he should call the judgment of the Parliament, or a Major part of it, the judgment of the whole Kingdome, when the Major part of the Kingdome be of another minde, if because they represent it, then why may not the Kings judg­ment in the highest representation be preferred before theirs? If the Libeller were put to tell whenever such an Action had happened, that the king dissented from his whole kingdome, he would hardly finde it, when people have in greatest multitudes opposed their king, they were rarely, or never in the right.

To know the will of God better, then his whole kingdome, he askes, whence should he have it? Court breeding, he sayes, and conversation of flatterers was a bad schole. But conversation with Sectaries, & Rebels was worst of al, kings may be presumed to have better breeding, then any others, and the Libeller in another place argues from the kings breeding a greater expectation of abilitie. Flatterers are most hatefull to kings, and their principall breeding is to avoyde the insinuations of such deceivers, but the present faction have outdone all Court flatterers in falshood.

The king could not judge of his owne rights, but he had a right to keepe them, when they were judged. He sayes the king had noe right by law to judge in any Court. And yet he judged in all Courts, all judgments being in his name, and we are sure, that the lower house could never judge of the smallest cases, nor the higher, but in respect of the kings presence among them, because the king judges by his delegates doth he not judge, or can they judge his Crowne to themselves.

That the king cannot judge of Treason, & fellony because he is held a partie. And why did he then exclaime, that the king should hold noe Trea­sons, but against himselfe, but if that were the reason his Judges were incompetent, aswell as he, but it is necessary that in a learned profession, as the law, the king should judge by others.

The kings rights, he sayes, must give place to generall good. But it is [Page 134] generall evill to take away his rights. He may not yeilde to Traytours, that desire him to part with them for their owne advantages. It is noe arrogance in a king to suppose a cleerer insight of the generall good, then others, though chosen for the Parliament, whose breeding, and condition could not quallifie them for such a descerninge, and it is a fond imagination in the Libeller to suppose the Parliament the kings Councell, and suppose the king voyde of Judgment to descerne the soundnes of their advice.

They have most authoritie to judge of the publique good, who for that pur­pose are chosen out, and sent by the people to advise him. But it necessarily fol­lowes, that he hath most authoritie, whome they are sent to advise, their authoritie being to advise, his to determine, and being sent to advise they destroy their owne authoritie, and office, when they Commaund.

If the King see oft the major part of them not in the right, it had been more his modestie to have doubted their seeing him more oft in the wrong. The libel­ler prescribes modestie to the king, insolence, & impudence to subjects, that the Rule of their Rebellion. If the king had not governed his Actions by good advice, nor seene the often Levitie, and precipitation of a Major part, he should have doubted of their seeing him in the wrong, however they owne him dutie, as their king, he no submission to them.

That the King ought to graunt the peoples rights, and liberties, because of right demaunded, it being his dutie, not his bountie to graunt these things. But it is the subjects miserie, aswell as their madnes to demaund the kings rights, as their owne, and we know, that the demaunds of Rebells are for themselves, and to take away the peoples rights, aswell as loyaltie, and wee finde, that there were such, as the king mentions, whome noe fountaine of Royall bountie was able to overcome, and for whome the comparision of hidropike thirst was very favourable being more insa­tiate then gusters in a wine sellar, and neerer the nature of horse leaches, and swine.

The King confesses a rationall soveraigntie of soule, and freedome of within every man, and yet with an implicite repugnancie would make vseles that free­dome of will in all other men but himselfe. That cannot be by vsing the li­bertie of his negative voyce, for are the wills of other men captivated because they cannot doe as they will, & because the king will not doe what they will have him, and because men are subject to Government is freedome of will denyed them?

Them, that yeilde him the obedience meaning the king, he pronounces wor­thy to be slaves, which he inferrs from these words of the King, the he de­serves to be a slave, who captivates the rationall soveraignetie of soule, and liber­tie of his will to compulsion. And how can the libeller draw any such con­clusion from these words? Lawes, that restraine Actions doe not cap­ [...]te the will, nor doth he consent to have his will captivated, that [Page 135] snbmitts to Government. But he captivates his will, that Acts what another directs him, though he judge it evill, and in such case a law may not be obeyed, though violence may not be vsed against the law-maker.

What that Freedome is which cannot be denyed him as a King, because it be­longs to him as a man, & a Christian the Libeller sayes, he vnderstands not, if it be his negative voyce, it concludes all men, who have not such a negative, as his against the whole Parliament, to be neither men, nor Christians. And as­well he might have said, that because every man ought to have free­dome in giving his vote in Parliament, therefore every man ought to be there. The Libeller neede not be ashamed to confesse ignorance, that blushes not at such fooleries. The king argues, that he could not be debarred of that, as a king, which belonged to him as a man, and a Christian, which was libertie of will in giving his vote, and by what Logicque could the Libeller thence conclude, that all, that have not a negative voyce to what the Parliament propounds are noe men, nor Christians? If the king have not a negative voyce, he hath noe voyce, & every members of Parliament hath a voyce affirmative, & negative, and they deny that to the king in denying his negative voyce, which they allow all, that have any voyce.

He demaunds what was he himselfe all this while, that we denyed it him, as a King. He had the freedome of his will, when he gave noe vote against it, but all the world sayes that you were Traytours in the deniall. His naturall libertie of will was not taken from him by your Trayterous violence, though his right to vse it in his kingly office were Rebelli­ously withstood. If a King be prohibited the vse of his reason in his Government, he is denied that, which belongs to him as a man, and a Christian, and these impudent Traytours are soe cauterized, that they scoffe at their Lewde villany asking whether he did not enjoy the li­bertie of his will, when they had imprisoned, and deposed him.

He askes, might not the King have enjoyed both reason, and conscience go­verninge vs as free men, by what lawes we our selves would be governed? And how could he governe, if you make the lawes, he might be governed? And who shall governe, when every man is a law-maker, and he could not enjoy reason, nor conscience governing by lawes he approved not.

It was not the inward vse of his reason, and conscience, that would content him. Doubtles it ought not being a King, but sayes he to vse them both as a law over all his subjects in whatsoever he declared as a King to like, or dislike. The King were noe King, if his subjects might make lawes without him, and his reason, and conscience ought to be his lawes in governing, and he justly said. It were better to be without the Title of King, if it should carry with it such a vassallage, as not to suffer him to vse his reason, and con­science in what he declared as a King to like, or dislike which vse of reason sayes the libeller most reasonles, and vnconscionable is the vtmost, that any [Page 136] Tyrant ever pretended over his vassalls. Tyrants were never esteemed by their pretences, but by their Actions, & it shewes that these men knew not, what Tyrany was, who make a just right of all Governours, the vse of reason Tyrany, and that, which never king was thought fitt to be denyed, though Tyrants abused it. Tyrany is in the abuse of power, not in the rule of Government.

In all wise nations the Legislative power, and the judiciall execution of that power have been distinct. But never devided being allwayes subordinate one to the other, the judiciall execution depending on the Legislative.

He makes an assumption, If then the king be only sett vp to execute the law he ought noe more to make, or forbidd the making of any law, then other in­feriour Iudges. But if the king be set vp to make law by the advice of his Councell the Parliament, can they make lawes without him, but this Libeller, that would be thought soe strong at Arguments, talkes him­selfe into contradictions, and allowes the king, neither the one power, nor the other, for he affirmes the king cannot judge, and make lawes he must not, and what will he conclude, sure, that his owne nation is not wise, nor himselfe honest, or rationall.

He cannot reject a law offred him by the Commons, no more then make a law, which they reject. And hath it sense, that because a man cannot doe an Act without the advice of another, therefore he must doe what that other advises? The man dictates, and would be beleived, though the Commons never did, nor could offer a law to the king, for he wel knowes it must passe the Lords before it come to the king, but he was loath to mention the Lords, least it should cry downe the noyse he hath made of the kings single judgment, for the Lords house may not have a negative in his judgment, notwithstanding their number. But why is it offred the king, if he may not reject it, and whence hath it been, that so many Bils have been rejected in al ages, without any complaint.

When Kings come soe low as to fall vpon Philosophy, which before he neither valued, nor vnderstood is a figne they are then put to their last trump. If the king had not valued nor vnderstood Philosophy, he could not have made soe pertinent vse of it, and if the Libeller had vnderstood Philo­sophy, or valued truth, he would have given better signes of it. Could not his Majest: discourse of his reason, and will, but it must be out of the way, or above his abilitie. But why is this a signe, that kings are then put to their trump, why the vse of Philosophy more then other, learning? Though kings come low, Rebells will come to seeke corners to hide themselves. He shewes not how Philosophy breakes the necke of their cause, or how he hath made advantage of Philosophy against the king, but we finde how his elaborate contradictions, have broken the necke of his owne cause through out all his discourses.

The king sayes he cannot thinke the Majest: of the Crowne of England to be bound by any Coronation oath in a blinde, and brutish formalitie to consent to whatever its subjects in Parliament shall require. And sayes the Libeller, What Tyrant could presume to say more. And the law it selfe, Religion, and reason never said lesse.

[Page 137] It cannot but be yeilded, that the oath, which bindes him to performance of his trust, ought in reason to containe the summe of what his cheife trust, and office is. But what if it doe not, is there an argument to be drawne from what the oath ought to be, but is not? The oath may containe the generall dutie of Justice, & right, but it neither did, nor could comprehend all the wayes of effecting it.

The libeller sayes, that the Kings negative voyce is not contained in that oath. But that oath oblidges him to governe by just lawes, which comprehends a negative to all vnjust lawes, and can it impose an obligation vpon the king of doing Justice, and not give him a libertie of judging what is just, or vnjust?

The Libeller sayes, that his oath requires only his assent to those lawes, which the people have already chosen, or shall chuse, there is noe such word in that oath, and his mention of the Lattine, and old English of that oath are of another sense, & that the libeller was conscious of, & therefore he sayes. All reason ad­mits, that the people should not loose vnder a new king what freedome they had before. but their freedome consists not in an exemption from soveraigne power. It is the custome of Rebels to contradict, & corrupt al lawes vpō pretence of their private reason, & allow no reason but what concludes against just authoritie, he wel knew there was not that double sense he assignes, but we wil make his sens the kings oath? if the peoples choise be referred to the time past, it implies not, that their choise was or ought to be a law, though they had a choise in the laws made, as stil they have, & they could not loose what they never had, & the Parliament, which at first mētioned the kings oath acknowledged, that as they did not determine the questiō how far foorth the king is obliged, to follow the judgmēt of his parliament, so as to conclude that a new law might be mad without his consent. so they acknowledge that the contrary may be truly inferred out of al they had said.

That if the King deny what the Parliament hath chosen, he makes himselfe supe­riour to his whole Kingdome. And who doubts but he is? doe not they which take the oath of supreamacie acknowledge it? The libeller sayes the generall maximes of Policie gainsay it. The general maximes of Rebellion doe, but Po­licy cannot. It is impossible in Policy, that he to whome every soule must be subject, should not be superiour to them all.

Our owne standing lawes gainsay it, as hath been cited in Remonstrances that the King hath two superiours, the law, and his Court of Parliament. The merit of those remonstrances are neere the rate of this libell, though as yet they never men­tioned such standing lawes, & if there had been such standing, lawes the Au­thor would have found them enrolled, but that he doth not, & how absurdly such a pretence is obtruded, whē the superiotie of persōs, & places is in ques­stiō to name the superiority of law, which holds comparisō with sciences, not with persōs, & that the Parliament should be above the king, who is the head of the Parliament, without whom a Parliament hath no being is as Monstrous to reasō, as law, & it is impossible that the law cā say, that the king hath no su­periour but God, & say, that the Parliament is his superiour, & the king might wel say, that this was blinde, & brutish formalitie, and no part of the law, his oath, or dutie, but such brutish formalities Rebells vse to blinde the people.

The King, and Peeraes represent only themselves, the Commons are the whole King­dome. Which is as apparently false, as that the Common Councell, of London are the whole kingdome, & the commons in Parliament have no power from the people, to doe any thing without the king, & Lords.

[Page 138] Infinite mischeifes may grow while our safetie shall depend vpon the over weening reason of one man. And we finde by experience, that desperate ruine inevitably followes, when our safetie depends vpon the agree­ment of a multitude. It is the nature of sectaries to be wise in their owne conceite, and thence come arrogance, and contempt of Govern­ment, & it is a principall in their schisme to improve this naturall inso­lence, and contemne all Estates, and abilities of men dissenting from them, & though his Majest: were of most eminent natural endowments this libeller cals him a man neither by nature, nor nurture wise. Which shewes he vnderstood not wisedome in others, nor was sensible of his owne folly soe apparent to all his readers. That a King should want breeding to make him wise, is strange in the libellers owne judgment, and that the experience, & breeding of the King was eminently extra­ordinary the world well knowes.

He calls the Kings negative his will, & the Parliaments demaunds advice. May not their demaunds be willfull, and his negative advised? The nature, and nurture of this libeller is disobedience, and therefore will have the Kings wisedome to be will, & the Rebells rashnes wisedome, and it is impossible, that men, who have sucked in such principles should ever be obedient to any Government, studying only how they may disaffect subjects to it.

He sayes the Kings errour was imperious, and force was vsed not to dispell errour out of his head, but to drive it from of our neckes. These Rebells sought to be imperious, & put the yoke vpon the neckes of the people, and that, which restrained them from an absolute arbitrary power, which was the Kings negative, they would take away by force, and place negative, and affirmative in themselves. The libeller sayes well that force was not vsed to dispell errour, which was vsed to enforce consent, and to make errour, and shewes their wickednes, that tooke that course.

The King sayes the vprightnes of his intention will excuse the possible failings of his vnderstanding, who seriously endeavours to see the best reason, & faithfully followes it. This the libeller sayes is a position false in law, & Di­vinitie. But for that we must take his word against all law, & Divinitie. But he sayes its contrary to the Kings owne better principles, who affirmes the goodnes of a mans intention will not excuse the scandall, and con­tagion of his Example. And doth it contradict what the king had said, of the excuse of errour in judgment, by the vprightnes of the intention, because a man cannot excuse an evill Action by the intending a good end, where there was noe errour of the fact, but a knowne evill.

His not knowing through corruption of flattery, & Court principles will not excuse him. But we are sure, that this libellers willfull falshoods, cor­rupt, and Rebellious principles condemne him, and make him odious to God, and man, and he is not like a Pilot mi'sled by a wandring starr, [Page] that may be possible, but like a Pilot, that will not be giuded by starrs, but maliciously destroyes the ship, and men, and this Author might sooner excuse a drunken Pilot, then a savage Piratte, and such are they, who willfully practise doceites, and cruelties vnder the name of natio­nall rights.

They vsed force to acqiut their owne reason, and conscience from force That is they vsed force to Domineere over king, and people, and establish their owne will for law. And to rebell against their king is to arqiut their reason and conscience.

The king sayes never thing pleased him more, then when his judgment con­curd with theirs. The libeller to this sayes. That was to the applause of his owne judgment, and would aswell have pleased any selfe conceited man. But could the king despise the judgment of the Parliament, as this addle headed libeller continually exclaimes, and make it matter of applause to himselfe, that his judgment concurd with theirs? Could he sleight their judgment, and conceite his owne credited by their concurrence? If he had noe other esteeme of their judgment, then the libeller would have beleived, doubtles he might have suspected his owne Judgment, for concurring with theirs; And whence comes itt, that a selfe con­ceited man would be soe well pleased with such a concurrence? A selfe conceited man scornes the concurrence of other mens judgments, and preferrs his owne against all others, but reason cannot be expected from this man being vse les to his vndertaking.

The king sayes in many things he chose rather to deny himselfe then them. And sayes the libeller. That is to say Trifles, for of his owne interests, and personall rights he conceives himselfe Master. And who can deny itt, but he is Master of them, and yet he hath parted with these, land could he part with any thing wereof he was not Master? And were all these lawes, which the libeller commends, trifles?

To part with if he please saith the Libeller, not to contest for against the Kingdome, which is greater then hee, whose rights are all subordinate to the Kingdomes good. If he may not contest for them, he must part with them, though he please, or not please, but being for the Kingdomes good, he is bound to contest for them, and it is to ruine the Kingdome, when subjects contest to take them away from the King. Those rights are in compatible with subjects, and inseperable from Governours, and are noe more subordinate to the peoples good, then Justice, or law are, but they are the peoples good, and the people are subordinate to their Rulers in judging what is their good. But he must part with them be­cause the Kingdome is greater then he, as the Libeller sayes, That is noe reason, but it is according to the Rebells principles, that there is no right, but force, & the weaker may not contest against the stronger.

The libeller is very copious in his declamations against Monarchy, and it would be tedious to follow him in his verbofitie, he excepts to [Page 140] these words of the King. In what concernes truth & Iústice, the right of Church, or his Crouwne, noe man shall gaine his consent against his minde. And sayes the libeller. What can be left then for a Parliament, but to sit like Ima­ges, whilest he assumes the best abilitie of judging, or restraynes all men from enjoyment of any good, which his judgment thinkes not fit to graunt them. And what were a King but an Image, if he were bound to graunt, whatso­ever his subjects in Parliament demaund of him, and to what end doe they take an oath of Alleagiance, if he were bound to quit it, when they aske it? And are there any soe sunke in vnderstanding, as to be­leive, that it is the office of a King to judge of nothing, and the right of subjects in Parliament to commaund al things. But this man is of Achi­tophells minde, that if his Councell be not followed, he will goe home, & hang himselse. Advice from subjects to a King is ordained by law, but the subjection of a King to advise is monstrous, and vnsuppo­sable. The Authors repetitions of rayling Epithites vpon what concer­nes the King, or his Actions, & commendation of the wicked Actions against him, will not alter the nature of one or other, and his vehement asseveration, that the law, and Coronall oath require the Kings vndeniable as­sent to what lawes the Parliament agree vpon, is not out of opinion of truth, but the strength of his language himselfe shewing the contrary aswell as the Parliament.

The King sayes he had rather weare a Crowne of thornes with our saviour, then to exchange that of gold for one of lead, whose imbast flexiblenes shalbe for­ced to binde, and comply to the various, & oft contrary Dictates of any faction, when insteede of reason, & publique concernement they obtrude nothing, but what makes for the interest of parties, and flowes from the partialitie of private [...]ills, & passions. The libeller sayes many would be all one with our saviour, whome he will not know. They who governe ill those Kingdomes, which they have right to, have to our saviours Crowne of thornes noe right at all. Such as are Rebells to lawfull Princes, & vsurpe Kingdomes, will never weare a Crowne of thornes with their saviour, nor can hope to be knowne by him, while they sucke the blood of his anointed, and Tyranize over kingdomes soe wickedly gotten. That Crowne of thornes, which this libellers savage souldiers, and others set vpon the last king, is now his Crowne of rejoy­cing in heaven, & honour among men, & the infamy of these hellish mis­creants. The libeller twists thornes, and snares for himselfe by his sha­meles Calumnies, seeking to make the assassination of a gracious king his owne demeritts.

A Crowne of gold is not due to him, who cannot first weare a Crowne of lead, not only for the weight of that greate office, but for the compliance with them, who are to Councell him. A leaden Crowne may well expresse stupiditie, and basenes, and the Crowne of gold better agrees with sound Councell, which is compared to apples of gold in pictures of silver, then lead which shewes only that imbast flexiblenes to the various, and oft contrary Dictates of any faction, and is only a weight of punishment, not of office, [Page 141] which the gold represents, but Traytours cannot endure a Crowne of gold vpon the head of their king, they will only allow him a Crowne of thornes, or lead.

The libeller taxes the king for want of modestie, in imputing want of rea­son, and neglect of the publique, rather to the faction then to himselfe, because the faction was the Parliament. And he must be a man voyde of all modestie, that doth not judge such Actions as the king complayned of to proceede from want of reason, & neglect of the publique, interest of parties, & partialities of private will, and passion. The sectaries were wont to deprecate all ac­cusations of irreverence to their King, and complaine, that they were wronged, but the question is now changed, & contempt of the King is their greate vertue. The libeller throughout this whole discourse re­jects the consideration of the Kings conscience, & heereto these words of the Kings I know noe resolutions more worthy a Christian King, then to pre­ferre his conscience before, his Kingdomes, sayes the sentence is faire in seeming, but fallacious, for the conscience may be ill edifred. And because it may be soe, is it fallacious, that conscience must be preferred before Kingdomes? These hipocrites, that pretend to Rebell for their conscience, accuse the king for refusing to passe a law, in regard of the contrary perswasion of his conscience, and it must be an ill edified conscience in him to for­beare an act, & a rightly informed conscience in them, that commit an act so bloody, & scandalous to the whole world, & so dangerous to the soules of many, that were drawne headlong into that sin, the Kings con­science cannot be preserved without his negative voyce, and therefore he might justly assert it to be his right by law, & when the libeller can perswade men, that Parliaments are infallible, and free from faction, & that Rebells are best judges, of what is for the Kingdomes good, he may hope to be beleived, that the king denyed that, which law, his oath, and office bid him graunt. And all men see, that vnder the name of the ad­vice of Parliament, Rebels have introduced their owne wils for lawes.


WHat concernes it vs heere to heare a husband divulge his houshold privacies, extolling to others the vertues of his wife, an infirmitie not seldome incident to those, who have least cause, Just Testimony to vertue is never an infirmitie, but ne­cessary from the husband, where conjugall affection hath derived the hatred of his Enemies to his wife. [Page 142] If the divulging of houshold privacies concerned him not, it is his lewdenes to take occasions of derision, & base language from it. Trea­sons to the minde are as pestilence to the body, that turnes all diseases into its owne malignant humour, for this Libeller cannot forbeare des­pite to the King for speaking that, which he saith doth not concerne others, nor to the Queene for being named.

How good a wife shee was to himselfe, how bad a subject is not much dis­puted, And to whome was shee a subject, to the Rebells? Those that acknowledge themselves subjects to the King, wil have the Queene esteemed a bad subject for her Zeale to his State, and safetie, these evill spiritts, that possesse the Rebells perswade men, that it is a fault to be bad subjects, and yet will allow none to be subjects, but the King, his wife, and children.

It neede be made noe wonder, though shee left a Protestant Kingdome with as li [...]le honour, as her mother left a Popish. This mention of her mother shewer the extension of a Trayterous malice, that spares noe relations, nor conditions though vnconcerned. Those, that compelled the Queenes departure did more contribute to the dishonour of a Protestant King­dome, & the Protestant Religion, whereof they take the name without the truth, then the greatest Enemy to the Protestant Religion could have effected, what the case of her mother was wee enquire not, but the world sees, that theis injuries to her Majest: exceeded example, & Re­bells injustice fixes noe dishonour, but on themselves.

The king sayes this is the first example of any Protestant subjects, that have taken vp Armes against their King a Protestant. The Libeller sayes it can be to Protestants noe dishonour, when it shalbe heard, that he first leavied warr on them, and to the interest of Papists more then of Protestants. But then it is dishonour, if he first leavied not warr vpon them? And all that reade his booke must conclude, that they first leavyed warr vpon him, what els doth he meane by defending the Tumults, seizing the forts, and Militia, raysing an Army, & vpbraiding the king with feares to hazard such a scuffle. But were it otherwise, the Protestants have disclaimed his Trayterous pretence of taking Armes against the King vnder co­lour of Religion, or otherwise, & hold it dishonour to their Religion, that such Rebellious principles should be charged vpon them, and no­thing could be more for the interest of Papists, then that Protestants should maintaine, and practice that doctrine of Rebellion. The world is satisfied, how disloyally the King was prosecuted by Armes, and had it been otherwise, subjects ought to petition not returne violence, and in all the excuses that these Traytours have vsed, they never mention any offer of satisfaction to the King, or desire to lay downe his Armes, but require his submission, and giving vp his rights, or otherwise they would take it by force. The precedence of the Scotts warr will not take of the dishonour.

[Page 143] He sayes, Its a groundles, and dissembled feare, that shee, that was for ma­ny yeares averse to her husbands Religion should be now the more alienated, & can the Libeller deny, but that the aversion of any may be encreast, and confirmed by the wickednes of the persons of the contrary Religion, how groundles then, and shameles is his exception?

If the feare of her delinquencie, and Iustice demaunded on her, was any cause of her alienating the more, to have gained her by indirect meanes, had been no ad­vantage to Religion. As the King observed, that this was the first exam­ple of Protestant subjects, that tooke Armes against their king: soe this of charging the Queene with Delinquencie was the first example in that kinde, that trayterous impudence had produced, & when it shalbe heard, that a compaine of such vile persons charge the Queene with Crymes fot assisting her husband, they wilbe assured, that not feare of Delinquencie, but their barbarous crueltie might more alienate her, & disadvantage Religion. Them, who accused her he sayes well enough knowne to be the Parliament, the King censures, for men yet to seeke their Religion, whe­ther doctrine, discipline, or good manners. And soe doth the whole world, whatever name the Libeller give such men, who are well enough knowne to be a Trayterous faction.

The name of true English Protestants is a meere schismaticall name. And why? Are there not severall confessions in the Protestant Churches, & doe they hold one another Schismatickes for that reason? How often hath this Libeller named the best reformed Churches, is not that as much a name of schisme? he is ignorant in the nature of schisme, though he be soe well practised in it, and its strange he would observe a Schis­maticall name from the title of a nation, and not from his title of Inde­pendencie, that produceth as many titles, and distinctions, as there be Parishes, or Parlours.

The King ascribes rudenes, and barbaritie worse then Indian to the English Parliament. To the Libellers Parliament he very well may. He sayes the King ascribes all vertues to his wife vndervaluing the greate Councell of his Kingdome in comparison of one woman. And not only he, but all good men abominate that wicked Councell, which vsed such rudenes, and barba­ritie towards her, and from hence the Libeller tells vs there are examples of mischiefe vnder vxorious Magistrates, and Feminine vsurpation. And must Magistrates therefore have noe wives, or noe affections to them? And the examples of feminine vsurpation are more frequent in Republican Tribunes then Monarchs.

The king sayes, her tarrying heere he could not thinke safe among them, who were shaking hands with Allegiance to lay faster hold on Religion. The Libel­ler sayes that he taxes them of a dutie rather then a Cryme, it being just to obey God rather then man. And is periury, and the breach of Alleagiance obe­dience to God, and doe men obey God, that breake one Commaunde­ment vpon pretence to keepe another. The Scripture tells vs he that [Page 144] breakes one Commaundement is guiltie of all, but these are they that say they love God, and yet hate their brother, hate and kill their King Gods vicegerent.

The libeller sayes it was the fault of their courage, that they had not quite shaken of, what they stood shaking hands with. Its like their conscience, and Religion were not the cause they did not, but the Libeller was not of their Councell, for the time required they should keepe their maske longer.

He is offended at the Kings prayer, that the disloyaltie of his protestant subjects may not be a hindrance to her love of the true Religion, and sayes that he never prayes, that the dissolutenes of his Court, the Scandalls of his Clergie, vnsoundnes of his owne judgment, Lukewarmenes of his life, letter o [...] compliance to the Pope, permitting his nuntio heere, may not be found farr greater hindran­ces. All these put togeather are farr short of the scandall of the disloy­altie of his subjects. The Court dissolutenes is made a common place of scandall, not veritie in respect of the application, there being not such excesses in his Majest: Court, that deserved a speciall observation, and the restraint of dissolutenes was more observable, then the Cryme. As to the scandalls of his Clergie, though we must beleive, that offences wil come, yet the scandall of the present disloyaltie was more offensive to those of different Religion, then any disorders in Civil conversation, and the injustice of the Rebells towards the Clergie, hath shewed the vntruth of the scandalls, that were cast vpon them, & though their ma­lice traduced, & persecuted them, their proofes could not convict them of the scandall supposed. His Majest: owne judgment cannot be over­cast by a Rebells malice, and his examplary life cannot be stained by a Libellers pen. His letter to the Pope was noe complaince, nor could it give offence to protestant or hope to Papist, & these Rebells, that com­ply with Turkes, and infidells least of all thinke it a compliance. The Libeller well knowes there was noe nuntio in England, and if the King should have denyed the Queene the exercise of her Religion, whereto he was bound by the Articles vpon the match, he had given greater scandall by breaking the Articles, then by permitting her the repaire of persons in matters of her Religion. But sayes the Libeller, they must not sit still, that is not Rebell, and see their Religion snatcht away But they have Rebelled to snatch away Religion. He sayes, Its knowne, that her Religion wrought more vpon him, then his vpon her, and his favouring of Papists, and hatred of Puritans, made men suspect shee had perverted him. Noe doubt suspitions were industriously raysed, and carrefully nourisht against the King, though they beleived them not, that made vse of them. The King was not bound to destroy all Papists, and could not deny them the pro­tection of a King, & he had just reason to suspect those bloody Puritans, whose inclinations he descerned to that wickednes they have since avowed.

[Page 145] From his suppositions he ascends to his exclamations. What is it, that the blindenes of hipocrisie dare not doe? It dares pray, and thinke to hide that from the eyes of God, which it cannot from the open view of men. We finde this very frequent in this Author, and in this very Period, that in contempt of God, & men, charges the King with Crymes he not only knew false but which are soe knowne vnto the whole world, and conclude against' his owne narrations, and others view.

Vpon his repulse AT HULL, and the fate of the HOTHAMS.

HE makes an introduction, that Hull was the Magazine of Armes, which the king had bought with money illegally extorted from his subjects. He thinkes, that if goods be ill gotten, its lawfull for him, and his Sectaries to rob him, that possesses them, els to what vse is it mentioned with what money the King bought these Armes? But had the king noe meanes to procure Armes but by illegall exaction? sure that will conduce litle to the Apollogy of this breaker, that Ga­lumniates the King soe much for seeking meanes from his subjects for publique safetie.

Next he sayes these Armes were bought to be vsed in a causeles, and most vnjust Civill warr against Scotland. What was the warr in Scotland to Hothams taking of Hull, or seizing the Magazine, when the warr was ended? Rayling will neither make the warr vnjust, nor the mention of it heere any way extenuate the vsurpation, but shewes the barrennes of his matter by his repeated insignificant falshoods.

The Queene he sayes was gone to Holland to sett to sale the Crowne Iewells a Cryme heeretofore counted Treasonable in Kings. Its like such a Treason, as he makes to buy a Magazine of Armes to resist an invader, he should have done well to have told, when this heeretofore was. Its likely they that held it Treason in Kings to have sold Jewells of the Crowne would [Page 146] have made it some Cryme to have bought Jewells for the Crowne, and it is noe Treason now to sell the Crowne, Jewells, and all by his cut throate crew.

The Parliament was not ignorant to what in [...]ent these summs were raysed. their owne actions told all the world they were necessary to be raysed.

The Kings refusing to settle the military power in trustie hands vpon their petitions, and doubting he would possesse himselfe of Hull, they were necessitated by the turbulence, and danger of the times of their owne authoritie, to put [...] the Kingdome into a posture of defence, and to send Sr. Iohn Hotham to take Hull into his possession. How many lewde lyes have they sent abroade into the world, that the King made warr vpon them, and it was the Libellers owne pretence in the beginning of the last Chapter, & now plainly tells they seized Hull, because they suspected the King intended it, and be­cause he would not settle the militia, as they desired. If he had no pow­er over the Militia, why did they petition him? If the Parliament be his superiour why did they petition at all? Doe superiours petition inferiours? But what was that turbulence, & danger of the Kingdome, was there any more, then what themselves had made by rumours, and Tumults, and is not the seizing of a fort an Act of warr?

The King had attempted the same before. And was that any cause for them, because the King sends to his Castles, or forts, must they there­fore take them from him? And he sayes letters of the Lord Digb [...] were in­tercepted, wiss [...]ing the King to retire to some safe place. And therefore these Rebells would provide he should be safe in noe place.

The King offred to g [...]e in person into Ireland, and that he would Arme his guard from his Magazine of Hull. The Parliament he sayes foreseeing the kings drift petition him, that they might have leave to remove the Magazine of Hull to the Tower of London. Soe carefull they were to have the Rebel­lion in Ireland proceede, that they desired his Majest: to forbeare his going into Ireland out of consideration of danger to his person, when as they intended to destroy him at home, and the true cause was, that they would deteine theis Armes to make warr against him, if he would not submitt to be deposed, and to keepe the money given for Ireland to drive on the warr heere.

The King afterward going to Hull required the Governour to deliver him the Towne, whereof the Governour humbly desired to be excused, till he could s [...]nd to the Parliament. It seemes the libeller would not have that a denyall.

The King proclaimed Hotham Tray [...]our before the Towne [...]lls And noe man dobuted, but he was soe.

The King gave order to stopp all passages betweene him, and the Parliament. And had he not reason to prevent supplies, and intelligences to a Traytour?

Yet sayes the Libeller he demaunded Iustice, as vpon a Traytour, vsing a strange iniquitie to require Iustice vpon him, whome he had debarred from his [Page 147] apparence. Traytours must be apprehended before their apparence, and it was a strange iniquitie in them, that would not apprehend a Tray­tour, as in Justice they ought, but a most execrable impietie in such as pretend Justice, to cleere a malefactour without hearing both parties, as the libeller sayes the Parliament did Sr. Iohn Hotham, for he sayes the Par­liament noe sooner vnderstood what had passed, they declare Sr. Iohn Hotham had done noe more, then was his dutie. They meant noe doubt his dutie to them, as fellow Traytours, not to his king, and soveraigne.

That this proves that to be false, which is heere affirmed by the King, that his greatest Enemies had scarce confidence enough to abett, or owne it. And such, as knew the manner of their proceedings at that time, know the truth of what the King affirmes, and though the necessitie of their en­gagement made them owne it, yet there were very few, or none, that esteemed it an act of Justice in them, but of Policie for their owne se­curitie. The king sayes it affected him more with sorrow for others, then an­ger for himselfe, nor did the affront trouble him soe much, as their sin. The li­beller sayes, there is vse of this booke to shew vs what a deluded thing the creature is, which is called the vulgar, who will beleive such vaine glories as these. And surely we cannot beleive any creature soe deluded, as those, for whose capacitie the libeller writes, that makes the deluded vulgar jud­ges of lawes, and kings, yet heere spurnes it as a despised creature.

The strangenes of beleife that he imagines, as that the King proclai­med him Traytour without due proces of law. If he could have told what the due proces of law was, no doubt he would. If a theife, or mur­therer be taken in the Act, or escape, must there not be a proclamation for his apprehension? If Traytours be in Armes against their King, is it choler, or rashnes to proclaime them Traytours?

The King had lately been convinced of his illegallitie with the five members. He was injuriously denyed Justice against them, which produced the second insolence of Hotham.

The Kings relation declares his anger to be incensed, as he had, but doth it follow from thence, that he was not more sorry for others, then an­gry? May not a fathers sorrow for his sons disobedience, exceede his anger, and may not a King desire the punishment of a Malefactour, be­cause he pitties his person, & greives for the ill consequence of his of­fence? Yet this trifling Libeller, would inferr, that the king could not be more sorry, then angry, because his words testifie impatience of delay till Hotham be punished.

Its a strange operation of sorrow, that stirred him soe vehemently to have Ho­tham punished, and not to have him rep [...]nt. But this exception is more strange, that a man may not be vehement for the punishment of one, for whose offence he is greived, and there may be just cause of sorrow, for an Act, which the repentance of the Actour cannott remedy. He knowes well how litle his Majest: was likely to worke vpon Hotham [Page 148] at that time obstinate, but it was a necessitie vpon his Majest: to endea­vour, that he should be proceeded against injustice.

There hath not been observed in the King a sorrow for his owne sins, nor for such sins of others, as cannot be supposed a direct injury to himselfe. This man will not have the Kings sorrow for his sins observed, nor acknowled­ged, wee have seene his malicious detractions of the Kings sorrow for his consent to the death of the Earle of Strafford, and it cannot be ex­pected from such men, that they will give Testimony to any truth, that deny all evidence of it.

The Kings labour to have the sinner only punished wilbe c [...]ed revenge. And why? They pretended justice, not revenge that after cut of Sr. John Hothams head. May not a King doe justice without revenge? The in­justice in abettinge, & protecting Sr. John Hotham at that time was the ground worke of the succeeding evills, and the same men, that denyed justice at his Maj: desire tooke reveng of the same insolencie afterward.

Hull was not the Kings owne towne, but the Kingdomes. And how be­came they a Towne, have they not all their liberties, and graunts from the King? He might have said that Townes vnder a popular Govern ment were the peoples, but in a Kingdome, it is a fantasticall dreame, & the lawes deny a possibilitie of any such propertie having placed the soveraigntie of the Kingdome in the King, & such a conclusion of right is inconsistent with a kingdome.

The Armes he sayes were publique Armes bought with publique money, or not his owne. If the king have money from the publique may they take it away againe, to what end then doe they give him subsidies, if the mo­ney be stil their owne, and they may take away what is bought with it.

Had they been his owne, as much as the private house, and Armes of any man are his owne the law permitts not to vse them in away not private, but suspitious to the Commonwealth. If vulgar suspition may checke publique imploy­ment, he may not looke long to vse any thing. And is it a cryme in the kinge to vse his private wealth in a publique warr? No doubt, but his Majest: propertie is asmuch, as any private mans, els his kingly office had little honour, or strength, and he is not accountable for the vse, which he makes of his Estate either private, or publique, and there was noe feare of the vse, that the king would make, but from Traytours, that would prevent his defence.

The King by his overtalking seemes to doubt of beleife touching his patience at H [...]ll. He expected not, nor valued the beleife of Traytours, but such as soberly consider what he sayes, will not judge him over talking, but modestly expressing his owne temper, which endured soe high a pro­vocation.

The king sayes he could not, but observe, how God not long after pleaded, and avenged his cause. The Libeller sayes most men, and commonly the worst are apt to interpret the judgments of God to the justifying of their owne cause. [Page 149] Its possible the worst men may doe soe, but we see it very frequent with the best. The Prophet David often takes notice of Gods dealing with his Enemies, & wicked men. The Libeller might hence observe his Masters, the worst of men, that interpret, and expound the Judg­ments of God, and the event of providence to the justifing of their Re­bellion how often hath he in this Libell taken vp that Argument, and in this very Chapter makes an observation of Gods Judgment vpon the King, from their murther of him before his owne Pallace gate. And how frequent are their successes produced as profes of the goodnes of their cause, but his Majest: observation is not grounded vpon the event, but the evident Cryme of Hotham, which all men held Treason, but such, as would allow nothing to be Treason against the King. Although we know not the reasons of Gods ptoceedings, who often leaves good men to suffer, and wicked men prosper, yet when we see the prime in­strument of a wicked designe perish by the hands of those, whome he served in his vnlawfull enterprize, we may justly take notice of the proportion betweene the sin, and the punishment.

His comparing Sauls conjecture of an advantage God had sent him in Davids being at Keilah, hath no [...] resemblance to the taking away of Ho­thams life, Saul being not only deceived in the advantage, but consci­ous of Gods disfavour.

Hotham was safe, and successefull, while be continued true to the Parliament. But the guilt of his conscience made him vnquiet.

