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
diseng age him greate summs were borrowed Which its well knowne was not to disengage the King but to advance the designes of the Traytours who dealt vnder hand with some of the Scotts to protract the Treatie that the charges might be encreast The errours of his Government had brought the Kingdomes to such extreames as were incapable of recovery without the absolute continuance of this Parliament They never did one act after that Bill but in order to the Kingdomes confusion and all men saw there were noe extreames to be recovered at the time of passing that Bill but the returne of the Scotts and the disbanding the faction in Parliament and the only recovery had been by setting an end to the Parliament which they that made it their propertie could not endure The King past these Acts vnâ—…illingly It cannot be doubted but the King foresaw the danger of both and the libeller might have seene in the first section of this Chapter that his Maj was not without doubt that what he intended for a remedy might prove a disease beyound all remedy and though to avoyde a Civill warr he made some concessions in hope to bring the people to see their owne good which might turne to his and their greater mischeife if by them ill applyed yet his Majest deserves prayse and thankes for such Acts of grace and the necessitie which this libeller soe impudently vrges to take of his Majest just thankes was the danger of a Civill warr which his Majest sought by these Acts to prevent and might have entred into with lesse hazard before the passing of these Bills then after The libeller only encreases the infamy of the Rebells ingratitude and his owne impudence by obtâ—…ding necessities to take of the Kings grace in passing those Bills and it had not the shape of a Masterly brow but gracious aspect in his Majest saying the greatnes of the obligation above their deserts that he had put vpon them by passing the first Bill and the Masterly brow suites not with the following scurrilous conceite that the kings recital of the obligation he had putt vpon them by that Act was as if he had beggd an office to a sort of his desertles groomes and these desertles groomes now Rule the new Republique there being none that had the least desert that would accept such a Traytorous office That the King passed the latter Bill to prevent the oncroase of the present disorders not out of consideration of the fittnes of that Bill he neede not spend time to prove and his consent was moved from the reason of the time not the matter and the â—…ller hath well observed that they had offended him much more after the passing of the former Bill which is not to their creditt but shame It was feare made him passe the Bill least the Parliament and people â—…neenfed by his conspiracies should resent his doings if he had added the deâ—…all of this only meanes to secure themselves Either his memory is short or his absurditie vnnaturall that soe lately said the kings feares were pretences and does he thinke that his Majest could feare their resenting more at that time then afterward besides his supposed fantasticall conspiracies were not as much as named or spoken of to Parliament or people at the time of passing that Bill and there cannot be imagined any cause of his Majest passing that Bill but his earnest desire to avoyde a Civil warr and assure his people of his purpose by committing so greate a trust vnto them neither can there be imagined other cause why the passing of that Bill was soe much importun'd by the Rebells but to secure themselves for being conscious of their owne guilt they knew themselves vnsecure vnles they gained a power over King and lawes The libeller cannot excuse neither the ingratitude nor disloyaltie of the Rebel partie in Parliament from the Kings consent to these lawes to present disorders and mischeifes which in themselves had not been fitt for his consent at another time and their insolence in binding him first of all his Predecessours shewes their corruption and guilt that would vse soe much violence difloyalite to a Prince whose gratious Government had least of all his Predecessours provoked it The King taxes them with vndoing what they found well done The libeller sayes They vndid nothing in the Church but Lord Bishopps Liturgies Ceremonies high Commission judged worthy by all true Protestants to be throwne out of the Church These Protestants which are true only to him will judge the like of all Kings and Rulers of State and all orders of the Church that are not of their Bedlem patterne These false Sectaries talke of Church true Protestants just as they doe of Parliament as long as it consists of their owne limbs it must be obeyed but if it dissent from their Commaunds then they are worse then Ceremonies in Religion Doubtles al true Protestants abhorre this den of Schismatickes that boast of their Rebellious defacing of the Church and hate their societie there having not been yet any true Protestant Church that ever pretended that Lord Bishopps Leiturgies Ceremonies or high Commission were worthy to be throwne out of the Church the greatest part of Protestants retaining the like They vndid nothing in the state but irregular and grinding Courts The Courts they tooke away were judged by al wisemen to have been profitable to the Kingdome and fitt to be continved and the best Governours sometimes graunt that to the peoples irregularities thereby to preserve them from proceeding to their owne ruine which were sitt to deny at another time it s their Zeale to publique safetie not feare and dissimulation as the libeller calls it It was a greater confidence of the people to put into one mans hand a power to Summon and dissolve Parliaments then the King put in the people by the Act of continuance of the Parliament And if the libeller could shew the Act whereby the people put that power in the King he had said some thing But how had they put it into his hands or what confidence was it if they might take it away when they list This man cannot see truth through his owne contradictions while he acknowledges the Kingly power to Summon and dissolve Parliaments forthwith adds that Kings could not dissolve Parliaments till all greivances were redressed and then where was the kings power to dissolve or the peoples confidence This is he sayes not only the assertion of this Parliament a strong proofe but of our ancient lawe bookes that noe man ever read which averr it to be an vnwritten law of Common right soe engraven in the hearts of our Ancestours and by them soe constantly enjoyed and claimed as that it needed not enrolling this is pretty poetry that because a law is no where to be found therefore it was engraven in the hearts of our Ancestours where are those law bookes But how many hundred yeares since was this engraving worne
