SALMASIUS His Dissection and Confutation of the Diabolical Rebel MILTON, IN HIS Impious Doctrines of Falsehood, Maxims of Policies, and destructive Principles of Hypocrisy, Insolences, Invectives, Injustice, Cruelties, and Calumnies against his Gracious Sovereign 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 Cromwell, durst not be sold publicly in this Kingdom, under pain of Imprisonment, and other intolerable Damages.  
Regi qui perfidus, nulli fidus.  
London, Printed for J. G. B. Anno 1660. and are to be sold in Westminster-Hall, St. Paul's Churchyard, and the Royal Exchange.   

To the Sacred Majesty of KING CHARLES II. King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland.  
Most Gracious Sovereign,  
Whilst Artaxerxes the mighty Monarch was marching thorough the Fields, one Syneta a poor Country man ran for a handful of water, with which he presented this Great Prince: Even such, is this, my Munus Levidense, for which most humbly I beg Your Majesty's Pardon and Reception. The famous Author hereof could not undoubtedly be unknown to Your Majesty beyond Sea; whose learned Write against Sedition and Rebellion (such was the rigid Inquisition after Persons and Printing-presses) were evermore deemed malignant and unsufferable, insomuch that to sell one of his Books was a Crime almost unpardonable; or to read one, a sufficient proof for Sequestration: For the Author's profane Antagonist (John Milton, one of your Majesty's grand enemies) I shall leave him under the rod of correction, where with God hath evidenced his particular judgement by striking him with blindness, and the Writings of the learned Author to solid and rational understandings to censure, subscribing (with your Majesty's leave) myself (as I ever have testified by writing) one of the humblest of  
Your Majesty's Votary: and Vassals, John Garfeild, Bibliopola.   

The INTRODUCTION.  
WHen the book called Iconbasilice was coming forth the Rebel's guilt Suggested Suspicions to them of danger from the memory of his late Majest: as formerly they apprehended from his life, striving, that he might not appear to posterity out of those ignominious Circumstances, which they had contrived in the murder of him, and thence their rigid Inquisition after persons and Presses. Rebels rise by flattery, rule by force, and they, that made so many appeals to the people, forbid them now to know the groans of a dead Martyr. Upon the coming forth of the book, they found what they feared, that many, whose passion kept them from a right judgement in the heat of Action, saw their own errors in that book, and that the person, and cause of his late Majest: began to be more Generally understood, and being not able to strangle it in the birth, they sought how to cast itt forth to be destroyed, raising rumours, that it was not the work of his late Majest: thinkeing to make men less intent on the book, if the author were suspected, and that they might thereby take of all opinion of piety, and wisdom from his late Majest: which might be collected from his writings, it being the Custom of Rebels to prevail more by Calumnies upon the disposition, than the Actions of Princes. They seek to improve cruelty above nature for having by wicked hands destroyed the Lords anointed, they would deface the Memory of their own vile Actions against him, hiring false prophets to curse him, & they grudge at his Crown in heaven, as they usurped that on earth. It's no new thing for persons of most eminent virtue to fall into the obloquy, & suffer by the rage of the misled people, and therefore no wonder if innocence find an orator to accuse it, & Treason an Advocate, to defend it. Rebellion never wanted a Trumpet & though the contrivance of it be in Caves, & vaults, yet success makes it outface the light. His Majest: book hath passed the censure of the greatest part of the learned world, being translated into the most spread Languages, and strangers honour his Memory, and abhor his murderers, but such, as regard not the all seeing eye of God beholding their wickedness, despise the judgement of the whole world, and there is a man found out, that will break down the united reason of mankind, & he tells men, they must take his word above their own, and all men's reason, this he undertakes, that looks on kings, as Ants, and the king's book, as wanting all moment of Solidity, and if, as he chose the Title of Iconoclastes he had written his book in a Foreign, or learned language, his unfaith fullness, and impudence would be as open, and odious as his vanity is ridiculous.  
And though the exceptions against his Majest: book fall away of themselves, and Traitors Apologies carry with them their own Confutation, yet indignation at the shameless insolence, and untruth of Iconoclastes provokes a just vindication of his late Majest: from the lewd slanders of the answearer. A Dumb child got speech at the apprehension of an Injury to the father, and its a dead Loyalty, that stands unmoved at the cursing of a shimei, and those curses of shimei recorded in Scripture were less virulent, and more excusable, than this Author's language of his late Majest: through his whole Treatise, which is a Treason against God, and Man, Religion, Truth, and justice..   

THE Preface Examined.  
HIS First words are. To descant on the misfortunes of a person fallen from so high a digintie, who hath also paid his final debt to nature, and his faults, is neither of itself a thing commendable, nor the intention of this Discourse.  
That it is not a thing commendable is a greed by all, and that it is the intention of this Authors Discourse all men discern by this very expression, and in every Period he insolently, and scorn fully speaks of the person of his late Majest: as fallen into that misfortune, and his whole book is a continued Confutation of this false assertion. base nature's delight in the misfortunes of persons in highest place: It is hateful in any to descant on the misfortunes, of Princes, but in such, as have relation unto them by service, or Subjection as this libeler to the late king is the Compendium of all unworthiness, and unnatural insolence. Could he say his Majest: had paid his debt to his faults without descant on his misfortunes? But he gives timely warning, what is to be expected in his book, where like a shameless thief taken in the fact he denies what he openly acts.  
He says it is not to get a name, for no man ever got honour by writing against a King, being strong in Legions, weak in Arguments.  
Some men have desired a name for Brutish arrogance against Princes, and that may be the Author's ambition, but however it have fared with others, that have spit their venom in the faces of Kings, its certain he hath lighted upon the prediction of his own success, for he will gain only in famy by this undertaking. Never man found honour by raking in the ashes of dead Princes, but unnatural cruelty seeks to Surfeit upon the grave. This Author doth not only dig up the bones of the dead King, but seeks to bring Destruction on all Kings, and bury them in the ruins of their Authority. depraved natures account the greatest wickedness the greatest glory, & more honour to subvert humane Society, then destroy a Single person.  
The first step, where by he mounts to Triumph over his sacred Majest: is for that he was a King, and that is urged as proof Sufficient, that he was weak at Arguments, Kings (he says) being accustomed from the Cradle to use their will only, as their right hand, their Reason always, as their left.  
So desperate is the wickedness of these men, that must vilify the Ordinances of God for their defence. Had they matter of just exception to his late Majest: they needed not, they would not draw matter of Reproach from his Office, and had they any fear of God, or reverence to man, they would not thus Lewdly traduce this great Institution of God for the governing of mankind the Kingly Office. God himself says the King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and he turneth it as Rivers of water. That a wise Sentence is in the heart of the King, and yet this man pretends to expect belief in his Calumnies upon the late King, when he affirms the kingly Office to be a cause of weakness of judgement, and insufficiency, turning all the promises of God in Scripture for assistance of Kings with his spirit to mere Compliment, and wretchedly belying the many Monarches of the world, that have been as far above others in Wisdom, as they have been in power.  
We have lived to see that sore evil, which the Scripture by the pen of a King, and the wisest of men complained of, to see Princes on foot, & Servants on horseback, when the Licentious insolence of the meanest tramples upon the Sovereignty of the highest, and the basest of the people revile their King.  
He says for their sakes, that have not more Seriously considered Kings, then in the gaudy name of Majesty, and admired them, & their doings, as if they breathed not the same breath with other men he will (for it seems, he says, a Challenge both of him, and his party) take up the gauntlet (though a Kings) in the behalf of liberty, and the common wealth.  
Loyalty hath no friends, that so admire Princes, as if they breathed not common breath of nature, they well know who hath said of Kings, I have said you are Gods & the guilt of their sin, that disobey, or revile them, yet none are ignorant, that their breath is in their nostrils, & that they shall die, as others. They, that are best instructed, & most considerate give most reverence to Kings. They understand, that Princes have greater promises of wisdom from God, & greater means to attain it than others, & that by obeying them humane society is maintained, though they breathe the same breath with them. When Saul was made King of Israel, there were wicked men, that said, how shall this man save us, contemning his Authority, because he was taken from among themselves, & in our days there is a Confluence of all the Rebellious inclinations, that troubled the world, pride of base people, and disdain of all Authority. Because Kings are men, must they not therefore Rule? Must God's vicegerents be despised, because they are men? And because we know Kings to be men, must we believe, that seditious slanderers are more than men, which are carried, as natural brute Beasts? The Archangel disputing with the Devil durst not bring against him a railing accusation, and such, as take up Railing accusations against Princes partake of the wickedness of the evil, and hate the holiness of the blessed Angel. When the woman told David, he was as an Angel of God, did she think he breathed not the same breath with others? This Author by pretending to rectify an error, that never was of admiring Kings, as if they breathed not the common breath of men would persuade men to scorn, & despise kings, and Rebel against the king of kings God himself, who willbe called king, and to style that Title a gaudy name expresseth rather a scoffing Atheist, than a professed Christian. Ambitious Rebels, that sow the seeds of disaffection to their king among the people, begin with a plausible truth, that kings are men, that they may err, that they may be wicked, thence they come to application of particular Actions of their king, represented as deceitefully, as falsehood can frame to the unwary hearers, & because it may be so, therefore in their logic it must be so, and experience itself hath made apparent, how few, or none admire Kings, as if they breathed not the common breath of men, and how many forget their duty to them, that in Scripture are called Gods. the prevalence of corrupt nature is so far above reason, that men are sooner infatuated by the plausible discourses of ambitious aspirers to believe absurdities making way for Rebellion, then mistaken of the nature of Kings by their sacred Title, or dignity, for we have seen men seduced to believe they might make war against the King, so as they said it was against his evil Counsellors, and for King, and Parliament, that because the two houses sat by the King's authority, therefore himself had none. That they made war in their own defence against the King, and yet said they fought for King, and Parliament, and contrary to the knowledge of the whole world traduced his Majest: Government, which was the time, if ever, when his three Kingdoms attained the height of honour, strength, and wealth above their neighbours. As the Arts of those seedes-men of sathan were 〈◊〉 by their Master to the ruin of mankind: so how far they have effected it in his Majest: three kingdoms by this logic of the Devil all men are witnesses. All boundaries of right, and wrong broken down, and any wickedness acted by authority, that serves to secure the Tyrannical power, & will of the Rebel Masters. What floods of Christian blood, what starving, & pininge to death of poor Captives have our days been witness of in England? what jmpudent pretences of justice for public Murders, scenes of judicature, and theatres of slaughter? honour, and virtue prostituted to the Common Executioner, so as the miseries of former times were but an Epitome of those numerous evils, that have been brought upon his Majest: Dominions in these sew years, & the facts would seem incredible in after ages, did not such, as this Author undauntedly boast of the insolences they have committed, no history yielding on example of the like, whether we regard the impudence, cruelty, insolence, and hypocrisy of the contrivers, deceit imposture & profannes of preachers, or credulity, and precipitation, of the vulgar.  
The author might have done well to show, why his Majest: book seemed a Challenge, it provokes no answer, nor handles any thing by way of controversy but his very devotions, and instructions to his son seem a Challenge, Evidence of worth in the sufferer torments the persecutor, and they cannot rest, while the virtues live, though the bodies are laid in the dust by their wicked hands.  
But he will take up the gauntlet (that no man threw down) though a Kings. He lately said Kings were puny Antagomists, and no honour to begotten by writing against them and now he will take up the gauntlet, though a Kings, it seems he reckons it a condescension to stoop to take up a King's gauntlet, those toads, that thus swell will break with their own venom.  
This Author's pen shows what liberty he loves, to endure, no justice towards the living, or Charity to the dead, and to break those fetters of modesty, and truth, wherein a Christians liberty consists. Those pests of Government always talk of liberty, but it's only a licence to exercise their own inperious Tyranny over the people, and when fire breaks out of the bramble to consume the Cedars, nothing can be expected, but insolence, and cruelty we have seen the liberty under the Rebels in England, which is to rail, and Rebel against the King, and destroy such, as are loyal.  
He says its the drift of a factious, and defeated party to make the same advantage of his book, as before of his name, & authority and intent not so much the defence of his former Actions, as promoting future designs.  
Those, whom he calls a defeated party in so great contempt are never the nearer a faction for the success, that confessed Rebels have gained over them. Though Armies have been defeated, a good cause can never, and though he would have his Traitorous faction believe them, that followed the king a defeated party yet it seems by his jealousy himself doth not. Tyrant's cannot sleep, while lawful heirs survive, and the guilt of their consciences, and usurped power make their Enemies as terrible after they have lost Armies, as before. When Rebels prevail they declaim against Treason, and in contempt of God, and their consciences reproach such with their Crymes, that most oppose them in their first Actions, they made use of the King's name, and authority, their declarations cannot be retracted, wherein they professed to be for King and Parliament, that they fought not against the king, but his evil council. The Crime offighting against the king, was a Treason so known, that shame, as well, as fear would have lessened their party, had they not made use of the king's name, & pretended his authority, and unless they think, that their assertions of apparent untruths will have the same power over the reasons of men, as their Arms have gotten 〈◊〉 their persons they would not patch up discourses 〈◊〉 such incongruities, objecting, that the king's party 〈◊〉 his name, and authority, which undoudtedly they 〈◊〉 and which those men profess to destroy, and which had been useless to any, had it not been the acknowledged power of the kingdom, and a confessed Crime to oppose it, and which those Traitors would never have pretended, had not the evidence of its right been so apparent, nor have destroyed after so much use of it, had they not exceeded all former Traitors, as far, as he did his Predecessors, of whom the spirit of God says, there was none like him, that sold himself to work wickedness. It's the drift of the Rebel party to confirm, and continue their power by the same Arts they have gained it, & deny justice to the memory of his Majest: as before obedience to his Government. Those whose power hath been got by the people's credulity would willingly deprive them of reason, whereby they might see their error, which is the cause, that the Rebels having misled many into the present mischeyfe by Calumnies of insufficiency in his Majest: and disaffection to the established Religion, account anyproofe published to the contrary the plot of a faction against their Rebel Commonwealth, and although their often accesses to him, and debates with him during his restraint, and the observation of his devotion gave such proof of both, as divers of their followers were undeceived both in him, and the cause they had prosecuted, yet this they would have an effect of faction, & any relation of his Maj: afflictions a design. His Maj: actions need no defence, the Rebels impious actions against him are incapable of any, & this Author hath some reason to conjecture, that all mention of the sufferings of his late Maj: tends to the ruin of the Rebel power. True narrations of the horrid Actions of Traitors, though they recount the greatness, & glory of their triumphs, sting them with an expectation of vengeance, & destruction of their power. There are a great number, that since they have seen that book think it had been a great loss to the world, if it had perished, & yet they are far from design by it, and if it were published with any design, it was an innocent one to publish what a murdered King, had left written of himself for the reason of his Actions, and clearing of mistakes.  
The design is now the third time to corrupt the people to the dishonour of the present Government, & retard a general peace so needful to this afflicted nation.  
They cannot say any were corrupted, that followed their King, unless the laws, their legal oaths, and Scripture itself corrupted them, for these were the guides they followed, and the Rebels may rest assured, that if there were not these bonds upon the loyal English, humane Treatises, though never so excellent would little move them to the loss of life, and fortunes.  
For the dishonour of that, which he calls the present Government themselves have written enough, though the King, and his party were silent. Their power was gotten by often repeated propositions, & protestations, of affection, and loyalty to his late Majest: which they never meant to perform, many false pretences to the people to defend the King, and established laws, and Religion, breach of oaths, murder of the King, and of these nothing can be denied by themselves, and there is nothing can be said of any to dishonour beyond swearing, and fore swearing, Treason, and Murder. And can they think their peace is retarded by the Kings, party, when themselves have so often sworn by the name of God in hypocrisy to deceive, made Religion the Mask of sacrilege, and murder, and pretend pity to the afflicted nation, while they afflict it & continue the same wickedness, where by they brought the misery upon it? They may be sure, though they destroy the King, and his party, God will raise them Enemies they think not of, and prepare destroyers they fear not.  
It's a Good deed (he sajes) to the living by remembering men of the truth of what they know to he misaffirmed to keep them from entering into war.  
