Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	liberty_n	papist_n	protestant_n	1,212	5	9.6046	5	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

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

and sword to gainsayers and yet they will pretend the example of our Saviours publishing his gospell and pretend like reason for their fanaticke conceites as for his divine revelations and miraculous Testimonies and because reformation may be necessary therefore they conclude it must be as often as these that are carried about with every winde of doctrine shall thinke fitt they would reduce Christianitie to a cloud without water tossed to fro with the breath of private opinion The first reformers in the time of Pope Adrian pretended not a reformation of the vniversall Church and a rejection of whatever was received by the primitive as those men now neither did they presume to enforce others to their perswasion and though noveltie and perturbation were objected to them yet they still deprecated that guilt and it is a most vnchristian and prophane disposition to desregard lawes established and Religion setled vpon presumption of private opinions and these of men neither learned discreete nor honest There is greate difference betweene a clamour and an vndeniable truth and we may not thinke that popular compliance dissolution of all order and Government in the Church schisme vndecencies confusions sacrilegious invasions contempt of the Clergy and their Leiturgie and diminution of Princes are lesse odious because Papists objected them or that any pretended reformation introduced by these detestable practices can be acted or approved by Christians All men are wittnes that the present Sectaries are guiltie of all these The former reformers did not give occasion for such aspersions that desired only the libertie of their owne consciences from the practice and beleife of errours newly enjoyned and anciently rejected in the Church or els followed the orderly reformations which Princes and states authorised in their owne Dominiōs but these new reformers obtrude their dictates vpon all the world and will dispose of all Kingdomes with the Divill as in their donation Let it be produced what good hath been done by synods since the reformation It s like not the good he meanes to authorise all manner of Lewde sects and Lunaticke opinions But synods are customary and have their set times in all the reformed Churches and if there be fraude and packing in synods as he sayes whence come Parliaments that are of like constitution to be free Is there a priviledge of Parliament to change nature and that the members cannot be guiltie of fraude faction and Treason There is not only fraude and packing by insinuations conspiracies and corruptions of the vulgar but violence and confusion to Church and state by tumultuary reformations and what is this doctrine of rejecting synods but the justifying of all licentious violence and Lewde Rebellion to introduce mens private opinions The pulling downe of Church windowes and Crosses which were but Civill not Religious markes defacing the Monuments and inscriptions of the dead mentioned by the King are the effects of a popular and deceitefull reformation in the account of all true protestants That Protestants were accused by Papists as these are charged by the King will not parallell guilt nor hide the present Actions of these Traytours from view and detestation The Libeller doth very preposterously produce the Example of Iob whose sinceritie was accused to God as a protection for the hipocrisie of Sectaries while himselfe acts the part of him that accused Job to God and omits not the traducing of all proofes of pietie Religion and Justice in the late King But the infirmities of best men and scandalls of hipocrites in times of reforming can lay noe just blemish vpon the integritie of others nor purpose of reformation Noe man sayes it did but if the Reformation it selfe be a noveltie pretending not the consent of any times but their owne opinions of places of Scripture different from all others if that which is offred in the name of reformation be in it selfe confusion and scandalous imputing Antichristianisme to all the Churches of God that were before them and that the way of introducing it be with presumption blood and Rebellion we cannot thinke that any promoters of such an vnchristian deformitie can have any integritie or Religion and they are not blemished with the Crymes of others but their owne They that have no publique place nor authoritie to reforme the Church cannot be excused of presumption if they meddle with it and such bu-sy bodies are moved with Carnall selfe seeking and private ambition not sense of dutie If any thing grew worse and worse in the Church of England it was the encrease of Sectaries who would cover their hipocrisie with censure of superiours and lawes These Reformers pretend to reforme lawes not corruptions for though they talke of the time of the Kings Raigne they pretend to reforme nothing that was particularly worse in his time then before and he might as well have asked why Queene Elizabeth in her fortie yeares raigne had not reformed as peevishly talke that his Majest should not reforme in twentie yeares when it was held strange that the Schismatickes should be soe distempered to pretend a necessity of reformatiō there being greater neede of strengthning what was established It is a Diabolicall Method to change the order of the Church by destruction of the Civill