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
renounce all fidelitie to their lawfull King and his family and depend on the faith of perjured villaines vpon pretence of pietie as he perswades the Scotts to doe Vpon the COVENANT HE seemes desirous to be short in this Argument being a point which he is loath to touch till he see the successe of some attempts and he would not willingly be out of hope of the Scotts nor venture to displease them by his glosses To the mention of the Bishopps possession heere since the first plantation of Christianitie in this I stand and vniversall prescription since the Apostles till this last centurie he sayes But what availes the most primitive antiquitie against the plaine sense of Scripture which if the last Centurie have best followed it ought in our esteeme to be the first But where is the plaine sense of Scripture against antiquitie It s very plaine that these Sectaries noe more esteeme the present century then the ancient nor more the scripture then either of them but take a libertie to vent their owne fanaticall and arrogant fancies for Scripture and reject all ordinary meanes vpon pretence of a lying spiritt His Majest meant not to oppose antiquitie to Scripture but where the practice of antiquitie is consonant to Scripture It s impious to reject the Communion of the first age All helpes of interpretation are fetters to the proud Schismatickes and this Libeller that so lately obtruded the Example of the reformed Churches in the case of Episcopacie quickely scornes the Classicall Provinciall and diocesine Presbiterie and the last Century hath only seene the ascent of these Locusts and he only likes that part of the last Century wherein they crept foorth and they would willingly have the credit to be a part of other Churches though they are in truth Enemies to them all We may with farr better reason beleive the interpretations and practice of the primitive Church then any moderne Reformers and there were never any but those Sectaries soe shamelesse to deny the authoritie of antiquitie or charge it in this particular with an aberration from Scripture and many learned men living vnder Presbitery acknowledge the dignitie of Bishopps above Presbiters in the times of the Apostles The Libeller likes any limitations in the Covenant dangerous to the king soe much of the Covenant as concernes the casting out of Bishoppsbut he will sweare and forsweare comformitie to the Church of Scotland or any other That this Covevant had former practice vnles in the french League cannot be shewne The Libeller would have the Israelites entring a new into a Covenant with Asa their King to be a new Covenant when it was only a renewing of their promise of obedience to God noe Articles of their owne devising and as that was with the King soe he hath found one without a King for the Jewes after the captivitee tooke solemne oath to walke in the Commaundements of God without consent demaunded of that King who was then their Master and they had the Authoritie of that King But did they take an oath to vse violence against that King if he consented not to them or was the Covenent to walke in Gods Commaundements a new Covenant This is like their pulpitt proofes That Protestant Churches have made Leagues or Covenant against their King Or imposed their confessions with Civill penalties vpon refusers without their Prince is a notorious â—…ander for the protestation it was confined to established law the Covenant to destroy law and what was established by it the protestation to defend the Doctrine the Covenant to destroy the Government which is comprehended in the Doctrine and this the Libeller holds needes noe reconcitement There is noe doubt but the Examples of Asa and Esra were approved by Scripture but they are farr from the Examples of the present Covenant and if the Libeller approve the taking of the Covenant how doth he satisfie himselfe in the breach of it he hath found out away for he may aswell breake that as his oath to his King and obligation to former lawes which he sayes are Conditionall and that condition to be expounded by every man at his pleasure He proceedes to shew the strength of the Covenant and yet he will keepe it one way and his brethren of another name and sect another way If he Covenant oblidge to contrary courses it cannot be a Rule of Reformation and as it clashes with former oaths to God and the king rightly vnderstood soe the clashing of these that devised it shewes that the spiritt of peace was not desired by the contrivers of that Covenant That the Kings booke is replenished with Popish Arguments must be spoken in a Corner not publiquely with any modestie for the Protestants throughout the world know the contrary and will disavow this Covenanting power to be a part of their Religion The salvoes cautions and reservations vsed in taking the Covenant were the arts of the deceitefull composers and it s well knowne it was an artifice vsed to perswade men to take it that they might vse the libertie of their owne sense and the Libeller willing to say some thing in detraction of the King vpon every occasion as if it were a sin to vse truth and ingenuitie transposes words