But it is wickedness to oppose truth, and offer that to be believed by men which they know to be false. If this Author would remember men only of truth, he would find no adversary, and if his party would act according lie, there would be no need of a new war, for than they would restore King, and laws, but this Author by falsifying of Actions, at corrupting of principles endeavours to draw men into a state of Rebellion against God, and their King, and make the war endless, & the people helpless, and his pretended Charity is more odious, than the Hypocrites Alms, this respecting only self glory, that of this Author a snare to destroy others.  
As to moment of solidity (he says) in the book itself stuffed with nought else, but the Common grounds of Tyranny, and Popery, suguered a little over, or any need of answering in respect of stayed, and well principled men, I take it on me, as a work assigned rather than by me chosen, or affected.  
He would have it thought there was no moment of solidity, because he hath none in this Iconoclastes stuffed full of the common grounds of Rebellion, & confusion, which are only of Moment to the support of usurpation, the measure of his well principeld men to whom a railing libel is more convincing, then a Logical Argument. That the book is stuffed with nought else, but grounds of Tyranny, and Popery, when the most part of his exceptions comprehended not those heads is an Hyperbole unbefitting any, but such, as had sacrificed shame, and conscience to a wicked cause.  
If the publishing of his Majest: book as (he sajes) containing nothing but grounds of Tyranny, and Popery were a design of his party, surely it must concur with the Author's ends, for the chief Calumnies, whereby the Rebels sought to draw the people's affections from his Majest: were, that he would introduce Tyranny, and Popery and the publishing of such a book in his Majest: name was most effectual to make good, what was objected. And the man, that thinks the King's party so void of sense, may think them well principeld men, that swallow such crudities, as he hath provided for them, and they may be excused, if they be not moved with his Majest: book, for it cannot be expected they should understand, and receive reason, and for those doubtless the Author writ his book, for it could not be hoped, that they, who had any dram of reason, and had not resolved to continue in Rebellious undertake against all the light of Religion, and reason would be fit readers of such incoherent Barbarismes. Grounds of Tyranny, and Popery are not so subtle to escape all the world without the help of this author's finger to point at it, and had the book contained any such matter, he would have used less railing, and more reason, heat, & fowl language proceed from impotency of defence, and thence is the great noise of words, and insignificant matter of Iconoclastes. Common angers disorder reason, but unnatural furious distempers destroy it. The present Traitors at least as many of them, as sat in the beginning of his late Majest: Parliament, where this Rebellion was hatched protested before God to defend with their lives, and fortunes the doctrine established in the Church of England, and that must contain the grounds of Popery, or the author will find none in that book, but in the sense of Traitors: Church is Popery, & King, is Tyranny. If they, that assigned this work on the Author differed not in judgement from him touching moment of solidity in his Majest: book, they showed a very slight esteem of a Champion so confident of his parts, but they knew his malice, not his solidity, And they knew it was in vain for them to seek to answer his Majest: book with solidity, falsities, and detractions being all their hopes, and they knew not a man else, whose credit they could more easily prostitute, nor any man more greedy of so base ane employment.  
He sajes if the late King, had thought sufficient those answers, and defences made for him in his life time, they who on the other side accused his ilGovernment, judging enough had been replied, the heat of this controversy was in likelihood drawing to an end, and the farther mention of his deeds, not so much unfortunate, as faulty had in tenderness of his late sufferings been willingly forborn, and perhaps for the present age have slept, while his adversaries calmed with success had been less unfavourable to his Memory:  
The late King, thought those answers, and defences made for him in his life time a bundantly sufficient, and so did all indifferent men, and it was not any thought of defect in these, that moved him to write on particular occurrents of most moment in the time of his troubles, and as his memory will not stand, orfall at the Rebel's courtesy, so their aspersions will rather increase, then diminish it. This Author thinks, that men are daunted with his Contumelies, and that if the King, had known what words he would have written against his book, he would not have adventured upon such pikes, but as the Kingly Prophet David sang to his harp, and wrote his Divine meditations, while his Enemies sent forth their sharp Arrows, bitter words against him, and that of so much venom, as he sajes, the poison of Asps was under their lips: so his late Majest: composed those his meditations, while his Enemies compassed him on every side, and ceased not to persecute him with their Tongues set on fire of Hell, and though his person suffered by them, his cause, and innocence was a 'bove their reach.  
His Majest: expected the utmost of their malice after death upon his name, as he had felt it in his life, and it was so far from his desire, that mention of his deeds should be forborn, especially those his Enemies excepted to, that his endeavours were chiefly bend to make them manifest to the world with all the objections, and invectives, that had been made against them, and time hath taught this Author, and others of his crew, that many have been convinced of the wickedness of their Rebellion, by the declarations, and replies they made against his late Majest: Truth fears nothing, but to be hidden, & his late Majest: needed no other Advocate, than the clear discovery of his deeds, that he was unfortunate was the great wrath of God upon the nation, where so many in the midst of so great blessings of peace, and plenty, as they enjoyed under his Reign, continued murmuring, and unthankful, and it is not the least sign of the heaviness of his displeasure, that makes the people executioners of it, one upon another, and that they should act such execrable wickedness by words, and Actions against that King, who was freest from personal vices, and public pressures of all his Predecessors, that had Reigned so long, as he had done. The present age must needs have a deep sense of his loss, and posterity, aswell, as strangers will wonder, when they read his story, and find such groundless slanders, and barbarous cruelties acted against so eminent virtue, and the confidence in obtruding such gross absurdities, for reasons, as are used by this Author and others, willbe the infamy of the present age, when such evident folly, and wickedness find credit. Can any man be so stupid to think, that such wretches, as boast of their destroying the innocent, will cease to defame their memory? and that such, as had no mercy on their lives, will have a tenderness of their sufferings? That they, which suborned detractours, and raised lewd reports to give colour to their cruelty, would have a tenderness to him they had tormented, and express no tenderness for their own villainies? It had been contrary to his Majest: wisdom to have expected tenderness to himself, from such Monsters, and contrary to the nature of such savage beasts, to have their blood thirstines slakt, or their cruelty calmed with any successes.  
But since himself hath left this book, as the best Advocate, and interpreter of his Actions, and his friends by publishing &c. and almost adoring it, seem to place therein the strength of their cause, it would argue doubtfulness, and deficiency of the other party, not to meet his reason in any field, the force of whose Arms they have so often met victoriously.  
This libel more evidently proves the deficiency of the Rebel party, than the omission of an answer could have argued, and all men see, they are not doubtful, but convinced by their own reason of the lewdness of their Actions. It might be exepcted from the libelers mention of the esteem his Majest: book hath amongst his friends, that his answer should be of equal account with his Masters, and thereby the world may be informed how their cause hath been maintained. They pretend to meet reason in any field, but are resolved to contradict it, and the Author will reproach, and despise truth, and reason, as his Masters have fought against it, and since their impiety cannot be denied, it must be avowed. They glory in their victories in the field, as thiefs in their booties, and boast, that they can do mischief, their victories being no other, than the poisons and knives of Assassins', that have destroyed Princes, and success is the evidence of their faith, and reason.  
He proceeds to say, that he who at the Bar stood excepting against the form, and manner of his judicature, and complained, that he was not heard, neither he, nor his friends shall have that cause now to find fault being met, and debated with in this Monumental Court of his own erecting, and not only heard, but answered.  
But still he is unwillingly heard, and they, which took his blood without hearing, are loath to hear the cry of it and they endeavoured the same course with his book, they had taken with him, to condemn it unheard, and as this work was not chosen, nor affected by Iconoclastes, so was not the occasion acceptable to his Masters.  
It hath been reported of some high way robbers, that they use a form of Judicature upon the Traveller, when they take him, and condemn him solemnly to lose his purse, and Iconoclastes holds it strange, he should stand excepting at the form, and manner of their Judicature. It was the prodigy of insolence, that Rebels presumed to bring their King to the Bar, and the Prodigy of impudence in this libeler, that imagines an expectation of the King's submission to a Tribunal of Traitors. But with Traitors, where strength can act, right, and Justice, are ridiculous considerations, otherwise those Monsters, that made themselves Judges without the least colour of authority (the lower house being not able to punish a wand'ring Rogue, which the law allows a Constable) would not so presumptuously sit in Judgement upon a King, and not only their own but of another Kingdom; and profess wonder, that any should think, that they cannot bring any King, to the block, that they get into their hands. Who may not defend the ●…s of intemperance to satisfy lust, aswell, as those of cruelty to satisfic ambition, and why might not Ric: 3: defame his mother, and Kill his nephews to secure his Tyranny, aswell, as these men reproach, and Kill their King? do outward solemnities legitimate Murders, and is a professed villainy innocent, & a secret only criminal?  
Though those Murderers, before whom he stood at the Bar excepting, had resolved, that neither fear of God, nor reverence to their lawful king, nor importunity, that moves such, as the other respects do not, should prevail with them, yet he promises affair debate, though he justifies them, and performs it with the same falsehood, offering clamorous reproaches and shameless untruths, instead of answers, erecting a Monument for himself, wherein the defence of impiety, and scorn of truth have engraven his infamy in everlasting Characters.  
Which he sajes to do effectually, if it be necessary that to his book, nothing the more respect be had for being his, they of his own party, can have no just reason to exclaim.  
Truly his own party had reason to expect, that from resolved Traitors, his book would have less respect for being his, for having suffered greater cruelty in his person for being a King, could they think his book would have more respect for being his? The Rebels themselves have published it a rule, that a man borne in Scotland, while the Kingdoms stood divided, was not subject to their Judicature, and therefore they urged against Duke Hamilton, that he was naturalised, and yet they subjected the King to their will, whom they could not pretend to have had that Ceremony, and by the law of these miscreants, the King must be more subject to them then any of his subjects of that nation, and the Author might have spared the pains to seek a reason for his impudent language, for his Majest: partic know, it was for the interest of his Traitorous cause, and a necessary effect of a Rebellious disposition. The book of any Author ought to find respect according to its own merit, and its folly, or injury to sleight, or reproach it for the Author's sake, and the like of a person for his office sake, but they, that reproach an office instituted by God, or the person, that bears that office for the office sake, will hate a book for the good, that it contains, and the King's party will never exclaim for the Author's detraction of the book, which they expected from him, but they have just reason to detest his insolent language, and impious assertions.  
It were too unreasonable, that he because dead should have liberty to speak all evil of the Parliament, and they, because living, or any for them have less Freedom.  
It's too unreasonable to belly the dead, and to affirm his Majest: to speak all evil of the Parliament, when he well knows, that his Majest: speaks nothing of them, but what this breaker confesses to be true, and if his Majest: had spoken evil of a faction in Parliament, it's too unreasonable for him to censure it, who not only speaks evil of a faction in Parliament, but is the Advocate of those, that not only speak evil of them, but have destroyed them. What if his Majest: had spoken evil of the Lords house, have this Author's Masters done less, that have taken it away? What if he had spoken evil of a part of the lower house, have they done less, that have imprisoned, & expelled the Members? And if the King reprehend, or reprove his subjects in the capacity of Parliament, or otherwise, it is not only unreasonable, but damnable for them to censure, and reproach him, and most detestable for every licentious Pamphletter to traduce, & vilify him. Rebels use not only fierce arrogancy, but impudent petulancy, and it makes for their design, that the scum of the people cast of all reverence, and mention of superiors.  
Have not the present Traitors reproached, and condemned the Parliament for their professions of loyalty, and duty to the King? Have they not made that the highest Crime, which the Parliament judged their necessary duty to serve their King? And may not the King complain of their dealing with him, as well, as this Author with his new Masters? can Iconoclastes reprove the Parliaments vote, that it was Treason for the Army to overaw the Parliament, which he doth in being Advocate for the Army against them, And is it a Crime in his Majest: to represent their evil Actions against him? The Parliament voted a Treaty with the King, and voted his concessions to be a sufficient ground for peace, the libeler taxes that vote for folly, and falsehood. The Army remove that Parliament, and call some Creatures of their own the Parliament, and they together take the person of the King, and murder him notwithstanding this Treaty, and vote of Parliament. If it were the Parliament, that voted the Treaty, and the concessions to be a sufficient ground for peace, they must be Traitors by the Parliaments Judgement, that dissolved them, and placed the name of Parliament upon others, and this Author must speak more evil of them, than his Majest: doth, or more of his Masters, and might with far more reason take on him the defence of the Tumults, as afterwards he doth, than the Parliament, for if the Parliament, may be modelled by Tumults, and are no longer a Parliament, than the leaders of the rabble, judge well of their Actions, than the King, in speaking any thing against the Parliament, doth no more, than this Author confesseth the Tumults may do, and himself too. He might have claimed a privilege to speak for the dead, aswell, as write against the King, being dead, for his Masters murdered it, with the King, and its like he hath leave from his new Masters to name it yet, for it will not stand well hereafter with their Government to name a Parliament, which may continue the memory of King, and Lords, and the new Representatives will, when the Masters are ready for it, make the name of Parliament, like an old Almanac, and the Author willbe forbidden to name it, as reason now forbids the defence of their Actions against his Majest:  
As he to acquitt himself hath not spared his adversaries, so to him in his book no more Court●…pp willbe used, than he uses, but what is properly his own guilt, not imputed any more to his evil Counsellors (a Ceremony used longer by the Parliament, than he desired) shallbe laid here without Circumlocutions at his own door.  
Courtship, nor Civility could be expected from any, that took on them the defence of such a cause, as this Author hath done, and his Majest: moderation in speaking of his adversaries, stigmatizeth this Author for his vnprovoked insolence, and malicious falsehood, and the cause he maintains, that could not stand, but by ●…ayling, and slander.  
In laying the ground work of this horrid Rebellion, the Master work men saw, that people are to be debauched by degrees, and they cannot suddenly believe absurdities, till their passions by Custom be made Master of their reason, and confirmed in the pursuit of what was propounded to them, under pretence of their good. The people than held it a sin to offer violence to the person of their King, They thought they could not cut of the lap ofhi garment. They held it odious to reproach his person, and the Parliament had so often declared, that kings, can do no wrong, and that the law for bids the speaking of it, that though the wickedness of some were enough confirmed to wish his destruction, they durst not say it, but pretend desire of Justice against other persons, and they resolved, as Assassins to stab him, while they kneeled to him, and to betray him professing duty, and loyalty, undermininge his authority, with aspersions on his evil Counsellors, as they called them. And as then they laid faults upon his Counsellors, that never acted, so now this slanderer will make the King guilty of Actions, that were never done by him and under pretence of not sparing him in laying the guilt on him, that was properly his, seeks to lay all men's faults on him, and is as disloyal to truth, as Loyalty.  
To acquit himself his Majest: needed to be very careful, for his adversaries by their declarations have done it, and they have acquitted his Counsellors of these very Crymes they objected to them, for this Author will have the faults they were charged with to be the Kings, and it is in his Language a Ceremony to accuse men falsely, & by forged Calumnies to seduce the people to the spending of their blood, and hazard of their souls. This Author is the first, that sought to be believed in an Apology for falsehood, and to defend the Parliament, and yet contradict it, says these deceits, and lies were in Ceremony. It's certain the King endeavoured to undeceive the people, that they might have known, that the malice of these Traitors was to himself, whatever they pretended against his evil Counsellors, & this Author makes trains of Treason, framed of known untruths to be only Ceremonies, and ranks the fifth, & ninth Commandment in the Ceremonial law, & as many of the rest, as the breach may be made serviceable to their deceits. If the reproof of evil speaking against Kings in Scripture be a Ceremony, if duty, and loyalty be a Ceremony, if veracity be a Ceremony, what is moral in this Author's judgement? Those, whom he calls the Parliament used those impostures, until they had drawn the people to establish their own slavery, and the Empire of those miscreants over them, and now they laugh at these miserable people, that thus believed them, as they do at the finesse of their frauds, and despise the power of God, as they do his Precepts. It is sufficiently evident to the world, what promises, & professions those the Author calls the Parliament vented to make his late Majest: a glorious King, & besides their legal oaths, they devised new protestations of loyalty, and this the Author calls a Ceremony to make the world believe they were loyal to their King, for the Actions they intended needed strong Charms to delude the people, & make them believe those men loyal to the King, that raised a war against him. The Parliament in one of their declarations told the King, that if they should say, that the evil Acts they complained of were done by his Maj: they should speak contrary to the law, and the Testimony of their own hearts. In another, that they were ready to lay down their lives, and fortunes, and spend the last drop of their blood to maintain his Crown, and Royal person in greatness, and glory, and cast themselves down at his Royal feet. What would he have the world think of this so stoutly acted vehemence only a Ceremony? Certainly one of the most pernicious, that ever was practised, and an impudent defence suits well with a discovered falsehood. They profess themselves Enemies to stage plays, but it is, that they might engross the trade to themselves, for their Pulpits, aswell, as Pamphlets sound principally this representation of passion, & stage devotion, but it is a sollesisme in so great an actor, as this Author, that speaks aloud, that all is but a Ceremony, for he thereby gives the world to understand, that he intends the same falsehood in his slanders, than the faction in Parliament used in their professions of duty, and loyalty.  