state just reformation never opposes lawful authoritie in setting vp a Governmēt over others Though Christians might reforme themselves they allwayes judged it an abomination to impose their Religion vpō the state they lived in Private reformations are of Christian right but publique are the prerogative of supreame power and though Princes ought to serve God in the first place the people are not to destroy Princes in the first place they may worshipp God though they be persecuted they cannot truly if they take the sword to subdue them that are in authoritie and they feare not God that feare not their King our feare of God bindes vs to vse noe violence against our King nor vpon others our Allegiance to our King being a part of our dutie to God and as the Apostle convinces those that hate their brother not to love God soe in vaine doe they pretend to feare God that offer violence to their King Can a Christian breake all the lawes of the second table vpon pretence of keeping the first And did not he that Commaunded to have noe other Gods but him commaund the honour of Father Mother May a private Christian robb and kill because persons are not of his Religion The scripture sajes he that is guiltie of the breach of one commaundement is guiltie of all and though Christians may not obey Commaunds contrary to the commaund of God they may not vse violence force but these are the Pharisees that teach men by making a vow vpon pretence of Gods service to disobey Parents which our Saviour soe much condemnes Christs Kingdome is spiritual in the hearts of the faithful not in a papall consistory nor a congregationall pullpitt they were best Christians that obeyed not

rights but he had a right to keepe them when they were judged He sayes the king had noe right by law to judge in any Court. And yet he judged in all Courts all judgments being in his name and we are sure that the lower house could never judge of the smallest cases nor the higher but in respect of the kings presence among them because the king judges by his delegates doth he not judge or can they judge his Crowne to themselves That the king cannot judge of Treason fellony because he is held a partie And why did he then exclaime that the king should hold noe Treasons but against himselfe but if that were the reason his Judges were incompetent aswell as he but it is necessary that in a learned profession as the law the king should judge by others The kings rights he sayes must give place to generall good But it is generall evill to take away his rights He may not yeilde to Traytours that desire him to part with them for their owne advantages It is noe arrogance in a king to suppose a cleerer insight of the generall good then others though chosen for the Parliament whose breeding and condition could not quallifie them for such a descerninge and it is a fond imagination in the Libeller to suppose the Parliament the kings Councell and suppose the king voyde of Judgment to descerne the soundnes of their advice They have most authoritie to judge of the publique good who for that purpose are chosen out and sent by the people to advise him But it necessarily followes that he hath most authoritie whome they are sent to advise their authoritie being to advise his to determine and being sent to advise they destroy their owne authoritie and office when they Commaund If the King see oft the major part of them not in the right it had been more his modestie to have doubted their seeing him more oft in the wrong The libeller prescribes modestie to the king insolence impudence to subjects that the Rule of their Rebellion If the king had not governed his Actions by good advice nor seene the often Levitie and precipitation of a Major part he should have doubted of their seeing him in the wrong however they owne him dutie as their king he no submission to them That the King ought to graunt the peoples rights and liberties because of right demaunded it being his dutie not his bountie to graunt these things But it is the subjects miserie aswell as their madnes to demaund the kings rights as their owne and we know that the demaunds of Rebells are for themselves and to take away the peoples rights aswell as loyaltie and wee finde that there were such as the king mentions whome noe fountaine of Royall bountie was able to overcome and for whome the comparision of hidropike thirst was very favourable being more insatiate then gusters in a wine sellar and neerer the nature of horse leaches and swine The King confesses a rationall soveraigntie of soule and freedome of within every man and yet with an implicite repugnancie would make vseles that freedome of will in all other men but himselfe That cannot be by vsing the libertie of his negative voyce for are the wills of other men captivated because they cannot doe as they will because the king will not doe what they will have him and because men are subject to Government is freedome of will denyed them Them that yeilde him the obedience meaning the king he pronounces worthy to be slaves which he inferrs from these words of the King the he deserves to be a slave who captivates the rationall soveraignetie of soule and libertie of his will to compulsion And how can the libeller draw any such conclusion from these words Lawes that restraine Actions doe not cap●…te the will nor doth he consent to have his will captivated that snbmitts to Government But he captivates his will that Acts what another directs him though he judge it evill and in such case a law may