of the Kings which were vsed in reproofe to additions of his owne as if the King approved these shuffling cautions who he well knowes detested both the Covenant and them and shewed the inniquitie of these deceites and we have seene that these Cautions have made Covenanter and anticovenanter Presbiterian and independent Rebell The Libeller likes well the povertie of the Ministers of the gospell And although the primitive povertie of Churchmen was very glorious yet the Christian Laitie were never soe sordid to thinke a liberall patrimony vnfit for them and Religion hath litle power where the Clergie are trencher chaplaines to gluttons feasts These men that judge povertie a curse to themselves hold it Christs legacie to the Ministers If there were any legacie povertie was to all Christians aswell as Clergie but we see that notwithstanding these professions their Levites now hold more pluralities without remorse then ever were knowne and shame not to contradict their former declamations but it is the calamitie of the Church that greedy doggs devoâ—…re her patrimony and barking detractours trâ—…duce her Clergie Vpon the many JEALOSIES c. TO wipe of Iealosies and scandalls the best way had been by cleere actions or till Actions could be cleered by evident reasons Cleere Actions nor evident reasons will stopp the mouth of malicious slanderers nor abate the industrie of conspiratours in raising jealosies But these which his Majest complained of were tempered only to vulgar capacitie and were long since hist at by all knowing men who saw apparently they were not the opinions of the devisers but artifices of deceite and the progresse of this Rebellion hath cleered al mistakes and taken away al credit from these fopperies It is very late for the
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
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
he sayes if they strucke or menaced any as the King said they were such as had more relation to the Court then to the Common wealth Enemies not Patrons of the people Is not the honour and freedome of the two housce invaded when their members ar strucke and menaced And is it an officious accusation to say soe Can this man pretend the name of Parliament when he will allow the base rabble to abuse them at pleasure And could any man but he tell the King that persons elected were not sent to be Cavelled at by him or entertained with an vndervalue of their temper judgment or affection and heere defend the rascallitie in striking and menacing the members and not only vndervaluing their temper judgment and affection but handling them as cullions Never was libeller more passionately malicious more blindly absurd more wilfully false yet he thinkes he hath a reserve against all opposition for he sayes if their petitioning vnarmed were an invasion of both houses what was his besetting it with armed men Is striking and menacing soe quickly returned to petitioning Is it a way of answeare not to speake to the question Did ever Kings of England come without an armed guard to the Parliament and doe they beset the house when the guard is at the doore And can he say that the Kings comming with his guard to the house is a greater invasion of the honour freedome of the houses then the striking and menacing the members by the Tumults Doubtles he had consulted better to his credit to have said nothing then that which was soe different from the case himselfe had stated and his repetition of petitioning and supplicating people is noe other then the noyse of the Ephesian Rabble that greate is Diana of the Ephesians The King sayes They forbore not rude deportments contemptuous words and Actions to himselfe and his Court. And to this the libeller sayes It was noe wonder having heard what treacherous hostilitie he had designed against the Citie and his whole Kingdome that they forbore to handle him as people in their rage have handled Tyrants heere to fore for lesse offences The supplicating and petitioning people may vse rude deportments contemptuous words and actions To what purpose hath he minced his Tumults into supplicating petitioning people when he defends their highest violence The King design'd Treacherous hostilitie against the Cittie and Kingdome The last thoughts that madd men had before their destraction run most in their fancie in the time of their frensie and these Traytours having lost all reason inculcate still those ridiculous fraudes wherewith at first they seduced the people The designes of Treacherous hostilitie was one of the Ceremonies which its now time to give over Who but an I diot can beleive that the King can have Treacherous designes against his Kingdome whereof shal he be King whome shall he have to execate hostilitie against his owne Kingdome but these dreames of the blowing vp of Thames and tales of winde mills and fiery Dragons are over and it s become the peoples sorrow and shame to looke backe vpon the cheates whereby they were deluded He cannot name any Tyrant ill handled by tumults vpon such pretences as he makes the most wicked Tyrant was not soe guiltie as that people which exercised their rage vpon him yet the libeller determines that the tumults fury is as justifiable as the Parliaments order for he ascribes noe more to the one then the other They were not a short ague but a feiree quotidian feaver And the libeller sayes he may best say it who most felt it He will rather boast of the greatenes of their villany then reprove the impietie of it and therefore he sports himselfe with the injuries of it after his appellations of mildnes and supplicating people and extolls the highest of their violence as a feirce quotidian feaver and he is soe Lunatique that out of his malice to the King he calls them milde out of his insolence confesses them violent and deadly The King would perswade vs that men scared themselves others without cause And al men are now satisfied of the truth of it the fraudes being soe apparent and confessed by this breaker Wise feare and suspition would