HOw much the English Nation for many yeares has groaned under the oppression of Illegall government, the meanest of understanding among all the people cannot be ignorant. The particular grievances are too well knowne, and too many to be recited in a short Dis­course: but whether those illegall a­ctions of them that sate at the Helme in England proceeded from meere injustice, and temporall ambition, or had a fur­ther end, as relating to Popery, and Iesuiticall continuance, is made a great question. Some suppose the latter; and thinke that so great a violation of Lawes tended not only to deprive the people of their just liberty, but to make them Papists as well as Slaves. And indeed there are great inducements to that supposition, considering the many entercourses betweene Rome and the English Court of late yeares, the particulars of which are fully expressed in some rationall discourses, which [Page 2]I will not here meddle with at all. But let it be granted that there might be a concurrence of wicked designes upon this unhappy Nation: yet it is my opinion that Popery was not the first intended, and chiefe end of our Rulers; but rather subservient to tyranny, or (as they called it) Absolute Monar­chy. Nor can I thinke that the Iesuits taught our Statesmen to be unjust: but the unjustice of those Statesmen taught the Iesuits to hope for their ends; and that the waters would be at last enough troubled for them to fish in. As we shall see the ancient Popes (though then the State of England was of their Religion, and there was nothing for them to seeke further in that kinde) did alwayes take advantage for their temporall ends upon such times, and in the reignes of seduced Princes advance their revenues and civill power. Such Princes have therefore been most enslaved by Popes, and their Thrones shaken by Papall thunderbolts, because their Thrones were not so firmly established in justice as they should have beene. Then when there could be no aime at all at changing of Re­ligion, when there were no Iesuits in the world to tempt or plot; this very Kingdome (for forreigne instances are not so proper) had seduced Princes and wicked Statesmen, who acted the same parts that we have lately seene, who laboured to o­verthrow Parliaments, and utterly subvert the Lawes and Li­berties of the Kingdome; nor could they have taken greater paines to have brought in a new Religion, then they did to gaine an unlawfull power: by those unhappy actions instead of strengthning their estates, they much weakned them, and made themselves lyable to the Popes temporall encroach­ments, and no doubt had they been of a different Religion, from the Pope, the same injustice had made them more ly­able to his Spirituall underminings; and his pretence had been fairer for Religion, though his end were not, which was [Page 3]only power and revenue. For whosoever knows history, can tell what were the great causes from time to time of the Popes anger against any Kingdome, and provoked his ex­communications and other censures, namely, denying of his power, and stopping his revenue; not contradicting the tenents of his Religion, unlesse in the case only as that might cause the former. To keep a Towne, which he claimed from him, has beene called in plaine termes, Heresie, and the parties ex­communicated in as great fury as if they had denyed an Ar­ticle of the Creed. Henry the eight, though he retained that Religion, yet for denying the Papall power, and revenue, was as great an Hereticke as Queen Elizabeth. And the King of Spaine in this age for detayning the Kingdome of Naples from him, is at certaine times accursed in as solemne manner, as Arrius or the greatest Heretick would be if he were living. So that we see it could not be matter of Religion, that caused either the Popes encroachments, or the injustice of those Princes: but they were therefore more subject to the Popes injuries, because they had lost that shield that should have beene their defence against him, the strength of right govern­ment in a Parliamentary way; by which Edward the first was able to resist him in those things, which King Iohn and others could not doe. And as this Kingdome by bad government was made more lyable to those encroachments in temporall cases; so may it be in Spirituall matters, when those fenses are broken downe, by which (next under God) the Church is established and defended: for if they can take away all privi­ledges of Parliament, and all lawfull power of resistance from the representative Body of the Kingdom, where is the strength upon earth that should defend our established Religion? but whether our Rulers of late times; together with their injustice and oppression of the people did intend to change Religion, [Page 4]or not, I think we need not much trouble our selves to con­sider: Though they had no designe upon Popery at all, yet were they enough guilty in robbing the People of those Laws and Liberties which were their due, and a guard to whatso­ever else they possessed. Therefore let a State look first upon that cause which is neerest and most visible. If we see thieves breaking of our house, we doe not stay, and make it a long dispute within our selves, what kinde of goods they intend to steal, or what they would leave behind; but presently appre­hend, and cause them to be punished as felons for breaking of the house. And indeed such disputes do somtimes so amuse the People, that whilest they look farther off at things which they cannot so well, perchance, and clearly discerne, they lose the sight or consideration of that, which is neer at hand, and easie to discerne, and which is of concernment and weight enough, though nothing else were put into the scale. Besides, consider this, That our Religion, like a most precious Pearle, and more in value then all the other goods, is contained with­in this House, whose walls are thus broken down: perchance those Thieves which breake them, looke not for this Pearle, nor thinke of it, but some other goods; yet when the walls are broken, another Thiefe, who better understands the value of that Pearle, may come with more ease, and rob us of it: It was far easier for the Iesuites and the Church of Rome to rob us of the true Religion in England, when the just power of Parliaments, by which (under God) it was established and defended, was so far trodden down; though perchance those Thieves which breake them, looke not for this Pearle, nor thinke of it, but some other goods; yet when the walls are broken, another Thiefe, who better understands the value of that Pearle, may come with more ease, and rob us of it: It was far easier for the Iesuites and the Church of Rome to rob us of the true Religion in England, when the just power of Parliaments, by which (under God) it was established and defended, was so far trodden down; though perchance those Statesmen, who trod it downe, had no designe of letting in the Church of Rome to supplant the Truth, but only to exercise their own robbery upon mens Estates. But to perswade the truth of this Paradox, I doe not see any reason why I should believe, that those great men, who for many [Page 5]yeares have sitten at the Helme in England, and given so ill counsell to our Soveraigne, were in the generality Papists, or that way intended; but only tainted with the same injustice and ambition that others were in former times, laboured to bring the People into slavery, that they might oppresse at their pleasure, and stand above the reach of any Law.