not be obeyed though violence may not be vsed against the law-maker What that Freedome is which cannot be denyed him as a King because it belongs to him as a man a Christian the Libeller sayes he vnderstands not if it be his negative voyce it concludes all men who have not such a negative as his against the whole Parliament to be neither men nor Christians And aswell he might have said that because every man ought to have freedome in giving his vote in Parliament therefore every man ought to be there The Libeller neede not be ashamed to confesse ignorance that blushes not at such fooleries The king argues that he could not be debarred of that as a king which belonged to him as a man and a Christian which was libertie of will in giving his vote and by what Logicque could the Libeller thence conclude that all that have not a negative voyce to what the Parliament propounds are noe men nor Christians If the king have not a negative voyce he hath noe voyce every members of Parliament hath a voyce affirmative negative and they deny that to the king in denying his negative voyce which they allow all that have any voyce He demaunds what was he himselfe all this while that we denyed it him as a King He had the freedome of his will when he gave noe vote against it but all the world sayes that you were Traytours in the deniall His naturall libertie of will was not taken from him by your Trayterous violence though his right to vse it in his kingly office were Rebelliously withstood If a King be prohibited the vse of his reason in his Government he is denied that which belongs to him as a man and a Christian and these impudent Traytours are soe cauterized that they scoffe at their Lewde villany asking whether he did not enjoy the libertie of his will when they had imprisoned and deposed him He askes might not the King have enjoyed both reason and conscience governinge vs as free men by what lawes we our selves would be governed And how could he governe if you make the lawes he might be governed And who shall governe when every man is a law-maker and he could not enjoy reason nor conscience governing by lawes he approved not It was not the inward vse of his reason and conscience that would content him Doubtles it ought not being a King but sayes he to vse them both as a law over all his subjects in whatsoever he declared as a King to like or dislike The King were noe King if his subjects might make lawes without him and his reason and conscience ought to be his lawes in governing and he justly said It were better to be without the Title of King if it should carry with it such a vassallage as not to suffer him to vse his reason and conscience in what he declared as a King to like or dislike which vse of reason sayes the

he meane by defending the Tumults seizing the forts and Militia raysing an Army vpbraiding the king with feares to hazard such a scuffle But were it otherwise the Protestants have disclaimed his Trayterous pretence of taking Armes against the King vnder colour of Religion or otherwise hold it dishonour to their Religion that such Rebellious principles should be charged vpon them and nothing could be more for the interest of Papists then that Protestants should maintaine and practice that doctrine of Rebellion The world is satisfied how disloyally the King was prosecuted by Armes and had it been otherwise subjects ought to petition not returne violence and in all the excuses that these Traytours have vsed they never mention any offer of satisfaction to the King or desire to lay downe his Armes but require his submission and giving vp his rights or otherwise they would take it by force The precedence of the Scotts warr will not take of the dishonour He sayes It s a groundles and dissembled feare that shee that was for many yeares averse to her husbands Religion should be now the more alienated can the Libeller deny but that the aversion of any may be encreast and confirmed by the wickednes of the persons of the contrary Religion how groundles then and shameles is his exception If the feare of her delinquencie and Iustice demaunded on her was any cause of her alienating the more to have gained her by indirect meanes had been no advantage to Religion As the King observed that this was the first example of Protestant subjects that tooke Armes against their king soe this of charging the Queene with Delinquencie was the first example in that kinde that trayterous impudence had produced when it shal be heard that a compaine of such vile persons charge the Queene with Crymes fot assisting her husband they wil be assured that not feare of Delinquencie but their barbarous crueltie might more alienate her disadvantage Religion Them who accused her he sayes well enough knowne to be the Parliament the King censures for men yet to seeke their Religion whether doctrine discipline or good manners And soe doth the whole world whatever name the Libeller give such men who are well enough knowne to be a Trayterous faction The name of true English Protestants is a meere schismaticall name And why Are there not severall confessions in the Protestant Churches doe they hold one another Schismatickes for that reason How often hath this Libeller named the best reformed Churches is not that as much a name of schisme he is ignorant in the nature of schisme though he be soe well practised in it and its strange he would observe a Schismaticall name from the title of a nation and not from his title of Independencie that produceth as many titles and