finde weapons And we have found by experience that Rebells by suggesting vaine feares and suspitions have gotten weapons and armed the people to their owne destruction Vpon the Kings repeating the mischeifes done by the tumults that they first petitioned then protected dictate next and lastly overaw the Parliament They removed obstructions they purged the houses cast out rotten members He sayes if there were a man of Iron such as Talus by our poet spencer is fain'd to be the Page of Iustice who with his Iron flaile could doe all this and expedititiously without those deceitefull formes and Circumstances of law worse then Ceremonies in Religion I say God send it done whether by one Talus or by a thousand Religion lawes are lesse then Ceremonies in this Authors account and when Pages follow not nor acknowledge Masters Justice wil be ill waited on such cut-throates are not the Pages of Justice but the furies of hell and theis this libeller prayes to God for what will not such call Justice to satisfie their ambition and crueltie Poets are short in their fancies of what the English Rebells have acted Their Gyants were Pigmyes to theise Monsters and their Hidra too few heads too litle venom for the service of these Enemies of mankinde What a silly propertie does this libeller make Parliament and lawes that subjects them to Tumults and how barbarous are their proceedings that made endeavour to subvert fundamentall lawes a Capitall Cryme and heere he commends the fact calls them deceitefull formes and Circumstances of law Might he not better have said they would make good their villanies by the sword then prevaricate and say and vnsay and pretend Religion and yet pray God to send Tumults and Confusions to breake all lawes in order to their designes The King sayes they subdued the men of conscience in Parliament backed and abetted all seditious schismaticall proposalls against Government Ecclesiasticall and Civill To this he sayes That it was not the Kings grace but this Iron flaile the people that drove the Bishopps out of their Baronies Cathedralls Lords house Coopes surplisses papisticall innovations threw downe high Commission starr chamber gave vs a trienniall Parliament and what we most desired And is not this brave Is it a credit to a Church to be thus reformed Is this the Christian Religion to glory in oppression robery and Rebellion There is noe doubt but many things graunted by his Majest in the late Parliament were Acts of grace in respect of his compliance with importunitie in hope thereby to preserve the people from a Civill warr not in respect of the nature of the things graunted The libeller might have remembred that the King never consented to drive the
opinion the Parliament it selfe was never but a faction and their Iustice noe Iustice but the Dictates and overswaying insolence of Tumults and rabbles The Parliament was never a faction in the Kings mouth but it is in every mans mouth that the Parliament hath been overswayed by a faction and a faction have called themselves the Parliament And how can the Libeller define a Parliament but he must acknowledge that those whome the King calls a faction were noe Parliament and that their Actions were noe Justice but the Dictates and overswaying insolence of Tumults and rabbles himselfe prooves it by the commendation he gives the Tumults for effecting these Acts which he now calls the Justice of the Parliament noe wise man could thinke such a rabble fit to Judge of Delinquents or that such men who fled from their fury were thereby culpable of the Crymes objected and the fairest Tyrall would sooner have condemned to death these Tumultuous accusers then the parties accused But who can talke with such a man as this breaker that reputes Monarchy Tyrany order in the Church an imposed Religion and lawes worse then Ceremonies in Religion He compares the avoyding of his madd Iudicature to Catilnies flight and excepting to the Roman Senate and Cesars injecting scrupulous demurrs against the Decres of the senate vpon Lentulus and Cethegus But did either of them object that the power of Tumults overswayed the senate or that the senate wanted freedome and had oppressed the members of it If Catiline had set vp a senate as Caesar did afterward and these Rebells have in England oppressed the legal Government the exceptions had been very just but exceptions against particular senatours for private animosities cannot derogate from the judgment of the whole being free That such reasons were vrged for Strafford was never heard at his Tryall or other proceedings against him the cases being contrary for Lentulus and the rest were accused for conspiring against the state Strafford was accused by those that conspired against the state and sought to take him away for a cleerer passage to their designe The King vouchsafes to the Reformation which both Kingdomes intended noe better name then innovation and ruine both to Church and state and the expelling of Bishopps out of the Church ruine to the Church and out of the house of Peeres ruine to the state And he askes how happy the nation could be in such a governour who counted that their ruine which they thought their deliverance It cannot be doubted but the abolition of the order and Government of Church and state is an innovation performed by force against the King execrable Rebellion and the King never doubted to say that such disorderly innovations were the ruine of Church and state and the innovations and ruines mentioned by the King to be agitated by some men are not restrained to the cause of the Bishopps though that alone and the manner of proceeding in regard of the injustice violence and the dangerous consequences that attend it threatned ruine to Church and state It is strange that a people may mistake their ruine for their deliverance that a wise Prince by denying them their wil may keepe them from perishing which their owne errours would cast them into but such as knew how small a part of the people how contemptible affected