Whosoever hath observed how the Sabbath was kept of late yeares at White-Hall, what businesses of Monopolies and other Oppressions were transacted in the afternoon, what kind of Sermons in the forenoon, about State and Preroga­tive, were preached before the King; he must needs believe that none of these men had any designe upon Religion at all, neither indeed was there any reason wherefore to attaine those unjust ends, they should desire a change of Religion: for if we consider what Religion will best serve to advance Tyranny in the Kingdome of England, and look into Histo­ry for examples of that kinde (for History hath been counted the best glasse through which Prudence can look, when she makes her judgements upon humane actions) we shall find that Popery could not doe it so well as that Protestant do­ctrine which hath been taught at Court these thirty yeares; and not only preached, but printed to the publike view by Authority, even to this last yeare 1644. Consider what Principles they maintaine, and against whom they write: Their Adversaries, whom they choose to deale withall, are all the moderne Authors of greatest Learning and Reason, and of all Religions; whom in their writings they stile Ie­suites, and Puritans; under the latter of which names all the Reformed Churches of Europe are intended, except only the Prelatical Clergie of England, to whom, it seems, in the point of flattery to Princes, both Papist and Puritan, with all Lawyers and Politicall Authors are quite opposite: But be­fore [Page 6]we expresse their Tenents in particular, look into the English Chronicles, and you will find (as we said before) that direct Poperie did not so much advance Tyrannie, as our late Prelacie. When the Bishops of England had another Head, which was the Pope, you may observe, that in matters of State they went many times very justly, and according to the interest of the whole Common-wealth: in the times of seduced Kings, they many times sided with the Parliament, and opposed the illegall desires of the Prince: many of them gave good advice to Kings, and did excellent offices in re­conciling them to their people, and keeping them in the right way. I could give many instances, especially in three Reigns, which indeed had the most need of such endeavours. But in these latter times, our Protestant Bishops were wholly by assed at the Kings side, and meere servants to the Prerogative, a­gainst all Interests of the Commonwealth: they never in Parliament gave Vote contrary to any of the Kings desires, how prejudiciall soever it were to the Kingdome in generall, insomuch as the King counted them a sure part of his strength in the Lords House, to all purposes: and when their voices in Parliament were lately to be taken away, it was a common speech of the Courtiers, That His Majestie was much weak­ned by losing six and twenty voices. But consider now what they have preached and printed concerning Monarchy, and you will wonder, that rationall men in any Kingdome, to flat­ter Princes, should make all Mankinde else of so base a con­sideration, as if Princes (as one sayes) differed from other men in kinde and nature, no lesse then a Shepheard from his Sheep, or other Heardsman from his Cattell. I will instance, for brevitie and clearnesse, in one of them, who speakes the pith of all the rest in a large Book printed at Oxford this pre­sent yeare 1644. and dedicated to the Marquesse of Ormond; [Page 7]the Book is intituled, Sacrosancta Regum Majestas; where that Author undertakes to vindicate the Power and Majestie of Kings against all Puritanicall and Iesuiticall grounds and Principles, as he calls them. Those Puritanicall and Iesuiticall Tenents are all Discourses, that have been written in this Kingdome for defence of the true and lawfull liberties of men, or by any Politicall Author in Europe of note, since Monarchies have been well and Civilly constituted for the behoose of Mankinde. Among all those Puritanicall and Ie­suiticall Tenents which this Author is angry with, and labours cagerly to confute, I will name a few:

I. THat a King is greater then any particular man; but lesse in value then the whole body of his People.

II. That a King receives his Crown from God, but not imme­diately, for it is by the hands of his People.

III. That the power of Kings is different in severall King­domes; and their Prerogatives according to the Lawes of those Realmes in which they reigne.

IV. That the Body representative of a whole Kingdome, where there is such, may and ought to restraine the King from impious actions, which tend to the ruine of the Kingdome.

V. That People may live without a King, but a King cannot be conceived without People.

VI. That Kings were ordained for the People, and not the People made for Kings.

[Page 8]These are some of those Puritannicall and Iesuiticall Tenents & the chief, which he condemns so many writers for maintai­ning, such as Bourchier, Rossaeus, Buchanan, Suarez, Tho. Aqui­nas, Ocham, Bellarmine, Marsilius, Almontus, and many more, whom he there names against himselfe. But the Bishop, with the help only of Scripture, and some places of the Fa­thers, interpreted and managed by his own reason, is able to encounter them all; and hath drawn these Positions quite contrary to the former. Take them in his own words truly set down, and the places quoted.

I. The King is better then all the people put together: and when Davids people say, Thou art better then a thousand of us; that is (saith he) in sound meaning, better then all of us. p. 169.

II. The interposing of an humane act in the constitution of a King, doth not hinder his Soveraignty to be immediately from God: That though he gaine the Crown by Election or Conquest, yet he hath it from none but God, and that not mediately, but im­mediately, p. 122.

III. That it is a poore and ignorant shift of Lawyers to wrong the sacred Prerogative of Kings, when they acknowledge no more for the Royall Prerogative, then what the Municipall Law of the Kingdome hath allowed to is, p. 144.

IV. In abuse of Soveraignty to the ruine of the Kingdome, the Character of Nature doth not entitle us to so much self defence, as in this case to resist the King, p. 9. And in the first page he saith, That it is not lawfull, in any case or cause, for the Subject, or Subjects, in what notion soever imaginable, singly or joyntly, collectively or representatively, to oppose the sacred Authority of [Page 9]the King by force or arms, or to resist him in a defensive or offen­sive War.

V. That saying, That a People may be without a King, but not a King without a People, is very deceitfull; for (saith he) God fixed Government in one, and appointed a Governour, before that ever there were People to be governed, p. 178. And in pag. 84. he saith, That God sixed Monarchy in Adam, before he had any childe; which shews, that God liked best of Monarchy, and that Kings were before People.

VI. That salus Regis is to be preferred before salus Populi; for it hath the prerogative like to the first Table, and salus Po­puli as the second, p. 170.

These are the Positions which he boldly sets down con­trary to the first. But will you heare others as good as these, in his own words, and without any straining or hiding any part of the sense, but plainly set down.

I. That Soveraigne power is not originally and radically in the people, nor by way of reduction, as in case of totall defailance of a King and his posterity; the right cannot revert to the Com­munity againe, p. 11.

II. It is a foolish new-coined distinction, to make a difference between a Kings person, and his authority; between his personall will, and his authoritative will, p. 32.

III. To derive Kings from the people, is a great disgrace to Kings; for it maketh them the basest extract of the basest of ra­tionall creatures, the Community, p. 45.

[Page 10]IV. It is a foolish fancy to make any coordinate power in any persons to the Sovereignty of a King, p. 62.

V. How different soever Monarchies are in the world, yet there are some prime, radicall, and essentiall constitutives of Mo­narchy belonging to all Kings, which are three:

• 1. They are Potestas suprema, subordinate to none but God, they admit of no coordinate or collaterall power.
• 2. Perpetua potestas, he cannot fall from his Sovereignty while he lives.
• 3. Potestas legibus soluta, and as they say, from any humane [...]oactive, or coercive power or censure, p. 140.