This course of his in laying the faults on the King he says is, that they, who from the beginning, or but now of late by what unhappiness he knows not are so much infatuated not with his person only but with his palpable faults, & dote upon his deformities, may have none to blame, but their own folly, if they live, and die in such a strok'n blindness, as next to that of Sodom hath not happened to any sort of men more gross, or more misleadinge.  
We have found many by hellish impulsion hating his Majest: person, and authority, and seem not to think, that God hath given them up to a reprobate sense, and strong delusion, & would be thought to believe all those, that love, or honour their King infatuated, and thence it is, that the Author knows not by what unhappiness it is, that men are so infatuated, for he would have it believed a great happiness to hate, and detest his King, to reproach not only his person, but his office Persecutors endeavour to make them unhappy, on whom they exercise their cruelties, and they wonder at those, that run not with them to the same degree of wickedness, & this Author makes it an unknown unhappiness, that men runnot from their protested, and sworn Allegiance, and loyalty into so desperate a Rebellion, as he maintains, he may well say he knows not by what unhappiness it comes, but it is an unhappiness of greater wonder, that so many should renounce the very names of loyalty, and obedience, make Rebellion the most renowned virtue, and this after so many vows, and oaths to the contrary, that men, who some few years since professed the greatest hatred of a Traitor to their King, should now think no man so praise worthy, nor any blindness so near to that miraculous stroke of the men of Sodom, as that of the opinion of loyalty.  
If his Majest: faults had been, as palpable, as this Author's falsehood, it could not diminish his subjects duty, nor excuse the Rebel's impiety, nor the taunting scurrility of this Author, but his virtue being so eminent, calls for vengeance on the heads of those, that call good evil, and evil good, this prodigious blindness is a beginning of his punishment, that finding no man abroad, or at home of learning, Religion, or sobriety, that detest not the courses, which he seeks to defend, and this so known to him, yet he objects blindness to them all, and as those negroes, that paint the Devil white will have none free from blindness, but such, as Rebel against him, that sent that blindness upon the men of Sodom, while they inhumanely pursued their wickedness, and while these men with fury break down the fences of humane society, and seek to turn men into beasts, the spirit, that rules in the children of disobedience hath blinded their eyes, and taken possession of their souls confirming their sin not only without remorse, but with augmented impudence, their writings being composed of language to outface truth, and jeer at piety.  
If this Author had intended a right information of men, as he pretends, he would not have played the painter in every period, as he hath done in making Chimaeras, and goblins to affright men. Can he hope, that any reading his book, will conceive him rightly relating Actions, or cases that tells men they are blind, infatuated with the palpable faults of their Murdered King, and doting upon his deformities? Do not men see he bends his strength to mislead those, that see, & retain those in blindness, that were like to recover.  
Some men have by Policy accomplished after death that revenge upon their Enemies, which in life they were not able, and instances, that the will, and legacies of Caesar, being read, wrought more in the vulgar to the avenging of his death, than all the art he could use to win their favour in his life.  
It's true, that the virtue, and worth of many injured persons, hath appeared more evidently after their death, and hath caused grief, and repentance in their Enemies moving revenge in those, that were seduced to destroy them, and the cruelties exercised on his late Majest: and his eminent virtues in his sufferings have manifested unto many, how unhappily they were misled to the destruction of a King, of so great goodness, and to place their confidence in such false, and bloody hypocrites. But he sajes those Apologies, and meditations are over late. It's true they cannot prevent the evil past, and the Author holds their strength invincible, though he be not confident of men's inclinations without the efficacy of his pen. But would those Apologies, and meditations have been more powerful, if sooner known? Truth will wrest some thing from him unawares, for he must confess, if men, that were drawn into this Rebellion against his late Majest: by slanders, had understood what now they do by this book, they had stayed long before, and it willbe a great unhappiness to the poor people of his Majest: Dominions, if they be so over late undeceived, that they be not able to revenge his blood, nor redeemce themselves from the yoke of those Traitors, under whom they serve.  
This intent he sajes appears by the conceited portraiture before his book drawn out to the full measure of a masking seen, and set there to catch fools, and silly gazers.  
And are Portraitures of the condition of persons, and their sufferings only to catch fools, and silly gazers, to what end then is the portrait of the house of Commons with the speaker in his Eminence, and the rest set in a serious posture so frequently published? And are the portraitures in MR. ffoxes' book of the Acts, and monuments of Martyrs only to catch fools, and silly gazers? The Authors catching at flies shows the impotency of his malice, and disorder in his understanding.  
Next this intent appears by the latin words. Vota dabunt, quae bella negarunt. Intimating that what he could not compass by war, he should achieve by his meditations, for in words, which admit of various sense, the liberty is ours he sa●es to choose that, may best mind us of what our restless Enemy's endeavour.  
In words of various sense that interpretation is to be chosen, which is most probable to be the Author's meaning, an interpretation for politic ends is vninge●…uous, and injurious, and when it is against the apparent signification odious, and the Author shows with what candour he deals, that makes constructions to serve his turn, & lest the truths contained in his Majest: book should prevail with any, he will make such a sense, as may prevent the right understanding of them. His Majest: prayers, and desires through his whole book, whereto the latin words are referred were directed to God for blessings upon his Kingdoms, and restoring right, and Justice to them, and all men may hope they will have a gracious acceptance, and return from the Almighty, though the wars procured it not, but this Author will refer these words to the publishing of the book, because it best minds them to prevent what their Enemy's end●…avour, and because it may usher in a conceit, which he makes much of.  
For he says here may be well observed the loose, and negligent curiosity of those, who took upon them to adorn the setting forth of this book, for though the picture in the front would Martyr him, and saint him to befool the people, the latin Motto, which they understand not leaves him as it were a politic contriver.  
The latin being taken in the right sense, what room had there been for this curious observation? And if they, which set forth his Majest: book had been curiously, or stupidly negligent, the Author had detracted nothing from his Majest: It is not the picture but the cruelty exercised upon him, that made him a Martyr, and these miscreants are enraged to see their own Actions in picture, which they shamed not to commit in the face of the world. The picture is far short of the measure of his Majest: piety, and sufferings, and we may expect hard measure upon the book, when a picture in the front cannot escape the Image breaker. This Author its likely wrote from them, that understood not latin, that seeks to make the front, and latin in the end so different, when the front hath a picture in the posture of prayer, and the latin in the end is applied to the efficacy of prayer. If he had expected to work on such, as understood latin, he would not have obtruded such an insignificant observation of misconstrued latin. Doth the commendations of a man's devotions show him a politic contriver?  
They that published his Majest: book are herein free from that negligent curiosity, the Author would have seen by contriving a sense, which himself will not affirm to be theirs, which used the words, but his own by a liberty of choice, where are different senses to be made, but the Author shows himself, an unpolitique contriver of detraction, when he inserts the detection of it in the relation.  
Acquaint Emblems, and devices begged from the old Pageantry of foam eight night's entertainment at white hall will do but ill to make a saint, or Martyr.  
The Traitors are loath to see the Emblems of their own inhuman cruelty, and how instead of harmless Pageantry they erected the Theatre, of their Barbarous villainy at white hall. The wickedness of those, that Martyred his Majest: may be shadowed by Emblems, but neither art, nor wit can fully express it. Bloody Massacres are the Pageantry of Tyrants, and the scritches of Martyrs their Music.  
If the people resolve to take him sainted at the rate of such a Cannonizing, I shall he says suspect their Calendar more, than the Gregorian.  
He is very Kind, that will suspect their Calendar no more than the Gregorian, for that Calendar which hath nothing peculiar, or notable, but the new account of the year is received by a great part of the world for the truest, and if the Author have no greater aversion from the Calendar he supposes, he is likely very near the belief of it, but it seems he had a mind to make a conceit from the word Calender & therefore produceth the Gregorian Calendar of computation, instead of the Calendar of saints. The Author's Pageantry playing with a picture is not the way to uncannoinze a saint. The people's opinion of his Majest: sanctity is not wrought by a picture, and if they have any esteem of such representations of his sufferings their just passion condemns this Author's malicious detractions.  
The Memorial of the just shallbe blessed in despite of the malice, and scorn of men. God looks on their sufferings, puts all their tears into his bottle, and their death is right dear in his sight. And if we look upon the eminency of the Sufferer, the pride, and cruelty of the persecutors, the true causes on the part of the sufferer, or the pretended causes of suffering on the part of the persecutors, we shall find few Parallels in Calendars among saints to that of his late Majest: and its memorable in his story, that his persecutors their expressions so much resemble the cursed Jews, that crucified our blessed saviour. This man would make his Majest: after death a politic contriver, the Jews our blessed saviour adeceiver. This Author pretends a plot to work by this book published after his Majest: death that revenge, which he could not obtain in his life, the cursed Jews pretended the belief of our saviours resurrection of greater danger, than his Miracles in his life time. Such as preserve the Memory of the sufferings of holy men in Calendars have Zeal for their warrant, and it was an ancient practice in the Church of God, and such, as deride that Custom to cast reproach upon the persons, they have persecuted, will have their memories rot, as they have their faces hardened, and their consciences seared. We may see what answer this Author intends to his Majest: book, that makes such observations upon the Clasp, & frontispiece. Is it the way to confute a book to revile the printer. Iconoclastes hath an indignation at any holy meditations in his Majest: book, and tells men there is danger of a Design, and to keep men from reading it gives Caveatts against the outside.  
In one thing he must commend his openness, who gave the Title to this book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say the King's Image, & by the shrine he dresses out for him, certainly would have the people come, and worship.  
Was man made to be worshipped, because the Scripture tells us, he was created in the Image of god. And is this author so great a stranger to the expressions of such, as written the lives, & Actions of worthy persons, who term some men patterns, or Images of Kings, Captains, Judges, and the like? and when his Majest: book contained such Kingly meditations was it improperly named Iconbasilice. Such sorry Jests show more will, than wit to speak foam what, and the confidence of his slanders are the same with his conceits, that binds this trivial scoff with a certainly.  
For which reason this answer is entitled I conoclastes the famous surname of many Greek Emperors, who in their zeal to the command of god after long tradition of Idolatry in the Church took courage, & broke all supperstitious Images to pieces.  
And the end of this answer is to break all good Emperors, aswell, as Kings to pieces, and the Author made an improper choice, of the famous surname of good Emperors, that reproaches their calling, and justifies the violence done them for that very worthy Act of theirs in breaking superstitious Images, for if the people may judge their Kings for their Actions in Church, or State, how will this Author exempt the good Emperor Leo from the Jus●…ice of the people's violence against him for breaking down of Images, for he must confess their power to use violence, if he will erect a Tribunal in the people over their Kings, as he doth over his own. Poets have fancied transformations, and men turned into Beasts, & no age hath produced more Monsters in opinion touching Religion, and morality, than this of ours, that glory in their defacing of the Image of God in man by Creation, and in Kings, and governor's by institution, and if every man may use violence against his King upon his own authority, and the murder of Kings be an Act of Justice, whereto must mankind be reduced, but to be Tigers, or Devils in destroying one another? And they cannot deny, but what may be done to a King, may be done to any other, schism and Rebellion are inseparable Companions, and as this Author defames the Kingly Government, so the Church may not escape his fury, for rather, than it shall have any estimation, he will have a long tradition of Idolatry before those good Emperors, but if he had vouchsafed to read the story, and depended not upon his spirits, he would have found, that not tradition, but an impious Rebellion stirred up against a good Emperor brought the ●…perstitious Images into the Church, and that the good Emperor with stood the bringing in of them, not broke them down after long Tradition, and thence he might have told us what kind of reformation must be expected from popular fury, and that as then by Tumultuous violence superstition was established, so now in England confusion, and profaneness. This Image breaker thinks he may aswell usurp an Emperor's surname, as his Masters their King's power, and Estate, and while he magnifies the good Emperors corrects himself, lest the people thence think on their reverence to their King. For he says the people exorbitant, and excessive in all their motions are prone oft times not to a Religious only, but to a Civil kind of Idolatry in Idolizinge their Kings, though never more mistaken in the object of their worship, heretofore being wont to repute for saints those faithful, and caragious Barons, who lost their lives in the field making glorious wars against Tyrants for the common liberty.  
Never time can better witness this truth, than the present, that the people are exorbitant, and excessive in all their motions, nor ever man, that put pen to paper could more improperly lay it on their score, than this Author, that takes on him to defend the most exorbitant, and excessive motions of the people, that any Kingdom hath felt, the power of his Masters being founded on those motions, and if the people yet see not their error, they cannot longer be deceived having such a Testimony, as this Author a man without exception in that point, and its likely they begun to see, how they were made instruments of their own slavery, that this Author gives so severe a Character of the people. If they be prone to a Religious Idolatry, as the Author says they are, they are very unfit Reformers of the Church, and for that Civil kind of Idolatry in Idolising their Kings, that is in an eminent degree of obedience, for such appears his meanings, it will never prove sin to them, and the contrary vice Rebellion is more frequent, and more dangerous to their salvation, and many will go to heaven with this Civil kind of Idolatry, when Rebels, and despisers of Dominion willbe excluded. The Author should have done well to tell, what this Civil kind of Idolatry is, if it differs from true, obedience, and whether it may not be given to others, aswell, as Kings. I believe if there be such a Civil kind of Idolatry, the worst degree of it is in the reverence borne to King killers, and common destroyers of their Country, as the stories of all times testify. Rebel's never wanted pretensions, but liberty, and Justice were the common Mask of such Monsters, so this man will have the world believe the pretences of Rebels, and that Rebellion was always the lawful side, and thence those faithful, and courageous Barons, that had broken their faith, and Allegiance to their King, Traitorously armed the multitude for private revenge, and ambition must be sainted, & those whom the clear evidence of law judged Traitors, and their war's Rebellion must be the patrons of common liberty. I think the Author will hardly find a Calendar of such saints, if he receive a Connonization at such a rate, it will deserve farlesse credit, than the Gregorian Calendar, but he is not like to find a Calendar of saints for his purpose, unless it be filled with such faithless Traitors. It hath been said of Politicians, that they love the Treason, and hate the Traitor, but these new Master's saint the Traitors, & make Treason the Canon of their Religion. Some men have pitied men of parts, whose passions have carried them into unwarrantable Actions, but never till this age did Christians adore such saints. Rebellion is dearer to this Author, than Religion, and he will rather commend superstitious Actions of a blind age, and the very dregs of Popery against which he professeth so great Zeal, then want an ingredient to the varnish of that horrid sin, and rather than that shallbe discountenanced, Popery, and Judaisme itself shallbe admitted. There were a people, that Idolised Toads, and vipers and all venomous creatures, and these men have resumed that Idolatry, that will have the most cruel, and destructive impieties to make men saints.  
He instances in two particulars Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester against Hen. 3. and Thomas Plantagenet Earl of Lancaster against Edward 2.  