those innovations and how they were cherisht by the leaders of Rebellion to strengthen their partie and how others were drawne in by hopes and feares to comply with a potent faction for their profit or safetie and how greate a partie both for number qualitie detested these innovations may well conclude that neither the nation thought it their deliverance nor the Kings refusall other then a just care and providence for their good It is not likely that the house of Peeres gave hardly their consent to the Bills against the Bishopps that soe easily gave it to attach them of high Treason But it is apparent they hardly gave their consent to those Bills for they had often rejected them and therefore his presumption is of noe weight against plaine proofe If their rights and priviledges were thought so vndoubted in that house then was that protestation noe Treason and the house will become liable to a just construction either of injustice for soe consenting or of vsurpation to expect that their voting or not voting should obstruct the Commons The priviledges of the Bishopps had they not been vndoubted they needed not an Act of Parliament nor soe many Acts of violence to take them away neither can the Commons pretend to greater right for their sitting in the one house then the Bishopps in the other and the Libeller hath rightly concluded that their protestation was noe Treason but that their accusation by the house of Commons was a false and vngrounded Clamour and their commitment by the Lords house an odious injustice but it could be noe vsurpation to expect that their voting or not voting was conclusive to the Commons To what end did the Commons offer their accusation to the Lords if their voting or not voting were not considerable Is it Justice when they concurre vsurpation when they dissent But Lords house Commons house are vsurpers when they obstruct the Dictates and overswaying insolence of rabbles and Tumults The Commons were not to deâ—…st for five repulses of the Lords noe not for fiftie from what in the name of the Kingdome they had demaunded soe long as those Lords were none of our Lords and what if they had been your Lords were they then to desist if so it was more then they would doe to their King but our or not our makes noe difference to resolute Traytours The Lords were soe farr their Lords as they were not to persist by the power wherewith they were intrusted for the kingdome in their demaund after the Lords refusall for to what end hath the law ordained a Lords house and the Commons soe long practised their addresses to them if they may doe what they please without them Doth the vse of the name of the kingdome add any right to them that have not the power of the kingdome and demaund things to the destruction of the kingdome The king allowes not such a faction the name of a Parliament which hath nothing of either house but some members that assume the name without the priviledges and authoritie that constituted it Though the Bill against roote and branch passed not till many of the Lords with some few of the Commons either enticed away by the king or overawed by the sense of their owne malignitie deserted the Parliament that was noe warrant for them who remained being farr the greater number to lay aside the Bill He well knowes they that remained of the Lords house were an inconsiderable number and such as deserted the Commons house wanted not many of the number of them that remained and of them that remained many were overawad by force and
diverse plainely dissented to that Bill The injustice of them that remained was intolerable that refused all reparation or securitie to such as were injured by the Tumults and it was a most perfidious Act in them to enforce their members to desert the house that they might exercise their Arbitrary power over the kingdome the injury was so apparent the pretēce of malignancie so ridiculous against the deserting members that noe sober man can imagnie enticement or overawing to be the cause of their withdrawing and these remaining members ought to have forborne by their dutie to the kingdome the passing of such a Bil in the absence of soe many members but they that will forbeare noe degree of treason cannot probably abstaine from breakes of priviledge and lesse injuries He sayes this degrading of the Bishopps was orthodoxall in the Church ancient and reformed What will not this man say Wee neede not wonder at his other impudencies that will affirme the taking away the order of Bishopps orthodoxall in the ancient Church which never wanted them The King sayes he was bound besides his judgment by a most strict and vndispensable oath to preserve that order and the rights of the Church And sayes the Libeller If the letter of that oath be not interpreted by equitie reformation or better knowledge then was the King bound to graunt the Clergie all priviledges graunted to them by Edward the Confessour and so bring in Popery Equitie must be admitted in all interpretations of oaths and soe must better knowledges but the knowledge of other men is noe exposition to him that takes an oath if his owne knowledge be not convinced The King hath sworne to preserve the priviledges of the Church to be a protectour of the Bishopps and by what equitie reformation or better knowledge would this libeller induce the King to breake this oath If Sectaries say the calling is vnlawful against the judgment of the vniversall Church must the king beleive this thinke himselfe absolved of his oath The King never doubted that his oath could not binde him to sin but he was assured that it was a sin to breake his oath when it was no sin to keepe it and while his conscience was not informed of any vnlawfulnes in the matter of his oath his sin must be the more hainous to act against his oath aswell as his knowledge The Libeller talkes of lawes of God and truth of the Gospell But his schismaticall fancies must over rule lawes and oath though the German Emperours or other Kings had noe cause to leavy warrs vpon Protestant