If God had purposed such an end for his opposition to the King, he would not have deferred to puinsh him till of an Enemy be was made the Kings friend, nor have made his repentance the occasion of his ruine. These presumptuous Re­bells dare sit in judgment vpon Gods wayes, and prescribe a rule sor his proceedings. Its true, because judgment is not executed speedily, the hearts of the children of men are set vpon evill, & the Libeller judges, that if the judgments of God be not apparent in his time, that is foorth with, they are none at all. God brought his judgment vpon the son of Ahab, and not vpon himselfe, because he humbled himselfe, and God punisht the sins of David vpon his posteritie, though he forgave him, and we may conceive the judgment of God vpon a wicked Act, not the repentance of it, though it come after in time. Strafford Duke of Buckingham was an active assistant to Rich: the 3: in his vsurpation, and after revolting from him perisht by that power he had raysed, which all men looke on as a judgment vpon his first compliance with that Tyrant, and the sate of Hotham, and that Duke hold greate pro­portion in regard of their Actions, and sufferings.

Glorious deedes done to ambitious ends finde a reward sutable. And that the Libeller might justly apply vnto Sr. Iohn Hotham, who made po­pular applause the end of his Treason, and perisht by popular fury.

Mē may heere take notice what thākes he had from the king for revolting to his [Page 150] cause. Repenting Traytours may have mercy, but they deserve not thankes, & though his punishment may be remitted, the infamy of his Act will survive.

Because God judges not by humane fancie, therefore sayes he such events, as are obvious to every fancie, are most like to be erroneous. And then such Acts of providence, as make men say surely there is a God, that jud­geth the earth are most likely to be mistaken. Although Common fan­cies are likely to be deceived, it is a sorry inference from thence, that what is obvious to every fancie weake, and wise, should be more likely to be erroneous.

The king soe farr pittied Hotham, as he thought he at first acted more a­gainst the light of his conscience, then many other men, in the same cause. To this the Libeller sayes. They who act against conscience are least of all to be pittied either at the Barr of humane, or divine Iustice. Desperate sinners, as most miserable, are most to be pittied in Christian Charitie, though ju­stice proceede more severely against them, pitties are part of justice, the Libeller is acquainted only with the operations of malice, not of pittie, whereof his whole discourse shewes him destitute, otherwise the kings pittie could not argue him destitute of the Common grounds of nature, as the Libeller inferrs, and shewes that he esteemes the com­mon grounds of nature, Acts of Tyrany, and insultation vpon others, ruine, hatred, and scorne being all the Charitie, that Sectaries practise.

He sayes the king jerkes at some mens reforming to modells of Religion, and that they thinke, all is gold of pietie, that doth but glister with a shew of zeale. To this sayes the Libeller. The pietie of his Prelacie modell, glistered more vpon the posts, and pillars, which their Zeale, and fervencie guilded over, then in true workes of spirituall edification. The repairing, and beautifying of the houses of God was the highest commendation of many of his faith­full Servants, and the Scripture gives that for the high commendation of the famous Jehojada, and we may expect spirituall edification from those, whose zeale, & fervencie carries them to bestow their goods on such Actions, nothing but destruction of Church, & pietie from those, that decry such commendable, and necessary workes, & we have found, that such men, as have pretended to spirituall edification, by traducing other mens zeale in the outward service of God, have proved at last rot­ten Carkasses guilded over, and painted sepulchers.

He is sorry, that Hotham felt the Iustice of others, and fell not rather in to the hands of his mercy. The libeller sayes he should have shewed, what mercie he had vsed to such as fell into his hands. He needed not shew that, where­of there are soe many Examples.

But sayes the Libeller, whathever one man might have expected, the whole nation found none, but had been swallowed vp in blood, had not his power failed. What neede the King produce Examples of his mercy, when his most ma [...]icious Enemies offred nothing to the contrary, but the warr, which [Page 151] they had necessitated him to make. There cannot be an Argument more convincing of the want of all justification in these Rebells, then their perpetuall recourse to an incredible assertion, that the King caused the warr, which besides the falsenes of the allegation is not of weight to argue want of mercy, when as Princes, and states may casually be engaged in a warr, and yet be farr from crueltie, or designes of revenge, and his Majest: knowne backwardnes to a warr, and moderation in it, shew his compassion as eminent to the publique, as particular persons.

The King sayes Clemencie is a deb [...], which he ought to pay to those, that crave it, since we pay not any thing to God for his mercies, but prayers, & pray­ses. This sayes the Libeller hath sound of gravitie, but the significance of no­thing pertinent. And yet it signifies, that we are to forgive others, be­cause God forgives vs. But sayes the Libeller we ought by this reason as freely to pay all things to all men. Wee ought noe doubt freely to pay what is due to all men, but the Scripture more particularly requires Clemen­cie, and forgivenes from vs in regard our selves have most neede of it from God, and the Libeller shewes a greate emptines of reason, that calls this an emptie sentence, and vpon this occasion to repeate the pay­ment of the kings dutie to the kingdome, when as he declares, that nothing, but the giving vp of his Crowne could be a discharge of his dutie, soe grave a judge is he of debts, and duties.

The King pitties Hotham, but aggravates rather then lessens, or concealos his fault. Conceale, or lessen it, he could not, aggravate he doth not, & being a King his pittie ought not to destroy his judgment, nor deceive him in the offence of those he pardons.

If a reiterating judge be worse then a Tormenter, a reiterating standerer deserves Torment. The mention of a malefactours offence, or repeti­tion of a publique transgression is farr from a Triumph, and as this Act of Hotham was a groundworke of infinite miserie: soe his Majest: deepe sense of the mischeife of that fact, might reflect on it with serious observation, and pittie without any Triumph.

He is angry that the king sayes after times will dispute, whether Hotham were more infamous at Hull, or at Tower hill. And sayes what knew he of after times, and while he sits judging the fate of that vnhappy father, and son, knew not, that the like attended him before his owne Pallace gate, and as litle knew, whether after times doe not reserve a greater infamy to the story of his life, and Raigne. The libeller well knew by the booke he seekes to answeare, that his Majest: well knew the power, & malice of his Enemies, while he wrote this, and that he expected they would shew their vtmost cru­eltie to his honour, aswell, as his life, but he was well assured their in­justice, & disloyaltie could not effect what their impietie designed, and as long as Religion, or reason inhabite the world, his story cannot be blotted in after times, but it seemes the libeller is apprehensive of fu­ture infamy, though he thinke himselfe assured of present power.

[Page 152] He would seeme an Enemy to vaine repetitions in prayers, but its only of such things, as Traytours will not pray for, otherwise there is large experience of the vaine babling of sectaries in their prayers.

He sayes its too presumptious in a written, and published prayer to take it as a favour from God before he knew it was intended him. He knew God had brought a severe punishment vpon a knowne offence, and how could this be presumption to mention it, in a published prayer, but how can the libeller call it the sacrisie named by Eeclesiastes, that practises such par­ticular thankesgivings for successes, when as the cause he maintaines, and prosecutes is soe notoriously wicked.

The King sayes Let not thy Iustice prevent the objects, and opportunities of my mercy The Libeller sayes. To folly, or Blasphemy, or both shall wee impute this, shall the Iustice of God give place, & serve the mercies of a man? all other men, who know what they aske desire of God, that their doings may tend to his glory. And doth not he, that prayes he may be able to shew mercy to his Enemies, pray, that his Actions may tend to Gods glory, Is not God glorified in the mercies of men? Is not mercy in men a guift of God, and can this tri [...]ler pretend sin in that prayer? which desires of God, that his Justice may not prevent their mercie to their Enemies, May not men pray for their Enemies, pray to have judgments diverted from them, pray to have an occasion to shew them mercy? But this libeller, that esteemes soe litle to Blaspheame is careles how falsely he charge it on others.

Vpon the listing, AND RAYSING ARMIES.

HE begins with the Kings mention of Tu­mults, the demonstrations he calls them of the peoples love, & loyaltie to the Parliament. Which in their nature more then the kings denomination were demonstrations of disobedience to law, hatred of Government, & disloyal­tie to the king. Their petitioning was in the Authors owne judgment the height of violence, & Barbarisme, which he com­pares [Page 153] to the Iron flaile, & those Armes which he cals defensive were so apparently a Trayterous histolitie, that the ends, which he assignes for them admit not the least colour for the appellation of defensive.

The King takes noe notice, that those listed about him were the beginners of these Tumults. Neither could he of soe strange an imagination.

The king sayes his recesse gave them confidence, that he might be conque­red. The Libeller sayes, other men supposed both that, and all things els, who knew him neither by nature warlike, nor experienced, nor fortunate, yet such sa­yes he are readiest to imbroyle others. How well he performes the first pe­riod of his booke not to descant on the kings misfortunes his readers may heere see, that makes the kings misfortune his reproach, and a ground of their wicked confidence to Rebell against him, but that such men are readiest to imbroyle others is not soe certaine, but vndoubted they are not readiest to imbroyle themselves, and noe valour, nor expe­rience, whereof his Majest: is wel knowne to have had a greate measure can stopp a slandrous tongue. The mischeifes brought vpon his Majest: kingdomes sprung from such persons, as sought their advantage by such broyles, which all men see the King could never expect.

The King sayes he had a soule invincible. And the Libeller sayes, what prayse is that? the vnteachable man hath a soule to all reason invincible. And is an invincible courage noe prayse? He seekes to shew his witt by ap­plying invincible to vnteachable, when as if he had cited the Kings next words, as he ought, he had lost his jest, for the King sayes, he had a soule invincible through Gods grace enabling him, but he breaketh sentences, and truth, least he should breake for want of matter.

That the King labours to have it thought, that his fearing God more then man was the ground of his sufferings. The Libeller sayes, he pretended to feare God more then the Parliament, who never vrged him to doe otherwise. And did they not vrge him to doe otherwise, when they vrged him to doe that, which was against his conscience? But there neede not more be spoken of this, for the Libeller calls that a narrow conscience, which will not follow a multitude against its owne perswasion.

He shewes his levitie beyound that Creature he calls the vulgar, who now affirmes the King was drawne by his Courtiers, and Bishopps, and yet in the beginning of his booke he sayes, that the discourses, and preach­ings of Courtiers, and Prelates against the Parliament was but a Copy taken from his owne words, and Actions, that all remissenes in Religion issued origi­nally from his owne authoritie, all miscarriages in state may be imputed to noe other person cheifely then to himselfe.

He goes on to compare the words of Saul, that he had performed the Com­maundement of God to the Kings mention of his fearing God, & the kings vphol­ding the Prelates, against the advice of the Parliament, & example of al refor­mations, is not much vnlike, if not much worse, noe neerer like, then this Au­thors writings to modestie, & loyaltie. Is the advice of the Parliament, [Page 154] and the example of all reformations equall to the expresse Commaund of God? The examples of all Reformations, himselfe tells afterward are not concurrent in the matter he mentions, and if they were soe, are all points of reformation equally necessary, and of the same obligation with the commaund of God? and was the Reformation of the Church of England noe reformation? Why then doth he say all Reformation? And is not the Church of England equall, if not superiour to any part of the world, that hath reformed? But we see what account these hi­pocrites make of the Example of all Reformation, that have set vp schismaticall confusions of Religion in contempt of all Reformation. His Majest: did noe more in vpholding the Prelates, then what the example of the most primitive times, Godly Emperours, & holy mar­tyrs instructed him in, which noe Reformation ever contradicted, and he had no reason to hearken to the advice of such, as then called them­selves a Parliament, who had broken all the lawes, and priviledges of Parliament, expelled the members, and were governed by Tumults, & a company of Bedlam Sectaries against the doctrine, and practice of the vinversall Church. The practice of Saul in persecuting David wel sutes with the course of these Rebells, but they have gone beyound him in malice, and disobedience in the matter both of David, and alsoe the Amalekites, he brake the Commaundement of God in sparing A­maleke, these traytours presumptuously breake the Commaund of God in destroying their King, & Church. And this man exceedes Sauls pre­sumption, that makes the preservation of an order continued in the Church in all ages as bad, or worse, then the sin of Saul.

He sayes acts of grace are proud, vnselfe knowing words in the mouth of any King, who affects not to be a God. Certainly this Libellers words shew him not only in affection, but in Act a proud vnselfe knowing man. Are there noe Acts of favour, noe Acts of mercy in Kings, but all of necessitie, but enough hath been said to these brainesicke dreames.

Never King was lesse in danger of violence from his subjects, till he vnshea­thed his sword, nay long after, when he had spilt the blood of thousands, they had still his person in a foolish veneratiō. Should a Christian cal that, which God Commaunded, & David practised foolish veneration, but they whose wisedome is Rebellion, hold Divine wisedome foolishnes. And was he in so litle danger from those, that held that veneration foolish, were there none, that held soe, when they affronted him, and threatned him every day? To what end should multitudes come about his Pallace, and cry Justice, when they sought murder? What would they have done if he had denyed their demaunds, shall we beleive they intended noe violence, or shall wee beleive, that they, who had seised the forts, and navy, and vsurpt the Government would have vsed noe violence to his person, when they had him, if he plyed not with them? Its true ma­ny were not wholy vnshamed at the first, but the malice, and ambition [Page 155] of others was sufficiently confirmed, and the multitude easily falls by Example.

The King complaines, that Civill warr must be the fruites of his seven­teene yeares raigning with such a measure of Iustice, peace plentie, and Religion as all nations either admired or envyed. The Libeller sayes for Iustice let the Councell table, starr Chamber, and high Commission speake the prayse of it. Wee may be assured that malefactours will never prayse Court of justice, we know Sectaries, and seducers hated the high Commission, and seditious Libellers the starr chamber, & conspiratours, & incendiaries the coun­cells of Kings, and there were noe Acts past in these places of such ex­ception, as the measure of justice, which he enjoyed was not admired, or envyed by all nations.

His mention of abolishing Parliaments detracts not from the measure of justice, peace, plentie, and Religion, & we have found what injustice hath succeeded.

The displacing of honest Iudges he hath misplaced to detract from the ju­stice of his Majest: Goverment, and as the placing of judges was in his Majest: choise, soe he might take notice, whether their places might not be better supplyed by others, and the change of two judges, for thats the number in seventeene yeares, is beneath an exception, his ray­ling declamation against corrupt Government being only in generall deserves not an answeare, and the knowne prosperitie, peace, and plen­tie of the Kingdome, are a sufficient confutation of such imaginary oppressions.

He sayes what peace was that, which drew out the English to a needeles, and dishonourable voyage against the spaniards at Cades. It was that peace the Parliament desired, and if the voyage proved successels his Majest: by preventing further danger, and preserving peace notwithstanding the miscarriage (which must be the dishonour only of the managers) suffi­ciently testifies how wel he deserved of his people for the continuance of their peace, and safetie.

He askes next what that was, which lent our shipping to a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr against the poore Protestants of Rochell. What is this against our peace at home, and though there were shipps of ours vsed against Rochel, tis sufficiently knowne they were not lent against Roc­hell, and the Dutch shipps, which were vsed, as ours were not lent to a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr.

He askes what peace was that, which fell to robb the french by sea to the im­barring all our marchants in that Kingdome. Is not this man madd, that will charge the vse of the shipping against Rochell for a Cryme, and call it a Treacherous, and Antichristian warr, and presently charge the King for making warr against the french, vpon the ground of vsing his shipps against Rochell, and call it a robbing of the french by sea, and is it possible to avoyde the losse of Marchants in case of hostilitie?

[Page 156] He proceedes to cry out on that vnblest expedition to the Isle of Ree doubt­full whether more calamitous in the succes, or designe. Was not the designe in the favour of Rochell, did they not desire it? and yet he calls the ill successe of that Action the betraying all the flower of our military youth, and best Commaunders to a shamefull surprisall, all, and execution. And who betray­ed them, and to what purpose, what advantage could his Majest: have by such a losse? And was the warr against Rochell Treacherous, and Antichristian, and the releife too? But this Libeller is resolute to defie sence, and reason, & now he hath spoken against the peace we enjoyed, whereto doth it amount, was there any interruption of our peace at home, and was there not cause for these expeditions abroade, If there were not the Parliament failed in their Councell to the King in advi­sing the warr with spaine, and complaining of the french for the mis­imployment of the shipps against Rochell?

If peace were intended vs at home, what meant these billetted souldiers in all parts of the Kingdome. Dot noth he know the meaning, that mentions Cades, and the Isle of Ree, where they were imployed, surely he is soe intent on words, as he looses his Memory, aswell as his other faculties.

But he hath found out a designe of German horse to subdue vs in our peacefull houses. These German horse have made much noyse, & yet were never discovered, and the King, who was advised to make a warr in Germany, and other places by the Parliament could not vse German horse, but against England. But what is all this to the greate measure of peace we enjoyed above other nations. Can any man, that reades this Libellers willfull impertinency judge other, then that he fights blind­fold, who would extend these forraigne voyages, which had not the face of warr at home, and continved not beyound the fower first yeares of his Majest: Raigne, to diminish the measure of our peace soe long enjoyed, and that in the middest of soe many miscarriages, and conspi­racies both at home, and abroade.

For our Religion he sayes, where was there a more ignorant, prophane, and vitious Clergie learned only in the antiquitie of their pride. The pride of these Sectaries contemnes all learning, & antiquitie, which condemnes their fantasticall, & presumptuous novelezing. The learning of the English Clergie is too well knowne to the world to receive any disreput from the Streechinge of night oules, and of Kats.

Noe wise man could see, what was left for other nations to admire or envie, but to pittie. Other nations saw who had enough to cause them to ad­mire our happines, not to pittie our condition, and of this there is a large Testimony.

But sayes the libeller, wealth, and plentie in a land, where Iustice Raignes not is no Argument of a florishing state, but of neerenes rather to ruine, & com­motion. The blessings of God, peace, and plentie are often turned into [Page 157] wantonnesse, and wickednes by the people, and are often a signe by the peoples abuse of ensuing ruine, or commotion, and of this the present condition of England is a greate Testimonie, but it was never denyed, to be the florishing state of any nation, and he will finde litle creditt to his supposition, that Justice Raignes not, where there is wealth, and plentie in a land.

There were not some miscarriages only of Government, which might escape. And of that nature are all the particulars gathred by him, if they had been true, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to arbitrary Govern­ment. There was a distemper, and disaffection to Government in many seditious seducers, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to Arbitrary Government could not consist with the oppression of that tranquillitie, and securitie of the people, which was visible to all men, the losse whereof brought on by these Rebells is too late lamemted.

That his Majeest: owned the Actions, and protected the persons of men in highest favour with him is noe argument of this vinversall distemper, no more then the vulgar cryes against rulers is an Argument of their mis­carriage, or the peoples moderation, who will have persons removed from Government, and yet not agree, who shall succeede them. It was an Argument of greate distemper in a people, that cryed out against the Kings evill Councellours, that could not judge of their Actions, but of noe vinversall distemper in the Government, neither could the king with pietie, & justice leave his Ministers to the malice of conspiratours and barbaritie of Tumults.

The king sayes, whose innocent blood hath he shedd, what widdowes, or or­phans teares can wittnes against him? The Libeller thinkes he hath gi­ven an answeare by saying the suspected poysonnig of his Father not enquired into, and he advanced, who was aceused by Parliament to be Author of the fact, and many yeares of cruell warr on his people in three Kingdomes. It is a won­der to amazement, that such, whose language hath noe Limits of truth, or modestie should not be able to forge a probable Calumnie, the Re­cords of the Parliament shew, that noe man was accused for the poy­soninge of the kings Father, nor poysoninge named, ct the fact was ful­ly enquired into, and all wittnesses examined, that had any knowledge of Circumstances touching it, and must this be the particular to prove the king guiltie, of shedding blood? We may see vpon what grounds they will draw blood, that offer such pretences for taking the blood of their king. Is it possible, that a Tyrant in seventeene yeares Raigne could not be proved guiltie of the blood of one man? And can a Re­bellion be more apparently convinced, then by the seeking a cause for it from the resistance, that is made against it, and the endeavour to sup­presse it? Was ever a cause soe barren of excuse, that had nothing, but its owne guilt for defence?

But he hath found out a scotchman, not vnacquainted he sayes with [Page 158] the affaires, who affirmes, that there hath been more Christian blood shed by the Commission, approbation, and connivance of King Charles, and his Father Ia­mes, in the latter end of their Raigne, then in the ten Roman Persecutions. And is not this a doughtie authoritie, what could he say more to prove him­selfe a false varlett? Whoever saw, or heard of this shedding of Christi­an blood, is it possible, that soe much blood should be shed, and noe man know it, but this Scotchman? Was all the world soe negligent to take notice of it, and did the Scotchman, and this Author thinke, that the blood of the late warr made vp this number, they may then expect vengeance vpon themselves, and their bloody crew for it, either heere, or heereafter. They value such, as suffred in the ten persecutions at the same rate they doe their King, and their conscience, and if they thought persecution odious, why doe they exercise a persecution vppon Chris­tians as cruell, as these persecuting Emperours?

He sayes not to speake of those many whippings, and other corporall inflicti­ons, wherewith his Raigne alsoe before this warr was not vnbloody. And is a Raigne bloody by inflicting death vpon robbers, and murtherers, or whipping, and the Pillory vpon, Cheates Infamous Libellers, and se­ditious disturbers of Government, but of these latter the number was very small not exceeding fower in seventeene yeares, and these merited the punishment they had, & an higher had not exceeded their crymes. Is the execution of law a bloody Raigne, he findes none, that suffred banishment, nor any that died in prison, but such as were restrained by or­dinary Justice.

He cannot pretend an arbitrary power in any of this, that the King in­fested the true Church is noe other language, then what good Princes all­wayes received from Sectaries, who accuse allwayes for their restraint, infesting the true Church, but all men now see they are the malignant Compamy that infest the true Church, & the seducers of simple soules.

But he hath a proofe of blood above exception, where no blood was drawne, and that is the six members, whome all men judged to have escaped no lesse then Capitall danger. Doubtles they had merited Capitall punish­ment in the judgment of all knowing men. That a just King may be of­fended for the escape of malefactours is easily beleived, but that saying the birds are flowne argues much trouble is a secret to all men, and a pro­verbe as often applyed in jest, as earnest.

The libeller sayes, that if some vulter in the mountaines could have spake, he could not have vttered fitter words at the losse of his prey. The excesses in blood, and crueltie of theis Rebells cannot be expressed to the full, by the savage nature of any Creature. The grinning of doggs howling of wolves, and hissing of Serpents are not more hideous to nature, then the petulence of vile persons against kings are abominable to Religion, and pietie.

Because Nero was vnwilling to sett his hand to the execution of a [Page 159] Common Malefactour, and wishing he had not knowne letters he would prove the King prosecuting Traytours to have noe greate aversation to blood, but it strongly proves a bloody conspiracie, when the contrivers are held innocent, and the King made the offender for seeking just pu­nishment, and the Triumphs of such, as protected those persons, and their impudent braving the King at his very doores argued their haste to the shedding of that blood, which since hath covered the Land.

Touching the cause of the warr, the King sayes, It was not my with­drawing from whitehall, for noe account in reason could be given of those Tu­mults, where an orderly guard was graunted. The libeller sayes, that if it be a most certaine truth, that the Parliament could never obtaine any guard fit to be confided in, then some account of these pretended Tumults may in reason be given. But if they be not only pretended, but apparently Tumults, there can be noe account given of them, at least the libeller vndertakes it not, and that they could not obtaine a guard fit to be confided in, is false, for they had a guard, and Commaunder of their owne nomination, though not the Earle of Essex.

The King askes, whome did he protect against the Iustice of Parliament. The Libeller sayes he endeavoured to rescue Strafford, that was from their injustice, if he had done soe.

But sayes the Libeller he endeavoured it, though with the destruction of them, and the Cittie, commaunding admittance of new souldiers into the To­wer. And is it a necessary consequent, that the admittance of new soul­diers into the Tower were to the destruction of Parliament, and Citie. But did not such, as like blood hounds, & wolves hunted the Earle of Straf­ford, that they might not loose their prey, and the sweetenes of their revenge in drinking his blood, stirr vp the Tumults to the destruction of King, Parliament, and Kingdome?

What can be disputed with such a King, in whose mouth, & opinion the Par­liament it selfe was never but a faction, and their Iustice noe Iustice, but the Dic­tates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabbles. The Parliament was never a faction in the Kings mouth, but it is in every mans mouth, that the Parliament hath been overswayed by a faction, and a faction have called themselves the Parliament. And how can the Libeller define a Parliament, but he must acknowledge that those, whome the King calls a faction were noe Parliament, and that their Actions were noe Justice, but the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabbles? himselfe prooves it by the commendation he gives the Tumults, for effecting these Acts, which he now calls the Justice of the Parliament, & noe wise man could thinke such a rabble fit to Judge of Delinquents, or that such men, who fled from their fury were thereby culpable of the Crymes objected, and the fairest Tyrall would sooner have con­demned to death, these Tumultuous accusers then the parties accused. But who can talke with such a man, as this breaker, that reputes Mo­narchy [Page 160] Tyrany, order in the Church an imposed Religion, and lawes worse then Ceremonies in Religion.

He compares the avoyding of his madd Iudicature to Catilnies flight, and excepting to the Roman Senate, and Cesars injecting scrupulous demurrs against the Decres of the senate vpon Lentulus, and Cethegus. But did either of them object, that the power of Tumults overswayed the senate, or that the senate wanted freedome, and had oppressed the members of it? If Ca­tiline had set vp a senate as Caesar did afterward, and these Rebells have in England, & oppressed the legal Government, the exceptions had been very just, but exceptions against particular senatours for private animo­sities cannot derogate from the judgment of the whole being free.

That such reasons were vrged for Strafford, was never heard at his Try­all, or other proceedings against him, the cases being contrary, for Len­tulus, and the rest were accused for conspiring against the state, & Straf­ford was accused by those, that conspired against the state, and sought to take him away for a cleerer passage to their designe.

The King vouchsafes, to the Reformation, which both Kingdomes intended noe better name then innovation, and ruine both to Church, and state, and the expelling of Bishopps out of the Church, ruine to the Church, and out of the house of Peeres ruine to the state. And he askes how happy the nation could be in such a governour, who counted that their ruine, which they thought their deliverance. It cannot be doubted, but the abolition of the order, and Government of Church and state, is an innovation, & performed by force against the King, execrable Rebellion, and the King never doubted to say, that such disorderly innovations were the ruine of Church, and state, and the in­novations, and ruines mentioned by the King to be agitated by some men are not restrained to the cause of the Bishopps, though that alone, and the manner of proceeding in regard of the injustice, violence, and the dangerous consequences, that attend it, threatned ruine to Church, and state. It is strange, that a people may mistake their ruine for their deliverance, & that a wise Prince by denying them their wil may keepe them from perishing, which their owne errours would cast them into, but such, as knew how small a part of the people, & how contemptible, affected those innovations, and how they were cherisht by the leaders of Rebellion to strengthen their partie, and how others were drawne in by hopes, and feares, to comply with a potent faction for their profit, or safetie, and how greate a partie both for number, & qualitie detested these innovations may well conclude that neither the nation thought it their deliverance, nor the Kings refusall other, then a just care, and providence for their good.

It is not likely, that the house of Peeres gave hardly their consent to the Bills against the Bishopps, that soe easily gave it to attach them of high Treason. But it is apparent they hardly gave their consent to those Bills, for they had often rejected them, and therefore his presumption is of noe weight against plaine proofe.

[Page 161] If their rights, and priviledges were thought so vndoubted in that house, then was that protestation noe Treason, and the house will become liable to a just con­struction either of injustice for soe consenting, or of vsurpation to expect, that their voting, or not voting should obstruct the Commons. The priviledges of the Bishopps had they not been vndoubted, they needed not, an Act of Parliament, nor soe many Acts of violence to take them away, nei­ther can the Commons pretend to greater right for their sitting in the one house, then the Bishopps in the other, and the Libeller hath right­ly concluded, that their protestation was noe Treason, but that their accusation by the house of Commons was a false, and vngrounded Cla­mour, and their commitment by the Lords house an odious injustice, but it could be noe vsurpation to expect, that their voting, or not vo­ting was conclusive to the Commons. To what end did the Commons offer their accusation to the Lords, if their voting, or not voting were not considerable. Is it Justice, when they concurre, & vsurpation when they dissent? But Lords house, & Commons house are vsurpers, when they obstruct the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of rabbles, and Tumults.

The Commons were not to de [...]st for five repulses of the Lords, noe not for fiftie from what in the name of the Kingdome they had demaunded, soe long as those Lords were none of our Lords, and what if they had been your Lords, were they then to desist, if so, it was more then they would doe to their King, but our, or not our makes noe difference to resolute Traytours. The Lords were soe farr their Lords, as they were not to persist by the power, wherewith they were intrusted for the kingdome in their de­maund after the Lords refusall, for to what end hath the law ordained a Lords house, and the Commons soe long practised their addresses to them, if they may doe what they please without them? Doth the vse of the name of the kingdome add any right to them, that have not the po­wer of the kingdome, and demaund things to the destruction of the kingdome? The king allowes not such a faction the name of a Parlia­ment, which hath nothing of either house, but some members, that as­sume the name without the priviledges, and authoritie, that constitu­ted it.

Though the Bill against roote, and branch passed not till many of the Lords with some few of the Commons, either enticed away by the king, or overawed by the sense of their owne malignitie deserted the Parliament, that was noe warrant for them, who remained being farr the greater number to lay aside the Bill. He well knowes they, that remained of the Lords house were an inconsi­derable number, and such, as deserted the Commons house wanted not many of the number of them, that remained, and of them, that re­mained many were overawad by force, and diverse plainely dissented to that Bill. The injustice of them, that remained was intole­rable that refused all reparation, or securitie to such, as were [Page 162] injured by the Tumults, and it was a most perfidious Act in them to enforce their members to desert the house, that they might exercise their Arbitrary power over the kingdome, the injury was so apparent, & the pretēce of malignancie so ridiculous against the deserting mem­bers, that noe sober man can imagnie enticement, or overawing to be the cause of their withdrawing, and these remaining members ought to have forborne by their dutie to the kingdome, the passing of such a Bil in the absence of soe many members, but they, that will forbeare noe degree of treason cannot probably abstaine from breakes of priviledge, and lesse injuries.

He sayes this degrading of the Bishopps was orthodoxall in the Church an­cient, and reformed. What will not this man say? Wee neede not won­der at his other impudencies, that will affirme the taking away the or­der of Bishopps orthodoxall in the ancient Church, which never wan­ted them.

The King sayes he was bound besides his judgment by a most strict, and vn­dispensable oath to preserve that order, and the rights of the Church. And sa­yes the Libeller. If the letter of that oath be not interpreted by equitie, refor­mation, or better knowledge, then was the King bound to graunt the Clergie all priviledges graunted to them by Edward the Confessour, and so bring in Popery. Equitie must be admitted in all interpretations of oaths, and soe must better knowledges, but the knowledge of other men is noe exposition to him, that takes an oath, if his owne knowledge be not convinced. The King hath sworne to preserve the priviledges of the Church, to be a protectour of the Bishopps, and by what equitie, reformation, or bet­ter knowledge would this libeller induce the King to breake this oath? If Sectaries say the calling is vnlawful against the judgment of the vni­versall Church, must the king beleive this, & thinke himselfe absolved of his oath? The King never doubted, that his oath could not binde him to sin, but he was assured, that it was a sin to breake his oath, when it was no sin to keepe it, and while his conscience was not informed of any vnlawfulnes in the matter of his oath, his sin must be the more hai­nous to act against his oath, aswell as his knowledge.

The Libeller talkes of lawes of God, and truth of the Gospell. But his schismaticall fancies must over rule lawes, and oath, & though the Ger­man Emperours, or other Kings had noe cause to leavy warrs vpon Protestant subjects vnder colour of a blinde, and literall observance to an oath, it had been a wickednes in their subjects to make a warr on them to compell them to breake that oath.

It is not to be imagined, if what shalbe established come in question, but that the Parliament should oversway the King, and not the King the Parliament. Neither can it be imagined that he, which is to be overswayed by the Parliament is a King.

By all law, and reason, that which the Parliament will not, is no [...] more esta­blished [Page 163] in this Kingdome, neither is the king bound to vphold it, as a thing esta­blished. Certainly lawes are very vainely said to be made by the King, if he have no voyce in the making of them, and if they may be vnestablis­hed without him, and it was a wickednes, aswell, as weakenes to binde him to vphold lawes, and to governe his people justly, that had not soe much as voyce in the making of their lawes, & that was bound to go­verne by wicked lawes, if the Parliament would have them, such Ima­ginary powers cannot consist with Religion, law, nor reason in the Go­vernment of England.

The King sayes had he gratified, he thinkes, their Antiepisconall faction with his consent, and sacrifised the Church Government, and Revenues to the fury of their Covetuousnes, they would then have found noe colourable necessitie of raysing an Army. The Libeller to this sayes. It was the fury of his owne hatred to the professours of the true Religion, which incited him to persecute them with the sword of warr, when whipps pillories, exiles, and imprisonments were not thought sufficient. Its certen such a generation of Traytours, as have persecuted the King with a warr, justly merited to be whipt out of all Kingdomes, and while this Libeller frequently sports at the Kings ne­cessities, he is not ashamed presently to call the warr voluntary on his part. If the Kings fury incited him to a warr, he would not soe often have sought peace, nor been denyed peace without the sacrifice of the Church.

But the Libeller sayes to colour this warr the K̄ing cannot finde where­with all, but that stale pretence of Charles the fifth, and other Popish Kings, that the Protestants had only an intent to lay hands on the Church Revenues. The King neede not a colour for making a warr, whereto necessitie en­forced him. It is apparent, that the sectaries in England intended to de­voure these Revenues, and have effected it, and they professe to seeke it by the sword, because they could not have it otherwise.

But the Libeller sayes, it was never in the thoughts of the Parliament till exhausted by warr, their necessitie seized on that for the Commonwealth, which the Luxury of the Prelates had abused to Common mischeife. They neede not have been exhausted, if reason, Justice, or Religion could have conten­ted them. They will make a warr, and robb, and steale from other men to maintaine it. Did not their pretended necessitie come from their warr to take away Episcopacy, and is not the necessitie of their owne making to get these Revenues? What if goods dedicated to Gods service were abused to luxury, were there none els in the Kingdome soe abused? Must they make choise of the Patrimony of the Church for a sacrifice to their Covetuousnes, that they may spare their pri­vate?

That the King consented to the vnlording of Bishopps at Canterbury the cheife seate of their pride, for God would have it soe. And can he tax the King for his allusions vpon the fate of Hotham, and obserring the course [Page 164] of Gods judgments, and himselfe make such an observation from the Kings passing the Bill at Canterbury? May it not be an aggravation of the offence in passing the Bill there, rather then a punishment vpon those, that were wronged by it, but Canterbury had not relation to their peace in Parliament, but in Church, and therefore his scene is mislayed.

The King sayes his consent to that Bill of putting Bishopps out of the house of Peeres was from his firme perswasion of their contentednes to suffer a present diminution of their rights. The Libeller from hence argues the pure moc­kery of a Royall assent to delude for the present. May not sober times re­voke what distempered madnes had necessitated, and [...]ad not the King just cause to thinke, that after times would see the obliquitie of that Bill?

The Libellers consequence is that we may hence perceive the wisedome, and integritie of those votes, which voted his consessions at the Isle of weig [...]t for grounds of a lasting peace. And why might they not be soe, though some of them might not be thought fitt to last long? And that by the judg­ment of both King, and houses? But what were they, that voted, were they not the Libellers Parliament, in whose behalfe he hath soe of­ten expressed his anger for the Kings disesteeme of them, and calling them a faction, and now will have neither wisedome, nor integritie in them?

He sayes from the kings pr [...]fefsing the continuance of his judgment touching Episcopacy, there is a faire justification of the Parliament, who notwithstan­ding his obstinate minde omitted not meanes, and patience to have gained him. They omitted not reproach, and violence, but other meanes, or pa­tience they vsed not, and the Libeller hath contrived a conviction of his Parliament, that their not gaining his consent to their demaunds was the cause of their warr, which he hold justified by the Kings con­tinued aversion.

The King sayes a greate shew of delinquents was made, which we [...]e but consequences of his, and others withdrawing, or defence. This sayes the Li­beller is a prettie shift to mince the name of a delinquent into a necessary con­sequent. It is injustice to make the name of delinquent a propertie, and snare for innocence. Its plaine, that the faction would have all, that adheared not to them, or left them delinquents, and if such an ex­tension be not minced, the law it selfe will be, whose Rules will not define delinquents, but the observation of them become delinquencie.

He sayes a Traytour is the consequent of his Treason, and a Rebell of his Rebellion. And such are certainly delinquents, but for saking their so­cietie is not a Cryme to denominate a delinquent, and such only were by the faction called delinquents.

The London Tumults was the Kings over [...]orne Theame, and stuffing of all his discourses. Which was not at all mentioned in this place, but tis a [Page 165] Theame of difficultie to the Libeller, and wherefore, he would stopp the beleife of it by his threed bare repetitions of the blood of the warr, delinquents, Tyrany, and Popery, which are become as vaine, as the taunts of children.

He turnes to the Scotts, and Covenanters, whome he calls misobservers of the Covenant, and askes how they will reconci [...]e the preservation of Religi­on, &c. With the Kings resolution, that esteemes all the Zeale of their prosti­tuted Covenant noe better then a noyse, and shew of pietie, &c. For the Co­venanters, and misobservers of the Covenant we leave to debate their owne controversies, but noe man knowes what he supposes, that by those principles the King might at length come to take the Covenant, and that then all had ended in a happy peace, which he hates vpon any condi­tions, but his owne.

He makes an opposition betweene the Kings t [...]lling God, that his E­nemies are many, and telling the people they are but a faction of some few pre­vayling over his Major part of both houses. Might not his Enemies be many, though a faction of a few prevailed over the Major part of both houses, and wherein doth the King misappl [...] David, or David accuse him? But the Libeller stickes not at misapplication, nor false accusations.

The King sayes he had noe passion, designe, or preparation to imbroyle his Kingdome in a Civill warr. The Libeller sayes, true, & yet formerly said, that his fury incited him to prosecute them with the sword of warr. How doth he handle his outworne Theame?

But he gives a reason, for that the King thought his Kingdome to be Is­sachar, that would have couched downe betweene two burthens of Prelaticall su­perstition, and Civill Tyrany. As his Majest: subjects had peace without burthens, soe the rest of Issachar was more eligible, then the blood, and Treacherie of Simeon, and Levi, whose rage, and crueltie their Father cursed vpon his death bedd, but such attempts the libeller likes better then Issachars ease.

He sayes the King had made preparation by terrour, and preventive force. The fury of a warr is come to terrour, and preventive force. Its cer­taine the Rebells had vsed all meanes to prevent his defence, & his ter­rour must be litle, whose force they had surprised.

The King sayes God will finde out bloody, and deceitefull men, many of whome have not lived out halfe their dayes. The Libeller sayes, It behoved him to have been more cautious, how he tempted God til his owne yeares had been further spent. Is it temptation to rely on the truth of Gods word? And may not innocent persons, whose lives are ready to be taken away by blood thirstie Tyrants reflect vpon Gods word touching wicked mens being cut of, though they see their owne life expiring?

The King in his prayer sayes, that God knew the cheife designe of this warr was either to destroy his reason, or force his judgment. The Libeller [Page 166] sayes This is hideous rashnes accusing God before men to know that for truth, which all men know to be false. And is it not horrid presumption in the Libeller to say all men know that to be false, which himselfe confesses true. And we must expect, that the wickednes of these Rebels, which accuse veritie of vntruth will reproach the sinceritie of his Majest: in praying for his Enemies with hipocrisie, their owne corruption exclu­ding confession of others integritie.

Vpon their seizing the MAGAZINS, AND FORTS.