For the first of these, he was by the Testimony of the stories of that age the most ingrate full Rebel, that any state hath harboured, a man overloaden with his Master's favours, matched to his sister, entrusted with his secrets, and his forces, yet this man, whom neither benifitts, affection, nor trust could oblige, nor keep from thrusting the King from his Throne, & assuming the Government to himself for the common liberty, as the Author will have it, is enroled for a saint. If there were any so exorbitant, and excessive in their motions to saint such a faithless wretch, the Author will hardly find any so much mistaken in his Civil Kind of Idolatry to their Kings, but whence comes Hen: 3: to be a Tyrant, of whom the stories report so much mildness, and hardly so great an error, as the unadvised advancement of that Rebel Montfort? But it is very usual with these men, that wherever they find an Example of Rebellion there the King is a Tyrant, and all such Precedents, as were conveyed to our times to show us the mischief, and wickedness of Rebellion are produced, as authorities for the committing of it, and Garnetts straw willbe a Miracle, and he a saint, & the Assassins' of King's glorious Champions for common liberty. For the second, the stories are very silent of any common liberty pretended by the Earl of Lancaster, or any Tyranny against that King, but it matters not what truth there be in an assertion so a King be made the Criminal, and though the mistake of such, as held the Earl of Lancaster for some time a saint, were ridiculous to that very age, yet this Author will have it a less error, than the keeping of the fifth Commandment, and the people, that used a Civil Kind of Idolatry to their good Emperor, that had the famous surname of Iconoclastes more mistaken in the object of their worship, than such, as Idolised the superstitious Images he had broken, for the Author says they were never more mistaken in the object of their worship, then in the Civil Kind of Idolatry in Idolising their Kings.  
It's apparent in the stories of our nation, that superstitious Churchmen had their hands in those Rebellions the Author mentions, & therefore might induce the ignorant rabble to adore the Calves they had set up, & in our days we find they have successors, that teach the people doctrines of Devils and seduce them from obedience to those, that had the rule over them.  
Now with a besotted, and degenerate baseness of spirit, ex, cept some few, who yet retain in them the old English fortitude, and love of freedom, and have testified it by their matchless deeds, the rest embastardized from the ancient nobleness of their Aucestours are ready to fall flat, and give adoration to the Image, and memory of this man, who hath offered at more cunning fetches to undermine our liberty, and put Tyranny into an Act, than any British King before him.  
It's very strange, that all except some few are so besotted, as not to love liberty so natural to man, and those, that have so contended for it, as the English nation, but if it were possible for Iconoclastes to deal faithfully, we might have expected, that he would have told us, what that liberty was the people loved not, which is the liberty of those ambitious Traitors, that now lord it over them, which are those few he mentions, whose matchless villainies have wasted more English blood in these few years, than all our Kings in their victorious wars since the conquest. The people doubtless love liberty, but they find themselves cheated of their just liberty under a lawful King, and brought under the slavery of many Tyrants who persuaded the poor people it was liberty to be without a King, though subject to the licentious will of upstart usurpers, and why is it degnerate baseness of spirit to vindicate their laws, & liberties against Tyrants, that have usurped it, and revenge the fraud, & injury done them by deceivers, that under pretence of law, and liberty bereft them of both. The best of the Rebel's pretence, which this Author defends is to fight for liberty, and if the people find their liberty taken away, is it unlawful to resume it from Tyrants, and usurpers, which this Author holds lawfullKings? It's true men were besotted with the name of liberty, and those Mountebanques infused the principles of Rebellion into the people by telling there could be no liberty under Monarchy, as if the nature of Governments were unknown till our time, and thence this Author writes, as if none, but besotted people should read him. If these vipers had professed in the beginning of their Rebellion, that Simon Monford, & Thomas Earl of Lancaster had been saints, and that they intended to follow the Example of such Traitors, the people would not have been so besotted, the miseries brought on the Kingdom by such seducers being so largely deliured in story, but the people have now found by sad experience, that the leaders of the present disorders are the Progeny of those cursed Rebels, whose Actions made them odious to all posterity, and dishonoured the times wherein they lived, and this Author would brand the whole nation making Rebellion their fortitude, and love offreedome, when its plain to all readers, that those Rebellions were the scourge of the nation, which langiushed under the burdens, that were increased by those, whom they followed against their kings.  
How the people have been Idolised by those Rebels, Tumults defended, and the power over their king pretended for the justification of this odious Rebellion, besides the declaration of those they call a Parliament, this Author frequently tells us in this answer, & yet is so careless of truth, or shame, as here their reason, and affection are as contemptible, as their right in Government, and some few must reign over them. The greatest unhappiness of the English nation hath been in the misfortunes of their kings, & the greatest dishonour in the prevalcne of insolent, and sly Rebels, the noble blood of the most renowned persons being wasted in those disorders, and Civility for many years destroyed. If we place virtue in the insolent attempts of Rebels against lawful Princes, not only Christian fortitude, but moral virtue grow contemptible, & rage, and venom will sooner get a saint-shipp, than Justice or innocence.  
If so many are so ready to fall flat to the Image, and memory of his late Majefl: as the Author says, his Masterts have cause to use new principles, and as they fought against their king by feigning a power in the people, so they must now lay fetters on them, and cast away the mask a Ceremony to be used no longer.  
It was not a part of our liberties to be deprived of our king, nor to Rebel against him, such acts being contradictions not only to Christian, but English liberty, and such, as take that liberty to themselves, rob others of their just, & lawful liberties. Do the present, or did ever Traitors give liberty to any, but their faction? And do they allow them any more, than liberty at the will of the Commander? And if liberty be so precious to these men, why should John lilborne bemore restrained, than Iconoclastes? And why should any be more criminal, that write, or speacke against an usurped power, than they, that wrote against the known legal authority? Prisoners in gales hire persons of strong voices to beg for them at the grate, and the Rebels have found this Author's rancour, and impudence so sublimated, as his falsities, and slanders were probable to infect the world, though to knowing, and honest men they sound the voice of a Beast, and not a man; what one liberty of the English Nation is there now left? Do not all men see, that their ridiculous house, and state Council act at the will of their sword Master, by whose act those Ciphers are disposed of to signify what he pleaseth? Do not all men see, that the use of the name liberty signifieth nothing, but a sound to fill the people's ears, and deceive their understanding?  
That Tyranny should be objected to the best King, in whose time fewer men suffered death, then in any time of like extent throughout all our Kings, shows hellish rage, not common impudence. In his Reign of sixteen years, until this abominable Parliament, one only Peer of the Kingdom suffered death, & that not for any provocation, or offence against the King's person, but for Crymes of another nature, a rarity in the stories of the best Kings, and yet so brutish is this man to say, that he hath offered at more cunning fetches to undermine our liberties, and put Tyranny into an art, than any british King before him. Wherein should Tyranny appear, was there any violence used in taking away men's Estates? Can they object covetousness, or luxury to his late Majest: they have not yet pretended it, but they would make Tyranny by imagination, & that Government which stands in their way must be called Tyranny, and the want of instances of Tyranny makes them thus giddily stagger from side to side, and talk of offering at more cunning fetches, what doth this signify? Doth this Author think, that he willbe believed in his slanders of Tyranny, when all is resolved into offers, & offers at cunning fetches, and all is only their malicious, & inconsequent inferences? This Author well knows this assertion of his, is so far from truth, that he cannot name one Act of his Maj: whereunto he, or his Masters have excepted, that wants Example of his best Predecessors, so wide hath he opened his mouth in saying more than any British King before him. And his late Majest: took not such Examples, as those men, that make Acts of violence, and Rebellion Examples, but such Actions, as were by Council, and in the way of law, and justice.. But this Author having so lately mentioned the old English fortitude, how falls he to name the British Kings? If he intent the Kings, which the Romans found at their coming, or which succeeded their departure, his comparison is not of any large signification, for the Catalogue is very short, and the Actions less, but perhaps he means to make Authentic the story of Geoffry of Monmouth, where the Catalogue hath as little truth, as the persons Actions, he doth not mean the Saxons to be British Kings? If he do, he will find among them not only offers at fetches, but open rapines, and homicides, which when he thinks on, what he hath written might shame him, if he could shame at any thing, and if he thought knowing readers would have the patience to peruse so much scurrilous language, and impudent untruth, as he hath packed together in this book, he would expect just reproach for offering at such a Comparison so impertinent, if he intended such Kings only, as were properly termed British in regard of descent, whose persons, and Actions are so inconsiderable, and so lewdly false. If he intent all others, that have Reigned in England, whose stories contain so evident a refutation of his untruth.  
In the first Parliament of King James, there was a debate touching the King's Title, which he desired to have of great Brittaigne in regard of his Dominion over the whole Island, the lower house then reputed wise, much opposed it, and would retain the name of England, under which name they said their Ancestors had been famous. These men tell us no contentions are infallible, but the present, and they are in love with the name of British Kings, of whom they know nothing, that the people may forget their English Kings, that made them famous.  
We read of some in Scripture, that wrought mischief by a law, and this Author, that talks of making Tyranny an art, strives to make Rebellion a law, and all Government a Tyranny, and having undermined Monarchy with cantinge terms of Liberty, seeks to suppress all Liberty by lawless power. He doth not wonder, though he pretend it at the change in the people, for the many odious lies, and slanders his Masters have used of the King, the many promises they have falsified to the people, the continual oppressions they exercise over them justly provoke hatred to such Tyrants, unless the people were condemned to perpetual stupidity with their present slavery.  
The Rebels, whom this Author reports to be Sainted, though they objected misgovernment to their Kings, never were so impudent to pretend their law's slavery, but the present Traitors have improved all the impieties of former ages to extremity, and they call all the Government of England, for many hundreds of years Norman slavery, and will imagine a liberty that perished by the flood, which they now resume. Their pretence of laws is turned into sickly fancies of distempered brains, & though the leaders are hardened by their confirmed corruptions, the people begin to recover their understanding, and see the cunning fetches, whereby they were undermined, and the Art, which Traitors used to betray them.  
Which low dejection, and debasement of mind in the people, he cannot willingly ascribe to the natural disposition of an Englishman, but rather to two other causes.  
And is it a low dejection, and debasement of mind to restue a man's self from a common cheat, or a malicious oppressor? Is it not dejection, and debasement of spirit to follow detected villains, and common thiefs? Is it the natural disposition of an Englishman to betray, and kill his King, & put his neck under the yoke of his inferiors? Is the English disposition so base, as to leave a King, and be subject to a jack straw? And is stupidity the English disposition, that can swallow any deceits, and abuses, though never so palpaple? Doubtless whoever looks, what Government was heeretofor lived under, & what now, must needs conclude, that such, as willingly forsook the on, and submitted to the other, expessed as low dejection, and debasement of mind, as ever the English nation showed fortitude and the many s●…fferes for refusing their submission to this usurpation, and the few, which the Author says retain the old English fortitude shows, that it is not the disposition of an Englishman, but the unnatural, and degenerate inclinations of some, that assuming the English name have sought to dishonour the nation, and transfer the infamy of their Actions on the natural disposition, styling the greatest Traitors the best Englishmen.  
The first of his causes, whereto he ascribes this low dejection, he says is to the Prelates, and their fellow teachers, though of another name, and sect, whose pulpit stuff both first, and last hath been the doctrine, and perpetual infusion of servility, and wretchedness to all the hearers.  
Could the Prelates, and their fellow teacher, against whom not preaching was chiefly objected by these Hypocrites, work such Miracles by their pulpit stuff. And could those, whom they have excluded pulpits, for so many years cause this new degeneration, of whose causes he seems so inquisitive. Pulpit stuff was a Term only proper to their s●…uffling Levites, which was an infusion of contempt of the persons, and detraction of the authority of their Rulers. How full were pulpits, and Tubs of these frogs, and vermin, Emissaries of hell, who decried Christian patience, and allowed no fortitude, but what resisted Authority. The preaching of the Prelates in England will remain to their honour, and the infamy of these hypocritical Rebels, and their works follow them, which schismatical Lunacy vainly rages to defame, and all men can witness, that the ridiculous, and impertinent repetitions, vain, and senseless inferences, the common pulpit stuff of puritan Sectaries made preaching to many, as Elies sons made the offerings of the Lord; And the Rebellion, perjury, and Atheism, that hath followed such sermonizers, shows what spirit they are of, and that they wait on jeroboam Calves, least men should return to God, and their lawful King, but this railing at the Prelates is grown stale. The servility, and wretchedness he means, we shall know more plainly hereafter, for obedience, & suffering are the servility and wretchedness, which he calls the pulpit stuff of the Prelates. We may shortly expect, that as these miscreants have altered state, & Church, so they will compose an Index expurgatorius of the Bible, for it cannot be imagined, that they will object this heinous Crime of preaching passive obedience to the Prelates, and leave so many places in the Gospel, which command it, & themselves need not the Gospel to make men obedient, they have the sword, and this Ceremony of Religion is abolished.  
But what are these fellow teachers of the Prelates of another name, and sect? why did he not speak out, and name the Presbiterian? was it not as easy to name him, as describe him? such terms are long in coming forth, that carry with them the reproach of the speaker. The common guilt, wherein these sects, and parties were involved appears in their division, and how they deceived the people, and one another. It's happy, if any men, that have gone far in an evil way stop, and return to the right path. St. Paul gloried, that men said of him, that he now preached the faith, which before he destroyed, & if there be any, though of another name, and sect in the sense of this author, that preach loyalty, which before they destroyed, Its Gods great mercy to them, and that they reduce others from the errors of their way. These Presbiterians may hence observe, how unhappily they were engaged against the Prelates, and with this other sect in setting forth contumelious, & scoffing libels, that now have the same language cast on themselves by these brethren in evil. Schism, & Rebellion have no mean, and he is much deceived, that thinks to retain either of them in any bounds without force, and this the Pers●…iterian now finds to his loss, who is grown as contemptible to those he meant to rule, as he endeavoured to make the Prelates.  
Besides their pulpit stuff he says their lives the Type of all worldliness, and hypocrisy without the least true pattern of virtue, righteousness, or self denial in their whole practice.  
Of those Marks, which the Scripture gives for the Trial of Hypocrites, what one do these Rebel's want, their pride in assuming holiness to themselves, & denying it to others, is held forth by them on all occasions. Stand further from me, I am holier, than thou, was the old Jew, and Lord I thank thee I am not, as other men, nor as this Publican was the reformed Pharisee, & how impiously these Traitors appropriate to themselves righteousness, and self denial, as if none, but Traitors could attain the kuowledge of such graces? If righteousness consist in Blaspheming God, contempt of his ordinances, and scorning the doctrine, and practice of his saints, these men may lay some claim to it, And if such, as deny not themselves the lives, and Estates of others, that deny not themselves any power, or pleasure they like, be the true self deniers, we cannot exclude this Author, and his Masters from attaining it? Do these men imagine, that using the terms of righteousness, and self denial, which they have made much in fashion, induces any man to think they esteem it, whose whole endeavours are self seeking? Can they persuade any man, that when our blessed saviour would pay Tribute, though not due from him, that he might not give offence, that the righteousness, which he commended to his servants was not only to deny Tribute, but to fight against those to whom it was due? Are they greater practisers of self denial, that preach war, and blood rather, then obey, than those, that preach passive obedience, and suffering rather than violence? Certainly the Koran Religion of these men, cannot entitle them to that Evangelycall virtue of self denial, and their Actions being so opposite to it, theit frequent use of the word proves their confirmed hypocrisy, & resolved impenitency. He may well wonder, if such pulpit stuff, and such lives, as he mentions should attract so many from his old English fortitude. If he would have assigned a cause for such an eminent change, as he supposes, it should have been some way proportionable to the effect, and his best way had been to have advanced the knowledge, and subtle behaviour of the Prelates, and their fellow teachers, but mad men only will believe him, when he says men gross in their doctrines, and offenfive in their lives persuaded the most part from the old English fortitude, this shows only a will to rail, not ane Argument to prove. It willbe an hard task for him to prove men the Type of worldliness, whom his Masters have stripped of all worldly means of living, and exposed them, and their families to beg, or starve. Was there ever a time in any one Kingdom, when so many have endured the spoiling of their goods, & undergone so great poverty from plenty, rather than renounce their faith, & former profession, as the Prelates of England, and their follow tachers? hypocrisy, and worldliness consist not with that condition, and in this Estate they cannot charge the Prelates with railing, & virulent language against their persecutors, as the Rebel Ministers used against their Governors.  