subjects vnder colour of a blinde and literall observance to an oath it had been a wickednes in their subjects to make a warr on them to compell them to breake that oath It is not to be imagined if what shal be established come in question but that the Parliament should oversway the King and not the King the Parliament Neither can it be imagined that he which is to be overswayed by the Parliament is a King By all law and reason that which the Parliament will not is no◅ more established in this Kingdome neither is the king bound to vphold it as a thing established Certainly lawes are very vainely said to be made by the King if he have no voyce in the making of them and if they may be vnestablished without him and it was a wickednes aswell as weakenes to binde him to vphold lawes and to governe his people justly that had not soe much as voyce in the making of their lawes that was bound to governe by wicked lawes if the Parliament would have them such Imaginary powers cannot consist with Religion law nor reason in the Government of England The King sayes had he gratified he thinkes their Antiepisconall faction with his consent and sacrifised the Church Government and Revenues to the fury of their Covetuousnes they would then have found noe colourable necessitie of raysing an Army The Libeller to this sayes It was the fury of his owne hatred to the professours of the true Religion which incited him to persecute them with the sword of warr when whipps pillories exiles and imprisonments were not thought sufficient It s certen such a generation of Traytours as have persecuted the King with a warr justly merited to be whipt out of all Kingdomes and while this Libeller frequently sports at the Kings necessities he is not ashamed presently to call the warr voluntary on his part If the Kings fury incited him to a warr he would not soe often have sought peace nor been denyed peace without the sacrifice of the Church But the Libeller sayes to colour this warr the K̄ing cannot finde wherewith all but that stale pretence of Charles the fifth and other Popish Kings that the Protestants had only an intent to lay hands on the Church Revenues The King neede not a colour for making a warr whereto necessitie enforced him It is apparent that the sectaries in England intended to devoure these Revenues and have effected it and they professe to seeke it by the sword because they could not have it otherwise But the Libeller sayes it was never in the thoughts of the Parliament till exhausted by warr their necessitie seized on that for the Commonwealth which the Luxury of the Prelates had abused to Common mischeife They neede not have been exhausted if reason Justice or Religion could have contented them They will make a warr and robb and steale from other men to maintaine it Did not their pretended necessitie come from their warr to take away Episcopacy and is not the necessitie of their owne making to get these Revenues What if goods dedicated to Gods service were abused to luxury were there none els in the Kingdome soe abused Must they make choise of the Patrimony of the Church for a sacrifice to their Covetuousnes that they may spare their private That the King consented to the vnlording of Bishopps at Canterbury the cheife seate of their pride for God would have it soe And can he tax the King for his allusions vpon the fate of Hotham and obserring the course of Gods judgments and himselfe make such an observation from the Kings passing the Bill at Canterbury May it not be an aggravation of the offence in passing the Bill there rather then a punishment vpon those that were wronged by it but Canterbury had not relation to their peace in Parliament but in Church and therefore his scene is mislayed The King sayes his consent to that Bill of putting Bishopps out of the house of Peeres was from his firme perswasion of their contentednes to suffer a present diminution of their rights The Libeller from hence argues the pure mockery of a Royall assent to delude for the present May not sober times revoke what distempered madnes had necessitated and ◅ad not the King just cause to thinke that after times would see the obliquitie of that Bill The Libellers consequence is that we may hence perceive
whose rights they had a minde to invade And the Libeller askes was this man ever likely to be advised who setts himselfe against his chosen Councellours and censures the Government of other protestant Churches as bad as any Papist Certainly such Councellours were very vnfitt to advise that were soe ill qualified such as the lawe judges offenders are incapable to judge of law that such were these demaunders is evident to al men that know the lawes and Government of England There are noe Protestant Churches that thinke their Government censured if others differ from it in any particular but they will hold it a Schismaticall insolence in any to endeavour to alter a Government well setled vpon pretence to introduce another against the will of the king It imports not any contempt of the kingdome if such as they chose be found either defective or false and to engage the kingdome in all the impieties that men act which are chosen by them is as absurd as vainely pretended by the Libeller who will make a faction prevalent by Tumults and sedition to be the kingdome and the king should have had his kingdome in greate contempt if he had taken such a faction for the kingdome He drawes an Argument from the penaltie of being a Christian vnder the heathens and a Protestant vnder Papists And surely had they sought to introduce their Religion with the destruction of the Civill state such a fact would have merited the name of treason but their course was contrary to these Sectaries who sought only to enjoy the libertie of their conscience not to enforce others That our saviour comming to reforme his Church was accused of an intent to invade Caesars right as good a right as ever the Prelate Bishopps had the one being gotten by force the other by spirituall vsurpation Helpes