VI. When any King, or his ancestour hath been cheated out of his sacred rights and Prerogatives by fraud or force, he may at any sit opportunity afterward resume them, p. 144.

VII. Seeing that the Puritans doe say that if the Parliament doe erre, the remedy is to be left to the wisdome and justice of God; why will they not acknowledge that it is as fit, when the King transgresseth against the rules of government, that the people and subjects submit in patience, till it pleaseth God to send a re­medy, p. 148.

VIII. That the old received sentence, Salus populi, suprema lex, must be carefully understood in Monarchy, and that it is more consonant to Scripture to say, Salus Regis suprema populi salus; which thus he Englishes, The safety of the King, and his divine Royall Prerogative is the safest sanctuary for the people, p. 163.

IX. What is the meaning of that sentence, Salus populi su­prema lex, he tells us in these words; the meaning of it is that the [Page 11]Kingdom or State may not only probably and possibly, but really and existently be such, that the King must exercise an arbitrary po­wer, not stand upon private mens interest, or transgressing of laws made for the private good of individuals; but for the preserva­tion of himselfe and the publicke, may breake through all laws. This case may be when sudden forreine invasion, or homebred se­dition threaten King and Kingdome, p. 176.

Of this nature are all the positions and principles, which this booke containes; and not only this booke, but all Trea­tises, which have (since this unhappy difference) been autho­rised at Oxford. Some of lesse art and learning, but as much honesty as this Author, expresse the same sense in plainer termes, and tell us, That the King is proprietary Lord of the whole Kingdome, and all mens estates are his. Another con­cerning his sacred authority, sayes, That if the King, like Ne­buchadnezzer, should set up a golden Image to be adored, the whole Parliament, if they refuse that Idolatry, are bound to suffer death quietly, and not to resist the King. These barba­rous positions can serve to no other end then to mislead Prin­ces from the wayes of reason and moderation; and to make them lift up their hearts above their brethren, as the Scrip­ture speaks, to make them esteem themselves so far above the rest of Mankinde, as if whole Nations were made for their pleasure, and so subject to them, as the Beasts were to Adam: for so our Author would seem to make them, when, to over­throw (as we said before) that ever received, and undeniable saying, People were before Kings; he sayes that Adam was a King, before there were any other people. It must needs be therefore granted that his Subjects were Beasts, which is the same (without jesting) which this Author would have the people in every Monarchy to be: therefore cannot I imagine [Page 12]that so holy a thing as Religion was any way in the designe of those English Clergy-men, who wrote against the liberties of their Country, or of those Rulers who governed according to the prescript of that kinde of writing; but only an intention of stretching the Prerogative Royall to such an unmeasurable greatnesse, as might secure and advance the temporall ends of them, which depended on it. But some may object against this Paradox, & say, Though it be granted that corrupt Statesmen had no aime at all at alteration of Religion; yet surely our greatest Clergy-men had. For what else could make them of late yeares in point of doctrine approach so neare to the Church of Rome, unlesse it were a desire of bringing both themselves and others by degrees to a conjunction with it? that they have so written, their books will shew you; but if you would save a labour of searching whole volumes, you may finde their chiefe sentences collected out of their owne bookes, the pages and lines quoted by a Scottish Minister Mr. Robert Baily in a discourse of his called [...] Lau­densium, which he sent to our last Parliament of England. The men, whose sentences he there recites, are the Arch­bishop Laud, Montague, Pocklington, Helyn, Shelford, and o­thers; where you may see what faire approaches in many points of doctrine they make toward the Church of Rome, with what reverence they speak of her; and with what scorn they name the Protestant Churches and their Authors, under the stile of Puritans, but this proves not that their designe was Religion, but rather temporall ends: for these very men have written bitterly against the Church of Rome, and most of them have professed that the Puritans did not so farre nor fundamentally dissent from their opinions as the Papists did: But it is true that the Puritans did goe more crosse to their temporall ends, pompe and revenue, then the Papists would [Page 13]have done. So that extremity of hatred against the Puritan, though he were nearer to them in matter of Religion, caused them to make these approaches towards the Papist, as being not so great an enemy to their temporall promotion. So that we see Religion it selfe was no more the end of their exorbi­tant actions, then it was of injustice in the great Statesmen, who have laboured with the same disease in all ages and Re­ligions, whensoever it hath pleased God by such instruments to punish the sins of any Nation.