The people now discern the difference between the Prelate's humility, and the pride of their present Impostors, and that pride is less incident to just Titles, than usurpations, and that popular insinuations never want ambition, and arrogance. The bishops eminent virtues, and sufferings are so conspicuous to all men, as cannot be obscured by malicious detraction. But such, as make it their sin to preach passive obedience will judge Martyrdom hypocrisy, and patience worldliness.  
His next cause he attributes to the factious inclination of most men divided from the public by serveral ends, and humours of their own.  
Factious inclinations carry men to Rebellion, and disobedience, and private ends divided from the public are excentrique to lawful Government. All changes proceed from these ends, and humours, and submission to Rulers is inconsistent with them. But the Author will have the resistance of parricide, and Rebellion an effect of factious inclination, as patience, and passive obedience to be a worldly doctrine; By his account Rebels only have care of the public, and all that oppose them have ends divided from it. This humour of seditious Traitors hath been anciently discovered, and yet by the people's unhappy credulity never prevented, & thence it comes, that they complain of faction, and innovation, while they are busy in contrivinge it. And it is no wonder, that they, that have found so many deceived by their dissembled passions, will offer such palpable absurdities to the people, that men oppose them for private ends, & that themselves seek only the public, when by blood, and rapine they have got possession of all the wealth, & power of the Kingdom, and tread all under foot, that had right to rule They say truly they seek the public, but all men see it is for their private ends, and ambition.  
At sirst no man less beloved, no man more generally condemned, then was the King from the time, that it became his Custom to break Parliaments at home, and either wilfully, or weakly betray protestants abroad to the beginning of those ●…ombustions.  
He would prove the people inconstant, who doubts it? there hath been proof enough of it in their wretched levity tossed to, and fro by these Rebels. Bene facere, male audire Regium est, will not be denied by Iconoclastes to be a known truth, and that it is the common lot of good Princes to be misreported. That his late Majest: suffered by the privy whispes of ambitious seducers to the credulous vulgar is easily granted, but it was their ingratitude, not his merit, and the Authors less beloved and more generally condemned is a supposition void, of truth, as the Act itself was void of duty, the causes he would have to be his Custom in breaking Parliaments, and betraying Protestants. Let us examine what ground there was, for this aversion from the King upon either of these. There were in the time of King James, men, that made ill use of Parliaments, and instead of amending what was amiss strived to make the people believe things were out of order, which they felt not, and to create discontents at the Government. This caused the breach of some Parliaments in that King's time, his late Majest: finding the people possessed with great jealousies of his match with spain, & great desires to break the peace with that nation in order to the recovery of the Palatinate became the instrument of settling a right understanding between the King, and his Parliament in the 21. th'. Year of his Reign. Then was the Treaty of the match, and peace broken, the session of Parliament concluded to the great joy of the people, and with their great professions of affection to his late Majest: for so happy a work. King James was no sooner dead, and his late Majest: by the Council of the Parliament engaged in a dangerous war, but the seditious contrivers, that had pretended such Zeal for the regaininge of the ●…alatinate, cast about how they might ruin his Majest: by that undertaking, and in his first Parliament without respect to their own promises, his Majest: merit from them in procuring their desires, or the public necessities ingratefully withdrew their assistance from him, and spread abroad rumours against his Government, and when he called a Parliament, the private annimosities, & personal thirst of revenge in some men were entertained in the house of Commons, to exclude the consideration of the pressing necessities of his Majest: affairs, and foreign agents had their fingers with these leaders in Parliament, to divert all supplies from his Majest: that both Protestants, and all other his allies might be disappointed, and which by that means was effected. It's well known with what industry, & difficulty his Majest: in the midst of his necessities advanct relief to the Protestants, and if they were betrayed, the Treason must lie on the Parliaments credulity to those underminers, that forsook their King in the prosecution of that work.  
To betray Protestants, these Traitors know signifies much to the people, & therefore they make it a reproach to their King against the known evidence of the fact, and all sense, and though they hypocritically pretend affection to the Protestant Religion, the world knows, they do not as much, as give it a toleration, for the Protestants do not account john of Leidon, and the mad men of Munster's Protestant's, & there is no Religion, but theirs, now current in England.  
This Author sees the clearness of the proof against their malicious allegations of betraying Protestants, and therefore descends a little in his terms, and says either wilfully, or weakly. Could he betray them by impotency of force, or Council? that's a new found Treason, that the mind intends not, but it's too much respect to such an absurd Calumny to give it an answer.  
He goes on, all men inveighed against him, all men except Court vassals opposed him, and his Tyrannical proceedings.  
Inveighinge against the King was unknown in England before such Monsters, as this Author were hatched by Rebellion, and made their words accord with their Actions, when their lying, and hypocrisy could no longer serve turn. Before this time malcontents muttered their censures of Government, and people that believed them, thought it their sin, and shame to inveigh against their King. Though discontents were nourished among many, few, or none were so impudent to inveigh. There is no Courtier, whose observance to his Prince, or his flattery of him can bind him to like vassalage, as he is, that serves Rebels by false, and impudent detractions of Rulers. No slave so base, as he, that willbe hired to murder the fame, and honour of others. There are some Courtiers among his new Masters, whose falsehood to their true Master, and base observance of the Traitors to him entitles them to the worst of vassalage. This Author goes an ill way to prove Tyrannical proceedings, when he says they were so opposed. It's strange a Tyrant should suffer himself to be opposed, and how were those Tyrannical proceedings opposed? he will say by disputes in Courts of Justice, & was this Tyranny to admit contestations in ordinary Courts? There was never time, wherein there were not questions of right between King, and subject, & is it Tyranny in a Prince to be a party in a Process? And doth this Author hold malicious reports, and rumours notes of disgrace upon King, or any other Magistrate? good Prince's lives confute detraetours, and though the people for a time may be deluded, they will come to know a good King in his loss. Rebellious humours are an Epidemical pestilence, whose violence cannot continue.  
This full Parliament was at first unanimous in their dislike, and protestation against his evil Government.  
This hath not the least colour of truth, and as there was never time, wherien something was not to be amended, so in the beginning of this Parliament, there were things of that nature, but not such, as laid Crime upon his Majest: Government, nor did the Parliament judge so, but all corruptions of Courts, Errors of Council, ill successes of Actions are charged by this Author, as his Majest: ill Government, and every judgement of Parliament in a particular case made a protestation against it.  
This Author cannot, but know, that the most unamimous protestation, that ever the Parliament made was to defend the King's person, honour, and Estate, and they, that made this protestation could not be unanimous in protesting against his evil Government, nor in destroying both him, and it. They protested to defend the laws of the land, one of which they declared to be, that the King could do no wrong, and that if they should say his late Majest: did, they should speak against the law, & the affection of their own hearts. Can this Author find any room here for an unanimous protestation of the Parliament against the King's ill Government. And yet these were made long after the beginning of the Parliament, but they, that have no conscience of speaking truth, have no shame to be convinced of falsehood.  
But when they, who sought themselves, and not the public began to doubt, that all of them could not by one, and the same way attain to their ambitious purposes, than was the King, or his name at least, as a fit property first made use of, his doings made the best of, and by degrees justified.  
He is very industrious to find out causes, why so many would not be Traitors, why could he not fall into the consideration of the oaths of Allegiance, & supremacy, that all members of Parliament take at their entrance? why could he not think on the protestation themselves contrived to defend the King? how did he forget the Commands of obedience from God? If himself, and his Masters had not preferred their ambitious ends before their duty to God, or man, if they had not thought all oaths, and vows of no obligation against their ends, they would never have attributed other men's desertion of their courses to proceed from ambitious ends, Could men, that saw these Traitors making such oaths, and protestations of loyalty with a resolution to break them, run without remorse with them? Could any, that retained any spark of Religion, or moral honesty concur with such persons in their lewd courses? But all could not attain their ambitious ends by the same way. What way? by destroying the King? we are sure some have attained their ambitious ends that way. And doth this Author think, that any men had higher ends of ambition, than they, that now have attained theirs? if he do, he hath very few of his mind, how ever there was a way to ambitious ends, but it was not wide enough for all, and who had these ambitious ends they, that took the way, or they, that left it. They that had obligations of honour, and conscience for their ways are uncharitably charged with ambitious ends, and they, that broke the bounds of duty, and oaths to attain their ends, are sottishly pretended to seek the public.  
How the King's name, and office hath been made a property, and all duty, and oaths to him a Ceremony by the Traitors is known to the world. They have not spared any thing Religious, or Civil. They have made a property of the very name of God, of fasts, of thanksgiving, of prayers, of preaching. They have made a property of Justice, of Delinquents, evil Counsellors? how often have they made the lords house a property calling it the King's hereditary Council? how often of loyalty? And how frequently in this very libel doth he make a property of the name of Parliament. All men see there hath been nothing real with them, but their ambition, and cruelty.  
Which begat him such a party, as after many wiles, and struggle with his inward fears emboldened him at length to set up his standard against the Parliament.  
After many Messages to the Traitors, that possessed both houses of Parliament. After many offers to relinquish his just rights to take away all jealousies, and fears of his power, which were then pretended. After many Remostrances, of the Calamities, that attend Civil distractions. After the undutiful rejections of all his motions for peace. After the discovery of the unsatiable ambition, and blood thirsty malice of the prevailing party. After the violation of all privileges of Parliament. After the compulsion of the better part of both houses to desert them. After the seizing of his Majest: forts, and Navy, and assuming the Militia. After the longest, and most provoked patience, that ever King retained, his Majest: set up his standard against those Rebels, that took the name of Parliament.  
But Iconoclastes remember, you have here upbraided fears to the King, when you come to deny he had any. What wiles were used to seduce the people, what jealousies, & ridiculous fears were blown up to disorder them is yet fresh in Memory, and he well observes the King's standard at length set up, for there was just cause to have done it long before, and much disadvantage to his Majest: by the delay.  
When as before that time, all his adherents consisting most of dissolute swordmen, and suburb roisters hardly amounted to the making up of one ragged Regiment strong enough to assault the unarmed house of Commons.  
What time doth he mean the setting up of the standard? If his Majest: had sooner declared against the Traitors, he had not wanted a greater Regiment. And if he had intended to assault the house of Commons, those he had with him were enough to have done it, though those, that then sat had been armed, otherwise those members would not have been absent, when he eme.  
For the quality of the King's adherents, as he Phrases it, the persons, that then waited on him were for the most part of better quality, than their Rebel General, whom now they adore. It was the art of one of the guides of this Treason at that time to style such, as were about the King Cavaliers, as a name unagreeable to the prick-eared Puritan, whose supersilious demureness made wry faces at such a name, it being the Custom of false Traitors to lay claim to those behaviours, that may hide their inward wolvish disposition, and defame others to ge●… reputation to themselves, and thence suburb Roisters, and dissolute swordmen became names for such, as followed the King to add terror to the citizens of London, who have found more pride, cruelty, & robbery among their schismatical pretenders to piety, than any such danger, as was threatened them from such, as followed the King.  
Though this breaker would destroy the reason, and sense of his readers, yet its impossible by such incoherent Arguments, as he produceth. Can he hope any man will believe him, that such, as followed the King at that time to the lower house, were all, that took offence at the proceedings in Parliament, and that none else were resolved to assist the King against the injuries offered him? That were too unreasonable considering the Actions both then, and succeeding, and because he had not endeavoured to get more strength, therefore he could not? But if the number of them, that had a right understanding of the King's affairs were very small, doth it follow, that the contrary was the better because numerous? The Author refutes it himself in his next words, and surely the Argument is more strong against the cause he maintains, that the people, that at first followed them have now left them, than the motions of the people carried by rumours against their King in the beginning were of any Tyranny, or ill Government in him, for a people are easier stirred up to follow an evil cause, then reduced after they have begun, and the quality, & number of such persons, who have lost their lives, and fortunes in maintaining the King's cause in regard of Estate, honour, and integrity, & in Comparison of such, as Rebelled against him, might justly have withheld this Author's hand from objecting against their condition, for his own party must admire his impudence having such evidence of the fact.  
After which attempt seconded by a tedious, and bloody war on his subjects, wherein he hath so far exceeded those his arbitrary violences in time of peace, they, who before hated him for his misgovernment, nay fought against him with displayed Banners in the field, now applaud him, & extol him for the wisest, and most Religious Prince, that lived.  
And let Iconoclastes show other reason of this change, than the evidence of their former mistake. Could it be ambitious ends, that made men extol him, whom they had offended, and that after his imprisonment, and murder. After the defeat of his forces, & no expectation, but of oppression upon all such, as expressed a good opinion of him? surely he hath abundantly requited his scornful expression of his late Majest: ragged Regiment in the beginning, that here tells us after all his losses, and lowest condition, nay after death his very Enemies changed their thoughts of him. Repentance is a great reproach among those Rebels, the preaching of that doctrine is worse to them, then passive obedience. That there were some, that hated his Majest: may be believed, their tongues, and pens set on fire of hell have published it to the world. They that hate Christian virtues, hate such, as have them. They, that hate the ordinances of God, hate such, as are appointed to exercise them, But it was only in some fiery schismatics; whose pride disguised with profession of humility, at first appeared in their petulancy against their teachers, and at last came to exalt itself above all, that is called God. These men perfectly hated the King, that hated all Government, and by this measure Iconoclastes would comprehend all such, as through credulity, or error at first fell into this misfortune to bear Arms against their King. Doubtless, they, that after this tedious, and bloody war became more affectionate to his Majest: discerned not such excesses on his Majest: part, as this Author supposes, for that had not been an Argument for a change. It's manifest to all, that his Majest: Actions in this war were no other, than such, as the necessity of that condition draws with it, and which the noblest Enemies use, & his Enemies cannot produce one Act done by him, which themselves did not avow, and yet he says in the war he exceeded his Arbitrary violences in time of peace, and if we take the word of Iconoclastes, they were not irregular, that the necessary Actions of war did exceed, and by the way neither Iconoclastes, nor his Masters for their justification have produced one Act of Arbitrary violence against his late Majest: though they make outcries of Tyranny, and violence to hide the ugliness of their villainy.  
By so strange a Method amongst the mad multitude is a sudden reputation won of wisdom by wilfulness, and subtle shifts. Of goodness by multiplying evil. Of piety by endeavouring to root out true Religion.  
But is it only the multitude he means, in whom this strange change is? that cannot be, for the severe proceedings of his Masters against eminent persons for deserting their side, their purging the Parliament, as they call it, & this Author's succeeding discourse denote others, besides the mad multitude. It's a strange Method, that the mad multitude should be moved to honour suffering virtue, which themselves had persecuted, were not the evidences without exception? And it's not strange, that such, as knew not the King, but by the sly insinuations of seducers, should come to the knowledge of their Errors by his eminent virtues in his sufferings. The Method, that Iconoclastes calls strange, is certainly as strange, as the Method he takes to be believed, for will any man give him credit, that after such an aversion, as he mentions in the people from the King upon the pretence of his imprudence, and unsoundness in Religion, the people should be drawn to an opinion of his wisdom by wilfulness. Of goodness by multiplying evil. Of piety by endeavouring to root out true Religion. Though the people were deceived in his late Majest: yet take them at the worst, if they had hated him, because they thought him evil, they would not be drawn to love him, because they found him so. It's not strange, that the multitude finding themselves cheated should be ashamed of their error, and among other seducements, that cry of rooting out Religion made loudest noise in the beginning of this Rebellion, and this Author, and his fellows have undeceived the people, for they have rooted out all Religion, and left nothing, that hath the face of it. Did the people expect, that all the cry, that was made of Religion was to bring in Arrianisme, Anabaptism, Socinianism, & such sects, as they never heard of? was this the Religion they intended to fight for? It's not strange at all, that the mad multitude, who were inflamed with the reputation, and Authority of the Parliament coming to see, that the orders, votes, & other Trumpery, with which they were led on, were only the contrivance of a factious crew, should abhor them. That coming to see the abolition of Parliaments, and scorn of the people's Power, which at first was preached to them over their King, they should bewail their own misery, that was so unhappily brought on them by their own precipitation. The proofs of his late Majest: wisdom, goodness, and piety are obvious to the meanest capacity, and the sublimest understandings have made his virtues, aswell, as his misfortunes their wonder, and though we have lived in an age, where prodigies of villainy are every day acted, this Author is a wonder to wisemen, that makes a Method of lying, and dissimulation: But as the Government of hell is confusion, so are the Arts and Method of the Ministers of that Enemy of mankind, which confound reason, and sobriety, and so, as they may contradict truth, care not to contradict themselves.  