not the Sectaries for our saviour was innocent of that false accusation declaring his kingdome not to be of this world acknowledged Caesars right bidding the people to give vnto Cesar the things that were Cesars but this mans prophanes would have the accusation true and lawfull to invade Cesars right from the false accusation of our saviours and blasphemously avowes invading of the Bishopps rights because one better then cesars for to what other purpose doth he compare the rights of Cesar and the Bishopps vnlesse to justifie their dealinge with the Bishopps And accuse our saviour for intending the lyke to Caesar The right of the Prelate Bishopps was gotten by spirituall vsurpation Could any Jew Turke or Pagan speake more reproach fully against Christiaintie that the calling of those men who were soe eminent for suffering and Martidome and gathering the Christian Church throughout the world was a spirituall vsurpation The objection or to his Majest repeating the arguments from law antiquitie Ancestours prosperitie and the like was very improper from him whose repititions of Tyrany slavery single voyce consent of the kingdome and such like have blotted soe greate a part of his booke and he that would binde the king to follow the Example of other Churches will exclude antiquitie and the primitive Church and authorise the schisme of innovating Sectaries because Papists have vsed Arguments against them The king sayes had he two houses sued out their livery from the wardship of Tumults he could sooner have beleived them But sayes the Libeller it concerned them first to sue out their livery from his encroaching Prerogative The law allowes noe livery from Royall Prerogative but judges them Rebells that seeke it The Character sett on them that hunt after faction with their hounds the Tumults the Libeller hath justified by his defence It s noe shame for a King to be a pupill to the Bishopps whose calling it is to give him spirituall Councell but it were madnes to be a laquay to such mē who take vpon them to judge of the callings in the Church of God which have noe calling to it much more to a rabble whome the Libeller himselfe holds extravagant That nimrod was the first that hunted after faction could never be told by the Bishopps much lesse that he was the first that founded Monarchy The Bishopps could have named a more ancient foundation in Adam and Noah They finde the hunters after faction by Tumults of a latter dale Corah and his Company that Rebelled against Moses and Sheba that spake to the Tumults what part have we in David or portion in the sonne of Jesse and they finde them in the cursed Jewes that hunted by the Tumults against our Saviour In Demetrious and his Craftsmen against the Apostles and in Alexander the Copper Smith against St. Paul and that 's the game which Rebells in all times hollowed to and the Mungrell sort never faile them and these that hunt with such hounds preserve beasts of prey to devoure the quiett profitable Certainly Parliaments made lawes before Kings were in being which must have better authoritie then his reason to prove We finde kings making lawes before ever we reade of Parliaments in Commonwealths we finde their law makers were single men as Licurgus Solon and diverse others The kings holding his Crowne by law doth not imply another law maker then the king who first made that law wherevnto the whole people were subject but he that soe lately blamed repetitions vnseasonably falls into his old rode of disputing against Monarchy which he pretends to decline It hath been anciently interpreted the presaging signe of a future Tyrant to dreame of copulation with his Mother Heere is a conceite pluckt in by head and shoulders Whereof was it a signe in Junious Brutus that was directed by the oracle to kisse his Mother his succeeding act was the expulsion of the kings and change of the Government was that lesse then Tyrany or not soe presaged by the oracle as wel as a dreame Parliaments can be noe Mothers to kings that are created by kings The king is by the law of England Father of the Countrey the life and soule of the law but the Libeller will finde out a step Mother an Athalia to destroy the seede Royall and sett her meestuous broode vpon the throne for these dreames were the delusions of some prime Rebells and could not allude vnto just Title but conceites are growne low when such dreames must be fetcht in for reasons And from his dreames it is not strange he should fancie allusions which himselfe sayes are ordinary of the King to the sun of force to swell vp Caligula to thinke himselfe a God And because these Rebells can not be Gods they will be Devills The King sayes these propositions are not the joint and free desires of both houses next that the choise of many members was carried by faction He sayes Charles the fifth against the Protestants in Germany laid the fault vpon some few And what is that to the faction in England If they be not the joint desires of both houses as it was not ought the King to
The king neede not bring proofes against a groundles accusation that containes not any evidence of fact and a single denyall by al lawes is preferred before such a charge and it is as likely that the Rebells in Ireland should pretend his Seale as those in England his authoritie noe man doubts of the invaliditie of a Rebells pretence This Chapter is not without witnes of his good affection to the Rebells which he collects from thaâ—… the king sayes they were lesse in fault then the Scotts from whome they might alledge to have fetched their imitation making no difference sayes the Libeller beâ—…eene men that rose necessarily to defend themselves which noe Protestant Doctrine ever disallowed against them who threatned warr and those who began a voluntary causâ—…les Rebellion If the Irish made warr not to be restrained from their Religion had they not the same cause the same pretence of defending themselves as the other pretended for refusing the Common prayer booke and expelling Bishopps Where