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 wil be 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 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 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 Government neither were the kings of Sparta Monarchs nor Licurgus a King indeede though he had
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 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 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 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 It s 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 wil be 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 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 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 it s 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 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 〈◊〉 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 It s 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 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 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 It s 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
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 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 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 It s 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 this Authors succeeding discourse denote others besides the madd multitude It s 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 it s 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 It s 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 It s not strange at all that the mad multitude who were inflamed with the reputation and Authoritie of the Parliament comminge to see that the 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
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 Cryme in the King is ridiculous to any reasonable man and it s 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 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
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 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 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
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 hee s and shee s 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 wil be 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 wil be 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 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 it s 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 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 t is 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 Vpon the NINETEENE PROPOSITIONS 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
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 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 Divill 's 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 that 's 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 that 's noe warrant for Traytours to linke themselves by conspiraâ—…ies to performe it and the King might justly wonder at their confident 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 Heâ—…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
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 It s 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 Because the doctrine seemes to favour Libertie and equalitie And are there not Republiques that oppose the true Religion True Religion presseth obedience faâ—…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 Propheâ—…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 Mistâ—… 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 only false and hipocriticall factionists which outwaâ—…lly professing the established Religion sought for gaine and pride seâ—…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
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 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 shal be received before intric◅ stuffe tatled out of Timothy and Titus Thus this prophane hipocrite prostitutes Scripture where it contradicts their practises and St. Ierome shal be 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 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 It s 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 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 Vpon the VXBRIDGE TREATIE 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 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 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
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 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 It s 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 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 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