THe beginning of all warr may be descerned by the Councells, and preparations foregoing, not only by the first Act of hostilitie. And by Councells, and prepa­rations foregoing, such as were the alteration of the Government, which this breaker confesses to be their cheife end, and without which noe peace could be graunted, we may easily conclude, who made the first Act of hostilitie, for these pretences, which he musters vp have neither the nature of Councells, nor prepa­rations for the warr, but are made excuses for Acts of hostilitie, which they would not have pretended, had they not begun the warr. The particulars neede not examination, but shall only be named to lay open the nakednes of their pretences.

And first he sayes noe King had ever more love at his first comming to the Crowne. Its true, but that moved envy in the seditious faction, who sought to infuse contrary inclinations into the people.

He sayes never people were worse requited first by his mistrust, that their li­berties were the impairing of his Regall power. He had soone cause to mis­trust, that the conspiratours plotted to vndermine his Regall power, vpon pretence of the peoples rights, & to that purpose raysed jealosies among them, the originall of all Rebellion.

Next by his hatred to all those, who were esteemed Religious, doubting, that their principles too much asserted libertie. His Majest: profession, and prac­tice [Page 167] sufficiently vindicate him from this aspersion to hate those, that were esteemed Religious, but his pietie permitted him not to esteeme hipocriticall sectaries Religious, and his prudence instructed him, that these schismatickes, which this Libeller calls Religious maintained principles destructive to Government, which they then abiured, but now avow.

That this was seene by his persecuting, which was never seene, for the dissolution of Parliaments he hath been already answeared, but the vn­truth, which he hath added, whether more ridiculous, or abominable may not passe vnobserved, which is, that these dissolutions were after they had graunted more money, then would have bought the Turke out af Morea, and set free all the greekes. And yet the Parliament gave more to the Scotts for invading England. Doth this grosse Mountebanque thinke, that the value of a subsidie in England, & the number of them, that were graun­ted to the King are soe vnknowne, what owles, and buzzards doth he thinke would cast their eyes on his papers? surely, if they be saleable, it is for sport, or scorne, and he might aswell have said, it was enough to subvert the Turkish Empire.

He sayes the King tooke Councell, how he might subdue them to his will. The reason of this pretence is to excuse their Rebellious conspiracie to subdue him to their will.

The designe of German horse is a bugbeare long since derided. Billetting of Souldiers in all parts. Which were raysed, and imployed in that warr, which the Parliament advised, shewes that impudence it selfe is banke­rupt in pretences for their villany.

That the pulpitts resounded all propertie to the King, and passive obedience to the subject. Propertie they medled not with, but it was their dutie to God, to preach the kings soveraignitie, & the peoples passive obedience, and what affinitie hath such preaching with Councells, and preparati­ons for a Civill warr.

His mention of exactions cannot be omitted, though false, & imper­tinent. Disarming of Trayned bands is not done by vsing some of their Armes in the publique service, and it was farr from preparation to a Civill warr, to vse Armes against a stranger, but what is this, that was done soe many yeares before?

The frained bands he sayes were the most proper strength of a free nation. And yet they are not permitted in some Republiques, though institu­ted, and improved by our Kings.

That Ammunition was ingrossed, and kept in the Tower was farr from the designe of a Civil warr on the kings part, it being a right of his preroga­tive, but a signe of their conspiracie, and intention of Rebellion, that were troubled at the kings care for overseeing the Ammunition of his Kingdome, and preventing the misimployment either at home, or abroade.

[Page 168] The not buying without licence, when noe man was denyed to buy can­not be interpreted a restraint, and the high rate could not imply any designe of warr, it might be of benif [...]t. But were not all the places of England not only allowed, but commaunded to have their full stores for their trained bands, and had not all shipps their full proportions of Ammunition? These are potgun preparations for a Civill warr.

But sayes the Libeller, these were his Councells, either to a Civill warr, if it should happen, or to subdue without a warr, which is all one. Noe doubt its all one in the Authors Judgment, for he esteemes the meanes to pre­serve obedience a sufficient ground for Rebellion. But if the King provided against a Civill warr, if it should happen, is that a reason in subjects to make it? And doe not they begin the hostilitie, by whome this warr happens, and if the Kings preparations were, if a Civill warr should happen, must not this Civill warr happen by others, not him, who prepared only to prevent, and defend:

Thus farr he hath left the first Act of hostilitie vpon his Masters, and now he comes to the raysing of two Armies against the Scotss, which were both disbanded before this warr begun, and who was the defen­dent the world well knowes.

But he sayes the latter of them was raised to the most perfidious breaking of a solemne pacification. His rayling signifes his owne impietie, and want of matter that insteede of declaring the fact of the first English hostilitie seekes for scandalls from a Scotch Treatie, and would make the King persidious in his defence, because they are Traytours in their assault.

He comes now to the beginning of this Parliament, and talkes of bringing vp the Armies, and his often decanted Irish Papists, and french Army, that never struke blow to be Councells for beginning a Civill warr, but these apparitions were vanisht long before the warr begun. The letters to the King of Denmarke have been sufficiently cleered from being Councells, or preparations to make a Civill warr, and the Libel­ler cannot fix any preparations vpon the king, but in case a warr should be made vpon him, which was then plotted, and evident to all knowing men.

He sayes these, and many other were his Councells towards a Civill warr. If the king should have taken noe Conncell to have resisted the violence, not only prepared, but begun against him, it had been vn­kingly, and vnnaturall, knowing how maliciously, and perficiously the conspiratours had called in the Scots, bribed them with vast summs of money racked from the people vpon pretence of the kings service, how they had treacherously corrupted diverse officers, and souldiers of the kings army, how they had dispersed false reports of him, and his A [...]tions to disaffect the people, how they had given li­cence [Page 169] to all lewde persons to preach heresie, and Treason in the pul­pits, how they had endeavoured to weaken the bonds of Government by punishing men for observing the lawes, by commending, and re­wardinge malefactours, how they had affronted the king, and stirred vp the rabble to threaten violence to him, if he refused their demaunds, and must he not now prepare for his defence, or submit his judgment?

His refusing to disband that Irish Army shewes noe intention of his to a Civill warr, but the Rebells earnest sollicitation for the disbanding of that Army, and the English Army, likewise leaving the Scots vn­disbanded shewes their false pretentions, and malicious preparations by disarminge the king of all Armies to subdue him to their wil. These Rebells, that seized the Tower to strengthen themselves for making a warr would have it beleived, that the Kings keeping it, which had all­wayes been in his possession, was a preparation to make a warr, and while they affronted him in his Court every day would have his guard preparations to make a warr.

These waggons of ammunition to be prepared by the King in that low condition, and want of all things for warr, which he then was in, are somewhat strange, although necessary for him against the continued Acts of violence vsed by the Tumults, and avowed by the saction in Parliament, and their continuall preparations for a warr, and it is a de­monstration of the Libellers impudence, that would have such con­temptible preparations in respect of the Rebells force by land, and sea, and possession of the forts, Navy, and Citie of London, and Magazins of the Kingdome, should be for the making of a warr vpon them, which was in all reason soe vnable to withstand them.

The appearance of some hundreds of horse at Kingston, shewes how gree­dy they are of pretences, that make such a scare crow a cause of their Rebellion.

And the Queenes buying of Armes, and the forces raysed in yorke shire were much lesse then needed, when the Rebells had assumed the Mi­litia of the Kingdome vnder their owne Commaund. And their petitio­ning the King for peace (which the Libeller mentions to be that while) was that the King would submit to their Government, and doe what they required, and with what face now could any ingenuous man de­ny, that the cheife designe of the warr was either to destroy his per­son, or force his judgment.

As to act of hostilitie, it is not much materiall, in whome it first begun after such Counoells, and preparations. It is materiall to the truth of the fact, whatever the Councells were, but he hath not named a Councell, or preparation for warr but succeeding the designe of Rebellion, and vio­lence begun, against their rage, all that he supposes on the Kings part, that looked towards a warr being only defensive, and on the part of the Rebells plainely oppressive,

[Page 170] But he sayes in the Act alsoe the King will be found to have had the pre­ceedenice, if not at London by the assault of his armed Court vpon the naked peo­ple, and his attempt vpon the house of Commons, yet certainly at Hull, first by his close practices on that Towne, next by his seidge. Was the Kings going with his guard to the house of Commons a proper army to make a wa [...], they heeretofore called it a breach of priviledge, and is it now growne soe big with time to be called a warr? And must that, which continued not an hower be defended with an Army raysed many moneths after? And is his Iron flaile, and the Parliaments Clients, that were soe terri­ble to make lawes by force become a naked people, & the ragged Re­giment a formidable Army? But if these doe not prove the King to have done the first act, for it seemes he doubted it would not, yet at Hull he is sure, and if the King had fortified all, or any of the Townes of his Kingdome, is that the act of warr? Is not the law evident, that he may doe it, and hath it not been the approved practice of all ages? And if he beseidged Hull, who began the warr, they that surprized it, or he that would recover it? And yet the Libeller gravely concludes from this fardle, that the King is truly charged with beginning the warr, though the particulars themselves evince the contrary.

He sayes that at the Isle of weight, he charged it vpon himselfe at the pu­blique Treatie. What he did at that Treatie is well knowne to be in or­der to the procuring of peace, and though they, that treated with him would have an Act to acquitt them for their securitie, yet that could not alter the fact, and the King tooke nothing on himselfe by consen­ting to passe an act, if the Treatie tooke effect, which act by law, to whose interpretation only it was subject, could not be expounded to charge the king with the beginning of that warr, but so mainfest is the vntruth of their pretence, that they would aide their cause by inferen­ces from an Act of their owne importunitie, and violence for their owne securitie.

He sayes the securing of Hull was noe su [...]prifal, but a timely prevention. But was it not allwayes in the Kings power, and Custodie before, and what they did to Hull, they did to his other Castles, and is it noe surprizall to dispossesse those, that are in possession?

He sayes it were folly beyound ridiculous to count our selves a free nation, if the King against the Parliament might appropriate to himselfe the strength of a whole nation, as his proper goods. And is it lesse ridiculous to count them­selves a free nation, if the Parliament may appropriate to themselves all the strength of the kingdome, as their owne proper goods against al the people, are they more a free nation, because they have many Masters? Our nation justly accounted it selfe a free nation, and yet a king had all the strength of the kingdome appropriated to him, as his owne proper goods, and they have seene how their libertie was preserved by that constitution, & how it hath been lost by vsurpation of this right in the name of Parliament.

[Page 171] The Parliament had never the life; and death of lawes in their power, and the people never thought it for their Securitie, that they should, and the Libeller may with as good reason call succeeding acts preventions aswell, as this taking of Hull a Securing. Are not the taking of Townes Acts of hostilitie vnder what name soever, had not the taking of Hull been an Act of hostilitie in an Enemy? And is it lesse in a Rebell? The question is now of an act of hostilitie, not the right of it, and that the ta­king of a Towne is not an act of hostilitie wilbe incredible to the mea­nest capacitie, and noe lesse, that the Parliament have a power of hosti­litie against the king.

He sayes the law of the land is at best but the reason of Parliament. And the reason of Parliament is noe reason if it differ from the opinion of Secta­ries, witnes his censure of voting the kings concessions a ground for peace: & it were as dissonant from law, as reason, that a kingly Govern­ment should be subject to the reason of a Major part in Parliament.

The king sayes, they knew his cheifest Armes left him were those only, which the ancient Christians were wont to vse against their persecutors, prayers, and teares. At this the Libeller makes an exclamation, O Sacred reverence of God, respect, and shame of men, whither were ye fled, when these hipocrisies were [...]ttered? Was the Kingdome at all that cost of blood to remove prayers, and teares. Shakespeare could not have framed a fitter exclamation for Rich. 3. Doubtles reverence of God, respect, and shame of men are fled from this man, that makes this vaine, & prophane outcry. Doth it follow, that because the King got strength, therefore he was possest of it, when they rebelled against him? doth not he reproach him, that all his adherents hardly amounted to the making, vp of one ragged Regi­ment strong enough to assault the vnarmed house of Commons? And can he thinke there is a God, that cryes out sacred reverence of God, vpon occasion of these words of his Majest: was ever king more desti­tute of aide, and might more truly vse that expression then he. Those thousands of Cavileers, whose number he soe often despised, and now ad­vances are a conviction of his contempt of God, and men, and his pro­phanes is more abominable, then any oaths, curses, and carouses he sup­poses. And the numbers mustred on Heworth Moore were a sufficient proofe of the Kings want of Armes to make a warr, as they were then the mat­ter of the Rebells scorne, & were not the Libeller as vaine, as wicked, he would not have mentioned the sale of the Crowne Iewells, to buy Ar­mes for a ground of his exclamation, when nothing could shame him more, were he capable of it, for may not a man justly say, that the chei­sest Armes left a King were prayers, & teares, when all his visible mea­nes to procure Armes were the Jewells of his Crowne? & those guns, which were bought with the Jewells, he calls deadly instruments of warr, but the instruments of Rebells are harmeles, and vnkilling. Men of corrupt consciences thinke they may prophane the name of God at [Page 172] their pleasure by making their lewde constructions of words, and Acti­ons. And although this libeller jeere at the Kings weakenes in the be­ginning of this warr, which was visible to all the world, & the strength he found was vnexpected by his Enemies, and that all men judged pra­yers, and teares his cheifest Armes, yet because strength came to him, the Libeller calls Ammunition, Regiments, and Brigades, prayers, and reares, his ordinary Armes being slander, vntruth, and prophanes.

In his next words he sayes, they, who fought for the Commonwealth have by the helpe of better prayers vanquished. It seemes he holds not their pra­yers their cheifest Armes, who trusted more in other Armes, then their prayers, and might thence have reasonably concluded, that their suc­ces was not given to their prayers, but permitted for the sins, & scourge of the nation.

The King reckons not the want of the Militia in reference to his owne pro­tection, as his peoples. Not consideringe sayes the Libeller, how ill for seven­teene yeares he had protected them, and the miseries are like a forked Arrow, it cannot be drawne out without incision of more flesh. He hath told vs, that those miseries of seventeene yeares were peace, and plentie, which those merciles Phisitians will cure by an endles warr, letting out the blood, and tearing the flesh of the afflicted people, and wee now descerne what Phisike they intended for the Kingdome. Sawes to dis­member them, swords to lance them, and famine to pine them, till they were sufficiently purged of their former prosperitie, and he neede not have vsed soe many shifts to deny the beginning of the warr, when he sayes the cure of the Kingdome was to be made with incisions. What want of protection appeared in those seventeene yeares, never people were more secure? But the man mistakes the scene of his exclamation, as his Sermonizers there notes, & tell the people of suffring that knew none among them.

He sayes the wings of faith may be mistaken for the wings of presumption, Presumptuous men are mistaken of the wings of faith, and this Libel­ler hath sufficiently exprest himselfe one of them, and may feare by his presumption to fall head long.

The King sayes, that the Parliament have hung the Majest: of King-shipp in an airy imagination of Regalitie betweene the priviledges of both houses, like the tombe of Mahomett. To this sayes the Libeller, he knew not that he was prophesying the death, and buriall of a turkish Tyrany, that spurned downe those lawes, which gave it life, and being, soe strong, as it endured to be a regulated Monarchy, he was not prophesying, but relating a plaine story how a just Monarchy was opprest by a Turkish imposture, and Tyrany, and an Empire sett vp in an Army of Janizaries, that spurned downe al law, and Religion, and as the Turkish doctrine of propogating their super­stition by blood, and warr was preached vnto the people, as their dutie to doe the like for their new hereticall fancies, soe their [Page 173] deceites in making the King a fantastique supposition, and his authoritie nothing els, but the opinions of the two houses was as grosse, and lewde, as the imaginary Miracle of Mahometts Tombe.

From the Kings words touching the vse of the Militia, that he would but defend himselfe soe farr, as to defend his good subjects from these mens vio­lence, who perswade the world, that none but wolves are fitt to be trusted with the Custody of the sheepeheard, and his flocke. The Libeller would inferr this a cleere confession from his owne mouth, that if the Parliament had left him the sole power of the Militia, he would have vsed it to the destruction of them, and their friends. And is an vse for defence against wrong, and fraude, an vse to destruction? And if the faction called Parliament be not permitted to destroy the sheepeheard, and his flocke, is it a destruc­tion to them? But they knew themselves wolves, and could not be se­cure, while any power was out of their hands, & therefore would per­swade, that they were fittest to be trusted with that, which was the sole defence against their rapacitic.

He sayes the King hath been often told, that he had noe more power over the sword, then the law. But who told him soe? Never any but knowne Rebells Parliaments have allwayes said the contrary, and the practice of it in all times was never questioned. Though Kings cannot be or­dinary Judges, yet all Justice slowes from them, and by their Commis­sions, and because their condition, and place requires, that Justice be administred by their deputies according to the Custome of all Go­vernments, therefore they have not power to vse the Militia, which is most proper to their place, and cannot be seperated from their person, could not be told by reasonable men.

The pretended feare of Rebells, that he may by this power controll the law they will not extend to their owne power of the militia, and may not their Rebell generall controll all lawes by the power of his Ar­my? And doth he not? The subjects of England vnderstood the se­curitie of their lawes to rest in their King, whose interest they knew it was to preserve them. Tyrany, and breach of lawes would make his Estate vnsecure, and dangerous, and therefore they fought to de­fend him against such, as would destroy their lawes, and him. But in this clamour of the Libeller he only seekes to vilifie Monarchicall Government, and to perswade all people, that live vnder Kings, that they are not free, and vnderstand not what is libertie, as is in other formes of Government the people were not Commaunded, and might chuse their owne lawes, and order their warrs. There is frequent ex­perience in the Roman Commonwealth of the Rebellion of the peo­ple vnder ptetence of libertie, and seditious inclinations will assoone take occasion to object Tyrany to senates, & Parliaments, as kings What state can those Rebells frame, that may not degenerate into a Tyrany, [Page 174] but they only feeke pretences for their Rebellion against the present Government to transferr it to themselves.

The King is contented to resigne his power for his owne time. And sayes the Libeller he is carefull, wee should be slaves to his posteritie, and leaue vs the legaice of another warr about it. There is noe doubt, but the Rebells desired the Militia to enslave the people, and destroy the king, and they would rather be devills then subjects. This Libeller makes noe diffe­rence betweene a subject, and a slave, and though they pretended the setling of the Militia in respect of present danger, yet they are soe im­pudent to reject the kings offer to settle it for his owne time.

He sayes the King calls the Parliament a many headed Hydra of Govern­ment, and not more eyes then mouths, which he falsely recites, for the King sayes, As this many headed Hydra of Government makes a shew to the people to have more eyes to see, soe they will finde it to have more mouths too to be satis­fied, and heere the Libeller according to his custome answeares sense with non sense, for he sayes, surely not more mouths, nor soe wide, as the disso­lute rabble of his Courtiers both hees, and shees, if there were any males among them. Doth he make a question, whether any males, and yet talke of a dissolute rabble? And are the new senatours commaunded single life to prevent the generation of Traytours? But the Kingdome findes, that those numbers of leane kine have devoured more in seven yeares, then all the Courtiers in seven hundred.

He sayes to dispute what kinde of Government is best would prove a long Theame, it sufficeth, that his reasons heere for Monarchy are found weake, and inconsiderable. We have the word of a grave Author for it, who hath made long invectives, & yet never handled the Theame, nor answeared any one reason produced for Monarchy, & though it be a long Thea­me to dispute what Government were best in his judgment, yet he might have made the question shorter by disputing, whether subjects might Rebell to subvert the Monarchy vnder which they live, And he would have Tyrany a ground for Rebellion, and that Tyrany to be Monarchy, aud if the dispute be long, the solution wilbe very easie.

The King is not our sun, though he would be taken for it. And why did he say, that the sun in all figurative vse, and signification beares allusion to a King, & blames the king for his comparison of the Earle of Strafford, and heere reprehends the allusion to himselfe? but they wilbe the sun, and set the world on fire.

He askes wherefore we should not hope to be governed more happily without a King, when all our miserie hath been by a King, or by our necessary vindicati­on, and defence against him. He may not well hope to be governed hap­pily by those, that have gotten power by wicked Arts. An vnjust power wil seeke to support it selfe by the same meanes it was raysed. It cannot be hoped, that they will governe happily, that seeke the oppres­sion of the greatest part of the people, and that can secure their private [Page 175] fortunes, what ever become of the Kingdome. They cannott hope for Gods blessing, which only can make happy vpon the many wilfull, per­ [...]uries, hipocrisies, & cruelties, which they vsed to vsurpe this Govern­ment, and the persecution, and murther of their lawfull soveraigne, and they, that pretēded miserie they knew not for a ground to change their Government, will finde it by their folly, and madnes.

He sayes the King would be thought enforced to perjury by having graunted the Militia, by which his oath bound him to protect the people. The Libeller as­kes, if he can be perjured in graunting that, why doth he refuse for no other cause the abolishing of Episcopacie? The Libeller himselfe hath exprest other causes of his refusall to abolish Episcopacie, but why may not one be perjured in both, being equally bound by his oath. If the Libeller have a sense in this, its very misticall, vnles he meane, that a man neede not feare many perjuries, that committed one.

The protection of Delinquents was no part of his oath, but of the innocent, and that he ought to doe against popular fury, and any vsurpt authoritie vnder what name soever.

That he was to protect by such hands, as the Parliament should advise him, was noe part of his oath, and he could poorely protect, that must expect such hands, as others should allow him, that were an oath to as litle vse, as the power it supposed.

He may not hold a violent, and incommunicable sword over vs vnder the shew of protection. And must there not be a sword of protection, because it may be turned to violence, this is Rebells Logicke, that would have no Judges, because they may be corrupt? & these, that terrifie the people with the dangers of violence vnder lawfull Governours vse power most Tyranically, but wherefore incommunicable, he thinkes it a thun­dering word to startle the people like Arbitrary Government, and fun­damentall lawes. Is the sword of the supreame power communicable, if it be in many hands, what if they fight one with another, which is the sword then to protect the people, and how will they fight for their Li­berties?

The King sayes, that his yeilding the Militia was from the love of publique peace, and assurance of Gods protection. The Libeller askes, wherefore this assurance of Gods protection came not till the Militia was wrung out of his hands. Whence can he conclude, that it came not till then? But the wringing of the Militia out of his hands shewes how impudently these men pretend right, or truth for their Actions, must a man give vp his strength, when it is demaunded, because he hath an assurance of Gods protection, and because he sees some reason to part with it, as the king did for love of publique peace, must he not therefore have an assurance of Gods protection? his holding it fast was his dutie, and the wringing it from him hath open injustice both in the Act, and intention. And the Libellers prophanes in jeering at the kings saying, that God was able [Page 176] abundantly to compensate him, as he did to Iob whatever honour, power, or li­bertie Chaldeans, sabeans, or the Devill himselfe deprived him of saying Iob vsed noe Militia, nor Magazine at Hull. Is not vnlike the Apostates scoffing at the Christians patience, and suffering.

The King sayes, Although they take all from him, yet can they not obstruct his way to heaven. The libeller sayes, tis noe handsome occasion to tell vs whi­ther he was going. And hath it been an vnhandsome occasion in the saints of God to take occasion from their afflictions to declare their resoluti­ons? But these are his common censures.

He sayes private prayers in publique aske something of whome they aske not. But prayers vpon a publique occasion lose not their reward for being publique.


THE King vses plausibilitie of large, and indefi­nite words to defend himfelfe at such distance, as may hinder the eye of Common Iudgment from all distinct view, and exa­mination of his reasoning. It is the Libellers labour to keepe his reasoning from Common view, and there­fore seekes to divert the readers by Chimericall sup­positions, and invectives against Monarchy, and repeated common pla­ces of misgovernment. Vpon examination the Kings plaine, and dis­tinct reasoning will appeare convincing to every right judgment.

The Libeller sayes. The king shewes not, how it can happen, that the peace of a people should be inconsistent with the conscience, and honour of a King. And doth this man hold, that the King ought to sacrifise Religion, Justice, and pietie for the peace of his people? Shall he destroy inno­cent men, and persecute Christians to procure peace? Or are these things consistent with honour, & conscience? and may not such things be desired by a wicked people in order to peace? And therefore the Libeller vainely presses, that nothing is more agreeable to the conscience, and honour of a King, then to preserve his subjects in peace.

[Page 177] And is there anything more contrary to the conscience, & dutie of subjects, then to procure a Civill warr, by demaunding concessions of their King, which in honour, and conscience he cannot grannt, & which being graunted would be noe ground for a lasting peace, though it a­voyded a present warr.

The Libeller askes which of the propositions were obtruded on him with the point of the sword, till he with the point of the sword thrust from him both propositions, and propounders. A strange question in this Libeller, that hath soe often obtruded the feares, and terrours raysed in the King by the Tumults, and Iron flaile, seizing of the Magazins, and not leaving him a sword, that had a point to thrust, but this Theame is too much soyled by soe often repetition, and yet he proceedes to talke of merci­les obtrusions, which for almost twentie yeares the King had been forcing vpon tender consciences by all sorts of persecutions. And these tender consciences he will allow to be preferred before the peace of the Kingdome. Truly these are not large, and indefinite words, but apparent absurdities to the eye of every Common judgment, that the pretended conscience of every hipocriticall sectarie must be preferred to the peace of a King dome, and the King must be allowed none, but lose life, and Kingdome, or prostitute his conscience. The Libellers examination of the Kings booke, it seemes was noe other, then of his owne writings, that huddles vp contradictions, and absurdities soe obvious to the first sight. His la­bour to declaime against persecution is not matter of fa [...]t, and the imper­tinencie of it hath been already sufficiently detected.

The king sayes Many things are required of him, nothing offred in requit all. And the Libeller demaunds. What could satiate the desires of this man, who being King of England, and Master of almost two millions yearely was still in want. And yet the Masters in the new state affirme in their decla­ration, that the constant Revenue of the Crowne exceeded not a hun­dred thousand pound a yeare, And why should not the King expect contributions from his subiects, aswell as al his Predecessours still had? And why will this man deny him supplies, that soe often obtrudes his wants, and he will have the King content with Rebells Charitie, and allowes them to take al from him, when they list, as the subjects money, this is the supreame honour, and Revenue, that the king ought to con­tent himselfe with.

It was for honours sake, that they put the King vpon the giving part, not that it belonged to him of right, for he sayes all lawes are in the hands of the Parliament, and King-shipp it selfe. He sayes it, and yet we must beleive him, that England was a Monarchy, if the Majestie were not in the king, how was it other, then a republique, and it was for honours sake, that they have been subjects these many hundred yeares, wherefore would he have the world beleive warrs were made betweene compe­ [...]tours for the Crowne of England; was it only to be a king in a play, [Page 178] but we finde, that what Rebells can attaine by power, they will assert for right, and they, which have had soe many denialls, and have profes­sed conscientious, subjection at last come to say, it was for honours sake, and of forme, not necessitie, that they were subjects.

The Libeller proceedes to shew, that Monarchy cannot permit the requisites necessary to societie. That the will of one man in Government is con­trary to freedome. And why not the will of five hundred to the free­dome of the rest, as much as that one? These men thinke that their clamour against the power of one man hes a greate influence vpon the ignorant people, which might have had some beleife before they had tryed their new Masters. If we looke vpon the most ancient sto­ries of the world, we finde the people both in peace, and warr com­maunded by one man, nature teaching the necessitie of one generall in an Army, and the Government, which God himselfe appointed to his people was by one man, and as moyses was at first, soe were his successours, and the kings after Saul, and David, and this Libeller can speake nothing of this power of one man, but must censure, and vilifie Gods owne institution, he offers nothing against Monarchy but what hes equall opposition to Parliament, and all formes of Government, for the peoples good, for which he sayes the king hath his rights, will assoone become a pretence for Rebellion against any Rulers, as kings.

His denyall, that the King is not greater then his Parliament, is only opposinge his bare word to all sense, and reason, for doth the grea­ter petition the lesse, and yet the Parliament constantly petition the king.

He sayes the King can doe noe wrong. And have not they then, that pretend he had done wrong committed disobedience, and wrong?

The King can doe noe right but in his Courts. And if they be his Courts, and his deputies, and doe all in his name, doth it not follow, that it is his doing? And though the kings sitt not ordinarily in their Courts, yet they have often sate in severall Courts, and in Parliament the King himselfe gives orders, as appeares by the Presidents of all times, and wherefore did the Parliament preferre their petition of right to the King, and importuned his answeare, if he had noe power to doe right, but by his Courts? But what concernes the administration of Justice by deputies is not peculiar to England, but to all other Kingdomes.

Without his Courts he is noe King. And yet they are his Courts, and cannot sitt, but by his graunt.

If the King doe wrong in the highest degree, he must doe it, as a Tyrant, not as a King of England. But he is still King of England, though a T [...]rant, and if subjects may judge their King, the ordinary acts of soveraigntie wilbe wrong in the highest degree.

[Page 179] If he cannot, as one greater, give oft to the Parliament, as the Libeller sup­poses, and that it may be termed the Courtesie of England to aske any thing of the King. They would not have importuned the Acts, that have passed this Parliament, nor have vsed their Iron flaile to obteine them, and by his rule subjection is noe more the Courtesie of England, then all other Countreyes,

We never forced him to part with his conscience, but it is he, that would have forced vs to part with ours, and doth he that refuses the demaund of ano­ther, force his conscience, that demaunds? Doth the Kings denyall force his subjects consciences, because they force themselves to Re­bell? and enforce him to say what they will have him.

The Authors descant vpon the Kings words of the incommunicable Iewell of his conscience discovers, how he hath exposed his owne to the flatterie, and slaverie of his Masters, and had he thoughts of conscience he would not have valued it at the basest price.

The breeding of Most kings hath ever been sensuall, and most humoured. He speakes it of his owne sense, and inclination to such base offices. Kings have greatest cause to avoyde such breeding, and persons of such condition.

The kings dissent from his whole kingdome is a supposition of that, which never was, and were impossible ever to happen, but should it happen, they that are governed must submitt to the governour, and that by all the Rules of divine, and humane law.

The Libeller saying the king preferrs his love of truth before the love of his people the Kings words are, the love I have of my peoples place hath greate influence vpon me, but the love of truth, and inward peace hath more. And who thinkes not, that it ought to have soe? For his search of truth, he had gone amisse, if he had rested on those propounders, which the Libeller prescribes him. And that vnaccountable Prerogative, which the Libeller sayes is the truth he loves, would have been judged a truth by the Libeller, if he had reteined either feare of God, or love to his Countrey.

It is our ill hap, that three kingdomes should be pestred with one conscience, which scrupled to graunt what the Parliament advised him. But it was the miserie of the three kingdomes, that a faction of depraved men, that had cast away conscience should oversway the Parliament, and demaund graunts for their owne ambition against the king­dome.

These scruples to many he sayes seeme pretended, to others vpon as good grounds may seeme reall. And to this it seemes the Libeller inclines, for noe reason wil permitt, that he should suffer soe much vpon a pretence of conscience.

It was the just judgment of God, that he, who was soe cruell, and remorse­les to other mens consciences, should have a conscience soe cruell to himselfe. [Page 180] And were not they, that were soe cruell to his conscience, condemned by their owne being heerein the instruments of hell to afflict the cons­ciences of others, but these miscreants can sport themselves with their owne si [...]s, and others, sufferings. Hath he made asmuch as a pretence of the Kings crueltie to any mans innocencie.

The Libeller recites, that the King said he thought fit to deny some things in honour, & Policie, though he could approve them, which is not at al said by the King, but that some things, which a King might approve, yet in honour, & Policie might be denyed at some time to some men. And who doubts it, can there be a want of such considerations in a King?

Good Princes thought it their happines to be allwayes graunting. How could that be, if it be true, which he sayes they had nothing to graunt? But good subjects never demaunded that, which should make their King vnable to graunt any more.

He remembers himselfe now, that good things were to be graunted for the things sake, indifferent things for the peoples sake, and he hath made it his continued Theame, that the King could graunt nothing in favour, but all was necessary in Justice, and it is apparent, that the kings large concessions invited these ingratefull Rebells to make those shameles demaunds, which themselves knew noe king in honour, Policie, and Justice could graunt.

Vndoubtedly his Coronation oath bindes him to a generall, and implicite con­sent to whatever the Parliament desired. And then vndoubtedly the king must be in worse condition then any subject, for noe man but he is bound to such a blinde obedience, and it is a strange blindenes in this man to offer such a thing to be beleived, which himselfe holds incredi­ble, for he sayes, the Kings oath cannot binde him against necessary reforma­tion. And can it then binde him to make wicked lawes, which must be reformed? Is the Parliament infallible, & may they not make ill lawes? What is the reason, that the Libeller, and his Sectaries would not give obedience to Acts of Parliament vpon pretence of conscience, & ought the king to consent to such lawes, as the subjects ought not to obey?

The King ought not to vie wisedome with the Parliament, and why then doe the Libeller, and his Sectaries vie wisedome with all former Par­liaments?

Any of the Parliament may as farr excell him in the guift of wisedome, as he them in place, and dignitie. But its very vnlike, and neere to impossible, especially, if we looke to the experience of all times, and it is often found, that a King is wiser, then all his Councell; And though the li­beller say sure it was not he, meaning the King: as wise men, as any of his Councell, or Parliament thought it was he, & never good subjects con­tended with their King for that comparison.

The king sayes, that that were, as if Sampson should have consented to put out his eyes, that the Philistins might with more safetie mocke, and abuse him. [Page 181] And this sayes the Libeller out of an vnwise, or pretended feare of scorne for yeilding to his Parliament, he gives cause of suspition, that he made a scorne of his Regall oath. Could any man suspect, that his Regall oath bound him to such a dispicable slavery, that a king should be in greater bondage to his Parliament, then any vassall to a Lord, a king might justly scorne such an oath, that would make him scorned by all, when he had taken it, but the Libeller had noe better answeare, and therefore retreates to his Common refuge of insignificant repetition.

The King sayes to exclude him from all power of denyall seemes an arro­gance, The Libeller adds in the Parliament he meanes, and askes, what in him then to deny against the Parliament. It is no arrogance to deny in him, that is asked, but arrogance in him, that askes, to receive noe de­nyall.

The king sayes its least of all becomminge those, that make their addresses in a humble, and loyall way of petitioning, who by that confesse their inferioritie, which oblidgeth them to rest, if not satisfied, yet quieted with such an answeare, as the will, and reason of the superiour thinkes fitt to give. To this the Libel­ler sayes, petitioning in better English is noe more then requesting, or requiring. And is it not good English to call our prayers pititions, and is it better English to say wee require, when we pray, and is requesting, and requi­ring the same in good English? Is the petitioning of his new Masters requesting, or requiring?

Men require not favours only, but their due, and that not only from superi­ours, but equalls, and inferiours. Its the first time, that such requiring of fa­vours was heard of, and a sorry inference, that because men require of [...]qualls, they may of superiours, and that there is noe difference be­tweene superioritie of Government, and superioritie in fortune, or Title.

It was called, petitio consulatus, when the noblest Romans went about, and begged that dignitie of the meanest plebeians naming them man by man. But might not those, to whome they went, deny their petition? Could they require their election, as due, and was their begging, requiring? He would willingly make badd English out of good Lattyn, though good Lattin may be noe good manners from a subject to his king, and it is absurd in Government for any to pray, that ought to commaund? & the Libeller seemes distracted that would have petitioning requiring, and prove it by the signification it hath of begging.

They petitioned not, because all of them were inferiour, but because he was su­periour to any of them. But why then doe they petition in their politique Capacitie as a Parliament? He tells vs at last, it was for fashions sake more then dutie. But why then did they professe it to be their dutie? He tell [...] vs the Misteries of their Religion, their professions, and promises are Ceremonies, their submissions for fashion, this is the doctrine of cut throates.

[Page 182] By plaine law cited before, the Parliament is his superiour. And why had he not brought in petitio principy, as well as petitio consulatus vsing it soe often, and that in good English is begging the question. Doubt­les he thinkes, that some believe it is plaine law, because he saith soe, but such, as reade his booke finde he vnderstands not law, nor reason, and will not speake the truth, he vnderstands

It were a mad law, that would subject reason to supcrioritie of place. And doth not himselfe say it, that the Parliament is superiour, and there­fore the kings reason must be subject to it? and is not he mad, or senseles?

He returnes againe to his invective against Monarchy, and one mans will, and soe its only the kings Cryme, that he was a Monarch, and if the King be not bound in a blinde obedience to all, that the Parlia­ment requires, we must all be slaves, a proper inference, and vpon this he concludes, that petitioning was but forme, because he doth not like the Kingly Government.

It cannot be soe absurd to binde the King to a blinde obedience as to confine the Parliaments reason to the will of one man. Much more absurd to bind the King, and leave subjects vnconfined.

That the King did notbing, but what was opposite to his professed interest, cannot be supposed, but in his concessions to the late Parliament, and we finde by sad experience, that nothing is more ruinous to the King­dome, then a power in the Parliament over the King, and they have been soe farr from a power to confine the exorbitancie of Kings, that those illegall conventions, which acted the Tragedies of some Kings were but the stales to vsurpers, and moulded to their will.

That the King called them young statesmen he imputes to arrogance. Doubtles the King might have said much more, then what he did, that most part of these propounders were young statesmen, Is there a man in England, that doubts it, if he regard either age, or experience, how they have governed themselves, and the Kingdome all men see, who from soe greate tranquilitie have turned it into a lamentable combus­tion, and despised the Kingdomes interest both at home, and abroade, that Phaetons miscarriage was never soe answeared by the practice of any rash, and precipitate medlers in affaires of state, as these vsurpers, and as they drove furiously with Iehu, soe they practized his hipo­crisie, that loved the Kingdome better then the commaunds of God, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, though he pretended Zeale for the Lord, and that omen of confusion from such fury, and madnes, his Majest: prayed God to divert, but the Libeller is pleased with his owne prognostickes, and makes augury a warrant for any vil­lany, though the wickednes of his Masters may give just occasion to thinke, their vengeance sleepes not.

[Page 183] He comes now to dictate law, and tumbling of his repetitions, that the Parliament sit not, as subjects, but superiours, called not by him, but by the law. And doth not this man know the Parliament sayes all this is false, and that they are his subjects, and called by his writ. Surely this Libeller takes pleasure in outfacing all truth, otherwise he would not vse such absurd, and palpable falsities, and that after himselfe had said the king was trusted with the summoning, and dissolving of Par­liaments.

Vnreasonable desires might be vnexpected by the king, and denyed. Wee may see, that Iehues fury, and Phaetons rashnes were not ill remem­bred to these men, that held the enforcing of old lawes, repairing of injuries, moderate desires of reformation, soe contemptible, that nothing, but the rooting vp of the foundation of Government could be a remedie for the kingdome, whose greate prosperitie was their greatest greivance, and all those good lawes, which he commends were vseles, and to noe purpose.

That they, which came to the Parliament had no authoritie to redresse greivances, but to desire the redresse, was acknowledged a truth by the late Parliamēt, befor their insolēce was confirmed by the kings concessions.