lies the odds Is it Protestant Doctrine that they may defend themselves and Papists may not and that Protestants may Rebell for Religion Papists may not That were very much to the credit of Religion but the Libeller will not acknowledge the protestants nor their Doctrine who maintaine it to be vnlawful for subjects to defend themselves against the supreame power though Tyranically abused and there is noe neede to fly to the Parliaments authoâ—…itie if subjects may take Armes against their king vpon pretence of defending themselves The Libeller well knowes the just indignation the Protestants abroade have expressed for this scandall the king names not the Scotts but thinkes that their blame must needes be greater whose Actions the Irish had to alledge for their imitation by how much protestant principles are more against Rebellion then those of Papists such as inferre good affection to the Irish from such premises will easily make vaine or malitious rumours strong proofes The King sayes he hath the greatest share of dishonour and losse by what is committed The Libeller as before makes this noe Argument because every one that offends God or his neighbour hath the greatest share of losse and dishonour in the end and have they not worldly ends in offending God and if these ends were not sought by them they would not offend God He pretended before that this was a politique contrivance of the King and now he would have it an act without designe Doth he thinke that the malitious reports of him and his Scotchman are of weight to make a man suspected of an act directly tending to his owne vndoing and would the King instigate the Irish Rebellion for his owne ends to have the assistance of the Irish which by such engagement could not assist him Though presumptions are noe convincing proofes yet they are more credible then suspitions or reports It is a strong Argument for the peoples confidence in their King more then in other men because his interest lies cheifely in the common welfare of his subjects and it is hard to beleive that a King will knowingly doe any thing against that interest and to his owne losse and dishonour and whenever any have offended in that kinde the proofe of it hath been more apparent then the authoritie of rumours and Libells but heere the act it selfe cannot have any possibilitie of concurrence to the Kings ends It too notoriously appeares in another section which he Mangles but shall heere have it whole The King sayes t is thought by many wise men that the preposterous rigour and vnreasonable severitie which some men carryed before them in England was not the least incentive that kindled and blew vp into those horrid flames the sparkes of discontent which wanted not predisposed fewell for Rebellion in Ireland The Libeller sayes that these some men are the Parliament And if the Rebells had feed an Advocate he could hardly have dazled better Truly the Libellers too notoriously doth not amount to a dazling of any eyes from descerning his vaine confidence Does any thing heerein excuse a Rebellion that speakes only of what succeded it And if the kings censure of the proceedings of such as managed the busines against the Rebells shew an affection to the Rebells then certainely most Princes that have had warrs in Ireland were very guiltie of that affection that vsed like censures but what the king sayes heere was spoken in Parliament by diverse members who disadvised the preposterous severitie that was propounded and afterward proceeded in and it will rest an indelible blemish of a rash and vnadvised Councell in those men that in the beginning of a Rebellion would put a whole nation into despaire and feare of extirpation That their wonted oppressions as they conceived should rather have made them against the King then the Parliament is easily beleived for it s knowne to all the world they did rise against the king vpon pretence of regaining their nationall liberties from the English oppression as they called it and since the Libeller seeth soe apparent an Argument of their rising against the king its blinde madnes to suspect their rising for the king The Parliament then pretended to act for the king and that the Rebellion was against him not themselves but the man deserts his Arguments and falls to his old common place and will suspect the king because he vsed the Prelaticall Religion and to force it vpon others made Episcopall Ceremoniall and common prayer booke warrs Such men as made warrs and raysed Rebellion to take away the order of Bishopps Ceremonies and booke of Common prayer established by lawes in the Raignes of best Princes with the advice of the most eminent confessours and Martyrs of the age wherein they lived conformable to the Scripture and purest times of the Church declare to the whole world that they have neither shame truth nor Religion and are justly stigmatized for making not only Episcopall Ceremoniall and common prayer booke warrs but Antichristian and Diabolicall Rebellion That the Papists knew these warrs were their warrs may easily be beleived for they must needes apprehend advantage from the Rebellion But it s well knowne that the Papists are more jealous of Episcopacie Ceremonies and booke of common prayer as they stand râ—…formed in the Church of England then of the Directory Extemporall devotions independent or Pres biterall platformes that have noe foundation in the Scripture or the doctrine or practice of the ancient Church but what is this to the preposterous rigour and vncharitable fury that he would justifie Does he meane that the extirpation of the Irish was the sole way to suppresse open Idolatry and is this what we may doe Evangecally to be their Reformers Is blood massacre Evangelicall reformation is kill and reforme the same thinge As that rigour observed by his Majest was altogeather vnpolitique soe if it were intended in order to Religion it was most abominable such Massacres being the designes of irreligious
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