distinctions as there be Parishes or Parlours The King ascribes rudenes and barbaritie worse then Indian to the English Parliament To the Libellers Parliament he very well may He sayes the King ascribes all vertues to his wife vndervaluing the greate Councell of his Kingdome in comparison of one woman And not only he but all good men abominate that wicked Councell which vsed such rudenes and barbaritie towards her and from hence the Libeller tells vs there are examples of mischiefe vnder vxorious Magistrates and Feminine vsurpation And must Magistrates therefore have noe wives or noe affections to them And the examples of feminine vsurpation are more frequent in Republican Tribunes then Monarchs The king sayes her tarrying heere he could not thinke safe among them who were shaking hands with Allegiance to lay faster hold on Religion The Libeller sayes that he taxes them of a dutie rather then a Cryme it being just to obey God rather then man And is periury and the breach of Alleagiance obedience to God and doe men obey God that breake one Commaundement vpon pretence to keepe another The Scripture tells vs he that breakes one Commaundement is guiltie of all but these are they that say they love God and yet hate their brother hate and kill their King Gods vicegerent The libeller sayes it was the fault of their courage that they had not quite shaken of what they stood shaking hands with It s like their conscience and Religion were not the cause they did not but the Libeller was not of their Councell for the time required they should keepe their maske longer He is offended at the Kings prayer that the disloyaltie of his protestant subjects may not be a hindrance to her love of the true Religion and sayes that he never prayes that the dissolutenes of his Court the Scandalls of his Clergie vnsoundnes of his owne judgment Lukewarmenes of his life letter o●… compliance to the Pope permitting his nuntio heere may not be found farr greater hindrances All these put togeather are farr short of the scandall of the disloyaltie of his subjects The Court dissolutenes is made a common place of scandall not veritie in respect of the application there being not such excesses in his Majest Court that deserved a speciall observation and the restraint of dissolutenes was more observable then the Cryme As to the scandalls of his Clergie though we must beleive that offences wil come yet the scandall of the present disloyaltie was more offensive to those of different Religion then any disorders in Civil conversation and the injustice of the Rebells towards the Clergie hath shewed the vntruth of the scandalls that were cast vpon them though their malice traduced persecuted them their proofes could not convict them of the scandall supposed His Majest owne judgment cannot be overcast by a Rebells malice and his examplary life cannot be stained by a Libellers pen. His letter to the Pope was noe complaince nor could it give offence to protestant or hope to Papist these Rebells that comply with Turkes and infidells least of all thinke it a compliance The Libeller well knowes there was noe nuntio in England and if the King should have denyed the Queene the exercise of her Religion whereto he was bound by the Articles vpon the match he had given greater scandall by breaking the Articles then by permitting her the repaire of persons in matters of her Religion But sayes the Libeller they must not sit still that is not Rebell and see their Religion snatcht away But they have Rebelled to snatch away Religion He sayes It s knowne that her Religion wrought more vpon him then his vpon her and his favouring of Papists and hatred of Puritans made men suspect shee had perverted him Noe doubt suspitions were industriously raysed and carrefully nourisht against the King though they beleived them not that made vse of them The King was not bound to destroy all Papists and could not deny them the protection of a King he had just reason to suspect those bloody Puritans whose inclinations he descerned to that wickednes they have since avowed From his suppositions he ascends to

take it for the advice of Parliament and forbeare to shew the fraude because Charles the fifth said the like vpon another occasion The Court was wont to tamper with Elections and he sayes noe faction was then more potent And yet he affirmes they prevayled not where then was their potencie Because the king sayes he cannot swallow such Camells of sacriledge and Injustice as others doe The Libeller sayes he is the Pharisee vp and downe is not as other men are Is it Pharisaisme to professe with the Prophett David the dislike of them that follow superstitious vainties Because the Pharisee swallowed Camells be such men Pharisees that professe they will not because the Sectaries pretended conscience of Ceremonies like the Pharisees washing the outside while they devoure the Estates of other men without remorse are they not Pharisees and are they only that professe they cannot swallow such Camells Pharifees this is a new found Pharisee The three Realmes all most perished for want of Parliaments Wee have seene how neere perishing they are by a Parliament which hath committed more Injustice since it began then all our stories have remembred for five hundred yeares before The Libeller hath found out a new kinde of sacriledge for he endures not to have Church robbing called sa●…riledge and that is to bereave a Christi in conscience of libertie for the narroumes of his owne conscience And by what Engine is this