That their Fathers made as vast alterations to free themselves from ancient Popery is much mistaken, for whoever lookes into the reformation of Religion in England shall finde, that it moved from the head, and that the Parliament conformed themselves vnto the Counsells taken by the king, and made not the alterations the Libeller supposes. Alterations were made, where corruptions had entred into doctrine, or practice, but it was very farr from esteeming the primitive Church, a time of superstition, and plucking vp by the rootes, what ever was planted in the first ages of the Church. Sectaries are not to be judges of what varies from Scripture, their opinions arising from disobedience, must needes be full of errour, and schisme, and his Majest: had good reason to preferre the doctrine, and practice of the primitive Church before any moderne opinion of reformation, and as all the pregnant, and so­lid reasons of the Chnrches beyound the seas wrought lesse with the faction in Parliament, then the Tumults, and rabbles, soe farr lesse with this Libeller, that defends a schisme from them all vnder the divided Conventicles of Independancy, and a crew of ignorant, and irreligious Hobgoblins that eate the fat of robbery, and oppression. And he heere pretends the example of all the reformed Churches against Episcopacie, and afterwards confesses the Lutherans, who are the greater part of a contrary practice.

The falshood, & giddines of their oracles are more ridiculous, thē e­ver were the superstitious pilgramages of blinde votaries. he, that thus repre­hends the kings oppositiō to the change of Church Government, while he strives for innovation exclaimes against it, as a Cryme, for he sayes [Page 184] they would vindicate the Government of the Church, innovated, & corrupted, he should have shewed from what time it was corrupted.

The king sayes, such, as were looked vpon before as factious in the state, & Schismatieall in the Church demaunded not only tollerations for themselves in their vanitie, noveltie, and confusion, but alsoe an extirpatiou of that Govern­ment, whose rights they had a minde to invade. And the Libeller askes, was this man ever likely to be advised, who setts himselfe against his chosen Councel­lours, and censures the Government of other protestant Churches as bad, as any Papist. Certainly such Councellours were very vnfitt to advise, that were soe ill qualified, such as the lawe judges offenders are incapable to judge of law, & that such were these demaunders is evident to al men, that know the lawes, and Government of England. There are noe Pro­testant Churches, that thinke their Government censured, if others dif­fer from it, in any particular, but they will hold it a Schismaticall inso­lence in any to endeavour to alter a Government well setled vpon pre­tence to introduce another against the will of the king. It imports not any contempt of the kingdome, if such, as they chose be found either defective, or false, and to engage the kingdome in all the impieties, that men act, which are chosen by them is as absurd, as vainely pretended by the Libeller who will make a faction prevalent by Tumults, and sedi­tion to be the kingdome, and the king should have had his kingdome in greate contempt, if he had taken such a faction for the kingdome.

He drawes an Argument from the penaltie of being a Christian vnder the heathens, and a Protestant vnder Papists. And surely had they sought to introduce their Religion with the destruction of the Civill state, such a fact would have merited the name of treason, but their course was con­trary to these Sectaries, who sought only to enjoy the libertie of their conscience, not to enforce others.

That our saviour comming to reforme his Church was accused of an intent to invade Caesars right, as good a right, as ever the Prelate Bishopps had, the one being gotten by force, the other by spirituall vsurpation. Helpes not the Secta­ries, for our saviour was innocent of that false accusation, declaring his kingdome not to be of this world, & acknowledged Caesars right, bid­ding the people to give vnto Cesar the things, that were Cesars, but this mans prophanes would have the accusation true, and lawfull to in­vade Cesars right from the false accusation of our saviours, and blas­phemously avowes invading of the Bishopps rights, because one better then cesars, for to what other purpose doth he compare the rights of Cesar, and the Bishopps, vnlesse to justifie their dealinge with the Bis­hopps. And accuse our saviour for intending the lyke to Caesar?

The right of the Prelate Bishopps was gotten by spirituall vsurpation. Could any Jew, Turke, or Pagan speake more reproach fully against Christi­aintie, that the calling of those men, who were soe eminent for suffe­ring, and Martidome, and gathering the Christian Church throughout the world was a spirituall vsurpation?

[Page 185] The objection or to his Majest: repeating the arguments from law, antiqui­tie, Ancestours, prosperitie, and the like was very improper from him, whose repititions of Tyrany, slavery, single voyce, consent of the kingdome, and such like have blotted soe greate a part of his booke, and he, that would binde the king to follow the Example of other Churches will exclude antiquitie, and the primitive Church, and authorise the schisme of innovating Sectaries, because Papists have vsed Arguments against them.

The king sayes, had he two houses sued out their livery from the wardship of Tumults, he could sooner have beleived them. But sayes the Libeller it concerned them first to sue out their livery from his encroaching Prerogative, The law allowes noe livery from Royall Prerogative, but judges them Rebells that seeke it.

The Character sett on them, that hunt after faction with their hounds the Tumults, the Libeller hath justified by his defence.

Its noe shame for a King to be a pupill to the Bishopps, whose calling it is to give him spirituall Councell, but it were madnes to be a laquay to such mē, who take vpon them to judge of the callings in the Church of God, which have noe calling to it, much more to a rabble, whome the Libeller himselfe holds extravagant.

That nimrod was the first, that hunted after faction could never be told by the Bishopps, much lesse, that he was the first, that founded Monar­chy. The Bishopps could have named a more ancient foundation in A­dam, and Noah. They finde the hunters after faction by Tumults of a latter dale, Corah, and his Company, that Rebelled against Moses, and Sheba, that spake to the Tumults, what part have we in David, or por­tion in the sonne of Jesse? and they finde them in the cursed Jewes, that hunted by the Tumults against our Saviour. In Demetrious, and his Craftsmen against the Apostles, and in Alexander the Copper Smith against St. Paul, and thats the game, which Rebells in all times hollowed to, and the Mungrell sort never faile them, and these, that hunt with such hounds preserve beasts of prey to devoure the quiett, & profitable.

Certainly Parliaments made lawes before Kings were in being, which must have better authoritie then his reason to prove; We finde kings ma­king lawes before ever we reade of Parliaments, & in Commonwealths we finde their law makers were single men, as Licurgus, Solon, and diverse others.

The kings holding his Crowne by law, doth not imply another law ma­ker then the king, who first made that law, wherevnto the whole people were subject, but he, that soe lately blamed repetitions vnseaso­nably falls into his old rode of disputing against Monarchy, which he pretends to decline.

It hath been anciently interpreted the presaging signe of a future Tyrant to dreame of copulation with his Mother. Heere is a conceite pluckt in by [Page 186] head, and shoulders. Whereof was it a signe in Junious Brutus, that was directed by the oracle to kisse his Mother, his succeeding act was the expulsion of the kings, and change of the Government, was that lesse then Tyrany, or not soe presaged by the oracle, as wel as a dreame? Parliaments can be noe Mothers to kings, that are created by kings. The king is by the law of England Father of the Countrey, & the life, and soule of the law, but the Libeller will finde out a step Mother an Athalia to destroy the seede Royall, and sett her meestuous broode vpon the throne, for these dreames were the delusions of some prime Rebells, and could not allude vnto just Title, but conceites are growne low, when such dreames must be fetcht in for reasons.

And from his dreames, it is not strange, he should fancie allusions (which himselfe sayes are ordinary of the King to the sun) of force to swell vp Caligula to thinke himselfe a God. And because these Rebells can not be Gods, they will be Devills.

The King sayes, these propositions are not the joint, and free desires of both houses, next that the choise of many members was carried by faction. He sayes Charles the fifth against the Protestants in Germany laid the fault vpon some few. And what is that to the faction in England? If they be not the joint desires of both houses, as it was not, ought the King to take it for the advice of Parliament, and forbeare to shew the fraude, because Charles the fifth said the like vpon another occasion.

The Court was wont to tamper with Elections, and he sayes noe faction was then more potent. And yet he affirmes they prevayled not, where then was their potencie?

Because the king sayes, he cannot swallow such Camells of sacriledge, and Injustice, as others doe, The Libeller sayes, he is the Pharisee, vp, and downe, is not as other men are. Is it Pharisaisme to professe with the Prophett David the dislike of them, that follow superstitious vainties. Because the Pharisee swallowed Camells, be such men Pharisees, that professe they will not? & because the Sectaries pretended conscience of Cere­monies like the Pharisees washing, the outside, while they devoure the Estates of other men without remorse, are they not Pharisees? and are they only, that professe they cannot swallow such Camells Pharifees? this is a new found Pharisee.

The three Realmes all most perished for want of Parliaments. Wee have seene how neere perishing they are by a Parliament, which hath com­mitted more Injustice since it began, then all our stories have remem­bred for five hundred yeares before.

The Libeller hath found out a new kinde of sacriledge, for he en­dures not to have Church robbing called sa [...]riledge, and that is to be­reave a Christi in conscience of libertie for the narroumes of his owne conscience. And by what Engine is this sacriledge committed, doth he, that ab­staines for conscience sake bereave another mans conscienc of libertie?

[Page 187] He thinkes to take away superfluous wealth from the Clergie is not sacriledge for that serves, as an excuse for their theft in taking from others what they pretend ill vsed, & wee may see the love these Sectaries have vnto the goods of the Church, that extenuate their impietie by pretending, that such men most oppose that wickednes, whose righteousnes, in other matters hath been least observed. And these are noe Pharisees, that traduce the opposers of their sacriledge for want of righteousnes in other mat­ters, this is their new righteousnes, that allowes none holy, but their owne gang, and nothing vnholy, that they practise, and therefore they will not see the Kings vertues, least they be driven to confesse their owne wicked Actions against him.


IT Could not possibly be soe secrett from whence it sprung, as the contriver supposed. And if he knew the contrivers, perhaps he might know, whether they supposed it would be secrett, for they that pretended to be the principall contrivers avowed it openly.

It cannot be imaginable, that the Irish guided by soe many subtill, and Ita­lian heads should soe farr have lost the vse of reason, and Common sense, as not supported by other strength then their owne, to begin a warr soe desperate against England, and Scotland. And truly it may seeme, that they, who thought themselves wiser then Italian heads had lost reason, & Common sense, who letting lose, or rather cutting asunder the Reynes of Government, which held in that kingdome to a people naturally disaffected to those, vnto whome they were subject, invited them to that Rebellion, first in a popular fury cutting of the Ld. Lieutenant, to gratifie them, & then leaving the Kingdome without a successour, and preparing the way to a Civill warr in England, stirring vp jealosies against the King, and weakning his Authoritie, and composing Apologies for Rebellion, which would serve the Irishe pretences, aswell as the diferences in England their designes, and those Italian heads saw as much advantage from our broyles, as want of aide from other nations, who were busied to the [Page 188] vtmost in their owne most necessary concernements; And therefore the libel­ler vainely inferrs authoritie for assistance promised from England, vnles it were from the faction in the houses, there being noe visible strength then in any other, & there neede not, nor could be any private assurance vnto the Irish Rebells from any other, but that faction, and it is most apparent, that they neglected all meanes to remedie that mischeife, bu­sying themselves wholy in laying the ground worke of the Rebellion in England, which they held their most necessary concernement, & this was ground enough for Italian heads to stirr vp that Rebellion.

The libeller proceedes vpon his suppositions, as if they were graun­ted truths, & he would insinnate an equivocation in what the King sayes, That the sea of blood is enough to drowne any man ineternall both infamy, and miserie, whome God shall finde the malitious Author, or instigatour of that ef­fusion. Because he sayes the Rebells themselves wil not confesse, that any blood was shed by them maliciously, bu [...] for the Catholique cause, or Common libertie. Therein they differ not from the Libeller, and his English Rebells, for they wil not confesse any of the blood they shed to be maliciously, but for Religion, and Common libertie, and thence the Libeller lear­nes his skill to cast suspitions vpon the plainest expressions of others, he well descerned, that the King vsed the word malicious for aggravation, not restriction, & his observation was captious, when he read in the fol­lowing Period, that the King affirmes, nothing could be more abhorred of him being soe full of sin against God, disloyaltie to himselfe, and destructive to his subjects, and calls God to wittnes, that as he could with truth wash his hands in innocencie, as to any guilt in that Rebellion, soe he might wash them in his te [...] ­res, as to the sadd apprehension he had to see it spredd so far, & make such waste. And the Libeller himselfe after soe impertinent, and malitious an insi­nuation confesses he denies, it both heere, and elswhere.

But he sayes there is in it no such wide disagreemēt from the scope of his for­mer Counsells, we are sure there could not be agreement with the scope of his former Counsells. It was agreeable to the Counsells of Rebells to defame the King with this aspersion, & it is not strange, that vntruths may be affirmed in three Kingdomes in reguard of the contrivers, that soe industriously spred them. But let vs heare his reasons or reports. Its most certaine, that the King was ever friendly to the Irish Papists. And its certaine, that what he sayes is salfe, but whats that to their Rebellion against himselfe, or destroying his Kingdome?

But his certaintie is, that the King in his third yeare against the plaine advice of Parliament, like a kinde of Pope sold them many indulgences for mo­ney. And was he a kinde of Pope to take their penalties of them, which the law enacted for their recusancy, was that Pope like? That the King might not receive the penalties, which the law gave him, or take compositions, where the whole could not be had was never against the advice of Parliament, but this is a very long stride from his third [Page 189] yeare to the beginning of the Rebellion, but how does he hang this togeather.

The advancing the Popish partie he sayes, but instances in noe particular, nor for negotiating vnderhand by Priests, which were as impertinent to an inference of the Kings friend-ship, or causing the Rebellion, as the vse of such persons by Ministers of State, though of different Religion.

He engaged the Irish Papists in a warr against the Scotch protestants, there was never popish engagement against the Scotts for the King, if in the kings Army raysed in that kingdome, there were Papists, it was without the engagement of their partie, but their engagement by alleagiance to their King, and whence doth it follow, that because the King raysed an Army in Ireland he must therefore rayse the Rebellion in Ireland? and as its well knowne, that the keeping vp of that Army would probably have prevented the Rebellion of Ireland, & that it was disbanded long before that Rebelliō brake foorth; so they, which complained so much of that Army, and importuned to have it disbanded, thereby prepared the way to their owne Rebellion as groundlesse, and cruell, as that of the Irish.

The summer before that dismall October a Committee of active Papists, all since in the head of the Rebelliō, (yet Sr. Hardresse waller was one of them) were in greate favour at whitehall, and admitted to private consultations of the King, and Queene. Then all Companies of Traytours are Committees from the example of the late Parliament. But he was loath to say, they were a Committee (as they were) from the lower house of Parliament in Ireland, which kept correspondence with the faction of the English Parliament, and made addresses to them, and were encouraged by them in their proceedings with the King, and their comming over was who­ly to serve the designe of the faction in England.

But noe meane matters were the subject of these conferences, for he gave away his peculiar right to more then five Irish Counties for an inconsiderable Rent. But it was not his right of soveraigntie, neither was this, which he calls noe meane matter a conference about the Rebellion, and this pe­culiar right, which this Libeiler accuses the King for parting with not to Papists peculiarly, but subjects in generall, the accusers of the Earle of Strafford charged him for asserting to the King, and that inconside­rable Rent was in their judgment excessive, these are the colours of Justice, and truth, which these Rebells put on their Calumnies.

They departed not till within two moneths before the Rebellion. Rebells or­dinarly disgiuse their intentions, and therefore such might frequent the Court, as the faction in Parliament pretended affection, and dutie, while they plotted to destroy the King, and now the Libeller resorts to his Scotch Author, who he sayes declares. What should move the King to those close meetings, he that beleives Sanders, Carries, and other Papists [Page 190] in their virulent forgeries against Queene Elizabeth, may likely give credit to the Libeller, and his friend the Scotchman, and take vp infa­mous Libells for true stories.

The Libeller flies from hence to one of his common haunts, the de­signe of bringing vp the English, and Scotch Army, and thinkes it noe repe­tition, which he had soe often obtruded, and he inferrs, that because the King could not prevayle with them, he betakes himselfe to the Irish, who had in readines an Army of eight thousand Papists, and a Committee heere of the same Religion. But what to doe to kill one another? If the King sought to make vse of the Irish, that rebelled, he might more advantagiously have done it, then by cutting one anothers throates, and had they in­tended him assistance, they would not have consumed themselves a­gainst his subjects there, and how could he transport that Army from Ireland, that was disbanded before ever the Rebellion brake foorth, and the Committee departed two moneths before.

He tells vs from his friend the Scotchman, that there were they, who thought now was the time to doe service for the Church of Rome against the Puritant Parliament. Its very likely there were they, who thought the Puritan faction in Parliament had done more to the advantage of the Church of Rome by the embroyling of England, then ever had been done since the reformation, and they might well thinke it a fit time to attempt any designe against the Kingdome. And did not the Libeller thinke, that there are among the vulgar such capacities, as receive le­gends, and Romanses for true stories, he would not soe grossely produce such discourses of five Counties given to the Irish, and fower offred to the Scotch, And of like stuffe is his mention of the Kings attempt to pervert the Scotch Army from their way homeward, and the plot, which he hath ta­ken from his Scotch Colleague to remove out of the way such, as were most likely to withstand, or not further his designes. With this libertie of inven­tion doe theis Traytours seeke to maske their villany

That a Commission vnder the greate seale of Scotland commaunded this Re­bellion. Was taken vp after the pretence of the greate seale of England was detected of falsitie, and as this greate seale of Scotland hath asmuch vntruth, soe it hath noe more colour, there being noe possibilitie for the King to vse that seale, not at all in his power to such a Commission.

The sending of the Ld. Dillon is of the same stampe, what the Irish did is easily graunted, but the falshoods of this Libeller, and his friend the scotchman are no misteries of iniquitie, but open, and detected cheates, & one quotes the authoritie of the other, as if they were strangers mett by chance, and make Libelling their worke to distract the people, and yet from these devices the Libeller will conclude, that the King cannot be doubted to be Author, or instigatour of that Rebellion. It had been ridicu­lous to cite a gazett, but a branded stigmaticke, infamous. If his rea­son be moved by such Arguments, tis the lesse wonder, that his lan­guage, [Page 191] and practice is foe corrupt, and he may reckon himselfe among that rabble of the vulgar, he soe much despises.

These Testimonies likelyhoods, evidences, and apparent Actions, which he mentions in the declaration of July 1643. Are of as litle cre­dit, as his friend the Scot [...]hman. And there is not a more evident con­viction of malefactours, then their declarations against the king are of the guilt of those, that contrived them, setting foorth their dutie, which they dissembled, and condemning their actions, which they disavowed.

It is not credible, that the Irish Rebells would be foe farr from humanitie, as to stander him being soe well received by him at Oxford. If a man had wanted an proofe of the Libellers absurditie, he might heere be furnished by himselfe, that drawes an Argument from the humanitie of the Irish, whose barbaritie, and Treacherie is soe greate a part of his accusation against the king. They who were received at Oxford vpon offer of sub­mission, were very farr from pretence of such a Commission, and it may be aswell concluded they had a Commission at Oxford, as before, be­cause they were there, and aswell concluded, that th [...]y never Rebelled, as that they made noe salfe pretences of their Rebellion.

The king neede not bring proofes against a groundles accusation, that containes not any evidence of fact, and a single denyall by al lawes is preferred before such a charge, and it is as likely, that the Rebells in Ireland should pretend his Seale, as those in England his authoritie, & noe man doubts of the invaliditie of a Rebells pretence.

This Chapter is not without witnes of his good affection to the Rebells, which he collects from tha [...] the king sayes, they were lesse in fault, then the Scotts, from whome they might alledge to have fetched their imitation, making no dif­ference, sayes the Libeller, be [...]eene men, that rose necessarily to defend them­selves, which noe Protestant Doctrine ever disallowed against them, who threat­ned warr, and those who began a voluntary, & caus [...]les Rebellion. If the Irish made warr not to be restrained from their Religion, had they not the same cause, & the same pretence of defending themselves, as the other pretended for refusing the Common prayer booke, and expelling Bis­hopps? Where lies the odds? Is it Protestant Doctrine, that they may defend themselves, and Papists may not, and that Protestants may Re­bell for Religion, Papists may not? That were very much to the cre­dit of Religion, but the Libeller will not acknowledge the protestants, nor their Doctrine, who maintaine it to be vnlawful for subjects to de­fend themselves against the supreame power, though Tyranically abu­sed, and there is noe neede to fly to the Parliaments autho [...]itie, if sub­jects may take Armes against their king vpon pretence of defending themselves.

The Libeller well knowes the just indignation the Protestants a­broade have expressed for this scandall, the king names not the Scotts, but thinkes, that their blame must needes be greater, whose Actions [Page 192] the Irish had to alledge for their imitation, by how much protestant prin­ciples are more against Rebellion, then those of Papists such, as inferre good affection to the Irish from such premises will easily make vaine, or ma­litious rumours strong proofes.

The King sayes, he hath the greatest share of dishonour, and losse, by what is committed. The Libeller, as before makes this noe Argument, because every one, that offends God, or his neighbour hath the greatest share of losse and dishonour in the end, and have they not worldly ends, in offending God, and if these ends were not sought by them, they would not offend God?

He pretended before, that this was a politique contrivance of the King, and now he would have it an act without designe. Doth he thinke, that the malitious reports of him, and his Scotchman are of weight to make a man suspected of an act directly tending to his owne vndoing, and would the King instigate the Irish Rebellion for his owne ends to have the assistance of the Irish, which by such engagement could not assist him. Though presumptions are noe convincing proofes, yet they are more credible, then suspitions, or reports. It is a strong Argument for the peoples confidence in their King more then in other men, because his interest lies cheifely in the common welfare of his sub­jects, and it is hard to beleive, that a King will knowingly doe any thing against that interest, and to his owne losse, and dishonour, and whenever any have offended in that kinde, the proofe of it hath been more apparent, then the authoritie of rumours, and Libells, but heere the act it selfe cannot have any possibilitie of concurrence to the Kings ends.

It too notoriously appeares in another section, which he Mangles, but shall heere have it whole. The King sayes, tis thought by many wise men, that the preposterous rigour, and vnreasonable severitie, which some men car­ryed before them in England was not the least incentive, that kindled, and blew vp into those horrid flames the sparkes of discontent, which wanted not predisposed fewell for Rebellion in Ireland. The Libeller sayes that these some men are the Parliament. And if the Rebells had feed an Advocate, he could hardly have dazled better. Truly the Libellers too notoriously doth not amount to a dazling of any eyes from descerning his vaine confi­dence. Does any thing heerein excuse a Rebellion, that speakes only of what succeded it? And if the kings censure of the proceedings of such, as managed the busines against the Rebells, shew an affection to the Rebells then certainely most Princes, that have had warrs in Ireland were very guiltie of that affection, that vsed like censures, but what the king sayes heere was spoken in Parliament by diverse members, who disadvised the preposterous severitie, that was propounded, and afterward proceeded in, and it will rest an indelible blemish of a rash, and vnadvised Councell in those men, that in the beginning of a Re­bellion [Page 193] would put a whole nation into despaire, and feare of extir­pation.

That their wonted oppressions, as they conceived should rather have made them against the King, then the Parliament is easily beleived, for its knowne to all the world they did rise against the king vpon pretence of regai­ning their nationall liberties from the English oppression, as they called it, and since the Libeller seeth soe apparent an Argument of their rising against the king, its blinde madnes to suspect their rising for the king. The Parliament then pretended to act for the king, and that the Rebellion was against him, not themselves, but the man deserts his Arguments, and falls to his old common place, and will suspect the king, because he vsed the Prelaticall Religion, and to force it vpon others made Episcopall, Ceremoniall, and common prayer booke warrs. Such men, as made warrs, and raysed Rebellion to take away the order of Bis­hopps, Ceremonies, and booke of Common prayer established by lawes in the Raignes of best Princes with the advice of the most emi­nent confessours, and Martyrs of the age, wherein they lived confor­mable to the Scripture, and purest times of the Church, declare to the whole world, that they have neither shame, truth, nor Religion, and are justly stigmatized for making not only Episcopall, Ceremo­niall, and common prayer booke warrs, but Antichristian, and Diabo­licall Rebellion.

That the Papists knew these warrs were their warrs may easily be be­leived, for they must needes apprehend advantage from the Rebellion But its well knowne, that the Papists are more jealous of Episcopacie, Ceremonies, and booke of common prayer, as they stand r [...]formed in the Church of England, then of the Directory, Extemporall devo­tions, independent, or Pres biterall platformes, that have noe founda­tion in the Scripture, or the doctrine, or practice of the ancient Church, but what is this to the preposterous rigour, and vncharitable fury, that he would justifie? Does he meane, that the extirpation of the Irish was the sole way to suppresse open Idolatry, and is this what we may doe Evangecally to be their Reformers? Is blood, & massacre Evangeli­call reformation, & is kill, and reforme the same thinge? As that rigour observed by his Majest: was altogeather vnpolitique, soe if it were intended in order to Religion, it was most abominable, such Massa­cres being the designes of irreligious persecutours, not Evangelicall Reformers, who though they feare not their adversaries, yet will not give them cause of scandall, nor desperation, and such, as make destruc­tion their Reformation, shew they feare men, whome they seeke to kill, not God, whome presumptuously, and hipocritically they pretend to serve.

His instance of King James is as impertinent, as scurrilous, that after the powder plot King Iames durst never doe other, then equivoiate, and [Page 194] collegue with the Pope, & his adherents. Doth this viper beleive, the Pope, or his adherents had any such thoughts? Was the writing against the the Pope a Colloguinge? The many invectives of Popish writers a­gainst him signifie the plaine contrary; besides the lawes made by him against Popish recusants shew, that the Author was in one of his luna­tique transes, when he dreamt of that heckticke trembling.

The retarding, and delayes of releife to Ireland against that Rebellion, were soe apparently discovered to proceede from the faction in Parliament, that there rests not the least colour to charge it vpon the King. They converted the subjects money, and other preparations for the releife of Ireland to the raysing of the Rebellion in England, and they hindred the going over of a new governour into that kingdome, because they would vse his helpe to their designes at home.

They were diffident to trust the King with an army, and therefore refused his offer to goe in person against the Rebells. It seemes they had litle compas­sion on that people, that preferred their jealosies before their pittie, & it is a plaine Treason, and encouragement to that Rebellion to pretend distrust of their King, and shewes they sought their owne personall se­curitie before the remedie of that Rebellion, & the safetie of the king­dome. His Majest: might justly finde fault with those, who threatned all extreamitie to the Rebells, and they, that exclude all mercy to eve­ry single person, where multitudes are involved, and such, as followed Absolom with a simple heart, shew neither humanitie, nor Christiani­tie, when Fathers Brothers, Wives, and Children were destroyed by such an occasion, neither is Magistracie, and warr vnder the gospell giuded by such passions, but by the rules of Christian pittie, and such as give themselves the licence of vniversall Massacres, will not abstaine from embruing their hands in the blood of their Fathers, Brothers, Wives, and Chil­dren, sparing neither ancient, nor suckling, King, nor Priest, defacing, all Monuments of Christianitie, and turning Religion into the discour­ses of their hirelings, and all devotion into squint eyes, and disfigured faces, and erect an Empire in themselves with the slaughter of all, that submitt not to them.

The repetition of making the warr by the King in England, is his Ca­tholicon against all exceptions, and Gewgawes of the Crowne, and Copes, and an [...] [...]lisses, and such trinketts, he thinkes are names to sublimate his braine sicke Sectaries into their frenetique fitt, and make them cry out greate are the Calves of their vnknowne Religion, whither they con­temne the wisedome of God vnder the law, & his mercy vnder the go­spel, and will rather wade through the blood of their Country, then endure power in the King, or decencie in the Church.

There is greate difference betweene the instances of the destruction of the sic­hemites, and the disciples calling, for fire from heaven against the Citie, that de­nyed lodging, and this of a nation by just warr, & execution to slay whole fame­lies [Page 195] of them, who had slaine whole families before. But where lies the odds, there was asmuch threatned to the Irish, as was done to the sichemites? Though there were a difference betweene the sins of some, there was noe difference betweene the innocence of many, and there is noe diffe­rence betweene them, that will destroy promiscuously without mercy, where all are not guiltie in the one case, and the other. But why doth not the Libeller state his case right, and insteede of families sett downe the whole nation, as the truth was? Did he shrinke at the expression of the truth at large, and name families to diminish the guilt?

That, which was done against the Benjamites, was by Gods revealed will in that particular Case, and yet there was a remnant reserved of them, that escaped the present stroake of the warr, and they returned againe to their possessions.

The Libeller sayes, he speakes not this, that such measure should be meated to all the Irish, or as remembring, that the Parliament ever soe decreed. But if they did soe, then this shall serve for their justification, for to what end els is it, that he offers excuses?

To shew, that this homily, (meaning it seemes the Kings discourse) hath more of craft, and affectation, then sound doctrine. But either it is sound doctrine, or else the Libeller must justifie the contrary, to which he sayes that which he speakes is not intended, and that, which he hath brought shewes, that the homily he intends is sound Doctrine, and his intended opposition signifies nothing, but his owne corruption.

The King would have some punished, which he sayes were of least vse, and must of necessitie have been sacrifised to his reputation. And can he thinke, that the king caused the Rebellion, and yet would punish any for his reputation, might they not then produce it? and how then could he sa­crifise them to his reputation, which would be more wounded by the punishing of one, then the sparing of all.

The king sayes, some were to be pretected vpon their submission from the fu­ry of those, who would soone drowne them, if they refused to swim downe the po­pular streame with them. The Libeller sayes that fury is applyed to the Par­liament. If such were their condition, its not misapplyed.

The Libeller sayes, he remembers not they had soe decreed, & if not, how could it be applyed to them? And wherefore doth he except to the soundnes of the doctrine, if it concerned them not?

Those, who would not swim downe the streame are Papists, Prelates, and their faction. He meanes not English Prelates, for they have not yet been charged with the Irish Rebellion, and if he meane the Romish Prelates, it were superfluous, having named Papists before, and why doth he say, that he speakes not, that such measure should be meated to all the Irish, when he would have the king esteemed a favourer of the Jrish Rebellion, if he protected any Irish Papists vpon their submissi­on? For he sayes, by this, who sees not, that he, and the Irish Rebells had but [Page 196] one aime. And whoever thinkes he sees it by this hath neither sight, nor reason, and there is nothing to be seene in the Libellers inference, but excessive impudence, and falshood.

The King sayes, some kinde of zeale is not seldome more greedy to kill the Beare for his skin, then for any harme he hath done. This the Libeller ren­ders our zeale, and would inferre from thence, that the Parliament is more bloody in the prosecution of their Iustice, then the Rebells in their crueltie. And by what construction can he make that good? may there not be by ends in a judge, & yet his sentence not soe bloody, as a malefactours Cryme, & he, that charges a Magistrate with a wrong end in giving a Just sen­tence, doth not diminish the Cryme of the malefactour. Can any ra­tionall soule conclude vpon the Kings dislike of irregular proceedings against the Irish, that he excused their Cryme? This is chaffe to cast in the eyes of his bleerde Sectaries, for none else are soe purblinde, and there neede noe dispute, that the King perfectly hated the Irish Rebel­lion, & justly censured the proceeding in that vnseasonable threatning of destruction. The instance of the beares skin was made by a member of the lower house at the time, when they debated that busines, and yet they then thought it noe favour to the Irish, nor censure of their owne proceedings.

The cessation, which the King made was in favour of the Irish, and without the advice of Parliament, to whome he had committed the managing of that warr. The King plainely descerned, that the designe of the faction in Parliament in managing the Irish warrs was only to draw money from the people vnder that pretence to subdue England, and destroy him by taking away al assistance from him, and thence proceedes their Calum­nie vpon the cessation; and their willfull neglect, and diversion of suc­cours amidst the reiterated Cryes of the protestants in that Kingdome, the importunitie of the Lords Justices, and the visible growth of the Enemy shewes the advantage they made of that Rebellion, & the King was bound in Justice, and honour to preserve that Kingdome, and in Christian pittie to releive his distressed subjects, which he could not doe without resuminge the managing of that warr, which had been soe Treacherously miscarried by those he trusted, & as he made that cessa­tion by the advice, & intreatie of his protestant subjects there, soe they were sufficient wittnesses of the low condition themselves were in, and the power of the Rebells.

But the Libeller would prove, that the Protestants there were on the winning hand, because they kept their owne notwithstanding the misse of those forces, which were landed in wales, and Cheshire, who without difficultie Maste­red a greate part of these Countreyes. The Protestants keeping of their owne was by the benifitt of that cessation, without which they hoped not to keepe it, and those Countreyes of wales, and Cheshire were not mastered by those forces, as the Libeller supposes, but protec­ted [Page 197] by them against the Tyrany of the Rebellion then ontring vpon them.

The Declaration, which he vouches for proofe is an infamy to the Authors, conteyning neither colour of proofe, nor soundnes of Argu­ment, and of as litle creditt, as his owne assertions. In the meane time those forces of the Protestants, which the king gott by that cessation declare to the world, that the Irish Rebellion crossed his ends, and ad­vanced those of the English Rebells.

The way-laying of provisions was contradicted by such apparent proofes in his Majest: answeares, that vntill they make some reply to those particulars, their clamours will signifie nothing but want of matter.

The forces he called over stood him in noe small steede against our maine for­ces. That noe way hinders, but that they might be termed handfulls in respect of the numerous Rebells both in Ireland, & England. The rea­sons of the cessation, besides the knowne evidence of truth, and weight have an addition of Authoritie from the Libellers calling them false, and frivolous without the least shew of reason, it being his custome to stile truth, and reason by such Titles.

He reprehends the king for likening his punishments to Iobs Tryalls, before he saw them have Iobs endings. And vpon the same reason he will not allow the Tryalls of the Martirs to have a likenes to Jobs, because the end in respect of Temporall felicitie was not the same.

The king sayes, he hath not leisure to make prolix Apologies, from whence the libeller concludes those long declarations, and Remonstrances, which he calls Pamphletts set out in his name were none of his. And is not this a tidy inference, because the king in prison expecting the executi­on of the cruell designes of the Traytours had noe leisure to make pro­lix Apologies, therefore the declarations, and Remonstrances publis­hed by him, while he was at libertie were none of his. The king hath given sufficient Testimony to stopp the mouth af a destractour, that noe writings, published in his name were above his abilitie. If his de­clarations were weightie, and just, why are they Pamphletts? if not why, will not the Libeller believe him the Author whome he seeks to vilifie, but the world knowes the declarations in the name of Parliament were none of theirs, but voted vpon the word of a junto by such as had not capacitie, to vnderstand them.

That though the Common saying, that it is Kingly to doe well, and heare ill be sometimes true, yet more frequently to doe ill, and heare well by the multi­tude of flatterers, that deifie the name of Kings. It can hardly be pro­ved, that ever evill king had soe many flatterers, as the best kings have detractours, and himselfe produces instances, how the multi­tude deified Simon Mountford, and such popular brovillions against their kings.

[Page 198] For the peace in Ireland, the Justice of it is now apparent, and he, that pardons Rebells to save the effusion of the blood of his good subjects, shewes greater tendernes to the good, then they, that by endeavouring to exclude all from mercy, expose them promiscuously to mutuall slaughter, and may justly be judged to looke vpón both with an indif­ferent eye, and that neither Justice, nor pittie, but greedy, and rapacious desires carry them to that crueltie.

The King prayes at large for the Irish Rebells. It seemes Charitie for Enemies is held a sin by these miscreants, otherwise he would not have censured a prayer soe becoming a Christian, that God would not give over the whole stocke of that seduced nation to the wrath of those, whose cove­tuousnes makes them cruell, nor to their anger, which is too feirce, and therefore justly cursed. The King deprecates the Rebellion of Ireland, and in his prayer concludes his innocence, and that if he had not studied the com­posing of the differences sayes, let thy hand be vpon me, & my fathers house. And this the Libeller calls a solemne Curse, which is his judgment of the Cryme, and the assertion of his innocence. Though God aff [...]ict his servants, his hand is not against them in wrath, as this wretch presumes to say, and lookes not on that curse, which God denounces against bloo­dy, and deceitefull men, that pretend his service in the destruction of his servants.

Vpon the calling in of the SCOTTS, and their COMMINGE.

HE, that observes how greate a part of this Libellers booke his invectives against Monarchy take vp, & how frequently, and impertinently he offers his exceptions a­gainst Kingly Government in excuse of falshood, and Re­bellion, may well wonder at his exceptions to pretended repetitions, in the Kings booke he enters vpon this Chapter with his opinion of the originall of Kings to be servants of the publique. And yet the people were subjects to them, and how farr Kings mistake the nature of their office, that thinke they are Masters of the people. And yet God gave nations to [Page 199] serve them. Though their power is for publique good, yet they have a peculiar proprietie in that power, and Estate, as private men in their private fortunes, & its more for the peoples good to be subject, though to an evill King, then to fall to confusion. And if rulers may not retaine their power, because factious multitudes say, that they are but intrusted for the peoples good, & that it is for the peoples good, that they yeilde vp the sword, they bare it in vaine. Such a wooden sword have the Re­bells provided for all Rulers, but themselves, for when they get power by their swords of steele, or mines of powder the people may not thinke, that they shall finde such Lords of straw, as they pretend gover­nours of the people ought to be. We are taught by Scripture, that the people are commaunded to hearken, and obey, not teach, & commaund, and though his supposition, that Government is in the people, and that they ordained Kings be vaine, and false by the examples of Scripture, and of most Authenticke histories, yet were it admitted, that a King came in by the peoples consent, they are not after such submission Jud­ges of their owne obedience, or their Kings power.

It were vaine to follow the Libeller in his exceptions to the words of favour, and gratification, as sounding pride, and Lordly vsurpation, as if kings only had nothing in their power to oblidge men with all, these are the spleenetique vapours of Rebellious distemper.

For the Kings concessions to the Scotts, either touching Episcopacie, or the Militia, wee shall heare his answeare in due time, howsoever the king was not bound to the same Actions, where Circumstances varied, nor after a fuller vnderstanding of the nature, and consequence of the things graunted, and as his Majest: professed a cleerer information af­ter these Actions had passed him, soe he evidently saw, that they were more against his subjects good, then his owne, and that insteede of pre­venting an Arbitrary power, it would have introduced an arbitrary li­cence, and confusion into the Kingdome, and such men, as preferre the bondage of popular confusion, or the licentious insolence of many Lords, are eyther inchanted with a witch craft of Rebellion, or stupid­ly benummed with a senseles Lethargy.

With what Zeale the Libeller reproves the abuse of Scripture, when he exclaimes, as if it offended his conscience, we may perceive by the allusion he makes saying. Ireland was as Ephraim, the strength of his head, meaning the Kings, Scotland, as Iudah was his law giver, but over England, as over Edom he meant to cast his shooe. Hath this man reverence to Scrip­ture, or the Author of it?

He comes againe to accuse the King for persecuting the consciences of Religious men, a knowne vntruth, yet soe much beloved by the Libeller, as he seemes impatient to misse the repetition of it, and with this he joynes his reproving the Kings profession of being an Enemy of those, that forced the conscience because he had made a warr, and lost all, rather then not [Page 200] vphold the Bishopps. It is an Argument, that he esteemed his conscience, that lost all for it. But the Libeller sayes, they were persecuting Bishopps. The King vpholding Bishopps, vpholds not persecution, or abuse, and th e Libellers confounding the office, & ill exercise of it makes knowne his want of Argument. The falshood of their Calumnies against the Bishopps is sufficiently manifested to the world, that after soe many vehement outcryes they have not proved on such act of persecution done by any one of them, & not the presons but the office, & lawe were the persecution in this mans judgment.

