Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	king_n	supreme_a	1,568	5	8.4275	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46647	Salmasius his dissection and confutation of the diabolical rebel Milton in his impious doctrines of falshood, maxims of policies, and destructive principles of hypocrisie, insolences, invectives, injustice, cruelties and calumnies, against His Gracious Soveraign King Charles I : made legible for the satisfaction of all loyal and obedient subjects, but by reason of the rigid inquisition after persons and presses by the late merciless tyrant Oliver Cromwel, durst not be sold publickly in this kingdom, under pain of imprisonment and other intollerable dammages.	Jane, Joseph, fl. 1600-1660.; Saumaise, Claude, 1588-1653.	1660 (1660)	Wing J451A; Wing S739_CANCELLED; ESTC R35159	253,024	288

them But he sayes one greate hogge may doe as much mischiefe in a garden as many litle swine And it seemes that the like evill spirit as entred into the heard of swine hath possest this libeller and driven him on head long in his Rebellious impudence The King sayes he was some times prone to thinke that had he called this last Pa●liament to any other place in England the sad consequences might have been prevented To shew that the place could have made noe change the libeller instances in his Majest first Parliament at oxford which was dissolved What doth that prove to contradict what his Majest sayes that if he had called the Parliament at another place these sad consequences might have been prevented Does the libeller thinke that because there was misvnderstanding betweene the King and some of his Parliaments that they would therefore have run to the same extreamities that the faction in this last did or that these factionists could have brought this mischeife vpon the kingdome by like Tumults in another place He goes on to say that the King called his last Parliament at Oxford a Mungrell Parliament consisting all of his friends Noe doubt there were in that Parliament many loyally affected to his Majest but it cannot be denyed for time hath tryed it that there were many among them that were spyes and disturbers corrupted by the Rebell faction at Westminster and their owne base inclinations who sought to disorder all Councells and consultations The libeller would comprehend the whole people of England within the Tumults interprett the Kings prayer against the tumults to be a prayer against his people Is it not God that stilleth the raging of the sea madnes of the people And is not a prayer for the people to pray they may be delivered from such madnes and yet this libeller sayes that the king praying to be delivered from the Tumults prayeth to be delivered from the people and blasphemously concludes God save the people from such intercessours And we cannot beleive that God is in his thoughts whose mouth soe often abuseth his name Vpon the Bill for TRIENNIALL PARLIAMENTS and for setling this c. HE sayes the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments was a good Bill and the other for setling this at that time very expedient And this he sayes in the kings owne words was noe more then what the world was fully confirmed he might in Iustice reason honour and conscience graunt them for to that end he affirmes to have done it This man hath a confirmed enmitie against truth cannot make a right recitall The kings words are that the world might be fully confirmed in my purposes at first to contribute what in Iustice reason honour and conscience I could to the happy succes of this Parliament I willingly past the Bill for Trienniall Parliaments The greatenes of the trust which his Majest put vpon the people by passing that Bill was a strong Argument that he would deny nothing which in Justice reason honour and conscience he might graunt not that the world was confirmed he might graunt that Bill in reason honour and conscience in respect of the matter of it for a greate part of the world was of opinion he might with better reason have denyed it had not his desire to shew his purposes of contributing what he could to the happy successe of the Parliament moved him And they might be confirmed thereby of his purposes to deny nothing which in Justice reason honour and conscience he could contribute to the happy successe of the Parliament It is the Kings manner to make vertues of his necessities and that neither prayse nor thankes are due to him for these beneficiall Acts. It cannot be expected that Rebells will retaine gratitude that have cast of loyaltie but let vs looke on his reasons and the first is that this first Bill graunts much lesse then two former statutes yet in force by Edw. the 3. that a Parliament should be called every yeare or oftner if neede were Either the libeller is vaine in producing this instance or in commending the Bill that gave much lesse then two former lawes in force and he must make the Parliament very inconsiderate that would soe much importune a law soe farr short of what former lawes had enacted His ancient law booke called the mirror and his late Treatise that Parliaments by our old lawes were to be twice a yeare at London carry as litle Authoritie as cleerenes what those Parliaments were they mention but neither the statutes nor law bookes did ever affirme the right of calling Parliaments in any other then the King or that he might not deferr the calling of them if he saw cause and these statutes were made to declare the subjects dutie to attend the King in his Parliament once a yeare or oftner if neede were and there was noe reason why oftner should have been inserted into the law if any obligation were intended thereby vpon the King And its contrary vnto the writt whereby Parliaments are called that the time of Parliaments should be defined for it is recited to be an Act of Councell to call a Parliament which needed not if it were necessary at a prefixed time The second Bill he sayes was soe necessary that nothing in the power of man more seemed to be the stay of all things from ruine then that Act. We are sure that nothing did more confirme the designes of the Traytours nor hasten that ruine of the Kingdome they have wrought then that Act. All men descerne the fraudulent artifices vsed to gaine that Bill by pretending publique debts which seditious faction had contracted and intended to encrease for the carrying on of their Rebellion and his Majest in graunting that Bill hoped to take of those occasions of it the Reports which they cast out among the people of his vnwillingnes to rayse money for discharge of the Armyes These charges were occasioned by the Kings ill stewardshipp but the world is satisfied it was from a trayterous conspiracie of the guides of this Rebellion He alleadges his needeles raysing of two Armies to withstand the Scotts which noe man but a profest Rebell can soe call for should he have raysed noe Army but left all to the mercy of the invader next he had beggerd both himselfe the publique When by this libellers owne confession the King had received noe supplies from the publique for raysing those Armies and these shameles Traytours blush not to talke of the Kings beggering of the people when the greate plentie his Government had enriched them with is soe visible in those vast leavies which the Rebells have since made vpon them The King left vs vpon the score of his needy Enemies If they had not been too much friends to the traytours of England there had been noe score to them for all men know whatever they received from England was by the contrivance of the Trayterous faction in Parliament to accomplish their ends To