But it is evident, that the chief of his adherents, never loved him, never honoured him, nor his cause, but as they took him to set a face upon their own malignant designs, nor bemoan, his loss at all, but the loss of their own aspiring hopes.  
It's evident the Author says it, and evident, that it is without ground, or colour of truth. would men, that never loved him, never honoured him, nor his cause, not only hazard, but lose their lyues, & fortunes in defence of him, and his cause, and that when the best successes they could hope for, could not equal the perils they ran? If there be either honour, or gallantry in any of those, that call themselves soldiers, & Enemies to their King, and that Rebeilion hath not unnaturalized them, they would hate such an impudent Parasite, that seeks to please them with such impotent Calumines of persons (whose worth, and honour they have so often tried) because they were Enemies to his party. What Malignant designs would he have imagined, such, as no man ever dreamt of? Doth not this man believe, that his readers see, he follows the common places of detraction without respect to the propriety of persons, or Actions? May not this language, that he used of any persons, that follow a party? was there ever in the world an Example of a cause prosecuted upon more disadvantage on behalf of the King's party?  
When a King is prosecuted by his subjects, Iconoclastes tells us they that adhere to him do it for malignant designs. It's certain the Rebels had no other, but wicked, and malignant designs, and whence came malignant designs in such, as opposed them? Because they Rebelled, other men had malignant designs, and if any had malignant Designs, & secret disaffections to the King, or his cause, doth he think it adds any weight to his slanders against the King? will he lay on him the faults of his party? It seems he thought some madder, than the multitude would read his book, otherwise such trash would not have been worth his binding up, but he took this to make use of his Greek, how the Captive women seemed to lament Patroclus, though in truth their own condition, and that's the best of his evidence for this assertion, and therefore he notes the book, where it is.  
It must needs be ridiculous to any judgement uninthrald, that they, who in other matters express so little fear either of God, or man, should in this one particular outstrip all Precisianism with their Scruples, & fill men's ears continually with the noise of conscientious loyalty, and Allegiance to the King, Rebels in the mean while to God in all their Actions besides.  
It is ridiculous to any judgement unin thralled, that such, as Rebel against their King should pretend they are not Rebels to God, and that such, as profess Precisianism in crying down dances, and May-games should expect to be believed, that they fear God, or man, when in the meantime they violate all oaths., and duty to God, and man. Have not this generation showed to the world, that all their outward formalities were no other, than the washing clean of the outside of the vessel? Are such fit judges of conscience, that pretended this Precisianism he mentions, who made great scruples, and cases touching Ceremonies, and make no bones of robbery, murder, and Rebellion? It was our saviours judgement, that they which neglected the greater matters of the law were most properly Hypocrites. Notwithstanding their Precisianism, that all men of any party, or society should be free from scandalous offences, where there are multitudes is without Example, and it could not be hoped in the best, and clearest cause, that all, that followed it should have sincere ends, but none could have less fear of God, or man, than he, that would make all guilty of the Crymes of some, that for particular crimes of men will take the Devil's office to accuse all their Actions. He makes it not in among the number of scruples, & cases, whether Rebellion be a sin, but holds it a clear case to be none? And then why not Idolatry, adultery, and what not? It's possible, & probable to any judgement uninthrald, that some men may make scruples of some sins, & are peccant in divers others, and it's far from ridiculous, that men have greatest remorse of sins, the greatness of whose guilt it most evident to their consciences. But this Author doth not love the noise of conscientious loyalty, & had rather no conscience then any loyalty. The particular Crymes of some, that followed his Majest: cause, and made war against him by their sins have been lamented, and reproved out of Christian zeal, not hypocritical austerity, nor can any judgement from thence draw any conclusion against the cause they have followed, nor convince them of sinister ends in following it.  
But is not a Rebel to his King a Rebel to God? The preachers among those Rebels have had a long heart rising against their Rulers, & to take men of from being tender in Rebellion against their King, when ever they reproved any sin that term of Rebellion against God came with it, insinuating a distinction of Rebellion against Princes, from Rebellion against God, yet Rebellion against Princes is a sin against God, & they cannot free themselves of the greatest guilt of sin, that seduce men into it, & handle the word of God deceitefullie, & such, as open a gate to Rebellion against Princes by transferring the Term from the most ordinary signification, and applying it wholly to the borrowed sense, seek to get slaves to hell, not saints to heaven: These were the infusions of their ordinary lecturers, and serves aptly for the Rebel Politics.  
Much less, that they, whose professed loyalty, and Allegiance led them to direct Arms against the king's person, & thought him nothing violated by the sword of hostility drawn by them against him, should now in earnest think him violated by the unsparing sword of justice..  
What means he in this? Is it much less ridiculous in these latter, than the former? The form of his Period went, as if he meant to make a gradation to the greater, and I think he intended it, and an error of the press; for sure nothing is more ridiculous, then to think the King nothing violated by the sword of hostility, whom he means we must guess, for he cannot name them, but by circumlocution. There is a great difference between the sword of Rebellion, and the sword of hostility, & between the sword of lawless violence, & the sword of justice, & Christians never thought, that any sword drawn by subjects against their King did not violate their loyalty, & Allegiance, much less, that their professed loyalty, and Allegiance led them to direct Arms against the King's person: If loyalty lead to hostility, it were an ill foundation of obedience. Truth is not less wounded by lying, than loyalty by Arms against the King. Some doubtless foresaw not the consequents of their beginnings, and being deceived by wrong principles fell into unhappy conclusions, which they suspected not to follow from their premises, but as they are deceived, that will sever absurd conclusions from erroneous premises, so are they, that will hope to avoid desperate consequents from ill grounded Actions.  
Doth Iconoclastes hold it necessary, that all they, that have fallen into an impiety, must be impenitent, and because they have been sinners, must they become Blasphemers, and Apostats? There have been Examples of many Rebels, that yet abhorred the shedding of their King's blood. But Iconoclastes holds it a dishonour to be a small villain, & he that willbe wicked must act Crymes of the highest degree, & if he fail in the last Act, he must be thrust from the stage. The more impious the Actions of Traitors are, the more evident the guilt of them, the greater praises they give them, and most magnify that, which is most abominable, & they style their most outrageous cruelty unsparing justice.. As they will spare no man's blood to pass to their ends; so they will not be sparing in the Titles of their villainies; If this shameless man had not been sensible of the vinversall detestation of the fact, he mentions, & that it was acted in defiance of Religion, law, & Justice, he would never have choose this expression of the unsparing sword of justice.. If Rebels may judge of Justice, the clearest Justice will become the foulest Crime, & the Justice that inflicts punishment on their Rebellion the greatest Tyranny; Laws are oppression, where Malefactors have got the Tribunal. The unsparing sword of Rebellion will no more appear the sword of Justice, than the unsparinge virulency of a lewd tongue appear a legal condemnation of a lawful Magistrate. Is it unsparing justice, that gives the sword into every hand, that would kill, and reproachful language into every false tongue? If there be offenders, they, that without authority take one them to punish, are more guilty, than the offender: But we may be assured, where Rebels, & usurpers are Judges, innocence willbe the greatest Crime, and horrid Murders unsparing Justice.  
But he proceeds to say, which undoubtedly so much the less in vain she bears among men, by how much greater, and in highest place the offender.  
This need explication. He spoke but now of the sword of justice, and now says she bears, this is foam new speculation. St. Paul says the Magistrate bears not the sword in vain, and this man would have every man the Magistrate, and the sword borne without an hand to strike with it, & Justice executed by a Metaphor. He makes justice some wand'ring spirit, that invisibly carries a sword. Whence comes the sentence of this justice from the mouth of the criminal, or the Judge? for by those motions both may lay equal claim to it, & because justice ought to be administrated impartially, such, as are in highest place, & from whom alone the administration of Justice is derived to all others must be murdered by those that are subject to them? Justice hath no sword, but the power of the lawful Magistrate, which is called the sword of Justice from the Magistrates duty, & becomes the sword of violence, & murder in the hands of another, but the is men think they may use the sword without a calling as preach, and administer the Sacraments uncalled. Would Iconoclastes be content, that the Bailiff of westminster should draw the impartial sword of Justice against his new Masters, that are in highest place?  
Else justice, whether moral, or political were not justice, but a false counterfeit of that impartial, and godlike virtue.  
justice's cannot become no justice, but the Acts of men may be just, or unjust, as they follow, or forsake the Rules of justice.. And what greater contempt of Justice, then to pretend it for the ruin of mankind? What grater reproach to that Godlike virtue, then to prostitute it to all the execrable Parricides of the world? Doth the Image breaker think, that having called it a Godlike virtue, he hath well defined it by King killing, for that is the sense of his highest place? It's a part of his Method to insinuate an opinion of his esteem of Justice by the praise of it, & that such, as he opposes were less Zealous of it, but his context shows, that justice is defied by him, and he seeks to wash the bloody hands of the worst of Traitors by casting their odious acts on his imaginary justice.. But whence comes I conoclastes to assume the expression of a Godlike virtue, and is so angry with Iconbasilice? Is there more warrant for his Godlike virtue of Justice, then for the Godlike office of Kings? And he is as much Iconoclastes of the one, as the other, for they, that will wrest the sword out of the hands of God's vicegerents will not stick to wrest that Godlike virtue to their own impieties  
The only grief is, that the head was not struck of to the best advantage, and commodity of them that held it by the hair.  
Doubtless they, that struck it of did it for their own advantage, and commodity without respect to Justice, or fear of God, and sure if some were grieved, that it was not struck of to their advantage, they, that struck it of did it to that purpose, and to the fatisfiction of their own cruelty, and laying the foundation of their Tyranny, this follows from Iconoclastes for that commodity, which some had, and others miss caused the Murder. They, that hold it by the hair, and they, that struck it of have cause of grief, though Iconoclastes, and his Masters, that have, as they think the advantage, and Commodity of it, now laugh at their partners, whom they put by, and at the wickedness they acted, and himself gives stronger evidence, that the ringleaders of this horrid Rebellion sought their own commodity, and advantage, then can be supposed of Malignant designs in any of his Majest: party.  
Which observation, though made by a common Enemy, may for the truth of it hereafter become a proverb.  
Wicked Actions are not the less odious for Company, and the observation, which it seems he intends, that some of their party, that now forsake them, were equally guilty with them of the King's death, will no way excuse them, that proceeded to that high degree of impiety. But why is the observator called a common Enemy? Why is he more an Enemy, than they, that reproach the present Murderers, as much, as he? Their Enemies are now all man kind, and such, as believed not their intentions, nor Actions cannot be deceived of them now they are defended by this Author. If that observation become a proverb, will not the wickedness of these Murderers become a Proverb to denote the greatest degree of villainy?  
But as to the Author of those soliloquies, where it were the late King, as is vulgarly believed, or any secret coadjutor, and some stick not to name him, it can add nothing, nor shall take from the weight (if any be) of reason, which he brings. How the Champion traverses his ground. At first he looked with great scorn to have such an Antagonist, as a King, than he condescends to take up the gauntlet, then as an induction to his Traitorous reproaches craves excuse for not using Courts hip, & now he makes a doubt, whether the King, or some coadjutor be Author of those soliloquies, and he says some stick not to name him. Truly it's no secret, or strange thing, that there be not men wanting, that would not stick at any Action, or word against the King. Is it the nearer truth, when some stick not to name the man, when Iconoclastes sticks not at so many untruths? He, that reads this Author's book will rest assured, that he will stick at the affirmation of nothing, that may dishonour his late Majest: But its strange he thought his insinuation of any weight, that some stick not to name him, when all men see the licence taken by so many lewd persons, & no restraint from saying any thing against the King, whereat should they stick, their impudence is commended, and rewarded? Would they stick at truth, that's out of fashion in the new state? But perhaps they stick to name a man, lest they have a conviction from him, or some else, that could discover the Circumstances about it. But since he makes a scruple, if there be not reason in the book, why is he so unwilling to admit the King to be the Author, surely it were for his advantage to make the King author of such a book, and if they were a Coadjutors, why doth he lay his weakness, or errors, as he pretends upon the King. The Author doth not add, nor take away from the reason in the book, but the book commends the Author, and shames the answer.  
But allegations, not reasons are the main contents of this book, and need no more, than other contrary allegations to lay the question before all men in an even balance.  
The allegations in his Majest: book are either such, as are only known to himself, or such, as were evident to all men by the light of reason, or notoriety of Actions. And Iconoclastes vainly flatters himself, that his contrary allegations willbe of any weight to move the scale. Sober men take his ostentation of confidence rather as an effect of frenzy, than a persuasion of reason, But through his whole book he offers allegations against apparent rea●…ous.  
Though it were supposed, that the Testimony of one man in his own case affirming, could be of any Moment to bring in doubt, the authority of a Parliament denying a contrary allegation against this, would weigh down the balance in most men's judgement.  
The perjuries, impostures, cruelties, & devastations of those he calls the Parliament are so known, & common abroad, that the mention of them is a name of infamy, and takes away all credit from their Actions. Their own journals tell the world, that they never speak truth, but for their advantage, and omit no falsehood, that will serve their turn. But doth Iconoclastes think any Parliament infallible, or that all men condemned by Parliament had Justice done them? He will then find, that they condemn one another, and for this last misnamed Parliament, their bloody executions have such apparent marks of Injustice, and cruelty, as themselves cannot deny it, unless they will deny the records themselves have made, & the Testimony of former Parliaments. There are in his Majest: book many particulars, that the Parliament neither did, nor could deny, and through the whole book the Author hath produced few, or none of their denials. There hath been much use made of the name of Parliament, but the Author must think he hath an enchanting pen, if after the murder of the king, abolishing the Lord's house, plucking out the members from the lower house, prostituting the very constitution of Parliament to the lawless multitude, and packing the Room with a few mean persons, either terrified by power, or flattered by promises, he can persuade any, that such a Company sitting on the usual seats of the lower house be the Parliament, he may as well give the name of Parliament to a Parish vestry, as that Convention, all the odds is the place of their meeting.  
But if these his fair spoken words shallbe here fairly confronted, and laid parallel to his own far differing deeds manifest, & visible to the whole nation, then etc.  
His Majest: words he says are fair spoken, and will appear sincere against all the fowl spoken words of this author to confront them; And his actions are so well known to the whole nation, as he doth in vain appeal to them, as witnesses of the truth of those false, and incongruous Calumnies, that he hath produced. His Majest: Actions being laid parallel to this Authors different expressions show the lewdness of the Libelers impudence, that will appeal for the truth of what he says to those, that best know the contrary, and in a case, where the evidence of the fact excludes all appeal.  
The Author concludes, that we may look on them, who notwithstanding shall persist to give to bare words more credit, then to open Actions, as men, whose judgement was not rationally evinced, & persuaded, but fatally stupefied, & bewitched into such a blind, and obstinate belief, for whose cure he says it may be doubted, not whether any charm, though never so wisely murmured, but whether any prayer can be available.  
If after the reading of this Author's book any man think him a modest man, that he hath dealt ingeniously with his Majest: book, or person, he may be sure, that such a person were not rationally evinced, but either maliciously prepossessed, or stupidly infatuated, and neither understood words, nor Actions, And this Author means not to cure, but to charm expressing his delight in the term of murmuring, which was the Custom of witches in their Charms, never used by servants of God, though wicked men are compared to the deaf adder, whose ear is stopped to the murmuring Charmer, as theirs to the holy advice. But Iconoclastes may aswell hope to turn men into ftones by his absurd assertions, or into serpents by his lewd reproaches, as persuade men of his reason, or honesty. We know the prayers of the wicked are abominable, aswell, as their wilful falhood, and slander, & while he seeks to place those, that will not be led by him, among those that Charms, cannot cure, nor prayers profit, declares his prayers, no other, than Charms, and himself a man, that can neither cure, nor pray, and sets prayer among those things he scoffs at, aswell, as the Titles of him, that is only to be prayed to.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  

Upon the KING'S Calling this last PARLIAMENT.  