The King obtruded new Ceremonies vpon vs, vpon the Scotts a new Liturgie There were noe new Ceremonies obtruded by him in England, and this horrid Rebellion to take away the Ceremonies, and Government legally established, and continually practised, vnder the name of inno­vations, detects both the fraude, and outrage of their proceedings. The new leiturgie offred the Scots by advice of their Bishopps, and Clergie, was an act befitting the care of a King, and noe man will beleive, that it was an offence te their consciences, who made noe conscience of blood, and Rebellion vpon pretence of their conscience, which the world sees was an hipocriticall straining at a straw, and swallowing a Camell, and these tender conscience men have written their tendernes of conscience with the blood of their brethren; which will remaine a memoriall of their dissembled sanctitie.

What hinderance of the search of truth, he meanes is not vnderstood, vnles he would have the dreames of mad sectaries confirmed by authoritie.

He would have the penalties of lawes thought persecution of the conscience, and sectaries the Judges, and sayes, if himselfe (meaning the King) and his learned Churchmen were the obstinate part, should Reformation suffer them to sit Lording like the greate whore? And are sectaries Libells convictions of Kings, and learned Churchmen, and the clamours of malefactours a sentence against the Judge? Such is the Government, that must now rule the world, and Reformation must be an Idoll in the hands of a seditious sectarie, whereto the people must fall downe, and such vnstable multitudes carried about with every winde of doc­trine are likely to be those many waters, on which the greate whore sits, which hath for corruption, and crueltie a greate resemblance vnto those false prophetts, that now seduce the people.

These Clergimen were not to bedriven like sheepe, but driven out like wolves. But they are theeves, and wolves, that enter into the sheepefold by violence, and stealth, and the ambition, and greedines of these wolves will finde occasion to sucke the blood, and devoure the flesh of the sheepe.

The king sayes, that he beleives the Presbiterie, though proved to be the only institution of Iesus Christ, were not by the sword to be set vp without his conjent, which is contrary saith the Libeller, both to the doctrine, and knowne [Page 201] practice of all Protestant Churches, if his sword threaten those, who of their owne accord imbrace it. But then it, cannot be sett vp by the sword, vnles his sword threaten those, that imbrace it; And this jugler denies, what the king sayes, and yet in effect professes it, and while he enrages the Tumults to sett vp their Presbiterie with the sword produces Argu­ments only for defence. The reformed Churches professe to follow the ancients in suffering, not associate themselves to bloody Sectaries in Rebelling. And his next words impert that private men may not contend with Magistrates, nor vse force against them.

Though Christ, and his Apostles being to Civill affaires but private men con­tended not with Magistrates, yet when Magistrates themselves, and especially Parliament come to know Religion, they ought to defend it against any King, or Tyrant. What is defence to the question in hand of setting vp Religion by the sword without the kings consent? May an inferiour Christian Magistrate take Armes against his superior a Pagan to sett vp Reli­gion. Is he not as much a private man as our Saviour, and his Apostles, where the Civill power hath not given him a right? And as a Civill right is not imaginable, soe the pretence of a power from Religion is execrable, and false which will not permitt an vsurpation vpon the Ci­vill right. There may be a King, where there is noe Parliament, and it is noe more lawfull for an inferiour Migistrate, or to Parliament, who are but private men in regard of the Prince, whose deputies they are to take the sword to sett vp Religion against the King their soveraigne, then for any private men, and were not the libeller distracted betweene evidence of truth, and his owne corrupt inclinations, he would not in­stance in the name of Magistrates, and Parliament, that but the line be­fore pretended the power of the people to doe the same thing by the doc­trine, and practice of all Protestant Churches, and would make them more publique persons, then their Saviour, and his Apostles, he thinkes his reviling language of Tyrany, and bloody Bishopps, and the King their pupill are irrefragable Arguments in the judgment of his pupills.

There is a large difference betweene forcing men by the sword to turne Pres­biterians, and defending them, who willingly are soe. But then it is impious to force men to be soe, what those wretches did to the King for not being soe, and for not consenting to impose it, vpon the kingdome by a law, the world knowes, and the world is wittnes, and they have robbed men of their possessions by the sword to sett vp this new Religion.

His charging Covetuousnes, and ambition to be the events of Episcopacy, is schismaticall malice, for Episcopacie in the beginning of the Church was attended with povertie, and persecution, but the libeller will make Martirdome their ambition, and wants their Covetuousnes.

He will have, that English Episcopacie hath markes of schisme, whether we looke at Apostolicke times, or reformed Churches, if he had shewed wherein, it had deserved an answeare, but we see what Apostolicke [Page 202] times he meanes, that will not allow any Church of the world from the time of the Apostles til the present age, & because the Church of Eng­land is not vniversall, therefore all Sectaries may pretend themselves the Church.

For the authoritie of Scripture, he neede not take paines to prove it. The Church of England claimes not power over other Churches, but to correct Schismatickes within her selfe. The exposition of Scripture may not be received from arrogant Sectaries against the judgment of the vniversall Church, & the King might very well reject such reasons, as they, which offered them, had soe lately before disavowed, and pre­tended themselves scandalized with the imputation of such opinions. The greatest number of these pretended Reformers professed detesta­tion of the opinion of lawfullnes in taking Armes against their Prince, of the opinion of the vnlawfullnes of Episcopacy, booke of Common prayer, and Ceremonies, and who now would dispute with such men maintaining these renounced opinions with such bloody vehemencie.

It is not for the King to defend the Church otherwise then the Church would be defended. And what is the Church in the libellers sense, nothing but the crew of John of Leydons saints, and must the King follow them a­gainst the Church, these are the Divills factours to sett vp an Idoll Religion.

These deceivers talke of the power of the keyes, in whose power holy things are, as if the keyes, that Christ gave to his Disciples are transmitted to this distempered crew, that pretend a power of their owne giving.

Their Blasphemous pretence of enthusiasmes hath been the won­der, and scorne of wise men, and thats the spirit which must not be fet­tered with a negative voyce? But may it not be fettered by the Parlia­ments negative voyce, and why is it more fettered by the kings then theirs? That which he calls Tyranicall, and presumptuous in the king, with the same breath justifies in the Parliament, and yet complai­nes of Tyrany vpon the conscience. Such consciences are senseles of Tyrany, aswell, as of sin having given themselves vp to the Empire of hell.

The kings negative voyce could impose nothing, yet these desperate hipocrites say, they were compelled to implore the aide of Parliament to re­move it from their consciences. And if the ground of their warr were to take away his negative voyce, their pretence of defensive force appea­res noe other then violence, and persecution, which they soe hipocri­tically complaine of, & such tender consciences, as feele not salshoods, and Rebellion must be mercilesse destroyers of Religion, and Govern­ment, as these have proved.

The King had cause to seeke aide against Rebellion, and oppression, but thats noe warrant for Traytours to linke themselves by conspira­ [...]ies to performe it, and the King might justly wonder at their confident [Page 203] boasting of Gods assistance, as if they had the certaintie of some Revelation, and flying to the Scotts succours, while they were soe furnisht with provisions for warr. And now after all the Libellers rayling at Episcopacie Copes, & surplisses, he will not permitt. Arch Presbiterie Classicall, Provinciall, and diocesine Presbitery claiming Lordly power, and superintendencie to be imposed vpon them. He [...]res Babell confounded, and they, that were linkt in dis­loyaltie must part for Presbitery, and independencie, and will not see the evill spiritt, that first combined them in Rebellion, and now divides them to fight one against another.

A Determination by the best divines in Christendome in a full, and free synod is he sayes an improbable way, and every true Church hath wherewithall from heaven to be compleate, and perfect within it selfe. And why doth he tell vs, that no Church denominated by a particular name bindes our faith, or obedience, and hath any Romanist affirmed more for their infallibilitie, then he a­scribes to every one of his Parlours, and wherefore is English prote­stant a Schismaticall name, as he affirmes, and that the whole nation is not to be thought soe raw, as to neede the helpe of other nations. But what is the whole nation to every conventicle, are theis seperaists the whole na­tion? And why would he bind the Kinge to other reformed Churches?

If the primitive Christians had been of his opinion, Generall Coun­cells had been of litle vse, & the Disciples at Antioch needed not have sent to Jerusalem for advice in a question. But these men thus shuffle, and pretend the sufficiencie of a nation, intend only the perfection of their Parlour congregations, and allow noe sufficiencie in Church, or nation, that submits not to their insolent prescriptions.

He sayes the King accuses pietie with want of loyaltie, because he sayes in vaine doe men hope to builde their pietie on the ruines of loyaltie. The King rightly determines, that pietie is but pretended, where loyaltie is de­spised, as such doe that thinke it safe to renounce all fidelitie to their lawfull King, and his family, and depend on the faith of perjured vil­laines vpon pretence of pietie, as he perswades the Scotts to doe.

Vpon the COVENANT.

HE seemes desirous to be short in this Argument, being a point, which he is loath to touch, till he see the suc­cesse of some attempts, and he would not willingly be out of hope of the Scotts, nor venture to displease them by his glosses.

[Page 204] To the mention of the Bishopps possession heere since the first plantation of Christianitie in this I stand, and vniversall prescription since the Apostles till this last centurie he sayes, But what availes the most primitive antiquitie against the plaine sense of Scripture, which if the last Centurie have best follo­wed, it ought in our esteeme to be the first. But where is the plaine sense of Scripture against antiquitie? Its very plaine, that these Sectaries noe more esteeme the present century, then the ancient, nor more the scrip­ture then either of them, but take a libertie to vent their owne fanati­call, and arrogant fancies for Scripture, and reject all ordinary meanes vpon pretence of a lying spiritt. His Majest: meant not to oppose anti­quitie to Scripture, but where the practice of antiquitie is consonant to Scripture. Its impious to reject the Communion of the first age. All helpes of interpretation are fetters to the proud Schismatickes, and this Libeller, that so lately obtruded the Example of the reformed Churc­hes in the case of Episcopacie, quickely scornes the Classicall, Provin­ciall, and diocesine Presbiterie, and the last Century hath only seene the ascent of these Locusts, and he only likes that part of the last Cen­tury, wherein they crept foorth, and they would willingly have the credit to be a part of other Churches, though they are in truth Enemies to them all. We may with farr better reason beleive the interpretations, and practice of the primitive Church, then any moderne Reformers, and there were never any, but those Secta­ries soe shamelesse to deny the authoritie of antiquitie, or charge it in this particular with an aberration from Scripture, and ma­ny learned men living vnder Presbitery acknowledge the digni­tie of Bishopps above Presbiters in the times of the Apostles. The Libeller likes any limitations in the Covenant, dangerous to the king, & soe much of the Covenant as concernes the casting out of Bishopps­but he will sweare, and forsweare comformitie to the Church of Scot­land, or any other.

That this Covevant had former practice, vnles in the french League cannot be shewne. The Libeller would have the Israelites en­tring a new into a Covenant with Asa their King to be a new Covenant, when it was only a renewing of their promise of obedience to God, noe Articles of their owne devising, and as that was with the King soe he hath found one without a King, for the Jewes, after the captivitee tooke solemne oath to walke in the Commaundements of God without consent demaunded of that King, who was then their Master, and they had the Authoritie of that King. But did they take an oath to vse vio­lence against that King, if he consented not to them, or was the Cove­nent to walke in Gods Commaundements a new Covenant? This is like their pulpitt proofes.

That Protestant Churches have made Leagues, or Covenant against their King.

[Page 205] Or imposed their confessions with Civill penalties vpon refusers without their Prince is a notorious [...]ander, for the protestation, it was confined to established law, the Covenant to destroy law, and what was established by it, the protestation to defend the Doctrine, the Covenant to destroy the Government, which is comprehended in the Doctrine, and this the Libeller holds needes noe reconcitement. There is noe doubt, but the Examples of Asa, and Esra were approved by Scripture, but they are farr from the Examples of the present Cove­nant, and if the Libeller approve the taking of the Covenant, how doth he satisfie himselfe in the breach of it? he hath found out away, for he may aswell breake that, as his oath to his King, and obligation to former lawes, which he sayes are Conditionall, and that condition to be expounded by every man at his pleasure.

He proceedes to shew the strength of the Covenant, and yet he will keepe it one way, and his brethren of another name, and sect ano­ther way. If he Covenant oblidge to contrary courses, it cannot be a Rule of Reformation, and as it clashes with former oaths to God, and the king rightly vnderstood, soe the clashing of these, that devised it, shewes, that the spiritt of peace was not desired by the contrivers, of that Covenant.

That the Kings booke is replenished with Popish Arguments must be spoken in a Corner, not publiquely with any modestie, for the Prote­stants throughout the world know the contrary, and will disavow this Covenanting power to be a part of their Religion.

The salvoes, cautions, and reservations vsed in taking the Covenant were the arts of the deceitefull composers, and its well knowne it was an artifice vsed to perswade men to take it, that they might vse the libertie of their owne sense, and the Libeller willing to say some thing in de­traction of the King vpon every occasion, as if it were a sin to vse truth, and ingenuitie, transposes words of the Kings, which were vsed in re­proofe to additions of his owne, as if the King approved these shuf­fling cautions, who he well knowes detested both the Covenant, and them, and shewed the inniquitie of these deceites, and we have seene, that these Cautions have made Covenanter, and anticovenanter, Pres­biterian, and independent Rebell.

The Libeller likes well the povertie of the Ministers of the gospell. And although the primitive povertie of Churchmen was very glorious, yet the Christian Laitie were never soe sordid to thinke a liberall patri­mony vnfit for them, and Religion hath litle power, where the Clergie are trencher chaplaines to gluttons feasts.

These men, that judge povertie a curse to themselves hold it Christs legacie to the Ministers. If there were any legacie, povertie was to all Christians, aswell, as Clergie, but we see, that notwithstanding these professions, their Levites now hold more pluralities without remorse, [Page 206] then ever were knowne, and shame not to contradict their former de­clamations, but it is the calamitie of the Church, that greedy doggs de­vo [...]re her patrimony, and barking detractours tr [...]duce her Clergie.

Vpon the many JEALOSIES &c.

TO wipe of Iealosies, and scandalls the best way had been by cleere actions, or till Actions could be cleered by evident reasons. Cleere Actions, nor evident reasons will stopp the mouth of malicious slanderers, nor abate the industrie of conspiratours in raising jealosies, But these, which his Majest: complained of were tempered only to vulgar capacitie, and were long since hist at by all knowing men, who saw apparently they were not the opinions of the devisers, but artifices of deceite, and the progresse of this Rebellion hath cleered al mistakes, and taken away al credit from these fopperies. It is very late for the Libeller to call to his aide the petitions, and ad­dresses composed by the faction in Parliament, when himselfe accuses them for want of wisedome, and integritie, and whoever reades these addresses will easily finde not only cause to suspect the truth of what they say, but plaine proofe of fals hood, and hipocrisie.

That the whole Parliament conspired against the King, he never said, and the author well knowes, that it was a potent faction only, to whome the King imputes this injurie, though their being elected to that place is no exemption from a possibilitie of errour, & Cryme, and we have seene it beyound doubt, that this faction conspired to blow vp the peoples aff [...]ions towards him, and batter downe their loyaltie by the Engnies of fowle as­persions, and have acted what the powder plot intended. The King of­fers not to purge himselfe by any other Arguments, then such, whose proofe is visible to all the world, and the silliest people see, how they were cheated by factious Artists. The Kings Arguments are not only demonstrable to the best but obvious to common vnderstandings, and it cannot be expected, that such, as are resolute in wicked courses will aske forgivenes, or have it. The world knowes the King, when he wrote this, expected the Rebells crueltie, but feared it not, and there was not cause to vse insinuations, which were not to be divulged, till his death. Tyrants, and vsurpers are forced to flatter, but its a wicked slander to charge him with flatterie, that is feareles of crueltie.

[Page 207] This Libeller prophanely descants on Scripture, as he doth appa­rently vpon the Kings misfortunes, for [...]pon the Kings saying, that he could willingly be the [...]nah for restoring his peoples [...], if he did not foresee, that by the di [...]erests of their, and his Enemies, as by contrary windes, the storme of th [...]ir miseries would rather be encreased then allayed. The Libeller sayes these windes were ne [...]heard heard of in the compasse. And its very likely never regarded by those, who never guided themselves by other compasse, then sea robbers, that make prey only their compasse. But were not these divided mind [...] heard of, when he spake of Arch presbitery, and other subdivisions? And these windes he sayes were pre­tended to be foreseene [...] he should be taken at his [...]. The King foresaw their intended murther, and though he feared it not, his word never was to be taken to make himselfe accessory to his Enemies impietie. But that controversie, he sayes, divine lot hath ended. Suffering and Mar­tirdome hath been the lot of the righteous, but Gods controversie with their persecutors is not thereby ended, and the Libeller r [...]kons too soone, the end of his controversie, that entitles God with such Actions.

The Kings knowledge is sufficiently evident, and he hath distinguis­hed the venerable gray h [...]ires of ancient Religion from the old scurfe of super­stition, and the vertigo of novell prophanes. And the whole some heate of his well governing shewes his judgment in state Phisike, and while Em­perickes, and horse leaches tooke vpon them to amend the body, they turned the equall temper of it into the feaverous rage of T [...]ing. There neede noe oracle to tell, who heated the furnace of this obloquy, it is suf­ficiently confessed, and they, that endured Nobuchadnezars furnace might have warned this Libeller to have abstained from that allusion, for if the oracle of truth, God himselfe commaunded the Jewes to be subject to Nebuchadnezar notwithstanding his golden Image, and madnes.

The libeller might see his litle witt ill applyed in making the ques­tion, who deserved to be throwne in Nebuchadnezar, or his three Kingdomes? And this high conceite of his deserves the fieric furnace, that would perswade three Kingdomes, they might cast in their King.

If his greate seale were not sufficient without the Parliament to create Lords, his parole must be vnable to create learned, and Religious men. Surely this man doth not see what he sayes, for it is a confessed truth, that the kings greate seale without Parliament was sufficient to create Lords, and though his judgment could not create men, yet by the choise he made, men are satisfied, he descerned them better, then they, that would vn­dertake to point them out.

The opposition proceeded from heads farr wiser, and spiritts of a nobler straine, then [...]pular preachers. And are not their buffe, and sword prea­chers popular preachers? And are those wiser heads and nobler spiritts the Creatours of preachers? And hath the tub overturned the pulpitt?

[Page 208] The Priest led herodians with their blinde guides, are in the ditch already. These are the constant Testimonies of the Libelle [...] reverence to Scrip­ture, and things sacred, whats become now of the advice of the Parlia­ment, and three Kingdomes? He was very much [...]verseene, that would have divided interests such vnknowne windes, and heere blowes away his brother Presbiterian for a Priest-led herodian, and blinde guide, travelling as he thought to sion, but moor'd in the Isle of weight, And we see, that these, who began first with the Bishopps will at last have noe Presbiters at all, but pretend with the Rebells against Moses, that all the congregation is holy, and will sayle by the winde of their owne braines without Card, or Compasse. Factions are not only like Mathe­maticall Lines allwayes divisible, but perpetually dividing. The King­dome of England cannot acknowledge the wisedome of those heads, from whome the designe of destroying King, and Kingdome procee­ded, men willfull for mischeife are farr from wise heads, nor is inso­lence, or inhumanitie a Testimony of noble spirits. Popular preachers now see they were deceived in their owne judgments, and abilities to governe, aswell as of the goodnes of the lawes they were governed by, and the persons, to whome they owed subjection, and that their plan­ting of disaffection to the Church of England in the people could not attract reverence to them, but an attendance vpon vsurpers, who made vse of such preaching to improve the peoples disobedience to their lawfull Rulers, and they may now see, that aversion to the Church is a false measure of sinceritie, and that their followers after the sha­king of their lawfull governours, call them, by whose ill principles they were misledd, blinde guides, and while this Libeller would seeme to be a Christian, he not only seekes to make the name a reproach, but the miseries thereof a scorne, whence comes his allusion of Priest-led herodians, but from the passage touching the place of our saviours nativitie enquired of the Priests by herod. & travelling to sion is not the subjects of common pasquils.

The Kings letter to the Pope imports nothing to his purpose, and all men now see, that Religion is not at all in their thoughts, and that these repetitions are vulgar scare crowes.

The innovations alledged by professed schismatickes, that innovate at vnquestionably demonstrate their owne confutation.

His vsing the assistance of some Papists in setling protestantisme was vnsee­mely, and suspicious. But the vse of them against such, as would vnsetle the Civill Government, and destroy the King vnder pretence of vn­setling the Religion established, is just, and necessary, and it in­ferrs not, that the most part of Protestants were against him, because an active faction had surprized the strength of the Kingdome, and ne­cessitated him to seeke succours, where he might have them, the King never obtruded setlement of any thing new, but defence against violence [Page 209] of what was established, and Papists may fight for their King, though Traytours pretend to the Protestant Religion, for the ground of their quarrell.

That noe man ever thought, that the King had learned that difference of perswasion in Religious matters may fall out, where there is the samenes of dutie, Alleagiance, and subjection, And the Libeller askes, wherefore then such compulsion to the Puritans, and Scotland about conformitie to the Leiturgie? Doth the King say, that those of different perswasions ought not to be better informed, and sought to be gained to a right vnderstanding? though there may be the samenes of alleagiance, ought he not to seeke the samenes of perswasion in points of difference? This is his com­mon logicke, and he askes, wherefore then noe Bishopp, noe King? He might have answeared himselfe, that there may not be the samenes of opinion touching alleagiance in differences of Religion, though there may be, and its now plaine, though formerly not believed, that such, as would have noe Bishopps, would have noe King, and had not the samenes of intention, though the same dutie, and obligation of alleagiance to their King, as those of the contrary perswasion, and that Episcopacy is agreeable to Monarchy, the contrary not, but Rebells catch at every shaddow, and offer [...]very dreame for a truth, and are as light in obtrudinge pretences, as resolute to act their villanies either with, or without them.

How diversified sects, can be all protestants, must be shewed by some doctrines, that protestants yet vnderstand not, and the medly of Papists, and protestants in a religious cause is noe more disproportioninge of Reli­gions, then the mixing of those diversified sects, which are noe more protestants, then Papists. Maskes, and disguises were the foreprophe­sied garments of Sectaries, and it is a sure signe, that their errours are willfull, not weake, sparing noe falshoods, whereby they may get po­wer, and confating their pretences by their practice They heretofore professed greate opposition to Papists for doctrines of Rebellion, now they preach the same doctrines, & are angry, that there are papists, that disclaime them. The ancient Christians held it a Religious cause to de­fend their King, & Countrey, & were mixed with Pagans in that cause, and soe of late the protestants of France, and they held it vnchristian to forsake that Religious cause vnder pretence of Religion, and those pre­tences taken from Religion, the letter to the Pope, and evill Councel­lours, are apparent to be nothing, but vulgar cheates to enforce the King to consent to the Rebells demaunds, and wrest hisscepter from him.

The sharpe afflictions of the Kingdome shew they were not inve­terate diseases of Government, but a suddaine pestilence, and such, as can beleive, that the Tyrany, of the present Masters are the lawes of Par­liament, deserve to be governed by a whip, not by a scepter. The Libel­lers reproofe of the peoples levitie, prayse of popularitie are inconsistēt, and [Page 210] his argument of reproach from dissenting to what the Parlian [...] advised, and his charging the Parliament for want of wisedome, and in­tegritie turne all his arguments to his owne shame, and shew, that it is not right, but Rebellion he pleades for, and that he esteemes neither Civill, nor Philosophicall libertie which are confined to Government, but confusion, and licence without limitts.

If this Libeller would be subject [...] Magistrate, and in the lawes, as he professes, why doth he Rebell against the Magistrate, and the lawes, and why doth he pretend the Parliaments Authoritie, if he may breake that authoritie? As indeede he doth alow, that noe obligations of Government can hold him, and by the same rule he pretends injury to be restrained in one thing, he may in every thing, and these Rebells like L [...]r vsurpe above all [...].

Though men ought not to speake evill of diginties, which are just, yet nothing hinders to speake evill of those, who in their dignities doe evill as oft, as it is the truth. Thē the Scripture vnnecessarily forbad to speake evil of dignities, for we may not speake vntruth of any person, & if the Scripture meant noe more then not to slander, in commaunding not to speake evill of the Ruler of the people, St. Paul needlessely retracted his words of the high Priest. It shewes how neere the spiritt of Lucifer, these men are, that pretend a right to practice whatever our Saviour, or such, as were inspired of God, forbad vpon pretence of actions done by power ex­traordinary, and yet there is no example of this speaking evill of digni­ties, as the Libeller imagines, nor of publique reproaches. Though Kings were reproved, i [...] was by such, as had particular directions from God, not by every wandring [...]evite, and they did not defame them to others. And as his Maj: we beleive was heard of God in mercy, so he might without injury to the Prerogative of Christ pray to be made the head stone of the conrer according to that subordination, which he held vnder God, and Christ in ruling his people.

Vpon the ORDINANCE against the booke of COMMON PRAYER.

INnovations are generally more dangerous, then old errours by how much peace is more desireable, then broyles, and combustions. We have noe warrant to beleive such a condition in the Church of God, that should allwayes be reforminge, nor [Page 211] that the Christian Church had never lawfull Pastours, nor any thing practised according to Christs institution, till the present Sectaries re­vealed it to the wo [...]ld. We have found by experience, that there is noe dotage equall to tha [...] men have vpon their owne opinions, nor any grea­ter errours, nor mischeifes more dangerous, then such, which are intro­duced by pragmaticall Reformers, who would conforme the world to their fancies, and innovation is oftner obtruded vnder the name of re­formation, then reformation is censured, and opposed vnder the name of innovation.

The King sayes not, that the removing of the Leiturgie was a thing plau­sible to the people, as he falsely relates, but sayes, that after popular contempts offred to the booke, and those, that vsed it, it must be crucified by an ordinance. His Majest: likens not the rejection of the booke to the crucifying of our Saviour, but the carriage of the rejecters to the cursed Jewes, who cru­cified our Saviour, and these men, that rejected the booke shewed as litle reverence to him, that was to be prayed to by the formes in that booke, as to the booke it selfe.

King Edw. 6. confesses to the Cornish Rebells, it was noe other, then the old masse booke done into English some few words expung'd, which is very false, though al, that is in the old masse booke is not therefore to be rejected, and these men may aswell make an Argument they may not pray at all, because the Masse booke prescribed prayer, aswell as reject formes of Devotion, because they were in the masse booke.

It was the Carnall feare of divines, and Politicians, that modelled the Lei­turgie, noe further of from the old masse, least they should incense the people. This hath been the conceite of Schismaticall Politicians, though the lightnes of it be very apparent, for it cannot be thought, that the people would be more incensed by an alteration of the prayer, then an alteration of the language, and the taking away of the externall super­stitions was more likely to incense the people, as it did, then any alte­ration of the Leiturgie, and it had been very easie to have made any alteration in the Matter, when the language was changed, and in the time of Queene Elizabeth, when no such feare could be pretended, the demaunds of the schismatickes for abolishing the leiturgie were held frivolous and seditious.

The Libeller sayes good desires rightly conceived in the heart, wholesome words will follow of themselves. But wholesome words will beget good desires, and how publique prayer in the congregation can be vsed, vnles a leiturgie be admitted noe true Christian can finde a way.

That the prescription of a Leiturgie was not imposed, nor practised by the first founders of the Church, is an apparent falshood, The Lords prayer, and the prescriptions of the Apostles to make prayers for all men, for Kings, & al in authoritie, that we might leade a quiet life in all godlines, and honestie, and the many leiturgies yet extant convince all, but will­full [Page 212] gainsayers, and it had been in vaine for the Apo [...]le to commaund the people to obey such, as had the oversight of them, if they had noe authoritie to prescribe things lawfull, and honest, and this Libeller, that hath been florishing with autho [...]tie of the refor­med Churches, h [...]re condemnes them all, who, none excepted, vse Leiturgies.

Without whose (meaning the first founders of the Church) precept, and example, how constantly the Priest puts on his gowne, and surplisses, soe constantly doth his prayer put on a servile yoke of Leiturgie. It seemes the mention of gowne, and surplesse are instede of Arguments to his well principled men, and soe is yoke of Leiturgie, though by his owne confession, that yoke is not in the Leiturgie it selfe, but only for the supposed want of precept, or example, for if there had been either of them, as both are apparent, there had been noe yoke in his judgment, neither can that be a yoke in Religion, which is not sinfull, and sin there cannot be without breach of a law, and if the Libeller could reduce Leiturgies within that compasse, he neede not vse those beggerly ne­gatives, and if the vsing of Leiturgie by the Priest be a yoke, doe not the peoples prayers, that put on the Priests extemporary words, put on a yoke of Leiturgie? For are not his words asmuch yoke to them, as the publique Leiturgie of the Church to him? And it is evident, that they, who vse noe set formes in publique prayer, direct them more to the hearers, then to God, studying for expressions of their owne parts, while others, that vse set formes have their affections more enlarged, and not yoked to the search of words.

Set formes are not rigorously forbidden to any mans private infirmitie. But they are rigorously forbidden, if they are thrust out of the Church, and every mans prayers, and spirit imprisoned in the pinfold of set words, ha­stily shuffled togeather by a man often times as defective in whole­some words, as sound Devotion, whose doses of vnprepared words, and matter leade the people into imprecations, rather then prayers, & these men, that would confine all publique devotions to the sudden rap­tures of every vnlearned Levite, seeke to shutt heaven at their pleasure, though their hands are as short, as their vnderstanding, and the spiri [...]t of vtterance, as it respects our prayers, is not exercised in words, but in the affections, which are vtterances to God.

What we may doe in the same forme of words is not soe much the question, as whether Leiturgie may be forced, as he forced it. And why doth he say for­ced it, meaning the King, when it was established by his Predecessours with consent of Parliament, which the Libeller soe much pretends to reverence? And he may easily answeare his question, that would have the forme of words vsed by every Minister to be forced vpon all con­gregations, and we may justly vse the same words allwayes, that con­taine pititions of all things necessary.

[Page 213] The Leiturgie comprehends not all truth. And doth he thinke, that all truth should be comprehended in prayer, or that any benifitt, or vse of sacred expressions is de [...]ed vs, vnles all the expressions of Scripture are conteined in publique prayer. We have the full benifit of all sacred ex­pressions, if our nece [...]ties are fully represented, but his spirit of vtte­rance is the vse of varietie in expression, as if there were a necessitie to vse all expressions to the same sense, and he would have ws beleive, that the benifitt of sacred expressions is barralled vp in the new tub men whose prayers not only want salt, but are besmeared with prophanes.

Though God raigne downe new expressions into our hearts, yet it is not fitt for the whole Church, to be yoaked to the fancies of every Levite, who often mistake, Satanicall injection for the dew of heaven, and he is much mistakē in his comparison of retaining the forme of wholesome words to reserved Manna, but the loathers of this Manna of wholesome words are the true offspring of these murmerers, that loathed the Celestiall Manna, and bread of Angles, because they had it all wayes, accounting it a light foode in regard of their sensuall appetite, as these men now thinke the formes of the Church light in regard of the ordinary vse, & of their owne parts, which they would expose to the people, and there­fore, if Leiturgies, were Manna it selfe yet if whorded vp, and enjoined they will be found sayes the Libeller like reserved Manna, rather to breede wormes, and stinke.

For the varietie of words, though God have given vs plentie, and that we ought not to be nigardly of them to him alone, yet we finde long pra­yers, and vaine repetitions condemned by God, and we are commaun­ded, when we come before him, that our words be few, and the questing of Scripture Phrase in prayers is now found wanting in leiturgies, that was soe lately scorned by the libeller for the lipp worke of every Prelaticall lei­turgist. Sectaries prayers, though dressed with varietie of words are ac­compained with a nigardly devotion, wherein God cheifely requires vs to be copious, & this libeller is copious in blasphemy, that wil have the word of God, if whorded vp, and injoyn'd to breed wormes, & stinke.

The libeller would have his scoffes received for Argument, & to vi­lifie the vse of sett formes brings in the famine of the seidge of Ierusalem, whē the Priests brought still the same loaves of the shewbread, not being able to procure new, & he would give vs stones for bread, the Pharisees still continue their old leaven of hipocrisie, though their words be varyed.

If the Lords prayer had been a warrant for leiturgies, why was neither that, nor other set forme after vsed mentioned by the Apostles, or commēded to our vse. It had beē very needelesly prescribed by our saviour, if it had never beē vsed afterwards, & it had been disobedience in the Apostles, if they did not vse it, being by our saviour commaunded. It is the commō argumēt of heretickes to accuse God of improvidence, vnles he proportiō his re­velations to the measure of their fancies, & though the Counsel of God, & supernaturall truths to be beleived were fully revealed, w [...] may not beleive, that nothing was left to Christian prudence in the Church [Page 214] of God, and we cannot pretend want of revelation in this point, where we have such expresse prescription of the Lords prayer, and particular injunctions of the Apostle St. Paul, and if we m [...]st expect such revela­tions, where is it revealed that every congre [...] must vse only such words, as the Minister thereof extemporally dictates in their prayers.

If God left our words to be putt into vs without premeditation, why then doth the Libeller allow any mans private infirmitie to vse helpes? will not God help private infirmitie that way, Or is every one in the con­gregation without infirmitie. How is any assured if the promise be vniversall.

Our saviour encouraged his disciples with promise of assistance without their premeditation, And why doth he object want of Christian diligence to set formes, if it be a fault to vse it, and all must be done without preme­ditation. And its like his preachers pray & sermonize without preme­ditation by the stuffe they vtter, and we see what respect they beare to God, that pressed diligence in their actions touching this life, & Re­bellion, & exclude it from devotion & that, which concernes God. what soever the Libeller sayes concerning Gods graces, is nothing to the question, touching the vse of Leiturgies, vnlesse he would have, that in the publique congregation, every person should have his prayer a part, and bring that disorder, which the Scripture forbidds.

Voluntary prayers are lesse subject to formall, and superficiall tempers, then set formes, for in those hee, who prayeth must consult first with his heart, which in all likelihood may stirre vp his affections. But he doth most commonly consult with his braine both for matter, what is most pleasing, and what most proper in expression, and it is incident vnto most to fall into an affection of their owne conceptions, and abilities in these voluntary prayers, rather then true devotion.

Affections grow lasy in set prayer, and come not vp easily at the call of words. But much more easily, then in the labour for words, and matter, and those words are most emptie of devotion, and prayer, which are the os­tentation of the presenters abilities, who is apt to seeke satisfaction in contemplation of his owne parts, and his fervour is greater in looking on himselfe, then God.

Ostentation, and formalitie may taint the best duties. And why not then the best institutions, and if vnpremeditated babling may be restrained with­out forbidding the spirit of God, which is in his sense his extemporary prayer, why may not lasines, and formalitie be reprehended in such, as vse the publique leiturgie without forbidding the vse of it, but it is, as him­selfe sayes the Custome of hipocrites to take advantage at the least abuse of Good [...]gs, that vnder that covert, they may remove the goodnes of those things, [...]her then the abuse.

Constancie attributed to the vse of set formes, he calls the constancie of the C [...]oe to be allwayes vsing the same Leiturgie. And what then are his [Page 215] best reformed Churches? this shewes him one of those chattring birds, that Abraham drave from his sacrifise, and this wretch trembles not to compare the sett formes appointed by God himselfe in the Scripture to the Cuckoe, and t [...]e vse of the Scripture is the constancy of the Cuckoe

The booke for aught we know was composed by men neither learned, nor god­ly. But they are vngodly, that without knowledge will suppose them neither learned, nor Godly, but was the Martirdome of many of them noe proofe of their Godlines? And are there noe workes, that prove the learning of those Composers, doth this man thinke vpon the credit of the protestant Religion?

Noe doubt the spiritt helpes our infirmities, but we have noe promise, that the spiritt shall enable every Christian to compose prayers for the whole congregation, neither doth the Libeller beleive, that all his Mi­nisters of the new Religion are soe endowed, if he doe, he hath few associates.

It is Gods promise, that where two, or three gathered together in his name shall agree to aske any thing, it shable graunted. And how can they agree without a prescript forme, is the agreement, that all must follow the desires of one? That there was a Leiturgie in the Chuch, of the Jewes hath not been denyed by any learned man, & its apparent by the Titles of many of Davids Psalmes, that they were vsed by the singers in the ordinary service of the Church. That Christians vsed the Lords prayer, and other sett formes cannot be denyed, and the Libeller is much de­ceived in his computation of the time, when Leiturgies begun, for the Church never wanted them, and we have seene by experience, that true pietie, followed the vse of Leiturgies, disobedience, and prophanes the rejection of them, & such, as have rejected them, have proved not only Truants, but Apostates to all sanctitie.

What is said of Leiturgie is said of Directorie, and soe farewell Presbi­terian. We finde, that none make such presumptuous claime to Ministe­riall guifts, as ignorant, and braineles persons, that have noe Title by calling, or endowment.

The King had noe reason to object, that the Common prayer booke was [...], because it prayed soe oft for him, for large, and laborious prayers were made for him in the pullpits. But its well knowne, that the Sectaries were neither large, nor laborious in such prayers, and its justly doubted, not sincere, when they vsed them, but would have men heare their hipocri­ticall formalitie, not God to graunt what they seemed to pray for, and all men can witnes what prayers were made for him in pulpits after the leiturgie was rejected, al the largenes, and labour appearing in their prayers was to reproach his person, and procure him dishonour, and miserie.

The King in his prayers presumes Leiturgies to be lawfull. What should [Page 216] hinder? praying that the Church, and he might never want them. And what sayes the Libeller could be worse prayed extempore, he might have answea­red himselfe, that Prayer to want them was to call for Desolation vpon the Church.

Of the Differences in point of CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

THe Libeller sayes, the Author in this Chapter disco­vers more of misterie, and combination betweene Tyrany, and false Religion, then from any other hand would have been credible. Tis strange, that soe obvious, a truth should be incredible from any hand. Was not Jeroboams new Religion the foundation of a Ty­rany, and have not all vsurpers in the Civill state pretended some false Religion? Was not Mahometts wicked imposture, and Tyraniall vsur­pation bredd togeather, and have not the present Tyrants introduced a false Religion to support their power? Hath not schisme been joyned with the Rebellion?

We may have learnt both from sacred story, and times of reformation, that the Kings of this world have ever hated, and instinctively feared the Church of God. Its manifest Sectaries hate King, and Church, malefactours will compliane, that Judges hate them for their vertues. We finde in the ancient Church, that Kings were the greate protectours, and reformers of the Church, and its strange that the Libeller, if he had looked backe at all, had not seene David, Solomon, Hezechiah, Josiah, and others. The Kings of Israell politiquely opposed the true Church, for feare the people should returne to the house of David, and if we looke vpon Pagan Kings, we finde Cyrus, and Artaxerxes helping the establish­ment of the true Church. This Libeller hath discovered a greate Mis­terie of Rebellion, that having made such outcryes of Tyrany against his late Maj: heere tells vs the Tyrany was Monarchy, & they would not be subject to the Kings of this world, to such impostors is England now subject, that kill Kings, and make Tyrants, and this blaspheamer stickes not to charge the Church of God, and the Doctrines thereof with opposition to Civill Government, and to commaund the destruc­tion of Kings.

[Page 217] Because the doctrine seemes to favour Libertie, and equalitie. And are there not Republiques that oppose the true Religion? True Religion pres­seth obedience, fa [...]hood, and imposture allwayes hold foorth licence to the people. Is there through all the booke of God one word in fa­vour of this Rebell, libertie, and equallitie? And did not God plant his Church at first in an apparent inequallitie, and subjection both in the state Civill, & Ecclesiasticall? And this broode of Sectaries have heere­tofore complained, that their doctrines were traduced as opposite to Monarchy. And neither Libertie, nor equallitie is sought for to the people, but to betray them to the power of these deceivers, who are growne to that impudence to pretend doctrines of confusion, and Re­bellion to be the true Religion.