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

a Title the constitution of that State being a Republique and their King noe other then a Consul of Rome or a Duke of venice The Decree in Rome is farr wide from the matter and what the Senate did against Nero was in vindication of their ancient power not acknowledging the Justice of his soveraigntie Though Theodosius decreed the law to be above the Emperour yet he decreed not any person to have power over the Emperour The law was above him in reguard it was his Rule but could not make any person or societie above him The law is the directive power to Kings but subject them not to any and it is a senseles deduction from the superioritie of the Rule to imagine an inferioritie of the Rulers to the people or a communitie in power by the Rule That Bracton or Cleta say the King is inferiour to the Court of Parliament is a manifest vntruth and Bracton sayes expressely the King hath not a superiour on earth to punish him and that only God is the avenger of his Actions soe farr were theis men from affirminge that he stands as liable to receive Iustice as the meanest of his subjects But this man thinkes that some of his Readers will believe that the name of an Author is sufficient Authoritie though he speake contrary to what he alleadges It is said in an ancient booke the King ought to be subject to the law by his oath Though the King be bound to performe the law by his oath is there any to judge him when all are his subjects and derive their power from him or is he subject to any person And who can judge another that is not subject to him Because Kings bound themselves to doe Justice therefore did they give other men power over them That the king permitted questions of his right to ordinary Iudicature is an vse of Counsell not subjection all Courts being his Counsells for decision of controversies but it s a sorry inference that Counsellours in his affaires should have power over his person As the Parliaments right is circumscribed by lawes in regarde of the subject soe it cannot be imagined absolute over the king By what the Libeller hath said he might well conclude that kings are oblidged to doe justice but that the people or particular persons may judge their king by any law divine or humane he hath not offred a colour soe barren is he in an Argument which he calls over copious Who should better vnderstand their owne lawes and when they are transgressed then they who are governed by them and whose consent at first made them Certenly he might very wel have answeared himselfe that they which governed by such lawes and whose consent at first made them better vnderstand them and when they are transgressed then they that are governed and it is a course very agreable to these mens confusion that the suiter should teach the judge The Libeller askes who have more right to take knowledge of things done within a free nation then they within themselves And surely they will not be free long from destroying one another where that 's the libertie for there wil be as many Transgressours and as many lawes as there are opinions He goes about to answeare the taking the oath of Alleagiance and supreamacy And to this his answeare is very ready that these oaths were to his person invested with his Authoritie and his Authoritie was by the people given him conditionally vnder law and oath And if his Authoritie had been conditionall their oaths could not be absolute as they are This guift and condition they imagine were engraven in Seths Pillars and they have been long enquiringe for a Cabballisticke Rabbyn to finde out the Characters How the kings hereditary succession is become a conditionall guift must have better evidence then Aphorismes of confusion never law contained either the guift or condition nor was there ever such impudence before theis Traytours that avowed because they swore faith to their kings person invested with his Authoritie they might take away his Authoritie and not breake their oath And it were a prophane oath aswell as vaine that should be voyde at the will of the taker The kings oath added nothing to his right being only an obligation of his conscience noe condition annexed to his right and if he never tooke the oath his subjects obedience is noe whit diminished and a king by inheritance needes not admittance the death of his predecessour puts him in possession this is the knowne law of England The Couquerour tooke on oath at his Crowninge and other times that made noe condition to his Government There is not only reason but absolute necessitie for the avoyding of confusion ruine of mankinde that the subject be bound to the king though the kinge faile in his dutie for the destruction of Government is more sinfull and inconvenient to humane societie then any evill that can come by a kings misgovernment He proceedes to answeare objections touchinge the Covenant wherein we shall not much insist but to detect the shifts of Malefactours to elude the evidence of truth They were accused by the King and his partie to pretend libertie and reformation but to have noe other end then to make themselves greate and to destroy his person and Authoritie for which reason sayes the Libeller they added the third Article to preserve the Kings person and Authoritie in defence of Religion priviledge of Parliament and liberties of the Kingdome And to shew with what ingenuitie he dealt in seeking to avoyde that just accusation the Libeller tells vs that they added that cause for a shew only and they intended not to preserve the Kings person further then it might consist with their opinions touchinge Reformation extirpatinge of Prelacy preservinge liberties of Parliament and Kingdome and in this very clause they called the world to be wittnes with their consciences of their loyaltie and yet made the preservation of their Kings person and Authoritie arbitrary by their owne opinions and while this Libeller would have their Rebellion a defensive warr he forbeares not to tell the world that they resolved the Kings destruction to attaine their ends The sixth Article gives asmuch preservation and defence to all that enter into the league as to him And it seemes more for they have dealt with none of them as with him and he sayes if the Covenant were made absolute without respect to these superiour things it was an vnlawfull vow and not to be kept It is agreed that vnlawfull vowes are not to be made nor kept but it is an vnlawfull vow to destroy the Kinge in order to his supposed ends yet they feare not to vow the destruction of any that oppose them though the honour and innocence of the persons were without the reach of lawes and they will exempt neither callings nor integritie from their lawles Injustice and that appeared by his glosse vpon the fourth Article of the Covenant to bring

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

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

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