THat, which the King lajes down, as his foundation, that he called this last Parliament not more by others advice, and the necessity of his affairs, then by his own choice, and inclination, is to all knowing men so apparently untrue, that a more inauspicious Sentence could hardly have come into his mind.  
That his Majest: intention could be apparent to all knowing men, must have better Authority, than this Author's word to be believed. His Majest best knew his own intentions, and aught to be credited against the Malicious conjectures of such, as seek matter of slander against him to shelter their own impieties, never King of England showed greater affection to Parliaments, than his Majest: and never King found greater ingratitude. His frequent coming to Parliaments in his Father's Reign. His many good offices done the houses, and the large acknowledgements of their obligations to him are upon the Records of both houses. Upon the death of his Father he instantly called a Parliament, seeking to continue the same understanding between him, and his houses, as there had been in the time of his Father. He had then entered into a dangerous war with Spain upon the Parliaments Council, was in preparation of a great fleet, stood charged with a great debt left on him by his Father, besides deep engagements to his Allies abroad, the supplies the then Parliament gave him were two Subsidies, he then desired an addition only of forty thousand pound, which was refused him. If any man shall say now, that the King called not that Parliament of his own inclination, because he was discontented to be so dealt with by them, knowing men will hardly believe him, & such men, as are justly displeased with factions in Parliament, might truly affect them, when they are rightly disposed, and this Sentence, which I conoclastes holds so inauspicious imports not that, which his false Augury Prognosticates, for though his Majest: received provocations, and causes of dislike from several Parliaments, it follows not, that he could have no intention to call one, when there was a probability of removing the causes of former disorders, which his Majest: expresses in his ensuing discourse.  
The inclination of a Prince is best known by those next about him, or by the current of his Actions. These nearest this King were Courtiers, and Prelates, and it was their Continual exercise to dispute, and preach against them.  
For the Actions of others Iconoclastes would think them a weak proof of his intentions, though the persons were very near him, and though there were preaching, and disputes against the proceedings of some Parliaments, it's no proof of the King's intentions, nor theirs, that used them against the right use of Parliaments, and the proceedings of some Parliaments might give just occasion to men to say the King (they hoped) would have no more need of them and it is a very great happiness of any state not to need them, the necessity of them proceeding from want, and danger, and there was a time, when people held Parliaments a burden to him, and those in Parliament claimed it, that they were not bound to attend the Parliament above forty days, and our own stories tells us of an indoctum Parliamentum, and insanum Parliamentum. And doth Iconoclastes think, that all such, as were out of love with such Parliaments had no affection to any.  
This was (he sajes) but the Copy, which his Parasites had industriously taken from his own words, and Actions, who never called a Parliament, but to supply his necessities.  
Such, as have observed the inclinations of persons near his Majest: find none greater Parasites, than such, as proved Traitors to him, and Parasites are not wanting to other powers, as well, as Kings, for we find by this Author what men will do to please their Masters either by offitiousnes to their persons, or the performance of villainy against others. This Author spends his mouth in vain following his common place of Parafites, and Courtiers, when the Actions he mentions are so far from reflecting upon his Majest: as they leave the blemish upon the Relatour. That his Majest: had necessities, when he called a Parliament is known to all, & the causes of them, but that he was ready all ways to hear, and redress the just greivances of his people could never yet be contradicted by the experience in any Parliament, all though the Author say, having Supplied these, he suddenly, and nominiously dissolved it without redressing any one grievance of the people. But if the Parliaments never presented to him on grievance to be redressed, which he denied, where lies the ignominy? It seems the Author takes not the petition of right to be of that nature, for that was granted by the King, and that concession of his was then judged as great an Act to the redress of greivances, as ever King of England granted his people. His Majest: summoned three Parliaments before the short Parliament at the beginning of these troubles, and in none of these were there any greivances presented by the Parliament to the King to be redressed, but that petition of right, unless a Remonstrance against the Duke of Buckingham be reckoned in that number, and if the people, had just greivances to be redressed, they had just cause of complaint against those Conventions, and of late repentance for their credulity, that depended so much on them, that so little regarded their Sufferings. If we look upon the length of time, wherein these Parliaments sat, we shall find sessions concluded, & divers good laws made in the like space of time in the Reigns of former Kings, and whoever looks to the journals of the houses in these Parliaments of his late Majest: or whoever was present in them must confess, that those, that governed in the lower house minded nothing less, than the redress of greivances, or making of laws, which were formally talked of to entertain time, while private annimosities, and personal revenges were made the sole business of importance, & in the space of four months no one grievance was prepared to be presented to his Majest: and Iconoclastes heaps up untruths without respect to the appearance of their detection, for this first Parliament was so far from being suddenly dissolved after the King was supplied, that the great Plague not permitting them to sit longer at west minster, his Majest: adjourned them to Oxford, and in ano●…her Parliament after the supply given him, there was a second meeting, which might have had a longer continuance, if it had insisted on the redress of greivances, but whence takes he the occasion to say Ignominiously dissolved. Where was the Ignominy? Had not his Majest: a legal right to do it? And if the houses would not agree in the redress of greivances, and supply of the necessities of the Kingdom, their continuance would prove ignominious, not their dissolving.  
Sometimes choosing rather to miss of his subfidies or to raise them by illegal courses, then that the people should not still miss of their hopes to be relieved by Parliaments.  
Iconoclastes in his Preface talked of laying parallel actions to words, and here he uses words of actions, that never were, for among those Parliaments of his late Majest: where can he find a number to make up his Sometimes, using a language, as if the King had called as many Parliaments, as he had reigned years? And where can he find, that the King chose to miss his subsidies, that the people should not be relieved by Parliaments. Two of the Parliaments are already mentioned. In the third, where he had non, he was so far from choosing to miss of his subsidies, if he might have had them, that his reiterated Messages to the then house of Commons to prepare their greivances, that he migh●… apply just remedies to them, sufficiently prove, that nothing was wanting of his part to have received the subsidies, and releived the people; It's well known, that his Majest: had at that time a war with Spain, and France, and that nothing, but inevitable necessity on his part, could have made him decline the obtainnig of subsidies from that Parliament. And after the house of Commons had declared, that they would supply him in such a way, and in so ample a measure, as should make him safe at home, and feared abroad, they agreed upon the number of subsidies, but voted, that the Bill should not come into the house, till their greivances were answered. His Majest: sent them there upon several Messages to hasten them to present the greivances, which nothing wrought on them, but without any reason after long expectation, they denied to have the bill of subsidies brought into the house. It's well known, that no Kingdom had less greivances, then that of England under his late Majest: And the people were persuaded into an opinion of greivances, not by sense of Suffering, but the disputes of Pragmatical Incendiaries, and they would have rested quiet, had they not been seduced by such Craftsmen, and there is no on thing, that this breaker can name for a grievance, which his Masters, that now Lord it, do not increase.  
The first he broke of at his coming to the Crown for no other cause, then to protect the Duke of Buckingham against them, who had accused him, besides other heinous Crymes, of no less, then poisoning the deceased King his Father.  
This Author takes himself not concerned in speaking Truth, for the public Records of the Kingdom, and some late declarations of the pretended Parliament would have held his hand from this false assertion, if he had valued Truth at the rate of perusing them, for the Duke of Buckingham was not at all accused by the first Parliament of the King, nor in any Parliament for poisoning the deceased King. He might have found, that in the second Parliament of the King, Among other Articles against the Duke of Buckingham, he was accused for a Transcendent Presumption, and of dangerous consequence touching Physic applied to the deceased King, but the malice of such, as hated the Duke of Duckingham did not extend to an accusation of poisoning the deceased King, yet the venom of Treason in this Author makes him mad, and say, that a fact of presumption, and of dangerous consequence was a poisoning. If such were the wisdom of a house of Parliament to call poisoning of a King, a presumption of dangerous consequence neither King nor people need be troubled to want their Council. This is the first instance, though not the first falsehood of Iconoclastes, but to the matter of what he sajes in that second Parliament, wherein the Duke of Buckingham was accused, his Majest: by Message to the lower house told them, he was well pleased they should proceed against the Duke of Buckingham they did accordingly give up their Articles to the Lords, the Duke of Buckingham made his answer, which was sent down to the Commons, who being unable to reply to it, such, as then swayed the house contrary to the Council of a great number of the most experienced amongst them resolved to hinder all proceedings, and necessitate the King to a Dissolution of the Parliament. This is no secret, the journal books of that house sufficiently ●…vince it.  
Still the latter breaking was with more affront, and indignity put upon the house and her worthiest members, than the former.  
This appears not by his subsequent reason, but if this breaker had thought either the dissolving of Parliaments, or indignity, and affront to members any offence, why does he take on him the defence of those, that have Ignominiously excluded the whole house of Lords, and so many of the Commons, and among them some, whom he terms the worthiest persons in the Parliament he speaks of, but his reasons, and narrations are of the same stuff; And if any man compare the affronts, and indiginties offered his Majest: by some persons in parliament, and his proceedings against them, he will judge, that their provacations exceeded his passion, and their own sufferings.  
In so much, that in the fifth year of his Reign in a Proclamation he seems offended at the very Rumour of a Parliament divulged among the people, as if he had taken it for a kind of slander, that men should think him that way exorable much less inclined.  
What straws this man picks up. If the King did seem offended at a factious Rumour, doth it follow, that he held it a Scandal to act that, which was Rumoured. Because a King doth forbid Rumours of his intended Actions, doth he not therefore intent them? And must his Counsels be the subject of common Rumour? It is a factious practice to spread a Rumour of a parliament, before the King please to declare it, and tends to the precipitation of his Counsels by sedition. But as his premises are (he seems) so his conclusions are (as if) and men may as well believe him on his bare word, as such inferences he appearing inexorable to speak Truth, or forbear slander.  
And forbids it, as a presumption to prescribe him any time for Parliaments that is to say, either by persuasion or petition, or so much, as the reporting of such a Rumour, for other manner of Prescribing was at that time not suspected.  
His Majest: therein forbade no more than the law forbids, and accounts it a presumption to Prescribe him any time for Parliaments. But such, as have destroyed King, and Parliament would have it esteemed strange, that they should not prescribe what they list, and the breaker, that would have the King Prescribed will allow none to Prescribe his now masters. His explanation signifies nothing, for doth he think, that the King ought to be petitioned, or persuaded by every on, that will, or that the spreading of a Rumour is a fit mea●…es to induce him to call a Parliament? He endeavours to defame the King for restraining popular licence, and Sedition, and when he seeks to confirm the Tyranny of his Masters, he reproaches the people with Levity, and violence; And the ways of Prescribing by him mentioned were unorderly, and by him particularised as Plausible, not sound, other manner of Prescribing was then not Suspected, he intends the force of a scotts Army, and though he commend that way of Prescribing, and attribute the calling of the Parliament to it, and accuse the King for resisting it, yet he will charge the King with beginning the war.  
By which fierce Edict, the people forbidden to complain, as well, as forced to suffer begun from thence forth to despair of Parliaments.  
The people have now greater cause to despair of Parliaments then ever they had in the time of his late Majest: for if these men prevail, they are sure never to have more, for they profess to introduce a new form of Government which hath nothing of the Parliament of England & however the people by seditious practices, or false apprehensions despaired of Parliaments, that proves nothing of his Majest: inclination, or averseness to Parliaments. How an edict can be called fierce, where no punishment of the breach of it appears to be denounced, nor any severity ensuing it, cannot be imagined, but it's well known what Titles this Author will give to any of his Majest: Actions respecting only the reproachfullnes of the Terms, not their proportion, or 〈◊〉 to what they are applied, and whoever looks on the time, while Parliaments were intermitted, the sufferings of the people were less, than when Parliaments were frequent, & they need not be forbidden to complain, when their peace, & plenty were a reason strong enough to restrain them, however querulous murmurings wrought by seditious contrivers, may hap, & aught to be forbidden in all just Governments.  
Where upon such illegal Actions, and especially to get vast sums of money were put in Practice by the King, and his new Officers, as Monopolies, compulsive knighthoods, Coat, Conduct, and Shipmoney, the seezing not of on Nabaoths Vineyard, but of whole inheritances, under the pretence of forest, or Crown lands, Corruption, & bribery compounded for with impunities granted for the future, as gave evident proof, that the King never meant, nor could it stand with the Reason of his affairs ever to recall Parliaments.  
All the pretences of Tyranny, and oppression, wherewith the Rebels have sought to mask their disloyalty are reduced to this on sum to get money. That Princes must have supplies from their people for support of the Kingdom cannot be doubted, and where the laws have given the King a riched to demand money of particular persons in certanie cases, or of the whole people, these are no illegal exactions, but due debts. The King of England is entitled by law to divers deuce from his subjects, and of such things his learned Council, and his Judges have the care, that he lose not his rights, and they are bound by oath to preserve them, & if in any cases they sail in their judgement, their King cannot be guilty of illegal exactions in following their Council, and of such nature are the particulars he mentions, unless Coat, and Conduct money, which had been disbursed by the Counties for the present, where soldiers were raised, and was of inconsiderable value and to be repaid, and only of practice in case of war when necessity requires greater contributions, and such Actions, as these the best Governments could never avoid, and those forms of Government, which these Rebels Prefer before Monarchy ordinairly practice, but they must supply with exclamations, what they want of matter, and having broken all bounds of duty, Justice, and humanity, they seek to make the common means, which necessity compels Governnours to use for public support, the height of oppression, and Tyranny. The vast sums received by all the ways were far short of that great charge, which the Kingdom required, and of what former Kings had received in the like space, but inconsiderable in regard of the present exactions. He resembles the legal proceedings in cases of civil right to Nabaoths vineyard; so as all suits for recovery of detained rights is the getting of Nabaoths vineyard, but they that by the blood of many Naboaths have gotten their inheritances would have Civil Controversies, not bloody murder the sin of Ahab. Corruption, and bribery compounded for with impunity for the future is a denomination, which cannot be fixed to any Actions of Majest: That his Majest: hath a power to pardon was never denied, and therefore no act of grace in that kind can be illegal, but this, which they call corruption, and bribery was no other, than the fees, which some officers received, and were questioned to be above their due, & had they been convict, their mulct was pecuniary, and due to the King. They urged long Custom in their defence, and in a case of that nature, where only error, not corruption, or bribery can be admitted, it was nearer to justice, than favour to forbear prosecution; And as the fact was not illegal, so had it been, it was only theirs, by whose Council it was done, and these men, that profess such zeal against corruption, and bribery, pretend, that it was necessary to take away the star chamber, where such Crymes were punished, and from whence comes it, that it could not stand with his majest: affairs te recall Parliaments, when his Majest: desired to continue nothing, but what was necessary for the Kingdom?  
Having brought by these irregular courses the people's interest, and his own 〈◊〉 so direct an opposition, that he might foresee plainly, if nothing, but a Parliament could save the people, it must necessarily be his undoing.  
The King had no interest, but that, which was common to the people with him, and nothing, that was their interest could be opposite to his. The people were very far from any such apprehensions of being Destroyed, or that they might not be saved without the King's undoing; And wherein could the King foresee his undoing by Parliament, must he necessarily foresee, that a Parliament would follow Traitors against him? Or must he necessarily foresee that a Parliament would undertake an illegal, and un just power? Must he necessarily foresee, that a Parliament would produce a Rebellion, when no Action was desired to be continued by him, which was not according to law, nor any grievance duly proved unredressed? But because in the Parliament, which he called a faction destroyed him, and hath undone the Kingdom, therefore Iconoclastes would have it plainly to be foreseen. Such, as know the difference of the last from former Parliaments, know likewise, that it was not from the condition of the Parliament, but the conjuncture of affairs at the time of calling it, that produced those wicked effects filling the minds of many with ambitious thoughts, and desire to lay the foundation of their private greatness in the public ruins. It is impossible, that the interest of a King can have an opposition to that of his people which is vainly fancied high him, or that any thing by him alleged should work such opposition. And although there have been disputes in Courts, and Parliaments touching the profitts, and rights of the Crown, yet before this Rebel generation, non were so shameless to pretend them causes of the subjects violence, and necessarily destructive to the King, or people, which had the people imagined would have been the issue of a Parliament, they would have had a greater aversion to it, than Iconoclastes supposes in his late Mejest: And as the preservation of the people is the Kings, interest, so his preservation is theirs, which the people now find to late, and could not foresee, that such, as made use of the pretence of their interest, minded it least.  