The Church, as ancient prophesies foretold should dissolve all their power, & Dominion. Few sects professing Christ have appeared more Turkish, then these present of England, they fancie an earthly Kingdome for the Church, as Mahomett his Paradise, and then, that themselves are the true Church, and shall have Dominion over all, and avow their inten­tion to destroy all Kings, and whoever submitt not to them. But cer­tenly Kings vnderstood not any such prophesies, nor feared such pre­tenders, who make prophesies to agree with their owne wicked Acti­ons, and ambitious desires.

His first instance is in Pharaohs oppressing of the Israelites. And doth he beleive, that Pharaoh knew their doctrines, or prophesies, the man might have learnt more from the Text, that being strangers they might over power him, and thence grew his persecution, not from the libel­lers imaginary doctrine. He makes a strange leape, that passes by all sto­ries els, and would prove his position by his owne authoritie, and ex­pects, that his libell against the King shall make good his position, that Kings ever feared, and hated the true Church a strong way of dispu­ting, to prove that kings hated, and feared the true Church, because the King did soe, and to prove the King did soe, because kings did soe, this is a stout Champion.

There neede no answeare to his bawling of the kings suspition of men most Religious, for time hath tryed, that they were Rebellious, and wic­ked Traytours vnder the Masque of Religion.

He could not vse violence as Pharaoh did, and therefore chuses a more misti­call way of Antichristian fraude, and like Balak to hire against a nation of Prophetts other esteemed Prophe [...]s, and to weare out the Church by a false Ec­clasiasticall Policie. The Summe is to supresse Sectaries, and prevent Traytours is this Ecclesiasticall Policie, but where is this Mist [...] of Kings hating the true Church, is there noe true Church of God where there is Government? And what proportion hath this supposition of his to the kings proceedings? Did he erect Bishopps, or was there any Religion established, or publiquely profest, which he opposed, but [Page 218] only false, and hipocriticall factionists, which outwa [...]lly professing the established Religion sought for gaine, and pride, se [...]retly to draw dis­ciples after them to the disturbance, & subversion of the Church. There needes not any thing be said to his rayling, his corruption being appa­rent by objecting it to the calling of Bishopps, and hates it, for the re­medy against schisme, which the Church had by them.

The King bestowed livings according to the law, and the Policie was not his, but the ancient constitution of the Church, and this Monster, that reproaches the retaining any thing in Leiturgie, or Government practised by the ancient Church is not ashamed to charge the king with breach of Canons, and the ancient practice of the Church in con­ferring Ecclesiasticall dignities, and the peoples right in Elections was never pretended in England, and justly, and anciently forbidden in the Church, neither doe any Canons in force support that pretence.

That influence, which the king sayes is necessarie for the Prince to have vpon Churchmen, noe man, that beleives the Scripture will thinke vnfitt, but how can the Libeller make good, that the many Emperours, and Kings, that imbraced the Christian Religion hated, and feared it, for soe they must by his grounds? And how can he conclude from Pagans hat­red to Religion, that it was only from their kings, when as the stories are soe plentifull in setting downe the madd rage of the multitude, the truth is seditious innovatours know, that their hopes, and strength lie to seduce the silly people, and that it is the interest of governours, to pre­vent their lewde endeavours, and thence proceede their declamations against Rulers, and their proclamations of Libertie, and that, which they cal the Bishopps Tyrany is only their office to take away schisme, and schisme is the way to Rebellion.

The Libellers judgment touching callings founded on Scripture, re­formation, or graces of the Bishopps, and others is of the same authori­tie, as the determinations of Traytours touching loyaltie, and heretic­kes touching sound doctrine, and his end never agrees with his begin­ning, but in rayling, and incongruitie, for but now he made it the Kings Policie to hire the Bishopps, & now it is the Bishopps Policie to worke that perswasion in the King of noe Bishopp, noe King, the man well knowes, that noe Bishopp, noe king was the perswasion, of King James, who found it true by his owne experience without the helpe of Bishopps, and yet soe sottish doth this Libeller presume his readers, that makes the dependence, which Bishopps have only of the king the cause of such perswasions, & yet in their owne subtill sense, they were of another minde, how thē could their dependence be a cause of their perswasion, or was their sense subtill, and grossely mistaken. Thus those blattering devills, that in the beginning of the Parliament charged the Bishopps, to be Antimonarchicall thereby to conceale their malice against the king, now make it their Cryme to favour Monarchy.

[Page 219] He hath found a very strong proofe, as he would have it out of the Historie of the Councell of Trent, that Bishopps are most potent, when Princes are weakest, that argues not their dependence vpon Princes, nor that aversion to Bishopps is not aversion to Princes, it was spoken of Bishopps depending on the Pope, not on Princes, and such Clergy men, as have their dependence on Pope, or people wil never wish, that the king should be potent to master their dependencie.

From this the King sett himselfe to the removall of those men, whose doctrine he feared would be the vndoing of Monarchy. And needed he the Councells of Bishopps to provide for his safetie against such men? And is that the evill interest of Tyrany, and Episcopacie to prevent the designes of Traytours? Who were Traytours, if they were not, that would vndoe Monarchy? The doctrine, and designes of the schismatickes are heere­by apparent to be against Monarchy, and yet the prevention of such conspiracies is the Tyrany, and the corrupt Councells of Bishopps, which the hipocrites cry out on.

Noe temporall law could touch the innocencie of their lives. And had they innocency, that plotted the vndoing of Monarchy vnder which they lived, and could not the law touch it? Their disobedience to lawes was a Cryme inconsistent with innocence, and must necessarily be pu­nished by the lawes they disobey, and that, which he calls persecution of their consciences, and laying scandalls before them was only the requiring of their obedience to Acts of Parliament, whose authoritie he soe fre­quently cryes vp, and the inflicting of just penalties on their bodies, and Estates according to the lawes was the dutie of the Magistrate, to whome the execution of them belonged, although the indulgence they found from his Majest: in mitigating the penalties of law was a greate cause of their insolence, and that Calamitie they have brought vpon the kingdome, and if the lives of these men be sought into, their pride, impudence, calumnie, lying, perjurie, covetuousnes, and crueltie declare their lives farr from innocent.

The man now breakes out into a thankesgiving for the successes of their Rebellion, and though these hipocrites despise the thought of a Church, and have noe Communion with any Church, ancient, or mo­derne, yet the resistance of them is warr against the Church.

Noe Papist could speake more scandalously against reformation, then that Episcopacie was the constant practice of all Christian Churches, till of late yeares Tumult, pride faction, and covetuousnes invented new modells vnder the Title of Christs Government. It neede not be observed againe, how the Libeller is affected to the reformation, that despises all but his owne Babell, and Tumults, factions, pride, and covetuousnes, the causes of some new modells touches not soe many, as he supposes, there being soe many of the reformed Churches, that receive not these new mo­dells, but whoever they be, that obtrude them, as Christs Government, [Page 220] Scepter, and Religion, they will be marked with the same names, that are heere mentioned by the greatest number, if not all of the reformed Churches.

The Apostles were not properly Bishopps, next Bishopps were not Succes­sours of Apostles in the function of Apostleshipp. If the Apostles were not properly Bishopps he should have told, how they were improperly Bishopps, for by his caution properly he admits they were some­way Bishopps, and the Bishopps therein their Successours, though not in that part of the Apostleshipp which concerned speciall guifts, and the Testimonie of Christs conversation on earth, whereof they were eye wittnesses,

If they were Apostles, they could not be precisely Bishopps, and why not precisely, if Bishopps.

They could not be Apostles, his reason is, because that of Apostle was vni­versall, extraordinary, and immediate, the other ordinary fixed, and particular charge, and inspection. The calling of the seventie disciples was vniver­sall, extraordinarie, and immediate, and yet they were noe Apostles, and because callings were at first extraordinary, must not they, whose office it was to provide Successours to themselves, and others in the Church of God, ordaine others into their functions, and is it an Argument, that because, when the Church was gathered, men had particular care of certaine Churches, therefore they were not of the same calling with others, that preceeded them in gathering these Churches, and the lati­tude of territorie in the exercise of a mans calling doth not make diffe­rence in the function.

It is against reason, and Charitie to suppose an ignorance, and deviation of the ancient Church taught by the Apostles in a point, that destro­yed the calling of such, as were to reproach the gospell, and the sud­dennesse is not imaginable in the introduction of Prelacy, vnles by Apostolicall constitution in regard of the vniversalitie, and the Author cannot name any manifest corruption so sudden, and vniversall after the Apostles, though he pretend many.

The Ecclesiasticall Historie proves it cleerely to be false, that noe example since the first age for 1500 yeares can be produced of any setled Church, wherein were many Ministers, and congregations, which had some Bishopps over them. And his proofe is out of Sozomen, who, he sayes, wrote above 1200 yeares agoe, and his Testimony, that in the Churches of Cyprus, and A­rabia they had Bishopps in every village, what then? he sayes what could these be more then Presbiters? Yes they were Bishopps, for doth any man doubt, that Bishopps, and Presbiters were not distinct in Sozomens time, who soe frequently mentions it, and the Libeller complaines of the corruption of introducing them in the ages foregoing, there are many Councells before Sozomen, which were vniversally received, and in them subordinate of Presbiter to Bishopp is the vndeniable [Page 221] practice of the Church, and the quantitie, or quallitie of Townes, or Territories, wherein Bishopps were placed, noe way proves the lesse­ning of their order, neither can it be collected, because Bishopps were in small villages, that therefore they were noe other then Presbiters, but heerein the Libeller shewes his malicious opposition to truth in a­busing Sozomen, who having said, that Churches had several customes, & instances, that though there were many Citties in Scithia, there was one Bishopp only over all, and in other Countreyes Bishopps were in villages, not every village, & he might aswell conclude noe Presbiters in Scithia, as none, but Presbiters in Arabia, and Cyprus.

The same Author tells the like of other nations, and that Episcopall Churches did not condemne them. Wherefore should they condemne them? Its like they would, if they had taken vpon them to exercise the calling of Bis­hopps being but Presbiters, for that was long before condemned by the Canons.

He makes a large leape from sozomen to fower hundred yeares agoe, and then he sayes many westerne Churches in France, Piedmont, and Bohemia admitted not of Episcopacy among them, and yet the doctrine, and practice of these Churches published by themselves is, that they had Bishopps, & continue them stil, & this the libeller might see in their own bookes.

If we might beleive what Papists have written of the Waldenses, he findes in a booke written 400 yeares since, that those Churches in Piedmont held the same doctrine since the time, that Constantine with his mischeivous donations poysened, Thus the exploded forgery of constantines donation is made authenticke to reproach the Church, Sylvester, and the whole Church. This is the Schismaticall Charitie to the first Christian, Emperour, and the whole Church, but the man might have remembred, that Bishopps by his owne confession were long before the time of Constantine, and if we beleive the waldenses themselves, they had Bishopps in their Churches, who held the same doctrine, and Government, and the antiquitie of the waldenses proves, that they had Bishopps, otherwise they had beē con­demned by the ancient Church, as Aerius, was, for if there had been any Churches, differing from vniversal practice in the time of Constantine, it is not imaginable, that they had been vnobserved, & wee finde noe mention of their dissent, but from the Papacie, and that long after.

The famous Testimonie of St. Jerome, whereto he reserrs the rest is farr from declaring openly, that Bishopp, and Presbiter are the same thing, but the contrary is manifest in him, sor what proose can there be drawne from saint Jerome, that Bishopps, & Presbiters were the same thing, who sajes, that befor schisme by instigatiō of the devil entred in­to the Church, & that one said I am of Paul, another of Apollo, another of cephas, al things were governed by the common counsel of the Pres­biters, and who will thinke, that there were no dis [...]t orders, because things were governed by the commō counsel of Presbiters, & whē these [Page 222] schismes began, and when things were soe gove [...]ed, were there not Apostles in the Church, and superiour to Presbi [...]ers?

St. Ierome affirmes, that Bishopps rather by custome, then ordainement of Christ were exalted above Presbiters. St Ierome speakes of priviledges gi­ven to Bishopps above Presbiters by custome, but he affirmes the po­wer of ordination belonging to them, and not to Presbiters Though St. Ierome make a difference betwixt the ordainment of Christ, and the practice of the Apostles, neither he, nor any good Christian ever questioned the lawfullnes, & authoritie of such Custome of the Church in the times of the Apostles, and this man, that in this very Chapter said the King produced noe Scripture, and that antiquitie was not of weight against it, now gravely determines that interpretation of St. Ierome in his sense shalbe received before intric [...] stuffe tatled out of Timothy, and Titus. Thus this prophane hipocrite prostitutes Scripture, where it contradicts their practises, and St. Ierome shalbe preferred before Scripture, if he seeme to favour their sense, and vilified beneath Esops falles, if he dissent from them.

If it be farr beyound Court Element what is said by his Majest: it is not above his owne, the proper Element of this breaker is prophanes, and impudence, and heere againe he importunately obtrudes the Kings let­ter to the Pope, which he makes a chiefe support of his Trayterous pretences, but the authoritie of a gazet out of which he quotes it, is too meane to rayse a scandall vpon a Prince in the judgment of any reaso­nable men, and this man well knowes th [...] fraude in publishing that false Copie of the Kings letter, which he willfully passes by, and the satisfaction, which the King gave the Parliament, and whole Kingdome vpon his returne out of Spaine, & the dissolving of those Treaties, which occasioned that letter must stopp the mouth of all detractours to offer it as an argument of his Majest: inclination to the Roman Religion?

The Libeller answeares his Majest: argument to prove his sufferings out of conscience, not Policie, because his losses were more considerable then episco­pacy with objecting hardning, and blindnes, being himselfe hardned to oppose all light of truth, and shut his eyes against the cleerest demon­strations.

Where hath more faction, and confusion ever been bredd, then vnder the im­paritie of his owne Monarchicall Government. The king pretended not, any Government could absolutely shut out faction, but we may be sure those factions are most dangerous to all Governments, whose principles are destructive to it, and these factions were not bredd in the constitu­tion of Monarchy, but among the Enemies af it, and the envious man sowed his tares, while men slept, and as he will not stand powling of the reformed Churches to know their numbers, soe he wil hand over head affirme, that the farr greater part in his Majest: three kingdomes desired what they have now done to throw downe Episcopacie, which hath as litle weight [Page 223] as truth the reformed Churches are not vilified one by another, though each maintaine their severall formes of Government, and his Majest: is farr from vilifying those Churches, but the Libeller vilifies himselfe, and them that scoffs it their Archpresbitery classicall, and Diocesine Presbitery, and their Priest-led herodians, blinde guides.

None but Lutherans retained Bishopps, and therein convinces himselfe of his often repeated vntruths, that all the reformed Churches rejected Episcopacy for the Novations, Montanists having noe other Bishopps, then such, as were in every village is another of his falsities in adding the word every, and it doth not prove, that these heretickes had not Bishopps, and Presbiters, which Christians may have, though they live in Caves, and deserts, and its evident in story those heretickes had Bishopps. That the Aerians were condemned for heretickes the Li­beler well knowes, and the King naming them soe meddles not with their particular heresies, and it is too obscure to be seene, that the King fastens that opinion touching Bishopps, and Presbiters for their he­resie. Though the Clergie ought to minister the gospell, if the people supply them not, yet such temutie, and contempt quickely becomes a Carkase indeede. The Sectaries, that place their greatenes in being the ringleaders of faction turne all Religion into a fantasme, and kno­wing they could never by any judicious choise obtaine preferment in the Church professe the dislike of them, and seeke their fortunes in se­ducing the multitude.

Its easily beleived, that wealth may breede vices in the Clergie, aswell, as others, but must they therefore be made poore, and others rich by the robbery of them? the Kings choise of Bishopps will convince the clamours of the Schismatickes, and gives just cause to expect the evill consequences the King foretells of their removall. That the function of Bishopps, and Presbiters was not tyed to place, though the exer­cise of it was by Ecclesiasticall constitution, he hath been already told, and that it was necessary the Apostolique power for the Government of the Church must descend to Bishopps, there being noe others, that ever pretended to it.

How the Church florisht vnder Episcopacie, the extent of the Christian Religion over soe greate a part of the world doth sufficiently testifie, & the corruption of many in that order doth not take away the benifitt of it, which acrewed vnto the Church by the labours of others, and all ages have recorded persons of greate learning, and holines of life in that order.

He talkes againe of the Kings Coronation oath to give vs such lawes, as our selves should chuse, when he knoweth, that the clause, which he pre­tends to be in that oath imports noe such thing, nor was that oath, wherein the clause is pretended ever ministred to the King, nor diverse other Kings, nor ordeined to be soe.

[Page 224] In likelihood they were neerer amendment, that sought a stricter forme of Church discipline, then that of Episcopacie. But they that sought to remove Episcopacy would have the Church discipline in their owne hands, that it might be loose, and in likelyhood they would not be strict to themselves, his boasting of what the Scotts could worke by power, shewes, that he regards nothing right, but power, and soe he can pre­vayle, despises all Justice, and conscience.


THat men may treate like beasts, aswell, as fight, noe way opposes his Majest: Aphorisme, which affirmes Trea­ties, a retiring from fighting like beasts to agreeing like men, Trea­ties being managed only by the vse of reason, fighting by force, and his Majest: spake of the nature of Treaties, not the abuses of men in them, and though some fighting may be manlike yet the Act is common to beasts, rationall Treaties cannot

The Kings march, and fight at Brainford, the Libeller would make a thirst of warr though in the rigour of Marshall law, it might have been excused in a naturall Enemy that makes a trade of warr. And may as justly be de­fended in the King, whome that faction, which proferred a Treatie to him at Cole-brooke intended to surprize him, having disposed their for­ces in such places, as must have effected it, if he had not speedily preven­ted it by that onset. What he intimates touching Oxford, Bristow, and scarborrow naming noe particulars, he can expect no answeare, & who­ever lookes over the memoriall, of passages touching Treaties will finde that the Kings offers were soe large, as nothing, but desire of peace could have moved him to it, and nothing but guiltines, and ambition could be the cause of their refusall.

That the faction in Parliament would have compelled him to part with his honour as a King, the Libeller denyes not, but askes what honour he had, but the peoples guift, & yet he seekes to defend the Actions of theis villaines, as defending themselves, and resorts to his common principles that Kings are but the servants of the people, who may dispose of their Kings, and their honour as they thinke best. And by his doctrine the King, and [Page 225] people must be the prey of every powerfull Traytour. It neede not be repeated, that the peoples welfare consists in supporting the rights of their King, and that it is their miserie to deprive themselves of him, and turne into confusion, and slavery to vsurpers, And it is Monstrous, that a kings highest Court sitting by his regall authoritie should bandie themselves against their soveraigne, and like vipers eate out the bowells of their pa­rent, fighting against that power, which gives them being, and by an vnnaturall malice of the members to the head cast the whole body into an incureable consumption. This insolence, and presumption of the pretended Parliament hath brought the loose rabble, and lawles Army to despise the representation, which they soe much magnifie, and doe that vnto them, which they did vnto their king. It cannot be doubted, that subjects cannot with dutie treate on equal termes with their king, and the practice of all times makes it manifest, that none but Traytours attempted it, and it was a sufficient proofe of the kings desire of peace, that he sought a Treatie, where a submission was due to him.

The Kings instructions were to bribe their Commissioners with promise of se­curitie rewards, and places. How he proves such instructions he tells vs not, but we are sure, that the demaunds of their Commissioners were securitie, rewards, and places, for they would have all in their power.

There were but three heads of the Treatie, Ireland, Episcopacie, and the Mi­litia, the first was forestalled by a peace, that the King might pretend [...] word against the Parliaments Arguments. And if there had not been a peace made, it was a most detestable Rebellion, and blood thirstie crueltie to continue an intestine warr against the King, and his people of England, vnles a few Tribunes might have the management of that warr in Ire­land, and exclude the King from any interest in that kingdome, and yet this must be a defensive warr on the Rebells part.

The King bids the Queene be confident, he will never quit Episcopacy, which informes vs by what patronage it stood. And how could that informe you, even as well, as the Kings telling her, that Religion was the sole diffe­rence betweene them, informes you, that the Queene directed him in matters of Religion.

The sword he resolves, sayes the Libeller to clutch as fast, as if God with his owne hand had put it into his. And there is noe doubt but he had, and it was a Rebellious wickednes in that faction, which sought to wrest it from him in despite of Gods ordinance, and their owne sworne subjec­tion. In all these the King had reason, honour, and conscience on his side, and his pretence, that the Queene was Regent in all these is farr from credible, when causes to the contrary are soe obvious to every vnder­standing. The Libeller himselfe professes their intentions to take away the Kings right, and would suggest to the world, that it was only the Queenes Councell, that he would preserve his Crowne,

[Page 226] Wise men could judge the composure likely to be more miserable, then happy. But these wise men were taught by their guilt never to thinke them­selves secure, and to preferre their power before their conscience, and the Kingdomes peace.

The English were called Rebells during the Treatie. And why not? till the Treatie had made an abolition of their offence, for did they forbe are any of their reproachfull termes, or Rebellious actions against the king, and his partie during the Treatie?

The Irish were called good, and Catholique subjects. And that some of them might be, though the Libeller cannot produce the instance of it.

The Parliament was called a Parliament for fashions [...], and in the Coun­sell bookes enrolled noe Parliament. That it was no Parliament all knowing men agree, and the enrolling of their opinions, that held it noe Parlia­ment was noe injury to the Treatie, and the Kings appellation of them a Parliament, because they would not be treated with otherwise gives them noe right, nor shutts vp him from that opinion of their conditi­on, which was true, and reall. Christians treate with the Turke by those appellations, he will be called by, though they doe not acknow­ledge them belonging to him.

It was a divellish fraude, that the King in his owne esteeme had been absol­ved from performance, as having treated with Rebells, and noe Parliament, and they insteede of an expected happines brought vnder the hatchett. Who now doth not see, that force, and guilt were the continuers of this horrid Rebellion, and blood, and that these Traytours perferred their private securitie before publique peace? But whence is this collection of a di­vellish fraude by a divellish interpreter? If the King thought not the appellation due to them, which he gave them, doth it follow, that he must esteeme himselfe absolved of performance of his promises there­fore? These are dreames from divellish infusions, not reasonable sup­positions, the titles of treating parties having noe influence vpon the performance of the things promised, and they of the other side might have said, they were absolved from performance, because they treated with the Kings Commissioners vnder other Titles then they had, or were knowne by, but they would perswade the people, that they can­not be safe vnlesse the master Rebells rule.

May not that bratt superstition be justly laid to their charge, that im­pose for the Scepter of Christs Kingdome a yesterdayes invention of congregationall consistories, and make it Religion, and truth of God to roote out Prelates of the Church of God?

For the meritt of the Treaties, and where the blame lay of their breach, the world hath long since full satisfaction, and that the Rebells came but vnwillingly to Treaties, and with reserves allwayes to breake it of, never mittigating the rigour of any proposition in the least de­gree, and though the Libeller, and others spitt Sulphur, and cast foorth [Page 227] their cloudes of lying, and slander, yet the evidence of the facts dis­solve, and consume their venome, and confidence, and the meanest ca­pacitie descernes the falshood, and crueltie of their proceedings both in warr, and Treaties.

Vpon the VARIOUS EVENTS Of the warr.

IT is noe new, or vnwonted thing for bad men to claime as much part in God, as his best Servants. And all men looke vpon the Rebells in England, as the vnparalleld prodigies of this hipocri­sy, their claimes vnto Gods service, and favour, the vsurpation of those appellations, that belong to the Godly, their ostentations of fas­tings, prayers, and thankes givings, and severe censures of the persons, and manners of others, are a sufficient demonstration of this presumpti­on of men hardned in wickednes, and resolved to prosecute ambiti­ous disignes.

He is yet to learne what good vse the King made of these various events, nei­ther will he acknowledge, though he see the vse of insolence, & cruel­tie, which the Rebells have made of their successes against him.

Those numbers, which the King grew to from small beginnings, came not out of love, but fled to be protected from the feare of reformation. A jolly conceite, what feare of reformation was there, or appeares yet? It was necessary dutie to oppose Rebells, and confusion, and that was then knowne vnto the silliest people, but such, as were poysened by the contagious doc­trines of Rebellious Sectaries.

Such a snow ball might easily gather through those cold, and darke provinces of ignorance, and lewdenesse. And can he thinke, that any Provinces are soe ignorant, and lewde, as these sinkes, and Kenells, whence the Re­bells raked the rabble of rascallitie, which they armed against the king? The libeller could not be ignorant of what al his partie acknowledge, the greate disproportion in qualitie both for place, and education, that was in the Kings partie above their owne.

The Libeller would have Gods long suffering sometimes to harden, and [Page 228] be the beginning of a severer punishment. But he overlookes that sensible obduration, which successes have brought vpon the Rebells, and as they are a severe punishment vpon the nation, soe we may conceive by their wickednes, that their prosperitie bindes them over to grea­ter judgment.

He would convince the King of breaking lawes, and that he had not the sword by law, not soe much, as to vnsheath against a forraigne Enemy. And by soe palpable an vntruth, it being knowne vnto the whole world, that Leagues, and warrs with forraigne nations were made by the King a­lone we may conclude, he hath quitted shame, & is resolved to sticke to his false assertions, and tottering Arguments, though never soe con­trary to his owne Judgment, & knowledge, & heere againe he repeates his jaded discourse of a free nation, body of Parliament, and sword in a single hand so often spurred vp, and downe since the beginning of his booke. The libeller, if he would have vsed Arguments should have expressed wherein his pretences differ from other Rebells, for all pretend Tyrany in their Rulers, & fighting for libertie, but he will have fighting lawful to make a new Republique, and to take the sword to destroy the old, & insteede of making the King guiltie of the breach of lawes, justifies the Rebelliō, because lawes were executed. Whatever he objects for a rea­son of Rebellion against a King is as possible to any other Government, for are al Republiques of one Religion, & may the subjects of different Religion from what is established in any state Rebel, & say it is vnrea­sonable, that rulers must be obeyed, when they wil not conforme to the opinions of a sect, & so severall opinions must decide their Religion by the sword. If such Rebells die Martirs we have been much deceived of malefactours, and noe Traytours will want a saint-shipp.

This opinion of his touching the holines of Rebellion, he sayes, is not the opinion, but full beleise of farr holyer, and wiser men, then Parasuicke prea­chers, For holy, and wise men the Libeller seemes to be litle acquainted with, and vnles they be the scandall of preachers, and basest of Parasites none can be soe vile to maintaine such odious assertions. Its well knowne the Crim catching sermonizers to these Rebells have confi­dence enough to speake what they know not, & men hired to act a false part will blush at nothing; and therefore, though never King was esta­blished by parliament, nor could be, because they depended on him, and were called by him: though Parliaments never acted in law, C [...]vill oaths, nor Religion but by the Kings assent, and the oath which he calls the Kings, and hath soe often mentioned, was never establisht by Par­liament, yet against all evidence this libeller, & his Mates will affirme, that nothing was thought to be established, which that house declares to be abo­lished. Its like he meanes the house of Commons, which never till these blacke times pretended a power to give an oath, much [...]esse make a law, and such, as make these vast vntruths outgoe Parasi­ticke [Page 229] preachers, and all knights of the Post, that are yet discove­red.

It were absurd to give the Parliament a legislative power, and vpbraide them for transgressing old Establishment. Whoever thought them to have a le­gislative power? Is not the King the Legislatour, and they his Coun­sell, and is it not absurd to give the Legislative power to them, that are to advise the Legislatour, and when the two houses desire the King, that it may be made a law by the King with their consent, is it not ab­surd, that one house should say all the Legislative power is in them? But there neede noe proofe of their transgressing old establishments, when they confesse it. Its like the Rebells thinke their heaven heere, and they doe not much value the losse of the other, and noe man is troubled with his censure, to whome Charitie, and truth are alike despicable.

The Libeller, that scoffes at the seeking of heaven in forma pauperis shewes his value of heaven, and seekes none but that, which is to be found in forma proditoris. He thinkes to take of the horror of their death, that dyed in willfull perjury, and Rebellion against the king by raving against the kings partie, who he sayes died most frequently with oaths, and other damning words in their mouths, And is soe impotent to hope, that the Calumnies of a perjured wretch will finde creditt, for were he not distempered by hellish delusion, or sottishly drunken, he would not soe stupidly affirme, that it was notorious, that they, who were hottest in his cause, the most part of them were men oftner drunke, then by their good will sober, it being a knowne truth, that men of most eminent so­brietie were hottest in the kings cause, & theis traytours never forbare any wickednes by their will but for their ends. The king neede not a discovery to the state of their consciences, more then by their Actions, that fought against him, and he might justly beleive they had never the better of him in their owne consciences, where they were more affraid to encounter those many reasons from law, alleagiance, and Christian grounds, then in a despe­rate bravery to fight. And is it to presume more then a Pope to say this? But he that will not sticke at open falsification will not sticke to slan­der thoughts, and offer conjectures for convertions, such as were most zealous in his Majest: cause had a sobrietie vnblemishable by a Tray­tours malice, and were not only free from druken distemper, but bru­tish insolence, and brazen impudence, which the Rebells rather af­fect, then repent of. And is there not a just cause, that the con­sciences of many should grow suspitious, and corrected by the pre­tentions of the misnamed Parliament, now proved false, and vn­intended? Whats become of their making a glorious King, lawes of the land, priviledges of Parliament? Doth not every man see they are all in the dirt among the Libellers Ceremonies.

But they never pretended to establish his Throne without our Libertie, [Page 230] and Religion, nor Religion without the word of God, [...]or to judge of lawes by their being established, but to establish them by their being Good, and necessary. They never pretended, that his throne was inconsistent with libertie, or Religion, nor to judge of lawes otherwise, then by being established. But who must be the Dictatours, the Parliament, which is crumbled in­to a close Committee, and state Counsell, or any rabble, that shall say this, or that law is not good, and therefore to be repealed, though esta­blished, he ought to have concluded, that they never pretended privi­ledge of Parliament further then the subterranean junto, or the Tu­mults should judge necessary.

To pray, and not to governe is for a Monke not a King. But is prayer in­consistent with Government? Those men will accuse the King for being a Christian, and have as litle love to prayer, as obedience, a monke will better governe, then such a man pray, who is constant to malice, & falshood, and this man that sayes to governe by Parliament justisies his Rebellion to take away Kinglie Government.

His legislative Parliament, and oppressed lawes cannot be admitted, where other answeare is wanting, but the Libeller hath long since thrust the force of them out of doores by his many prevarications, confining them all in the Cabinet of his owne braine, which must determine whe­ther they be good, and necessary.

He is constant to Iohn of Leidens principles, that must take away other mens goods for doubt of ill vsing them, and because the King sayes, he feared the temptation of an absolute Conquest, therefore it was pious, and friendly in the Parliament to resist him. Their pietie, and friendshipp were much alike, and the Libellers Riligion might come in for a share. Its very probable, that this warr had never been, if the Act for conti­nuance of the Parliament had not been consented to by the King, and that Act might stopp the mouth of any reasonable man, from saying there was such a power in the two houses, as the Libeller dreames of, that desired that Act from the King, and it was never heard in our sto­ry, that ever Parliaments made warr against Kings, as Tyrants, or other­wise, for how could they make awarr, that neither could, nor ever did pretēd to sit longer, then their King pleased, & the immodestie, & ingra­titude of the present Rebells have farr exceeded the worst Examples.

He is obstinate to his principles, and feares to attribute anything to the Kings concessions, or denyall, and had he graunted lesse in all proba­bilitie himselfe, and the Kingdome had suffred lesse.

It cannot be doubted, but the Libeller will invert whatever the King sayes, and it is a greate adventure, that he sayes the sins of their lives not seldome fought against them, and wee have greate cause to beleive their prosperitie did noe lesse, that continue hardned in soe execrable a cause.

The King sayes he desires not any man should be further subject to him, then all of vs should be subject to God. And this Mountebanke holds this a [Page 231] sacriledge worse, then Bishopps lands, for he sayes he desires asmuch subjec­tion, as is due to God, and so desires noe lesse then to be a god. And is subjection to Princes in the, Lord subjection to them as God? And doth the King desire otherwise, that would have them noe otherwise obey him, then that they might obey God, renouncing all obedience, that consists not with obeying God, but sale worke must be slight, and the Libeller would not exceede his hire.

The Rebells desiring the Kings acquittall of them for the blood of the warr confirmes their guilt, not their innocence. Though God impute not to any man the blood shedd in a just cause in respect of the ground, and reason of doing it, yet there may be temptations vnto naturall in­firmitie in acting a just cause, and the King was not without a sense of such danger, therefore the Libeller wretchedly beggs an argument of his guilt from his prayer not to have blood imputed to him.

Vpon the REFORMATION Of the Times.

Noveltie, and perturbation are justly con­demned not only by Christians, but morall men, and it is a noveltie taken vp only by Sectaries, that would confine all Religion to their owne frensy, and reject the vniversall consent of all times, and places, and not only boasting of the truth of their owne delusions, but obtruding them vpon the world, threatning fire, and sword to gainsayers, and yet they will pretend the example of our Saviours publishing his go­spell, and pretend like reason for their fanaticke conceites, as for his di­vine revelations, and miraculous Testimonies, and because reformation may be necessary, therefore they conclude it must be as often, as these, that are carried about with every winde of doctrine shall thinke fitt, & they would reduce Christianitie to a cloud without water tossed to, & fro with the breath of private opinion.

The first reformers in the time of Pope Adrian pretended not a reforma­tion of the vniversall Church, and a rejection of whatever was recei­ved by the primitive, as those men now, neither did they presume to [Page 232] enforce others to their perswasion, and though noveltie, and perturbation were objected to them, yet they still deprecated that guilt, and it is a most vnchristian, and prophane disposition to desregard lawes establis­hed, and Religion setled vpon presumption of private opinions, and these of men neither learned, discreete, nor honest. There is greate difference betweene a clamour, and an vndeniable truth, and we may not thinke, that popular compliance, dissolution of all order, and Government in the Church, schisme, vndecencies, confusions, sacrilegious invasions, contempt of the Clergy, and their Leiturgie, and diminution of Princes are lesse odious, because Papists objected them, or that any pretended reformation introduced by these detestable practices can be acted, or approved by Christians, All men are wittnes, that the present Sectaries are guiltie of all these, The former reformers did not give occasion for such asper­sions, that desired only the libertie of their owne consciences from the practice, and beleife of errours newly enjoyned, and anciently rejected in the Church, or els followed the orderly reformations which Princes, and states authorised in their owne Dominiōs, but these new reformers obtrude their dictates vpon all the world, and will dispose of all King­domes with the Divill, as in their donation.

Let it be produced, what good hath been done by synods since the reformation. Its like not the good he meanes to authorise all manner of Lewde sects, and Lunaticke opinions. But synods are customary, and have their set times in all the reformed Churches, and if there be fraude, and packing in synods, as he sayes, whence come Parliaments, that are of like constitution to be free? Is there a priviledge of Parliament to change nature, and that the members cannot be guiltie of fraude, faction, and Treason? There is not only fraude, and packing by insinuations, con­spiracies, and corruptions of the vulgar, but violence, and confusion to Church, and state by tumultuary reformations, and what is this doc­trine of rejecting synods, but the justifying of all licentious violence, and Lewde Rebellion to introduce mens private opinions.

The pulling downe of Church windowes, and Crosses, which were but Civill not Religious markes, defacing the Monuments, and inscriptions of the dead, mentioned by the King are the effects of a popular, and deceitefull refor­mation in the account of all true protestants.

That Protestants were accused by Papists, as these are charged by the King will not parallell guilt, nor hide the present Actions of these Traytours from view, and detestation.

The Libeller doth very preposterously produce the Example of Iob, whose sinceritie was accused to God, as a protection for the hipocrisie of Sectaries, while himselfe acts the part of him, that accused Job to God, and omits not the traducing of all proofes of pietie, Religion, and Ju­stice in the late King.

But the infirmities of best men, and scandalls of hipocrites in times of refor­ming [Page 233] can lay noe just blemish vpon the integritie of others, nor purpose of re­formation. Noe man sayes it did, but if the Reformation it selfe be a noveltie pretending not the consent of any times, but their owne opi­nions of places of Scripture different from all others, if that, which is offred in the name of reformation be in it selfe confusion, and scanda­lous imputing Antichristianisme to all the Churches of God, that were before them, and that the way of introducing it be with presumption, blood, and Rebellion, we cannot thinke, that any promoters of such an vnchristian deformitie can have any integritie, or Religion, and they are not blemished, with the Crymes of others, but their owne. They, that have no publique place, nor authoritie to reforme the Church can­not be excused of presumption, if they (meddle with it, and such bu-sy bodies are moved with Carnall selfe seeking, and private ambition, not sense of dutie.

If any thing grew worse, and worse in the Church of England, it was the encrease of Sectaries, who would cover their hipocrisie with censure of superiours, and lawes. These Reformers pretend to reforme lawes, not corruptions, for though they talke of the time of the Kings Raigne, they pretend to reforme nothing, that was particularly worse in his time, then before, and he might as well have asked, why Queene, Eli­zabeth in her fortie yeares raigne had not reformed, as peevishly talke, that his Majest: should not reforme in twentie yeares, when it was held strange, that the Schismatickes should be soe distempered to pretend a necessity of reformatiō, there being greater neede of strengthning what was established. It is a Diabolicall Method to change the order of the Church by destruction of the Civill state, & just reformation never op­poses lawful authoritie in setting vp a Governmēt over others. Though Christians might reforme themselves, they allwayes judged it an abomina­tion to impose their Religion vpō the state they lived in. Private refor­mations are of Christian right, but publique are the prerogative of su­preame power, and though Princes ought to serve God in the first place, the people are not to destroy Princes in the first place, they may worshipp God, though they be persecuted, they cannot truly, if they take the sword to subdue them, that are in authoritie, and they feare not God, that feare not their King, our feare of God bindes vs to vse noe vio­lence against our King, nor vpon others, our Allegiance to our King being a part of our dutie to God, and as the Apostle convinces those, that hate their brother, not to love God, soe in vaine doe they pretend to feare God, that offer violence to their King. Can a Christian breake all the lawes of the second table vpon pretence of keeping the first? And did not he, that Commaunded to have noe other Gods, but him, commaund the honour of Father, & Mother? May a private Christian robb, and kill, because persons are not of his Religion. The scripture sajes, he that is guiltie of the breach of one commaundement, is guiltie of all, and though Christians may not obey Commaunds [Page 234] contrary to the commaund of God, they may not vse violence, & force, but these are the Pharisees, that teach men by making a vow vpon pre­tence of Gods service to disobey Parents, which our Saviour soe much condemnes. Christs Kingdome is spiritual in the hearts of the faithful, not in a papall consistory, nor a congregationall pullpitt, they were best Chri­stians, that obeyed not wicked commaunds, but detested by all Chri­stians, that vsed violence against their Pagan Governours, and the re­formed Churches may see what Communion can be had with those, that professe those best Christians, that were least subject to their King.