sacriledge committed doth he that abstaines for conscience sake bereave another mans conscienc of libertie He thinkes to take away superfluous wealth from the Clergie is not sacriledge for that serves as an excuse for their theft in taking from others what they pretend ill vsed wee may see the love these Sectaries have vnto the goods of the Church that extenuate their impietie by pretending that such men most oppose that wickednes whose righteousnes in other matters hath been least observed And these are noe Pharisees that traduce the opposers of their sacriledge for want of righteousnes in other matters this is their new righteousnes that allowes none holy but their owne gang and nothing vnholy that they practise and therefore they will not see the Kings vertues least they be driven to confesse their owne wicked Actions against him Vpon the REBELLION IN IRELAND IT Could not possibly be soe secrett from whence it sprung as the contriver supposed And if he knew the contrivers perhaps he might know whether they supposed it would be secrett for they that pretended to be the principall contrivers avowed it openly It cannot be imaginable that the Irish guided by soe many subtill and Italian heads should soe farr have lost the vse of reason and Common sense as not supported by other strength then their owne to begin a warr soe desperate against England and Scotland And truly it may seeme that they who thought themselves wiser then Italian heads had lost reason Common sense who letting lose or rather cutting asunder the Reynes of Government which held in that kingdome to a people naturally disaffected to those vnto whome they were subject invited them to that Rebellion first in a popular fury cutting of the Ld. Lieutenant to gratifie them then leaving the Kingdome without a successour and preparing the way to a Civill warr in England stirring vp jealosies against the King and weakning his Authoritie and composing Apologies for Rebellion which would serve the Irishe pretences aswell as the diferences in England their designes and those Italian heads saw as much advantage from our broyles as want of aide from other nations who were busied to the vtmost in their owne most necessary concernements And therefore the libeller vainely inferrs authoritie for assistance promised from England vnles it were from the faction in the houses there being noe visible strength then in any other there neede not nor could be any private assurance vnto the Irish Rebells from any other but that faction and it is most apparent that they neglected all meanes to remedie that mischeife busying themselves wholy in laying the ground worke of the Rebellion in England which they held their most necessary concernement this was ground enough for Italian heads to stirr vp that Rebellion The libeller proceedes vpon his suppositions as if they were graunted truths he would insinnate an equivocation in what the King sayes That the sea of blood is enough to drowne any man ineternall both infamy and miserie whome God shall finde the malitious Author or instigatour of that effusion Because he sayes the Rebells themselves wil not confesse that any blood was shed by them maliciously bu●… for the Catholique cause or Common libertie Therein they differ not from the Libeller and his English Rebells for they wil not confesse any of the blood they shed to be maliciously but for Religion and Common libertie and thence the Libeller learnes his skill to cast suspitions vpon the plainest expressions of others he well descerned that the King vsed the word malicious for aggravation not restriction his observation was captious when he read in the following Period that the King affirmes nothing could be more abhorred of him being soe full of sin against God disloyaltie to himselfe and destructive to his subjects and calls God to wittnes that as he could with truth wash his hands in innocencie as to any guilt in that Rebellion soe he might wash them in his te●…res as to the sadd apprehension he had to see it spredd so far make such waste And the Libeller himselfe after soe impertinent and malitious an insinuation confesses he denies it both heere and elswhere But he sayes there is in it no such wide disagreemēt from the scope of his former Counsells we are sure there could not be agreement with the scope of his former Counsells It was agreeable to the Counsells of Rebells to defame the King with this aspersion it is not strange that vntruths may be affirmed in three Kingdomes in reguard of the contrivers that soe industriously spred them But let vs heare his reasons or reports It s most certaine that the King was ever friendly to the Irish Papists And its certaine that what he sayes is salfe but what 's that to their Rebellion against himselfe or destroying his Kingdome But his certaintie is that the King in his third yeare against the plaine advice of Parliament like a kinde of Pope sold them many indulgences for money And was he a kinde of Pope to take their penalties of them which the law enacted for their recusancy was that Pope like That the King might not receive the penalties which the law gave him or take compositions where the whole could not be had was never against the advice of Parliament but this is a very long stride from his third yeare to the beginning of the Rebellion but how does he hang this togeather The advancing the Popish partie he sayes but instances in noe particular nor for negotiating vnderhand by Priests

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