The King of Spaine may professe to have his Kingdome from Christ, what­ever his Religion be, he hath a just Civill right, which none ever doub­ted to acknowledge, but these hell bred Sectaries, that allow noe right, but what is founded on their will, & his repetition of the Letter to the Pope vpon this occasiō shewes he is vnder a famine of reason, that ma­kes the Kings constācy to the doctrine of the Church of England to pro­ceede from his letter to the Pope, calling it enmitie to the true Church, are any soe madd to thinke, that the Pope was pleased with the doctrine of the Church of England? Did the Libeller thinke there were a God, would he write soe willfully against his owne vnderstanding, that the King engaged himselfe to hazard life, & Estate for the Roman Religion, he would then thinke, that God were neere him, & writt downe those words, which he will one day require an account of.

The King prayed against his hipocrisie, and Pharisaicall washings, whose prayer is, thou, who must give truth for hipocrisie suffer vs not to be miserably deluded by Pharisaicall washings. Poeticall licence will not wash away willfull slander, and malicious falsification, but this man makes hipo­crisie, and Pharisaicall washings his cheife study, and hates the prayers of others for his conversion from such wickednes.

Vpon his LETTERS taken, and DIVULGED.

THE Publication of the Kings Letters had quite contrary effects to these, which the publishers intended, and insteede of discovering matter to their advantage, cast shame on their false aspersions, whereby they sought to withdraw [Page 235] the affections of his people from him, they sett foorth both his judg­ment, and affections opposite to Poperie, & the Irish Rebells, and the peace made with them not out of favour, but necessitie to divert the fi­nall destruction of the Protestant partie there. The endeavours to be assisted with forraigne forces, when soe horrid a Rebellion had taken deepe roote was neither against any former professions, nor any rules of Justice, and pietie, but naming of Papists, and forraigne forces were the bugbeares, wherewith the faction affrighted the silly people, and vnder pretence of revenging the blood of Ireland, sought to draw men inclinable to assist the King, or vnwilling to fight against him into that imployment, that he might be more exposed to their power, and they might have the better meanes to weaken him, and support their owne Rebellion. These Letters have discovered their grosse impostures in representing the King wholy Governed by the Queene, or others, she­wing cleerely, that his owne judgment cheifely steered his owne af­faires, and its like the faction long since saw their owne rashnes in that Publication, and that the world tooke notice, that they were soe farr from doubting the Kings affection to Popery, that their designe was cheifely to declare his aversenes to it, that they might prevent his suc­cours from Princes of that Religion.

That it was done by them without honour, & Civilitie, no man boubts, vnles infected with Schismaticall, or Rebellious malice, and betweene King, and subjects matters can never be in that condition, that his ho­nour, and their dutie are trifling, and superficall vanities, and with whome they are soe we may not wonder at any brutish, and inhumane Barba­ritie, when was there an example of such a Treason against nature, and humanitie to divulge the Letters betweene man, and wife touching conjugall privacie? And honour, and Civilitie being taken, as he would have it for discretion, honestie, prudence, and plaine truth, the publishers of these Letters not only stand guiltie of the breach of those vertues, but appeare the venemous, and vnnaturall Traytours to mankinde.

To cover this base Act the Libeller sayes, that such courses are fa­miliar with none more then Kings, and produces, an Example out of Com­mines relating the discovery of a Letter by Lewes the eleventh written to him from the Dutchesse of Burgundy, which he sayes the Historian doth not charge with incivili [...]ie, or dishonour. And is that the case of publishing Letters, that passed betweene man, and wife, and may subjects doe to their King, what Enemies may one to another? The Libeller will say yes, for he holds noe subordination, though the publishers professed the contrary, and would not be thought to have abjured their Allea­giance, or that they tooke their King for their Enemy, but their prac­tices were noe more consistent, then the Libellers Arguments,

The injury offred to the Kings Mother was too well knowne to be a fained suspition or jealosie in him, and if they had not been guiltie of that [Page 236] base aspersion, they would have acquitted themselves some other way, then by the publication, and frequent repetition. The Libeller appea­res to glory more in recitall of it, then in the argument, which he can draw from pretence of saining a suspition, and he, that suckes any im­putations vpon the King out of those letters must be a Beetle, not a Bee, and they, that from placing constancy to his wife, before the mention of Religion, and law will spin a webb of determination for the prioritie of affection, have more of the spiders venom, then the Bees sweetenes.

They which esteemed their King, though one man the breath of their nostrills, thought the nation could not be happy without him, And the late Parliament, whereon the Libeller buildes his faith affir­med in their declarations, the happines of the Kingdome did soc mainely depend on his Majest: and the Royall branches of that roote, as in an ordinary way of providence, they would not except it from any other fountaine, or streame. And are they therefore a nation of Ideots, and miserable, as he sayes.

The happines of a nation consists in true Religion, pietie, Iustice, prudence temperance, fortitude, contempt of avarice, and ambition. And how shall these be preserved in a nation, by the rule of the rabble? And ban­dying the Government with a racket betweene opposite factions, but these Rebells with the madd men of Munster will introduce new Ie­rusalem with the destruction of their Kings, and Rulers, and the Li­beller its like lookes to be a greate saint in this terrostriall Paradise, who sayes they, in whomesoever these vertues dwell eminently neede not Kings, but are the Architects of their owne happines, and whether to themselves, or others are not lesse then Kings. The world hath been well acquainted with these Architects of Treason, and shall never want pretenders to those vertues, whose practice shewes them the builders of Babell, that place their happines in their power, and other mens confusion, the King appeares eminent in these vertues, not only by his constant actions, but in his lious hold, which was admired for itts order amongst strangers above other Courts, though by the Libeller traduced, as all laudable things are.

To make reconciliation desperate, the Libeller holds reasonable, and askes, why they should feare it, and such, as intend not reconciliation with God, thinke they have noe neede to be reconciled to men.

Their fact is not parallell to Chams revealing his fathers nakednes, for the King at that time could not be esteemed the father of his Countrey, nor had ever merited that Title. And might not Cham have said soe to his father, aswell, as doe what he did? But they, who acknowledged that Title due to him, as the Parliament did, and gave it him as their King, can­not excuse themselves from a sin parallell to Chams, nor from the me­rit of his curse.

The Libeller professes aversenes to all reconciliation vpon pretence [Page 237] of Justice to the lives of them, that dyed for the freedome of their Countrey, and yet he will not professe to want Charitie, and why then is it mockery with God for the King to pray, that God will judge his cause, and that the evill they intended returne on their owne heads, that they may be ashamed, and covered with their owne confusion, as with a cloake the King forgave his Enemies, but still prayed vnto God for the vindication of his innocencie by the conviction of those false accusers, and this is not to wish them that evill, which hinders Charitie, but prayer for that favour of God, which protects innocencie, and that livery of detrac­tion, and confusion the Libeller will rather weare, then exchange it for the robe of righteousnes, whose malice to the living, not Justice to the dead drawes theis hipocriticall pretences from him.

Vpon his GOING to the SCOTTS.

IT was not an excuse, but a reall intelligence, that the King had of their consultations at London, designing mischeife to his person, if he came there The junto did not vse to proclaime their Councells, neither was it pretended they did, and though neces­sitie Counselled the King to adventure vpon their loyaltie, who first begun his troubles, yet the rigour of the English Rebells drew on that necessi­tie, and the Kings comming to the Scotts might worke, if there were any remainders of loyaltie to devide those, who were only joyned by an vnlawfull, and dissembled confederacie, and it had not been an Act of malice, but prudence to resolve vpon such an hope, for friends they could not be, that are contemned for an hireling Army, paid not in Scotch coine, but English silver jeered with their Brotherly assistance, and monthly pay, and a right vnderstanding os the disaffection to the English Rebells towards them, might recall them to their dutie to the king, and with­draw them from their disloyall combination.

The scotts needed not armies to defend their libertie, & conscience, which were never invaded, & the charges were not out of charity to them, but for the necessitie of those, who sent for the scotch assist̄ace, he il pretēds a cause for the scotts mistrust of the king in that case, where a ground of suspitiō could not be imagined, & judges others by his own obduratiō, [Page 238] that loyaltie once broken is rather tempted to a finall shipwracke, then preserved by an opportunitie to recover it.

Providence doubtles is never cousened, but deceivers, though they fal­sifie their faith to others must expect, that as their falshood was permit­ted, soe it will receive its detection, and demeritts.

The man thinkes much, that their profest loyaltie, who fought against their King should be called a riddle, and as it was a very darke one to generall vnderstanding, soe if they had preserved the Kings person being in their power, they had given some solution doing what they said of their loyaltie, not what their former Actions imported. And doth not the Libeller say, its ridiculous, that they, whose profest loyaltie led them to direct armes against the Kings person, should thinke him viola­ted by theit murther of him, which he calls Justice, & who vnderstands not, that so necessitous may be the state of Princes, that their greatest danger may be in their supposed safetie, and their safetie in their supposed danger. But he would have, that the only way for the Kings preservation was to sacrifise his reason honour, & conscience, & not to have run such hazards, though his Majest: left his force, he resolved not to leave his conscience, and change an outward for an intestine warr, and Rebells desist not from their violence, whether he strive or yeilde. If he contend, he is bloody, if he yeilde, he is wily, if he offer reason, he is obstinate, If he acknowledge, he is guilty, and thus the players of a Rebell game, having irrecoverably lost honour, & conscience play on still to gaine power, & increase guilt.

The words of a King are full of power by the law, and that law is not like the Nazarites locke of sampson, but an anointing they have from God, which is inseperable, though Rebells like the faithles harlot cut of his force, and Armies, yet the right of his power is inseperable, and if these Traytours had looked to precept, or Example, they might have found, that a Kings word had power, and their persons reverence without res­pect to the merit of their Actions. David pretended not, that Saul had not authoritie of law, when he persecuted him without a cause, & when Sauls life was in his power. The King appeales not vnto Libellers, and common pasquills to judge of his reason, & such', as are offended at the name, or estimation of reason, are likely to have a small part in it.

Monuments of his reason appeare as thinly in his Actions, and writting, as could be expected from the meanest parts, bred vp in the middest of soe many wayes extarordinary to know something. Surely the Monuments of the Libellers irrationall assertions appeare very thicke in this whole dis­course, and men may be amazed at his folly, that makes him run into soe many absurdities to avoyde the confession of truth, how often hath he objected to the King, that his breeding could not enable him to judge of matters, and heere would advance his breeding to abase his parts, but such, as reade the Kings booke, and his will see Monuments enough of his Majest: reason, and the Libellers absurditie, and impudence.

[Page 239] The Kings deliberations touching his leaving Oxford, though ma­ture, yet foreseene to be of doubtfull event, and therefore vainely ob­served by the Libeller to contradict his prayer. Though I know not what to doe, yet mine eyes are towards thee. Wicked men contemne Princes, and God causeth them to wander in the wildernes, where their is noe way. The punishments vpon Princes are most frequent for the wickednes of the people, whereby they come to confusion, and have many rulers, but it was a willfull falsification of the Libellers to cite a Text as spoken of Princes, that was altogeather applyed to the people. Psalme 107.

Vpon the SCOTTS Delivering the KING to the ENGLISH.

THis objecting of selling the King by the Scotts is soe fowle an infamy, as befitts none to vindicate, but themselves. In the meane time the Libeller thinkes, he may say with the high Priests to Judas confessing his sin of betraying our saviour, what is that to vs, and he would have the infamy only rest on the seller, none on the buyer, and its like will, as he professes disagree with the King to the worlds end, and will out babble all law, truth, and reason, that such as fought to change the Government, & destroy the lawes, fought for them, and he may babble to the worlds end, and not be beleived against the evi­dence of the fact, and that miror before his face, wherein he sees all that acted, which he denies, renders him not only a denyer of principles, but common sense, & the Traytours decree of non addresses was what they ever intended, though they had not a confidence to act it presently, and from that example of disloyaltie, the Libeller, & others made a change of principles to sute with such monstrous productions. Its probable the Libeller would be ever answearing fruiteles repetitions, for his an­sweares are noe other, and yet he thinkes himselfe not liable to censure for his stall repetition in the lines before of the kings being vnalterable in his will, would have been our Lord, averse from Parliament, and reformation.

If the Libeller retained any estimation of Davids heart, he would not soe often have reproached the vse of Davids words, And we have good reason to beleive, that he, that suffred Davids troubles, was sup­ported [Page 240] with a measure of Davids spirit, while his pe [...]secuters exercised on him the malice of Davids Enemies; And were not this Libeller possessed with an evil spirit, he would not borrow matter of sport from stealing Davids spirit, nor reproach, and slander from Pamelaes prayer. which may be vsed more warrantably then reproved, but he is drawne very dry that make such vse of a scoffe.

Vpon the DENYING him the attendance of his CHAPPLAINES.

A Chapplaine is a thing diminitive, and incon­siderable. And the man would be ignorantly witty vppon the name, as vnknowne. That a King should not desire the assistance of such persons of the Clergie, as were his Domestickes, & acquain­ted with his conscience, or that such persons should not have a place in the families of Kings, may seeme a strange supposition in these men, that soe much magnifie preaching, as the shopps of Mechannickes are tur­ned to pulpitts, and every Cooper growne a reverend Predicant.

The Scripture ownes noe such function, not of Presbiter, for what els are Chapplaines, if he had looked for the names of his independent con­gregations, he had not found them in Scripture. But they, that know noe places dedicated to the service of God, know noe persons atten­ding that service.

The Church not avowing them, they are left to such further examination, as the Sons of Sceva the Iew mett with. And itts like they meete with such examiners, as the Sons of Sceva mett with, such vncleane spiritts, as professed to know Jesus, and Paul, but hated both, and were the intel­ligencers of the Prince of Darkenes, and the Libeller in their Phrase sayes, Bishopps, or Presbiters we know, and Deacons we know, but who are Chap­plaines? He could not have chosen an Example more proper for his imitation, that hates the name, and function of Bishopps, and Presbi­ter, as those wicked spiritts the name of Jesus, and Paul, & thence it is, that he hath gathered the Cobwebs of the stage to cast vpon them, cal­ling the Ministers of the gospell sewers, and yooman vs [...]ers of devotion, and implements of the Court Cup'board, this is the devotion of these reformers.

[Page 241] Their sending to the King Ministers, and others, whose excesse of cor­rupt affections were become venom, and fury against all loyaltie, was to render his condition more afflicted being only allowed to live among scorpions, and have his habitation with Dragons, who were not only insolent Traytours, but diminitive, and inconsiderable Creatures for a Religious charge. They denyed him his Chapplaines in affront, and to encrease the measure of his sufferings, and such, as feele not the ab­sence of those Messengers of peace, which God hath appointed to bring glad tidings to his people, discover more prophanes, then Michha super­stition, and his ignorance condemnes the presumptuous pretence to knowledge in those Rebells: he lamented the losse of his Levite, in whome, thoug erroneously, he thought himselfe blest in regard of his Tribe, these men thinke Bishopps, and Presbiters of noe more vse, then Micahs Idoll, for the Libeller would not have houshold oraisons officiated by Priests, but where are Priests forbidden that office. These men, that have soe long vsed houshold Conventicles, and had their wandring Levites to officiate, now know noe vse of them.

Kings heeretofore, David, Solomon, and Ichosophat might not touch the Priesthood, yet might pray in publique, while the Priests stood, and heard. And doth it follow from the practice of these particular persons, that pu­blique prayer was not a part of the Priests office, he might aswell con­clude from the prayers of the publican, and Pharisee, because they were made in the temple, and the King did vpon good grounds, beleive, a particular blessing on the Priests prayers, as on his sermons, though God admit all men to call vpon him: And the Libeller shewes with what Zeale those Sectaries call vpon God, with whome the Priests prayers are the chewing of Mattins, and yet theis Enemies of God will be called Christians, whose whole language is the derision of all devotion Though the King had abilities of knowledge to pray beyound their mimicke levites, yet he would neither vsurpe the Priests office, nor neg­lect the vse of it in confidence of his owne parts, and the Monsters he mentions, its like would preach repentance for not sinning, and would as easily preach downe true repentance, as preach vp Rebellion, and the King had reason to give such conspiratours the same welcome, that Solomon did to Abiathar, that abetted the Treason of Adoniah, And he could not hope, that Joroboams Priests, who were made of the lowest of the people, and supported the revolt from their lawfull King would teach other doctrine, then what tended to subversion of Church, and state. We have seene, that with the sacriledge of the endowments of the Church, the Rebells have set vp their Images of Priests, and have banisht all devotion, and service of God censu­ring the saying of amen to a devout prayer for a superstitious respon­sorie.

The prayers made by the forenamed Kings in the Temple, and by the [Page 242] Apostles, and ancient Christians for above three hundred yeares were in vaine, if the heart cannot safely joyne with another mans extemporall sufficiency. And whence doth it appeare, that any of these prayers, that were made for others to joyne in, were made vpon extemporall sufficiency, the contra­ry appeares, when the Scripture expressely dictates the words, which the Priest shall vse, whereto the people must say Amen, & there is not any story, from whence the want of Leiturgies in the first age of the Church can be collected, but there are Testimonies of their antiquitie, aswell, as necessitie of their vse. Its a signe of a proph [...]ne heart, that ma­kes his mirth, of divinitie, and a very litle witt goes to the conceites of a closett Chapplaine, and a minde wandring after preferment, or his dinner in the time of prayer. Doubtles he esteemes a dinner more, then devotion, that places the summe of his Religion in affected, and scorneful suppo­sitions of other mens intentions.

He askes, what avayles their praying with him. And why should men joyne in prayer at all, is there noe efficacie in such conjuncture? We may not doubt both of assistance in our prayers, and blessing vpon them by joyning with our spirituall Fathers in that dutie, and he, that hath most oyle in his owne lampe, will seeke encrease of it by those dispensers, which God hath appointed.

The libellers objections are not like those apples of Asphaltis, where­to he compares the Kings discourses, but like those foggs, and Mists, which arise out of a putrified matter, and are offensive to the eyes, whome they would hinder from beholding the sun, and are instantly dispelled with the same heate, that moved them.

Many things were sung in the Kings Chappell, that were not vnderstood. It may be by some men, that would not, but such, as could vnderstand what was read, might vnderstand what was sung in the Kings Chap­pell, there being neither strange language, nor note to make any thing vnintelligible.

His beleife is, that God is noe more moved with a prayer elaborately pen­ned, then men truly Charitable with the penned speech of a beggar. There is no doubt of it, if there want devotion in him, that vses it, but what diffe­rence is there betweene a prayer elaborately penned, and hastily con­ceived, is God more moved with extemporall, then elaborate expres­sions, and are not the tunes of their new Levites too neere the sound of Common beggars to be esteemed a fruite of devotion by the hearers?

Vpon his Penitentiall vowes, AND MEDITATIONS AT HOLMEBY.

HOw long the Sectaries have made the frequent vse of places of Scripture in their prayers, the markes of their devotion neede not be remembred, and now the vse of places of Scripture must be hipocrisie in the King. His devotions must be persecuted aswell, as his Estate, and person, and the Libeller had wanted one principle brand of infamy, if he had omitted those censures of the kings pietie vpon pretence of the practice of hi­pocrites, and wicked men, and he will accuse the Godly, because wic­ked men have dissembled, & sett parallell the cleerest devotions of the saints of God to the expressions of the most desperate, and execreable sinners, he will prove the King short of true repentance, which is a sub­ject vndiscernable by a man of resolved impenitency, God only knowes the truth of the heart, and such, as turne Charitie into cursing are as farr from a right vnderstanding of others vprightnes, as conscious of their owne hipocrisy.

He produces vpon the Kings imitation, and vse of Davids Psalmes the sayings of Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Balaam, Saul, Ahab, Iehoram, Iu­das, and Simon Magus. That we may not doubt, but the same malice raignes in this rayler, that appeared in these hipocrites, and he might have found, that this course, which he takes in standring the king was as frequent in former persecuters, as good words in the mouths of hi­pocrites, the Rebells against Moses charged him with vsurpation, and imposture, saying, will thou putt out the eyes of these men, Davids Enemies cryed fy on thee we faw it with our eyes, Job was charged to drinke downe iniquitie like water, John the Baptist to have a Divell, and our blessed saviour to be a glutton, and a wine bibber. Vertue, nor abilitie never wanted detraction, & a just esteeme of one, or other may not be expected from men, that have neither, for if they had eyther, they would not sett themselves against both, he deales, as the Pharisees to watch the words of our Saviour to gett a word for their accusation [Page 244] of him, and soe the Libeller to cover the shame of his wicked cause, catches at the Kings words to putt of the guilt of their Rebellion, and makes it Gods disposing to that purpose, that the King sayes lett thy an­ger I beseech thee be against me, and my Fathers house, as for these sheepe, what have they done? And by this sayes he acquitts the Parliament, and people, and takes the sin on himselfe, as David did. Noe doubt he tooke on him his owne sins, for which God brought on him his affliction, but doth he thereby justifie his bloody persequuters, though he were punish [...] by a Rebellion, doth he acquitt the Rebells? Doth he meane wolves, whē he names sheepe? The King expresses his Fatherly pitty to his inno­cent subjects, and the Libeller his emptines of defence in assuming soe impertinent an inference, as if David could not acknowledge Gods Justice in the Rebellion of Absolom without the acknowledgment of his wicked Sons righteousnes, nor the King vse Davids confession fo Gods Justice vpon occasion of the present punishment of the people by the sword, and his proofe is suteable to his collection, for he sayes in the next line, he accuses the Church it selfe for the Churches Enemy. The next line is, let my suffrings satiate the malice of mine, and the Churches Ene­mies, sure the man would have his independent brethren the only true Church, that are the Enemies of it, their victories are by Miracle, and what then are the Turkes, which were greater, and more strange then theirs? And let any man compare the boastings of the Rebells with the Enemies of Gods Church in all times, and there will appeare the grea­test likenes, that hath been observed in men driven by Diabolicall in­stinct, & thence proceedes the Libellers distemper, that having within soe few lines before sought to hide their Rebellion, cannot retaine the motives of it, and those he expresses to be libertie of schismes, the abolition of Bishepps, establisht lawes, Kingly power, and leiturgy, the oppressing of loyaltie getting all force into the Rebells hands, and to withstand them heerein is Tyrany.

He resembles their sacriledge to Davids eating the shewbread, and Eze­chiahs taking the gold, and silver out of the Temple. But did David make a warr to destroy the Priests, that he might eate the shewbread, or He­zechiah seeke to destroy the Temple, that he might take away the sil­ver, and gold? And the primitive Church sold their sacred vtensills to preserve their Priests, & Bishopps, not sought to take them away, that they might convert the sacred vtensills to their private avarice, and the Bishopps sold those sacred vtensills, neither Princes, nor people durst lay their hands on them.

The Libeller will not endure any glory to be given to God, but by the medly of Sectaries, nor any restitution of the King, to his cheife Cittie, but with the spilling of his blood, and those that were faithfull to him. In the beginning of Christianitie men had to doe with Pagans, who opposed Religion directly, and in this age wee have to doe with men, [Page 245] that would betray it to Pagans, by obtruding such doctrines, and prac­tice for Christian, which may make it odious to morall heathens, who could only heeretofore question the truth of our beleife, but may by theis new reformers take occasion to accuse our Religion of impietie, for these wretches represent it contrary to all the principles of Com­mon honestie. The Rebells cannot beleive a pardon, they know their demeritts soe execrable, and therefore he will suppose the King would finde meanes to punish, though he promised pardon. They know the falshood of their owne hearts, and thence is their suspition. This libel­ler is not to be disputed with vpon principles of Religion, that recei­ves noe Maximes, but of Rebellion, and Tyrany, God graunts not all­wayes deliverance to his Servants from temporall evills, though they pray for them, and this prophane Libeller concludes their prayers to be fained, because not graunted, his words are fitt for detestation, and therefore to be observed by al, that they may abhorre the blacke miste­ries of this sect, for he sayes, God having cut him of without graunting any of those mercyes, it followes, that his resolutions were as fained, as his vowes frustrate. What Turke, Jew, or devill could say more against suffring Christians.

Vpon the ARMIES surprisall of the KING at HOLMBY.

THe lowde noyse, that the Libeller hath made hi­therto of the greate obstinacy of the King in not hearkning to the advice of Parliament is ended, and the Parliament be­come a Councell of scribes, and Pharisees, and they had been elder Brothers long enough, and it was now time, that the younger should have his turne, and the new modell must dictate to the doting Parliament, and there must not be a prevalence in the house of Com­mons to discard those men of invincible valour without their due reward, and though they may murder the King, having taken away his sword, they may not thinke to deale soe with them, that have the sword in their hands. The virulence of some false Ministers, which the King must not name without reverence, and their seditious tongues more zealous against schisme, then Simony, or pluralities might in likely­hood have done mischiefe betweene theis Brethren, but it was prevented, [Page] and in despight of the Parliament, and these old warriours, and Zea­lous Ministers, the new modell seize the King their Captive, and this is the law, Religion, Reformation, Libertie, and Parliament, which the king withstood, and the man after all his law determines, that irregular motions may be necessary on earth sometimes as well, as in heaven. Greate wor­thyes by disobeying law oft times have saved the Commonwealth, and the law af­terward approved that vnblameable exorbitancie. But wherefore hath he all this time made breach of lawes soe hainous, it had been ingenuous in him to have distinguished betweene the blameable, and vnblame­able exorbitancy, & then he would not have found Coate, & Conduct­money, and the rest of his particulars rise soe high, as the vnblameable exorbitancies he now magnifies. But though Divine lawes could not regulate the mans motions, as they doe Celestiall bodyes, yet the ob­stinacy in his evil courses makes him goe retrograde, and fight for law, and against law, for Parliament, and against Parliament, and trust, and Elections in Parliament are become scarecrowes to fright Children, not Conquerours.

Though the Presbiterian be supplanted, he shall finde a better portion, then vncircumcised Prelates. Its like the Jewish brethren seeke to bring into bondage such, as receive not their Antichristian Markes, and professe the beleife of revived heresies, eating the sacrifices of the dead. The story could not certifie the King, that there was division of tongues, or hands in the builders of Ierusalem, but it told him, that they, which built had the Kings Commission, and God may in mercy to the nation re­move theis bloody brethren, that will destroy Jerusalem rather then quit their Tyrany over it. We may very well see the judgment of God vpon the nation in this bloody warr, and though it begun with the house of God, we may expect, that such men will not escape, that have been the firebrands of this dissention, and wrought soe greate misery vpon the nation, and though the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites gloried in the Jewes Captivitie, as theis Rebells in the Conquest, and Captivitie of their King, and Sanballat, and Tobiah, and these other Ene­mies of the Church despised the weakenes of the Jewes in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, and in scorne said, that a fox going on it would overthrow it speaking with the same insolencie, as the Libeller now vses, yet they may be assured, that God will remember his Church, and the Enemies thereof, as he did Edom in the day of Jerusalem.

The Libeller is a good witnes against himselfe, saying to counterfeite the hand of God is the boldest of all forgeries, and he, who without warrant, but his owne fantastique surmise takes vpon him perpetually to vnfold the secret, and vnsearchable misterie of high providence, is likely for the most part to mistake, and slander them, and approaches to the madnes of those reprobate thoughts, that would wrest the sword of Iustice out of Gods owne hand, and apply it more justly in his conceite, and himselfe makes the application, that vsurpes [Page] the hand of God in the successes, and victories of Rebells to the appro­bation of their impietie, and avow, the wresting of the sword of Justice out of the hand of Gods vicegerent to imploy it more justly in their owne conceite, and dares slander the misteries of high providence by binding them to their owne fantastique surmises; What could he have spoken more appositely to his owne condemnation? All men, that be­hold the dealings of the Army with that mocke Parliament, doe judge a very greate proportion in that retalliation of the injuries, they had of­fred the King, & they, that would lay hands on the Militia are brought vnder the Dominion of those forces, which themselves had raysed for that vsurpation, and heere againe the Libeller would finde somewhat to succour his feeble conceites of the beginning of the warr from the Kings confession, which sayes, noe man is soe blinde, as not to see herein the hand of divine Iustice, they, that by Tumults first occasioned the raysing of Armes, must now be Chastened with their owne Army for new Tumults. And what now is the Libellers extraction from hence, that because Tumults were the first occasion of raysing Armes, by consequence he himselfe raysed them first against these Tumults. Its a cripled cause, that stands on such crut­ches. Though Tumults might be the first occasion, yet this was not the whole occasion, for these Tumults were seconded by seizing the forts, and Navy, & raysing an Army by those, that raysed the Tumults, and their guilt in raysing Tumults, sought protection from a formed Army, and this Method of divine Justice, sober men observe with re­verence, while irrationall, and obstinate Traytours attribute nothing, but their owne successes to the hād of God in favour, which is in wrath to themselves, and others.

These were new Tumults, for which the Citie was chastened, and cannot be referred to another farr fetcht cause soe many yeares before. But the Cittie, that raysed Tumults for the Parliament many yeares before, is now punisht for Tumults, for that same pretended Parliament by that Ar­my raysed out of them, and is it not evident heere that the first inven­ters of mischeife, are scourged with the whipps themselves had pre­pared for others.

The fact of Manlius defending the Capitoll against the Gaules, and after­ward throwne headlong from the Capitoll for sedition, might restraine the Libellers wicked application of their murdering the King at the gate of whitehall to the merit of his actions done there, but the Cittie suffred by an Action, which they had done for them, who now punish them for it, and they, that did a wickednes with applause, are punisht for it by those that applauded it, the Actions of Manlius were oppo­site one to another, heere the same.

It was a mercy they had a victorious Army soe neere to fly to. But it was a judgment, that Tumults, which they had vsed to drive away the King, should drive away them, and the Libellers Logickes serves him to as [Page 248] litle purpose, as his historie, He would have, that the latter were reall Tumults, the first but pretended, and why will he beleive the Parlia­ment for the first, and not for the latter? And why doth he call them those few of both houses, that withdrew from the first tumults, and those many from the latter, when it is most apparent, that they, which with­drew at first were three times the number of them, that forsoake at last.

It is not the place, but the end, and cause, that makes a Parliament. And then all they, that say they have a good cause, and a good end are a Parliament, and what neede is there then of a writ, or Elections? And Tumults are as good, as Parliaments, and the end, and the cause make them Tumults, and noe Tumults, Parliament and noe Parliament, and an Assembly at the beare garden is as good, as the house of Commons, he hath found the event to salve all, for they returned soone to their places, that fled from these latter Tumults, and that is the finall decision of all controversie.

The King brings in an inconvenient, and obnoxious Comparision of ven­geance, as the Mice, and Ratts overtooke a german Bishopp. And the incon­venience is, that the Libeller will from the name of Bishopp wish the same evill to all Bishopps, that befell, that evill Bishopp. Is the com­parision obnoxious, because he is impertinent in following his owne [...]haddow, and cursing those, that are innocent. Is it obnoxious, that the King supporting the order of Bishopps should produce the Example of an evill Bishopp followed by divine vengeance? Is not the Libel­lers mentioning the seditious tongues of his false preachers more ob­noxious, then the naming of the German Bishopp? And is it not as easy to wish the Ratts, and mice had pursued theis false, and seditious preachers till they had driven them out of the land, as the Bishopps?

Sorrow, and pittie in an overmastred Enemy are looked vpon, as the ashes of his revenge burnt out vpon it selfe. An over mastred Enemy may be more, then Conquerour, and may have cause, and affection to pittie the victor, and they most neede pittie, that least feele the want. The Triump [...]s of Rebells are vnnaturall Prodigies, and the dances of devills. The pittie of innocent Martirs, which they expressed for proud persecutours was lookt on, as the Kings by these villaines, and the wicked Jewes despised our saviours bidding them not weepe for him, but for themselves, and for their Children. Although the Libeller soe lately justified chastning of the Parliament, yet he will have it an injury in the King to perswade men against the Parliament, and soe he ties the end, and the cause to what he pleases, and as long, as he can bring noe better evidence, then the successe of vsurpation, he washes not of any guilt from himselfe, nor his rowte.

The just prayses of an Enemy are esteemed honourable, & knowne truths cannot proceede from Craft, being soe obvious to all, and it were nee­rer to madnes, then reason to suppose, that there were not among those, [Page 249] which acted against the king, such as knew not what they did, and had as greate ignorance, as the Libeller impudence, that censures the Cha­ritie of a prayer for such persons.

Intitled to the PRINCE OF VVALES.

THe Libeller vndertakes to shew, that although the King had been reinstalled to his desire, or his sonne admitted should observe all his fathers precepts, yet that would be soe farr from condu­cing to our happines, that it would inevitably throw vs backe againe into all our past, and fulfilled miseries. There is noe doubt, but Traytours will tell the people soe, and that there is noe happines, but vnder their vsurpation, and though they engage them in endles warrs, which the rebelling against just right must produce, yet they perswade the people, that the condition of warr, and blood is more eligible, then those bles­sings of peace the Kingdome enjoyed vnder all their Princes. By our happines he intends doubtles his Rebell partie, whose happines is to raigne, and Tyranize over the people, and that cannot continue with reinstalling the King. But the people of England expect not any end of their miserie, but by restoring the just rights of their lawfull King, and they now descerne, that the successe of a wicked cause was a judg­ment of God vpon the nation, whose vnthankefullnes, for their long prosperitie had justly provoked his wrath.

He goes on to his proofes, that the king beares wittnes in his owne words, that the corrupt education of his youth was not vntruly charged vpon him, or his Sonne, and that he gathers from these words of the Kings, Court delights are prone either to roote vp all true vertue, and honour, or to be contented only with some leaves, and withering formalities of them without any reall fruites tending to the publique good. And is it a proofe, that because Court de­lights are prone to produce such fruites therefore all, that live in Prin­ces Courts must necessarily have a corrupt education, & might not this Libeller have cleerely observed, that his Majest: was free from such a corrupt education, that had soe cleere a sight of the ill consequences of Court delights. Though there be these pleasures at the Court, it is not the education of Princes, whose youth is seasoned by instruction against the corruption of these baites. There are dangers to mens manners from abundance, and high places, and thence the Libeller would inferr, that there must neither be wealth, nor power, but in the hands of his Pharisaicall Sectaries, who never complaine of such corruption. The desperate hipocrisie of these traytours is laid opē by their owne words, and Actions, and the Libeller from the Kings caution to his Sonne by the example of Rehoboam frames an expression, as if the King affirmed [Page 250] it to be his owne case, with such faithlesse dealing he addresses him­selfe to his heedeles readers, and tells all that he sayes, is the Kings con­fession. There are doubtles men, that can relate the Kings life, & will, but that neede not in opposition to the slanders of Rebells, whose cause is supported by the lewdenes of detraction. The long peace of the Kings Raigne, in the midst of warrs round about vs, shewes, he was not idle in performance of the Kingly office, and the warr, and miserie, that since brake out, was the effect of greate prosperitie, which, as it corrupts the Court of Princes, soe the mindes of the people, and makes way for the designes of seditious Traytours, we had been sure to have heard slander enough vpon the Kings personall behaviour, if he had been obnoxious to any suspition, or tainted with Court delights. The best Governments are subject to repinings, and the greate prosperietie of Solomons Raigne, when silver for the plentie was not esteemed, drew after it popular Complaints of heavy burdens, and whatever Re­hoboam threatned, Jeroboam really performed, the madnes of the people finding allwayes their murmurings repayed with greater suffe­rings. The disobedience, and contempt of just authoritie, and of those principles of Government, and Religion, which the King teaches his Son have been the occasion of al our miseries, there being nothing like miserie, or suffring before this horrid Rebellion.

And now the Libeller will have the breeding op of his Majest: now li­ [...]ng in the rugged, and boysterous licence of vndisciplined Camps, and garriso [...]s noe better, then the effeminacies of the Court, and yet he will perswade vs, that Rebells nursed vp in that boysterous, and vnnaturall disobedience are fittest instruments of our happines. Those principles, which the King had learnt in his education, and which endured the Tryall of a fierie adversitie are received for sound by all such, as have not renoun­ced reverence to Religion. Those principles, which the prosecution of a bloody Rebellion, and the continuall exercise, of rapine, falshood, & oppression, have fixed in the hearts of Rebells must necessarily make the words of the wise, & the wayes of the just, matter only of contempt, and derision, and such, as have once broken the bounds of modestie, thinke it dishonour to have shame, and repentance, and will advance their confusions insteede of order, their Blasphemies for zeale, their sa­criledge for reformation, their Tyrany for law, and all the hell they feare is the losse of their vsurped power, and the restoring of just right, and their jealosies of loosing their owne greatenes provokes them still to an increase of their lewdenes, making truth, and right the object of their spite, and persecution. These debaucht Rebells proclaime, that there is noe good but Rebellion, noe worke of God, but submission to it, and repentance for opposing it.

If the Church of England be Antipapall, how comes it to be a schisme? And why hath the libeller so continually made vp his discourses with [Page 251] inclinations to Popery? Independencie knowes noe schisme, for if it allow every meeting its libertie, where is the schisme?

Its a Rule, that noe Scripture, nor ancient Creede bindes our faith to any Church denominated by a particular name. But he rejects, what was recei­ved by the vniversall Church. What doth that contradict the Kings advice to his Son of his esteeme of the Church of England, if he be­leive, as he did vpon good ground, that it was agreeable in doctrine to the word of God? It is apparent, that these Sectaries are seperated from all Churches of the world, and that Government, which they call Ca­tholique had neither precept, nor practice in any Church, being newly crept out of hell to persecute the Church.

Noe man was ever bid to be subject to the Church of Cornith, Rome, or Asia, but to the Church without addition. And why doth he deny to be subject to the Church without addition, was there never Church before this day? heere we have the builders of Babell, none vnderstand what ano­ther sayes, were not those that lived in those Churches of Corinth, Rome, & Asia commaunded to be subject to the Governours of those Churches? Is it not the Apostles Commaund to obey those, that have the oversight of them, and may every man despise their new indepen­dent congregations, & seeke for a Church without addition, and where then will he finde him? We may imagine what manner of state such Church reformers will erect, and what it is they call reformation, that looke vpon all Churches, as schismes, because not rent into as many parts, as particular persons. These schismatickes pretend the Church of England allmost growne Popish, and yet nothing altered from the first reformation, & while they disguise their meaning by pretending pope­ry to gett the vulgar vnawares to favour their dissembled zeale, they demaund to have the Reformation vnestablished. And the restraint of their Rebellion is Pharaohs prohibition to the Israelites, that sought leave tosacrifise to God. It was a greate [...] testimony of the Kings zeale to the Church of God, that he forewarned his Sonne to suppresse errours, & schismes, his owne experience having taught him, that these doggs, and evill workers are the greatest evills to Church, and state, and these destroyers, that are the reproaches of Religion, the Scabbs, and biles to the Church, allow noe protestant Churches to be communicated with, that are not tainted with the same putrifaction, that hath corrupted them.

For the Civill state the kings precepts tend to the preservation of Civill libertie, and it was farr from our Fathers to thinke, that any hu­mane lawes were immutable, but further, that lawes should be altered at the will of a mutable multitude, and that their King should be ex­cluded from the judgment of the reasons for a change. He falls from the question touchinge repeale of lawes, and talkes of saving the King­dome, we may better trust the King with saving the Kingdome, then [Page 252] any number of men we can picke out, whose private fortunes may be saved, though the kingdome be lost.

The Turkes, Iewes, and Moores enjoy vnder the Turkish Government, what their industrie, and labour have made their owne. If that be true the Libeller is much out of the way to thinke it a reproach to Civill Government to compare it to the Turkes; what Civill libertie doth the freest nation claime more, and what doe these Masters of the new Republique pre­tend to allow more? Doe they not plainely tell the people, they ought to have noe more, then they will give them? Thus he will defend the Turke, Jew, and Moore rather then be an Englishman.

There is noe doubt, but the libertie of the subject depends on the Regall power in the first place. There is noe libertie without Govern­ment, and where the Government is regall, the subject must main­taine it, or be a Traytour, and give vp his libertie for a prey to rave­nous vsurpers.

That the King suffred it to be preached in his owne hearing, that the sub­ject had noe propertie of his goods, but all was the Kings right. Is a mainfest vntruth, yet they, which make advantage of such inventions practise what they reproach, for doth not that thing they call a Parliament, con­sisting of a few contemptible persons professe, that all the goods of the subjects are at their disposing. By the lawes of England noe act can be a law without the king, though both houses propounded it, and in that negative voyce of the kings, the people reposed their libertie, which they would not wholly intrust to a Major part of one, or both houses.

The power of the whole nation is vertually in the Parliament. But there is noe vertue in it without the king. And is it vertually in such a part of the Parliament, as either the Army, or the Tumults shall picke out? The Libeller hath borne wittnes for the kings Martirdome, though he intended the contrary, and while he names the Rebells war in their owne defence, cannot avoyde to tell the world, the Rebellion was to take away the Kings negative voyce, and establish lawes at their owne will. Every man will beare wittnes, that it is Martirdome to die, ra­ther then burne incense to Idolls, or Devills, and he that refuses to introduce schisme, and disorder into the Church, and committ sacrile­gious pillage of Church goods, and is persecuted to death for his refu­sall, is noe lesse a Martir, then he, that suffers for denying an Idolatrous worshipp, and this is not to die for Religion, because establisht, but that establishment, which we ought to preserve, and all the painting, & dawbing of these Artisans of Rebellion will not deface that Martir­dome, which their owne wicked hands have testified. There are no re­formed Churches, that have abolisht the Decalogue, & so long a king, that dies by a wicked Rebellion for not consenting to Trayterours de­maunds is judged a Martir by the best reformed Churches, but he does not [Page 253] looke before he leape, that brings in the Romish Priests executed for that, which had been established, for he might have knowne they were executed by lawes in force, and for doing what noe law in force allowed, and there is a great deale of difference betweene heretickes dying for er­rours against vniversall truths, and Martirs dying for vniversally recei­ved truths.

The legislative Parliament, and law of Coronation, and obstinacie of one man his soe often chewed Rhetorique will not aide him to overcome so ap­parent truth, and noe Parliament could have been soe ridiculous, and con­temptible a thing, as they, which abuse the name have now made it, spur­ning it too, and fro like a footeball at the will of the multitude, and noe men are more markes for slaves, then such, as are destined to such a vassallage vnder such Masters.

Noe tolleration can please schismatickes, that is bounded with any lawes, and vnles they have a libertie to treade downe all law, and Reli­gion, they account it not freedome, and such tolleration, which other Churches account themselves happy in, these Sectaries account despi­cable, that will have it not beneath the honour of a Parliament, and free nation to receive a Schismaticall pretended Religion, devised by a junto of Mechannickes.

His suspitions of palliation are of the same stuffe with his positions, and we may well thinke vpon his owne grounds, that the Kings advice to his Son to be tender of the people, was sincere, whose destruction would be his vndoing. Which might justly move a Prince to that tendernes. Po­werfull Rebells are noe lesse infamous, then greate, and these, who place the hopes of immortall prayse in the excesse of villanies, only erect the Monuments of their impieties the higher, that they may be seene by posteritie, though they avoyded for the present the heigth of Hamans Gallowes, and we may not thinke such men looke to be remembred in mercy with God, who shewed none to men. They thinke with Cain their sin greater, then can be forgiven.

Although the King Exhort his Son not to study revenge, yet they be­leive, that he, or at least they about him intend not to follow that exhortation, and that he sayes was seene lately at the Hague. Its like he intends, the kil­ling of Dorislans their Rebell Agent. Is that an Argument of stu­dying revenge after Reconciliation, that a profest villaine was slaine in the heate of indignation, comming in Triumph with the blood of the Murthred King, as his Trophey? The Libeller would willing­ly perswade the multitude, that it concernes them asmuch, as those impious projectours of Rebellion to feare such revenge, and there­fore they may not repent, but like himselfe maintaine Treason to be the better cause, and to returne to loyaltie were ficklenes, and in­stabilitie.

He cannot endure the Government by Bishopps, for he sayes, it is [Page 254] away to subdue the consciences of vulgar men to slavish doctrine. The doctrine he meanes is order, and obedience, and he would have a compendious way to schisme, and Rebellion, and thats the grudge, which Traytours have at this Government, and their profest quarrell.

He will not admit, that Parliaments can have freedome, if the King may deny any thing, which a Major part propounds, as if they had noe freedome, vnles the prevailing partie were absolute Lords, and yet their freedome is preserved, though the Army picke out a few to be the Parliament, and send packing the rest, and this is the foundation of the English freedome, as he would have it, and that this Conventicle must have the name of Parliament, and not of a faction. The conclusion, that the Li­beller would have is, that the Parliament should consist of a few Tray­terous designers, to whose voyce the rest must be only an Eecho, and the sound of a Parliament must be noe other, then a bagpipe, yeilding only such noates, as the breath, and stopps of the prime Masters allow it. We have seene those tapistry Parliaments, which he mentions, which stay, and remove at the pleasure of those Masters of the houshold; And should not the King have a power to stopp the extravagant motions of these impetuous Commaunders, which blasted all such, whose wise­dome, and gravitie offred wholesome Counsells for publique safetie, and ordered their mutes, and noughts to signifie their pleasure The King­dome would be sure of miserie, as often, as they see a Parliament, and the people see they must seeke their preservation in vnitie, which is Resident in the head, not in those broken fractions the subject of divi­sion, and such, as seeke vents, and ouletts from the supreame Government are the whirle windes of misery, and confusion, but Traytours would have lawes as easily broken, as the spiders webb. And this Parliament, to which the King must be subject, himselfe will allow noe more free­dome, then to sit in the noose of their Military generall, which when he pleases to draw to geather with one twitch, not only with his negative, but positive Commaud, shall throttle the whole nation to the wish of Caligula in one necke, and this the Kings negative was farr from, and if the Libeller stitch togeather all the quibbles of pasquills, & satirs, they will agree vnto his Rebell Masters, but lose their propertie by his application to lawfull Government. Where they have placed the Militia the King­dome now feele, who vnderstood not the word, when they were at first hoodminckt by it to seeke they knew not what.

The deliverance, which these men boast of is the deprivation of just Government, and the substitution of lawles will, and the people see, that they are soe farr from a deliverance, that they are delivered over to a languishing miserie vnder the sharpest servitude, and they now finde their Idolizing a Parliament hath drawne them from their loyaltie to him, whome God had set over them, and cast them vnder the hard bon­dage of these Masters, and like them, which rejected the sonns of Gi­deon, [Page 255] and tooke the sonne of his servant to raigne over them, they feele a fire of division kindled among them to devoure one another.

This Libeller allowes not any thoughts of revenge in his Majest: now living for the murder of his father, and yet reproacheth him for making peace with the Irish, and not seeking their totall extirpation, and the peace with them he calls a sordid, dishonourable, and irreligious seeking of his Crowne. But the man is vnwilling he should have any wayes at al, and would perswade his Sectaries, for none els will beleive him, that the King may not make peace with a Rebell submitting to oppose a Rebell persevering.

That the Presbiter Scott, which woes the King now living is put of pro­ceedes from his termes, not from his qualitie. Should not the people of England seeke the restitution of their King, and legall Government, whereof they have been cheated with the adulterate ostentations of libertie, and redresse of greivances, they would appeare arrant beasts, that cryed out, and below'd by the instinct of their drivers, fighting like brutes, till they ran into the pinfold, where they are reserved for servi­tude, and slaughter by those Masters, who allured them with foode to put the yoake on their neckes.

The Libeller dislikes the kings conclusion, that Religion to God, and loyaltie to the King cannot be parted without the sinne, & infelicitie of a people And sayes its contrary to the teaching of Christ, that noe man can serve two Masters. These are fit Judges of our dutie to God, or man, and fit refor­mers of Church, and state, that will have the service of a Master, or obedience to a father the serving of another Master, then God, and the spirit of God speaking by St. Peter, feare God, and honour the King must contradict the teaching of Christ, such Church makers doe we now live with. Such, as served heathen Masters, may not leave their service, though they serve not their heathen Gods at their Commaund, and if they did desert their earthly Masters for that reason, they did not serve their Master in heaven, who will be served by their subjection to their earthly Masters, but he, that will serve himselfe cannot serve God, and that selfe service is the whole worke of these Rebells, who pretend to put God in the first place, that they may leave him noe place, and such, as desert their King vpon pretence of Gods service, desert God to serve themselves, and they will only enjoy their power, and wealth, and ease for Gods sake, but suffer for him they will not, that kinde of testi­mony to the truth of Religion, they account among the corruptions of the first ages of the Church, and they have found a more accurate, and pleasant way to serve God.


BEcause the King affordes time to inveigh bit­terly against that murder, but in the Libellers lan­guage Iustice done on him, it will be as he sayes neede­full to say something in defence of those proceedings. Doubtles all, that witt, or impudence can offer in defence of that Barbarisme is farr short of a co­lourable excuse. He is courting of apocripha, and makes a Prologue out of Esdras, and Josephus, Authors in his judgment, not lesse beleived, then any vnder sacred, & brings forth the story of the three wise questions, and zorobabells determina­tion for women, and truth. Quorsum haec? Though he be not asked, nor in a nation, that gives such rewards to wisedome. (his Masters have not that bountie to restore the King, that he may sitt next him, their gratitude being of the same Stampe with their loyaltie) he shall pronounce his sen­tence somewhat different, that eyther truth, and Iustice are all one, or els that Iustice by his office is to put forth more strength in the affaires of mankinde. To what purpose doth he soe solemnely produce this peice of Apo­cripha, and pronounce his sentence different? Iustice is a vertue of the minde, and putts forth noe more strength in the affaires of mankinde then truth, but he talkes of justice, and truth, as if they were members of the house of Commons. The sensuall appetite of some is too strong for their vnderstanding, and thence proceeded the conclusions for the strength of wine, and women. In others the vnderstanding and reason are stronger, and there truth is strongest, but we may be assured, that in this Libeller, and his Masters, ambition, crueltie, and falshood are strongest, and thence their Actions are an oppression, and defiance of truth, and Iustice, and they are growne soe absurd, as from the Titles of strength given to vertues, and passions, this triflinge Libeller would haue them non resident, and to act without a subject. If Zorobabell had made truth a fantastical person, as this man strives to have justice vnder­stood, he had surely lost his reward, as well, as the opinion of his wise­dome. This man would have Iustice vnderstood, as shee is painted in a peice of Tapistry.

Iustice had a sword putt into her hand to vse against all violence, & oppres­sion in the earth. By whome was this sword putt into her hand? Doe [Page 257] theis Traytours beleive, that their magnifying of Iustice makes any man looke on their Barbarous Actions with lesse detestation, or that justice is any part of their end, or Actions? Justice teaches Rulers how to vse the sword put into their hands, but is armelesse against any vio­lence, and oppression without the power of the Ruler. If the Magi­strate doe injustice, there is noe justice committed to others against him. The wise man by the spirit of God tells vs, that he beheld wrong, and injustice, and the cryes of the oppressed, and there was noe delive­rer, and where then was the Libellers justice? was not violence there stronger then justice? Though divine justice cannot be avoyded, hu­mane justice often fayles, and cannot reach the offender.

Shee is most truly, who accepts no person, and exempts none from the severitie of her stroake. Though by the Rules of justice, there is no accepting nor exempting of persons, yet the Magistrate, to whome alone the Rule belongs is confined to persons, and places, justice forbidding all vsur­pation, and striking is oppression, where lawfull power gives not the sword.

Shee never suffers injury to prevayle, but when falshood first prevailes over truth, and that is a kinde of justice done on them, who are soe deluded. And is not falshood an injury? why should justice suffer falshood to prevayle more then other injuries, and why should deluded, and deceived per­sons be deprived of Justice. And is it Justice to suffer deceived persons to be injured? This man sees the horrid Injustices acted by his Masters, and that must be a kinde of justice, because (in his sense) vpon decei­ved men.

Though wicked Kings, and Tyrants counterfeite the sword, yet shee commu­nicates not her power to any, but such, as are just, or at least will doe Iustice. Doth justice communicate her power to every just man, or that will doe justice, and are they not Tyrants, that take the sword, which is not given them by the Libellers owne judgment. He would needes make justice a Goddesse, and Poeticall fancies, realities, and Bellona must leade an Army without a Generall. Kings have their power from God, and God gives the sword ye even to wicked Kings; and because the power is given them for justice, it is called the sword of justice, though they vse it oft-times to Injustice, and though there are soe many instan­ces of wicked Rulers, who yet had their power from God, yet this im­pudent Blaspheamour sayes. It were extreame partialitie, & Injustice, the flat denyal, & overthrow of her selfe to put her owne Authenticke sword into the hand of an vnjust, and wicked man, or soe farr to accept, and exalt one mortall person above his equalls, that he alone shall have the punishment of all other men trans­gressinge, & not receive like punishment from men, when he himselfe shalbe found the highest Transgressour. He beleives not the Scripture tellinge vs Gods advancement of diverse Kings above their equalls, & to that condition of impunitie; And must it not necessarily follow from his principles, [Page 258] that God is vnjust, and partiall in soe doinge? And if all men be not punisht equally in this life for the same offences? Can there be a grea­ter Blaspheamy? Were it not the height of Injustice, if the governed should judge, and punish the Governour? Were it possible for man­kinde to subsist in such a state, or can there be a possibilitie of any right, or Justice in such confusion? The Scripture forbids vs to judge another mans servant, but this man will have the father punisht by the childe, the Master by the servant, the Prince by the people.

Iustice is, and ought to be strongest. The strength of publique Justice is the Magistrate. Though Justice ought to be strong in our affections, and Actions, yet all men are not obliged, nor permitted to doe all Acts of Justice. The execution of Civill Justice is the Magistrates office, it is the strength of Injustice to vsurpe the calling of others. From this Lunaticke discourse of the strength of Justice, he concludes. That if by sentence thus written, it were my happines to set free the mindes of English­men from longing to returne poorelyvnder that Captivitie of Kings, from which the strength, and supreame sword of Iustice hath delivered them, I shall have done a worke, not much inferiour to that of Zorobabell. The sentence of this braine sicke Libeller is very weake to worke on any opinion, but the hath set free some Englishmen from the Captivitie of a received errour, for they were made beleive they fought for their King, and this man tells them it was to shake of Kings, and surely his vainities, and deceites, and his Masters Tyrany will perswade the Englishmen to seeke their re­turne vnder the free, and glorious Government of Kings from the Cap­tivitie of theis Tyrants, & vsurpers, that have enslaved them; And that horrid murder of the King vnder the shamelesse pretence of justice, must necessarily worke detestation of the fact, and a longing to be de­livered from the Dominion of such Monsters. Noe doubt this Libel­ler would thinke it an happines to be secure in his stolen power, but he must expresse more reason, and lesse impietie to effect such a worke, & he may be assured, that as long, as there are men soe ingenuous to ac­knowledge Justice, that they must detest his cause, and him. And though Kings be vnaccountable to men for their Actions, it is noe way contrary to the wisedome of Zorobabell, who names not Justice, and if he had given that strength to Justice, which he did to truth, it had been in the same sense, vnderstanding the force of Justice, as of other vertues. The strength of the King is over the persons, that of truth, and Justice over the minde. But if the King be accountable to men, are not they, to whome he is accountable by the libellers Argument not only stron­ger then the King, but stronger then Justice? And soe Justice is not strongest, vnles the sword be putt into a madd mans hand, and the gid­dy multitude, from whome nothinge, but Injustice can be expected may punish their Rulers. To what end were Governments ordained, if justice be only in the Governed? Were ever like Tyranies, and In­justices [Page] committed by single Rulers, as by the vnbridled multitude, and yet justice must have noe strength in the mouth of a King, and the word of Rebells only must be the strength of justice, and this Cham­pion, that bindes justice to Rebell power, and excludes it from Kings, hopes to be a Zorobabell to the Englishmen for his wise sentence.

That noe law of God, or man gives the subjects any power of Iudicature with­out or against the King, he will prove most vntrue, and by that most an­cient, and vniversall law, he that sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shedd, and heere he sayes is noe exception of a King. Though it be plaine, that he, to whome the power of shedding the blod of the offender, is committed, must necessarily be excepted, vnles they will suppose he must kill himselfe, doth the Libeller imagine, that by this law, all men were judges, or that the subject may judge the soveraigne, who is not permitted by any law to judge an Equall? As the divine law appoin­ted punishments, soe likewise Rulers, and if people may judge their Rulers, it anulls all the Commaunds of obedience to superiours, all subordination in humane societie, and all decision of Controversie, while every one may pretend his owne opinion the Rule of justice.

Next he hath found the place in numbers. Ye shall take noe satisfaction for the life of a Murderer. But judges, to whome the law was given, were appointed to declare, who was guiltie of Murder, and we may easily see, who had beene the Murderers, if every man were to judge a superiour, or the multitude their Rulers, and this the Libeller might have found in the same booke where the people charge Moses, and Aron with killing the people of the Lord, and Moses sayes, they were ready to stone him. And the Libeller may with his Anabaptisticall brethren vpon better grounds abolish Magistracie, then make every man a Magistrate, as by this reason he would. Though the law appoin­ted noe satisfaction for the life of a murderer, yet we finde David par­doned the murder of his son Absolom, and Civill punishments are not of immutable law, and it had been murder to take away his life, whome the king had pardoned, and we finde, that though Jacob curst the rage of his two sons, yet he put them not to death for the murder of the Sichemites.

A law must be founded in vnrighteousnes, if the people doe not punish their Rulers, as the Rulers them. And such a law is contrary to those Rules of righteousnes God hath prescribed, and is the destruction of mankinde, not any law at tall, and this man feares not to charge God with vnrigh­teousnes, that forbidds evill speakinge of their Rulers though wicked, and vnjust, and scoffes at his ordinance calling anointinge a Charme. Can any man of Common reason imagine, that a people wilbe obedient vn­to any, whome they have power to punish, or that subjection can consist with such a condition?

The anointinge of Abiathar to be a Priest did not exempt him from the po­wer [Page 260] of the King. And can any reasonable man thinke, that any, but the King could have vsed that power vpon Abiathar, or that because the King, who was anointed to that office over the Priest, was subject to the like from his people, or any private man, as this Atheist will have it?

David, as a private man, and in his owne cause feared to lift vp his hand a­gainst the Lords anointed, but this Cannot forbidd the law, nor disarme Iustice from havinge legall power against any King. This sheweth, that divine law forbadd all men to take the Armes of justice without, or against the King, who is referred to Gods justice, and justice hath noe Armes, but his power. What David feared, he judged all others had cause to feare, who can touch the Lords anointed, and be innocent? If David were a private man, being anointed King, who was a publique man? But what David feared, these wretches despise, and Count this forbearance of David a ceremony, which he might have forborne. If David feared in his owne cause to lift vp his hand against the Lords anointed, the Libeller is his owne judge, and must be his tormenter, that makes an impious defence of those, that lifted vp their hand against the Lords anointed in their owne cause, and were by his owne confession but private men, and he would have their exorbitance, and disobedience to law vnblameable. Was David a more private man, then they? All supreame Counsells in other formes of Government, that have not a Monarch, claime this priviledge of exemptiō from their subjects Judicature, b [...]t those grace­lesse Rebells hold nothinge sacred, the place of Gods vicegerent they wil have to be an enormous priviledge, and blow away Religion, & justice like Chaffe with the blast of their fancie, though they pretend the strength of it above that of Kings.

He hath done with Scripture, he descends now to saint Ambrose excommunicatinge Theodosius, & he will allow the Bishopp to be a saint for this fact, though his calling were Prelaticall, and vnlawfull in his judgment. But what is spirituall excommunication to the puttinge of a King to death? This fact of saint Ambrose is noe Rule. Though Christian Bishopps refused to give the holy misteries to Princes in ca­ses of sins, they did not presume to make a Civill seperation betweene them, and their people, and will the Libeller allow the Bishopps to be more publique persons, then Christ, and his Apostles, and to doe what they would not? He, that makes such outcryes against Popery heere takes vp the most scandalous doctrine, that any of them maintaine, and which the most sober disclaime, and takes vp those Arguments, which the Jesuites vse for the Clergies, and Popes power over Princes, & yet the man would be accounted a zealous Protestant. The examples of ex­communication by the brittish Bishopps, saint Germaine Oudeceus, & the clergy of Morcant might be al true, but nothing to the purpose, nor are their excommunications Rules for Christian practice, neither can there be any inference of deposing, or murderinge Kings from such Actions.

[Page 261] But sor the greater Credit he sayes the facts of theis Brittish Bishopps were before we had Communion with the Church of Rome. And may not he looke on himselfe, and his crew with horrour for vilysying, and reproa­ching the calling of Bishopps, as Papell, and Antichristian, and yet con­fesse it to be before we had any Communion with the Church of Rome?

What power of deposinge Kings, and consequently of putting them to death was assumed, and practised by the Canon law, he sayes, he omitts, as a thing ge­nerally knowne. Why would he not tell, by whome it was practised, would that discredit the Authoritie? What power the Popes practised in deposinge Kings is generally knowne, and detested by all good men being Actions contrary to all lawes, but of their owne making. But did the people of England expect, that all the promises of Reformation made by the late Parliament would end only in approvinge the Tyra­ny, and vsurpation of the Pope over Kings, and justifying of the pow­der plot, and are all the complaints of the Protestant Divines against the practice of the Popes become impertinent Clamours? But such a defence is suteable to the cause.

Whole Councells have decreed, that a Counsell is above the Pope, though by them not denyed the vicar of Christ, and wee may be ashamed in our cleerer light not to descerne further, that a Parliament is above a King. It were a shame to vs, if we should not descerne the difference betweene the indepen­dent power of Kings, and the vsurped power of the Pope, and this brea­ker wants shame, that pretends cleerer light, and opposition to Rome, and yet begg Examples from it. Such, as preferred the authoritie of Counsells above the Pope, had their warrant from the ancient Coun­sells, which knew not the vicarshipp of the Pope different from his brethren; And had these Counsells thought him Christs vicar, and in­fallible, as the Romanists now maintaine, their conclusion of the Coun­sells superioritie could not consist with their premisses, being much alike this Authors ordinary Arguments. But what resemblance has a Counsell of the whole Church to the Parliament, or Counsell of a par­ticular kingdome? By the lawes of some kingdomes there are noe Par­liaments at all, and in Counsells they are not subjects, but brethren to to the Pope, as they anciently stiled themselves, and they anciently con­vened, and departed without any leave from him, but in the English Parliament, they are all subjects to the king, and their places were by his institution, and the kings calling any convention for advice, doth not alter the qualitie of subjection.

He comes now to humane lawes, and by them he will prove a divine truth. The judgment given against Orestes, either at Athens, whose king he was not, or in any other Countrey, where he was but a Titular, pro­ves nothing, though the story were Authenticke, and the proceedings legall, but popular furies, though occasioned by their Governours Cry­mes are not Examples of imitation. Solons lawes belonged not to king­ly [Page 262] Government, neither were the kings of Sparta Monarchs, nor Li­curgus a King indeede, though he had a Title, the constitution of that State being a Republique, and their King noe other, then a Consul of Rome, or a Duke of venice.

The Decree in Rome is farr wide from the matter, and what the Senate did against Nero, was in vindication of their ancient power, not ac­knowledging the Justice of his soveraigntie. Though Theodosius de­creed the law to be above the Emperour, yet he decreed not any per­son to have power over the Emperour. The law was above him in re­guard it was his Rule, but could not make any person, or societie a­bove him. The law is the directive power to Kings, but subject them not to any, and it is a senseles deduction from the superioritie of the Rule to imagine an inferioritie of the Rulers to the people, or a com­munitie in power by the Rule.

That Bracton, or Cleta say the King is inferiour to the Court of Parlia­ment, is a manifest vntruth, and Bracton sayes expressely, the King hath not a superiour on earth to punish him, and that only God is the aven­ger of his Actions, soe farr were theis men from affirminge, that he stands as liable to receive Iustice, as the meanest of his subjects. But this man thinkes, that some of his Readers will believe, that the name of an Au­thor is sufficient Authoritie, though he speake contrary to what he alleadges.

It is said in an ancient booke, the King ought to be subject to the law by his oath. Though the King be bound to performe the law by his oath, is there any to judge him, when all are his subjects, and derive their power from him, or is he subject to any person? And who can judge another, that is not subject to him? Because Kings bound themselves to doe Justice, therefore did they give other men power over them?

That the king permitted questions of his right to ordinary Iudicature is an vse of Counsell, not subjection, all Courts being his Counsells, for decision of controversies, but its a sorry inference, that Counsel­lours in his affaires should have power over his person. As the Parlia­ments right is circumscribed by lawes in regarde of the subject, soe it cannot be imagined absolute over the king. By what the Libeller hath said, he might well conclude, that kings are oblidged to doe justice, but that the people, or particular persons may judge their king by any law divine, or humane, he hath not offred a colour, soe barren is he in an Argument, which he calls over copious.

Who should better vnderstand their owne lawes, and when they are transgres­sed, then they, who are governed by them, and whose consent at first made them. Certenly he might very wel have answeared himselfe, that they, which governed by such lawes, and whose consent at first made them better vnderstand them, and when they are transgressed, then they, that are governed, and it is a course very agreable to these mens confusion, that the suiter should teach the judge.

[Page 263] The Libeller askes, who have more right to take knowledge of things done within a free nation, then they within themselves. And surely they will not be free long from destroying one another, where thats the libertie, for there wilbe as many Transgressours, and as many lawes, as there are opinions.

He goes about to answeare the taking the oath of Alleagiance, and supreamacy. And to this his answeare is very ready, that these oaths were to his person invested with his Authoritie, and his Authoritie was by the people given him conditionally vnder law, and oath. And if his Authoritie had been conditionall, their oaths could not be absolute, as they are. This guift, and condition they imagine were engraven in Seths Pillars, and they have been long enquiringe for a Cabballisticke Rabbyn to finde out the Characters. How the kings hereditary succession is become a conditionall guift, must have better evidence then Aphorismes of con­fusion, never law contained either the guift, or condition, nor was there ever such impudence before theis Traytours, that avowed, because they swore faith to their kings person invested with his Authoritie, they might take away his Authoritie, and not breake their oath, And it were a prophane oath, aswell, as vaine, that should be voyde at the will of the taker. The kings oath added nothing to his right, being only an obli­gation of his conscience, noe condition annexed to his right, and if he never tooke the oath, his subjects obedience is noe whit diminished, and a king by inheritance needes not admittance, the death of his pre­decessour puts him in possession, & this is the knowne law of England. The Couquerour tooke on oath at his Crowninge, and other times, that made noe condition to his Government. There is not only reason, but absolute necessitie for the avoyding of confusion, & ruine of mankinde, that the subject be bound to the king, though the kinge faile in his dutie, for the destruction of Government is more sinfull, and inconve­nient to humane societie, then any evill, that can come by a kings mis­government.

He proceedes to answeare objections touchinge the Covenant, wherein we shall not much insist, but to detect the shifts of Malefac­tours to elude the evidence of truth. They were accused by the King, and his partie to pretend libertie, and reformation, but to have noe other end, then to make themselves greate, and to destroy his person, and Authoritie, for which reason sayes the Libeller, they added the third Article to preserve the Kings person, and Authoritie in defence of Religion, priviledge of Parliament, and liberties of the Kingdome. And to shew with what ingenuitie he dealt, in seeking to avoyde that just accusation, the Libeller tells vs, that they added that cause for a shew only, and they intended not to preserve the Kings person further, then it might consist with their opinions touch­inge Reformation, extirpatinge of Prelacy, preservinge liberties of Parliament, and Kingdome, and in this very clause they called the world [Page 264] to be wittnes with their consciences of their loyaltie, and yet made the preser­vation of their Kings person, and Authoritie, arbitrary by their owne opi­nions, and while this Libeller would have their Rebellion a defensive warr, he forbeares not to tell the world, that they resolved the Kings destruction to attaine their ends.

The sixth Article gives asmuch preservation, and defence to all, that enter into the league, as to him. And it seemes more, for they have dealt with none of them, as with him, and he sayes, if the Covenant were made absolute without respect to these superiour things, it was an vnlawfull vow, and not to be kept. It is agreed, that vnlawfull vowes are not to be made, nor kept, but it is an vnlawfull vow to destroy the Kinge in order to his supposed ends, yet they feare not to vow the destruction of any, that oppose them, though the honour, and innocence of the persons were without the reach of lawes, and they will exempt neither callings, nor integritie from their lawles Injustice, and that appeared by his glosse vpon the fourth Article of the Covenant to bring persons offending to tryall, and con­digne punishment, all that should be found guiltie of such Crymes, and delinquen­cies, whereof the King by his letters, and proofes afterward was found guil [...] in what they thought him at the taking of the Covenant, to be over ruled only by evill Counsellours. And had not he avowed all, that ever his letters con­teyned in his former declarations, and hath the Libeller forgotten, that the imputation of Crymes to evill Counsellours was but a Ceremony, and are not his foregoinge words, that their ends, reformation, and ex­tirpatinge Prelacy were to be preferred before the preservation of the Kings personand authoritie. This last age hath produced a generation, that pretend they doe God service, when they scorne all his lawes, and Religion, and hold forth their execrable villanies to the world, as gra­tefull, and well pleasinge sacrifices to God, and make ostentations of their perjuries, and Blaspheamies, as services to him. The nullities, and vsur­pation of those Monster judges, that made themselves cut-throates of the King, needed not the Kings exceptions to avoyde their illegallitie being soe apparent, & what the King did, or said to of them wil remaine to his honour, and the Libellers infamy, that glories in the misfortunes of Princes, sayinge it was learnt from his graund-mother.

Its a sad fate to haue his Enemies both accusers, parties, and Iudges. The Libeller sayes, what malefactour might not pleade the like, if his Crymes have made all men his Enemies. But there were hardly ever such malefactours, vnles, they, who tooke vpon them to judge the Kinge. He, that is an E­nemy before judgment, cannot be a judge of the Cryme, and he, that is an Enemy to a Malefactour vncondemned is not fit to condemne him, and such, as are Enemies to Government, and are common destro­yers cannot be judges,

That they of the powder plot might have pleaded the same, when their judges knew not their persons, nor their guilt till tryall, and conviction [Page 265] is a suppo [...]ition like himselfe, but the powder plot is outdone by theis miscreants, that have destroyed king, and Parliament, and that, which the powder plotters were ashamed to owne, these villaines recount to their honour, like these Giants represented by Poetts, that made warr against heaven, and thence this Libeller dares scoffe at the accusation of their Injustice with this lewde Blasphemy, that at the resurrection, it may be as well pleaded, that the saints, when they shall judge the world are both Ene­mies, judges, parties, and accusers. Such are the thoughts of those wicked Atheists touching God, and his saints, and it is not at all strange, that such prophane persons exercise their cursed speaking against Kings, and all in Authoritie, that spare not God himselfe, and it is a small thing with them to vilifie those, whome God hath anointed, & because God by his Prophetts complained against the evills of some Kings, these men take on them to destroy all by that Authoritie, and say the earth hath long groaned vnder burdens of their disorder, Injustice, and irreligion. God gives Testimonies to Kings in Scripture, that they were his Ser­vants, that he would by them restore, and preserve his Church, decla­red it the greatest earthly favour to sett such, as he loved on the kingly Throne, bestowed his owne Titles on them, and yet this Libeller re­ferrs his readers to Scripture for proofe of Rebellion against kings, and would perswade the reformed Churches, he is their Advocate in sa­ying. To binde their Kings in Chaines, and their nobles in linkes of Iron is an honour belonging to the saints. Such blasphemous expositers of Scripture are these Reformers. God gave that honour to the Israelites to binde the kings of the Amorites, their Enemies in Chaines, and their nobles in linkes of Iron. Theis darlings of the Devill wilbe the only saints, & make it their honour to destroy the powers, that God hath ordeyned and there must be neither kings, nor Nobles, but theis evill spiritts, whome noe Irons, nor Chaines will restraine, and perjury, robbery, murder, and Rebellion are the honour of theise saints.

The building of Babell was not Nimrods worke, (whome by asserted vntruth he calls the first king) that worke was a popular vndertakinge, because the people would erect a Republique of confusion, & not trust God to protest them, and the Libeller could not have fallen vpon an instance more like his present madnes, for as those builders faind con­fusion in pretending to prevent it, soe there Rebells pretend to preserve the Kingdome by turninge it into popular confusion, and therefore those saints must destroy Babell, especially that spirituall Babell, and first overcome those European Kings, which receive their power not from God, but from the Beast. Doth he meane the Beast with many heads? It is his prin­cipall Argument, that Kings receive their power from the people, and if soe, then are they this beast. What Kings of Europe receive their Kingdomes from his Beast? But there Sectaries are drunken with their owne prophanes, & pride, and have a strong delusion to beleive the lies of their owne invention.

[Page 266] Those Kings are counted noe better, then his ten hornes. Noe better, but by what proofe, are they the same by such frenetique dreames, as he pro­duces? They shall hate the whore, and yet the saints must destroy them, and shall burne her with sire, and yet be overcome first themselves. But they shall at last joyne their Armyes with the Beast after they have destroyed the whore. And this is the Babilonish Creede, a bundle of contradictions to carry their Giddy followers into attempts as wicked, as their conceites are irrati­onall. We see the grounds of their cause, an hellish impulsion against Government, and hatred of Kings, there having not been imposters of equall impudence since Mahomett, that professe a Religion to destroy all Kings, and those Blasphemies, that were abhorred in former Secta­ries, and Entheusiasts are the Creed of those miscreants.

Tis true, there be a sort of moody, hott brain'd, and allwayes vnedified con­sciences apt to engage their leaders past retirement, and then vpon a sudden qualme, and Swimminge of their conscience to betray them basely in the middest of what was chiefely vndertaken for their sakes. Seducers cannot thinke to be vndiscovered forever, but such, as are not resolute villaines have a moody conscience in this mans judgment, the tender conscience is be­come moody, and hott brain'd, and certenly such were many in this Rebellion, or it could never have proceeded soe farr. Let such men never meete with any faithfull Parliament to hazard for them. And let never Par­liament thinke to be better rewarded, that follow a faction to betray their King, then to be subject to those base multitudes, whome they suborned to attempts against their loyaltie, and become slaves.

He findes others, in whose consciences gaine hath sprung a sudden leake, and these are they, that cry out of the Covenant broken. Thus the builders of Ba­bell are scattered, while they make conscience, and Religion their pro­pertie, and in the meane time, nothing is more the subject of their scorne. And if God were mocked in pretending the Covenant in Scotland, and Vlster, he was much more in England by crying out the King, Religi­on, lawes, and libertie, and the Libeller might have found such men, whose prosperitie was sinne, that Triumpht in the afflictions of him, whome they persecuted, and said tush God hath forsaken him, let vs smite him, that he rise noe more. The sinne of Ahas, that transgressed more in the tyme of his affliction hath noe resemblance to a vertuous Prince afflicted by Traytours, whose crueltie encreased, while they op­pressed him, and exceeded the inhumanitie of the cursed Moabites, that burnt the bones of the King of Edom into lime.

The Kings Charatie in forgivinge his Enemies, will finde a right con­struction with all true Christians, but malice, and detraction of all Acts of pittie cannot meete, with lesse, then detestation in all men any way quallified with Religion, or reason.

Hipocrites Almes, are not more odious, then hipocrites censures, the crueltie of Hipocrites will receive a greater condemnation, then their Almes.

[Page 267] Prayers for Gods Compassion, are not to share victory with Gods Compas­sion. But such, as strive to slander mens prayers to God are as malicious to Gods victory, as the devotions of those, that pray vnto him. Such as reade this impudent Libell may rightly call it the Rebells Image, conteyninge precepts, and positions of violence against Government, confusion of States, doctrines of falshood, and hipocrisie, prayses of insolence, and crueltie, prophaninge of Gods name, and word, scoffes at things sacred, dissolution of all bonds morall, Civill, and Religious, of all orders, and degrees among men. And it must be hatred to God, and a Diabolicall impulsion, that drives on such persons to fill vp the measure of their wickednes.



PAge 25. Line 6. Reade not after needed. Pag. 25. L. 27. Solle­cisme for Sollesisme. Pag. 25. L. 30. that for then. Pag. 31. L. 19. for insteede of from. Pag. 33. L. 10. in before their. Pag. 34. L. 1. Basilice for Aclastos. Pag. 40. L. 11. from after lawful. Pag. 44. L. 12. Conventions for contentions. Pag. 58. L. 3. supercilious for supersi­lious. Pag. 63. L. 8. vses be before vsed. Pag. 67. L. 25. notions for motions. Pag. 67. L. 26. administred for administrated. Pag. 69. L. 43. by for the. Pag. 72. L. 30. is for in. Pag. 81. L. 17. and 19. Psalmistry for Psalmastry. Pag. 83. L. 23. is for in. Pag. 84. L. 25. Iingle for Inigly. Pag. 87. L. 25. it is for is it. Pag. 88. L. 18. few for fer. Pag. 90. L. 8. aspersion of the before most. Pag. 91. L. 2. occasion for reason. Pag. 94. L. 9. connaturall for vnnaturall. Pag. 94. L. 13. refrained for restrained. Pag. 94. L. 20. vigour for rigour. Pag. 95. L. 43. Cheates for States. Pag. 111. L. 21. like for the. Pag. 111. L. 22. vapours for raignes. Pag. 123. L. 9. prevent for present. Pag. 137. L. 19. he for wee. Pag. 147. L. 31. cause before had. Pag. 149. L. 35. Stafford for Strafford. Pag. 150. L. 15. noe before part. Pag. 153. L. 11. we for he. Pag. 156. L. 37. screeching for streching. Pag. 156. L. 37. Batts for Catts. Pag. 156. L. 39. we for who. Pag. 159. L. 12. posses­sion for oppression. Pag. 160. L. 10. not before strange. Pag. 164. L. 5. place for peace. Pag. 172. L. 38. long for strong. Pag. 173. L. 38. if for is. Pag. 179. L. 25. peace for place. Pag. 182. L. 2. principij for principy. Pag. 184. L. 36. Saviour for Saviours. Pag. 184. L. 37. noe for one. Pag. 185. L. 25. date for dale. Pag. 186. L. 8. incestuous. Pag. 194. L. 38. while they for whether. Pag. 197. L. 36. a junto. Pag. 208. L. 28. miseries for misteries. Pag. 208. L. 30. now for not. Pag. 213. L. 26. quilting for questing. Pag. 214. L. 9. infirme sor as­sured. Pag. 220. L. 28. preach for reproach. Pag. 220. L. 44. subordi­nation sor subordinate. Pag. 221. L. 24. after poisoned reade Silvester & the whole Church. Pag. 224. L. 19. dele him. Pag. 228. L. 32. crum for crim. Pag. 229. L. 34. convictions for convertions. Pag. 230. L. 15. is for a Kinge, insteed of, by Parliament. Pag. 236. L. 14. expect for except. Pag. 262. L. 15. Fleta for Cleta.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.