Till eight, or nine years after proceeding with a high hand in these enormities, & having the second time levied an injurious war against his native country Scotland, and finding all those other shifts of raising money, which bore out his first expedition now to fail him, not of his own choice, and inclination, as any child may see, but urged by strong necessities, and the very pangs of State which his own violent proceedings had brought him to, he calls a Parliament.  
Iconoclastes is very industrious to show, that he can express the malice of his heart with his pen, and can give false denominations to Actions with greater confidence, then true, where it may advantag his Masters. The gentle hand wherewith his Majest governed during the nine years he mentions, brands that high hand of slander, and de●…action, which this breaker stretches out against him, and it will fill posterity with amazement at the folly of the present age, that should take such things for enormities, as fines for knighthood, Coat, conduct, and shipmoney, whereof some of them were scarce felt, or observed, and the rest easily borne; And submit themselves to contributions, excises, loans, and taxes, to which those, which he calls enormities hold no proportion. But not contented with the false appellations of his Majest: Civil Actions, he proceeds to defy, and reproach his Actions for preservation, and defence of his Kingdom, and calls it an injurious war to resist an invading Enemy. That the Scots were entered near a hundred mile into the Kingdom, at the time he mentions, he cannot be ignorant, and to call the war injurious on his Majest: part cannot come from any, that thinks any thing injurious, that Rebels commit, or any thing just that Governors command. When any Actions are rehearsed of his Majest: against the Scots, the Traitors call them unjust, and amplify their slander with the Circumstance of his native Country. When the Scots offer obedience to the King, or he concur with them, they decry such Actions, in respect they are of his native Country, thus shifting, saying, and gainsaying to deceive the people. If there any yet remain, that will trust such common Cheats. His collection, that necessity, and not choice brought the King to call a Parliament follows not from any of his premises. His Majest: doth not exclude the necessity of his affairs from moving him to call the Parliament: When he says, that be called the Parliament not more by necessity, than his own choice, doth he exclude necessity, or affirm his own choice only without consideration of Circumstances. Parliaments ought not to be called, but upon great occasions, and their too often Convention is a burden, not an ease to the people, and such was the judgement of the late Parliament at the beginning. It is not new, that necessities, have caused Kings to call Parliaments, which yet was never made an Argument to prove their own uninclination to call a Parliament. His descant upon strong necessities, and pangs of state lays open the Treason of these conspirators, that plotted how their Country might pine, and languish, that so unnatural Empirics might exercise their bloody practice, and a merciless Tyranny could only be expected from such, as sought their power by their Country's sufferings: And if his Majest: proceedings had been violent, they had not produced that necessity.  
First in Ireland, which only was to give him four subsidies, and so to expire, then in England, where his first demand was but twelve subsidies to maintain a Scotch war condemned, and abominated by the whole Kingdom, promising their greivances should be considered af●…erwards.  
The Parliament in Ireland he might have known was not the first, that was, called in the nine years he mentions, but falsehood are so common, that mistakes are not worth the observation, and if the King had called that Parliament in Ireland to obtain ●…ower subsidies, where had been the fault: May not a King call a Parliament to be supplied? But if Iconoclastes had patience to know truth, or speak it, he might ea●…ily have found a great number of good laws made in that Parlia●…ent, to work a conformity of that nation to England, and he unseasonably produced this instance of the Parliament of Ireland, which so mainly contradicts his assertion, for the necessities alone he supposes could not work the calling of that Parliament, where Parliaments had been so frequent before. In England, where he says his Majest: first demand was, but twelve subsidies, he hath lost his expectation, and his Ironical but hath lost its mirth for he cannot think, that the people now apprehend twelve subsidies so great a demand by the King, when they see a far greater proportion given the Scotch for invading the Kingdom, and aftersuch an execrable war, and barbarous prodigality their grievance is increased, and all, that is effected, or pretended to be done for them is the Destruction of King, and Church, and dividing the Estates of both among the Master Rebels, upon whose Arbitrary, and unlimited power they must now depend. That those twelve subsidies were demanded to maintain Scotch war hath no colour of truth, it being not at all propounded; And as it had been a sottish, and perverse disposition to have condemned the war against the Scots, when they were in preparation to invade England, so it is as shamelessly said by Iconoclastes, that it was condemned and abominated by the whole people. Himself if a wicked obduration had not made him love lying, must have conffessed, that the late Earl of Essex, though afterward in Rebellion against the King, with great demonstrations of Zeal, and affection to his Majest: went a Commander in that expedition; And if we respect the quality, or number of noble, & worthy persons that engaged themselves in that first war, our stories have rarely remembered an Army, that went into Scotland of greater number of eminent persons, so as Iconoclastes hath just cause to condemn, and abominate himself for the lewdness, and evidence of this untruth, and if the then Parliament had not been abused by some representing his Majest: desires, the designs of such, as meant to make advantage of the breach of that Parliament had been disappointed, and the Calamities ensuing had been prevented; And as there were no greivances then in the Kingdom, but might admit longer delay of redress, than the public necessities of supply, so his Majest: might justly demand subsidies in the first place with promise to redresle their greivances afterwards; And Iconoclastes too late observes the order of that demand of his late Majest: to be amiss, when the late Parliament granted so many subsidies for the Scots without expectation of any such promise.  
Which when the Parliament, who judged that war itself on of their main greivances, made no haste to grant, not enduring the delay of his impatient will, or else fearing the conditions of their grant, he breaks of the whole session and dismisses them, and their greivances with scorn and frustration.  
That the Parliament judged that war any of their greivances, that never mentioned it in their debates, or resolutions is fit for the affirmation of this Author only. But if the Parliament had judged that war one of their main greivances, the rest, whereof so great noise hath been made, will hardly be thought weighty. This war was then newly begun, the King had received no fupply from the people for the charge past, and could this be a main grievance? We see at what rate this man makes greivances, and to what ordinary accidents he applies his exorbitant expressions. The then Parliament would not have been slow in his Majest: supply, if some false Ministers had not interposed, and some seditious persons had not plotted to impose a necessity upon his Majest: to dissolve the Parliament. They had not presented him any greivances and therefore there could be no such dismission with scorn and frustration, as he Phrases it. There were evident tokens of grief, and discontent in his late Majest: that he was necessitated to that act, but there was rejoicing, and insolence amongst the turbulent Sectaries for it.  
Much less therefore did he call this last Parliament by his own choice, and inclination, but having first tried in vain all undue ways to procure money, his Army of their own accord being beaten in the north, the Lords petitioning, and the general voice of the people all most hissing him, and his ill acted Regality of the Stage, compelled, at length both by his want, and by his fears, upon mere extremity he summoned this last Parliament.  
This man acts the part of a Lord of misrule to stir the passions of the people with taunts, and abuses, and for his over acted petulant scurrility fit to be whipped of the stage. If he had ever given proof of his own courage, he would not thus barbarously reproach his late Majest: with fears, who was so well known to have hazarded his person in so many perils, and these Phrases are the froth of a base insultation, not the censure of a just Enemy. But why for fear should the King summon a Parliament if he fore saw, as the libeler says it would be his undoing? Could he have greater fears, then that? He hath not instanced one undue way of his late Majest: to get money for the war against Scotland, & therefore his repetitions import his impertinence, as well, as his malice but gain no credit by their frequency. The people's hissing, which the Traitors desired, had been as inconsiderable, and undutiful, as his assertions are false, but as it no way contradicts, what his Majest: says, if the allaying of popular discontents, & rectifying mistakes were one end of calling the Parliament, so the petitioning of the Lords instructs all reasonable men to think, that fears and wants were not the sole cause of summoning that Parliament and that his Majest: choice was not excluded. And as the beating of his Majest: Army had not so disabled him, but that they were in number, and courage superior to their Enemies, so if his Majest: choice had not guided him, he might with less hazard in common appearance have tried the success of a battle at that time, than he did at divers times afterwards. That, which he says of the Armies, being beaten of their own accord is little to their honour, if it were true, but infamous to this Author being false, & if there were any so perfidious to betray their own, and their nations honour unto strangers, they could not be many, for its a known truth, that the most eminent persons in that service, and the greatest number of common soldiers served his Majest: afterward in his wars, not only against the English Rebels, but the Scots.  
And how is it possible, that he should willingly incline to Parliaments, who never was perceived to call them, but for the greedy hopes of a whole national bribe, his subsidies, and never loved, never fulfilled, never promoted the true ends of Parliaments, the redress of greivances, but still put them of, and prolonged them, whether, gratifyed, or not gratifyed, and was indeed the Author of all those greivances.  
It hath been already showed, how his Majest: was perceived to call Parliaments out of his own choice, and inclination, and it was not only in his Majest: time, but in the time of Queen Elisabeth, that Parliaments were said to be only called to give subsidies, there never wanting malcontents, and slanderers of the Actions of Princes, and the case may be such, that subsidies may be the chief motive, to call Parliaments, considering the sufficiency of the laws in force, and the small number of greivances complained of. Malicious detraction is accompanied with absurdity, and Iconoclastes becoming a Champion of Rebellion reckons Tributes, and supplies of the sovereign by subjects, which is their duty among the number of scandalous sins, and that which was practised by our saviour, and commanded by his Apostles he calls national bribes. This brain sick, and profane Libelling can be acceptable to none, but such, as are delighted with the unhappy distempers of Bedlam. He hath not so much passion to have greivances redressed, as love to the word, because, as he thinks, it imports matter displeasing to the people, who yet are now satisfied, that those, which abused them by the frequent use of the word greivances, never intended the remedy, but by multiplying complaints sought to lead them into discontents against the Government, whereby they might become Captive to ambitious usurpers. That, which he sayeth is the true end of Parliaments to reform greivances justly condemns those, he now calls a Parliament, who, he well knows sit to no other end, but to increase greivances, and in eight years' time never redressed one. Though Kings take notice of greivances in Parliament, and take, order to redress them, yet that cannot be called the true end of calling Parliaments for there are often occasions of calling Parliaments in respect of public safety against Enemies, and conspirators, addition, & alteration of laws, public supplies, the redress of greivances is accidental to the Parliament, and the pretence of greivances hath proved the greatest grievance, that ever the people suffered, and his scurrilous objection of greedy hope to his late Majest: on whom malice itself hath not yet laid such a Crime increaseth the Libelers infamy, not the weight of his charge.  
To say therefore, that he called this Parliament of his own choice, and inclination argues how little truth, we can expect from the sequel of this book, which ventures in the very first period to affront more, than one nation, with an untruth so remarkable.  
If the venturing upon an untruth in the first period be an argument to expect little in the sequel of the book, what may we expect of this Author, whose whole book is a confutation of his first period, not to descant on the King's misfortunes? That in seeking to disprove this first period adventured on so many palpable untruths, and sticks not to pervert the very period itself, and affront not only more, than one nation, but all indifferent men? For if his Majest: had been necessitated either through the disorder of persons to dissolve Parliaments, or for bear them, he might yet call a Parliament by his own choice, considering, that not the condition of Parliament, but the male volence of some persons were cause both of the dissolution, & forbearance. The often Parliaments in Ireland, & the precedent Parliaments in England to that, which he mentions, maintain the truth of that first period against the many remarkable falsities of this Image breaker.  
And presumes a more implicit faith in the people of England, than the Pope ever commanded from the Romish laity, or else a natural sottishness fit to be abused, and ridden.  
King's may expect credit to their words from their people, Rebels cannot though experience hath confirmed that if a great part of the people of England had not followed them with a more blind, and obstinate belief, than ever Romish laity did their Pope, they could never have been ridden, and jaded, as now they are. And Iconoclastes could never presume the belief of his extravagant assertions, if he thought not his readers of worse, then natural sottishness to be abused, for while they lie grovelling under the Tyranny of their present oppressors, and lament the loss of their happiness under the Kingly Government, this man will persuade them out of their sense, and memory.  
While in the judgement of wisemen by laying the foundation of his defence on the avouchment of that, which is so manifestly untrue, he hath given a worse foil to his own cause, than when his whole sources were at any time overthrown.  
Surely there wisemen showed as little reason, in judging an assertion, as knowledge in military affairs, that made by comparison of this period to the defeat of an army. If his Maj: have given so great a foil to his cause by the first period of his book whence comes the danger, that Iconoclastes would prevent? Was this first period unintelligible without his comment, and what is it to the Kings, cause, whether he called the Parliament of his own choice, or not. It's very likely his wife men here are the same with his well principled men he mentioned else where, & their principles, or impiety being the same with his, their judgement is as corrupt, as their conscience, and as far from wisdom, as the libeler from modesty, and if any had such a judgement, they might soon find their error, which all others discern, and such a judgement were a greater foil to their wisdom, then to his Majest: cause.  
They therefore, who think such great service done to the King's affairs in publishing this book will find themselves in the end mistaken, of sense, & right mind, or but any mediocrity of knowledge, and remembrance hath not quite forsaken men.  
They will find themselves no whit mistaken if sense, right mi●…de, and mediocrity of knowledge, and remembrance have not quite forsaken men, but the libeler, will find himself very much mistaken, if he expect, that his sense shallbe so received against apparent truth, as to give a greater foil, than the defeat of Arimes, and understanding must have left the world, where the Author of such a comparison finds credit.  
He comes now to prosecute his Majest: discourse in pursucance of that period, and first to what his Majest: affirms of Parliaments to have always thought the right way of them most safe to his Crown, and best pleasing to his people, he says we felt from his Actions what he thought of Parliaments, or of pleasing his people.  
The people feel now, that, which makes them confess, that they had just cause by what they felt from his Majest: Actions to be well pleased with them, & to believe, what he affirms here to be his judgement of Parliaments, and if any people were pleased with the ill way of Parliaments, they have seen their error by the evil consequents, and now think the right way of them only most safe for the Crown, & them, and that nothing, but ruin to the Kingdom can be expected from disorderly Parliaments.  
He goes on to that, which his Majest: adds, that the cause of forbearing to Convene Parliaments was the sparks, which some men's distempers there studied to kindle. To this the libeler says, they were not tempered to his temper, for it neither was the law, nor Rule, by which all other tempers were to be tried, but they were chosen for sittest men in their Counties to quench those distampers, which his inordinate doings had inflamed.  
Is the choice in Counties the law, and rule whereby rempers are to be tried? And would the libeler have it believed, that all such, as are chosen in the Counties, are of better temper, than the King. If choice be the law of temper, why doth he justify those men, which have affronted, scorned, and punished such, as have been chosen by the Counties? If all a●…e so well tempered, why are some so ill handled, and excluded? And if there may be distempers, as he must confess in despite of impudence, why was it not a just reason of his Majest: fo●…ebearance, if he found it? We know what fires small sparks kindle in great Assemblies, and we have felt the flame of them like the sudden eruption of burning Mountains, when all was quiet, and there were men, that studied to turn the Parliament into confusion having not the temper to quench, but to inflame.  
Were these men, that were of the two Parliaments in the first year of his Majest: Reign; The first called within two months after he begun, the second within twelve, chosen to allay those distempers, which his inordinate doings had inflamed, what were these inordinate doings, that could inflame so suddenly? We need not argue this Author's credit from one untruth, but he would obtain some credit, if one entire truth could be found in him.  
If that were his refusing to convene till those men had been qualified to his will, we may easily conjecture what hope there was of Parliaments, had not fear, and his insatiate poverty in the midst of his excessive wealth constrained him.  
His Majest: might with reason expect, that many, who through error had caused distempers, might return to a right mind seeing his temper, and their little reason to desire such Parliaments, as make it their whole work to divide the people's affections from the King, and follow the Counsels of such, as are malcontents for want of preferment, and if men had been qualified to his Majest: will, Parliaments would have had happier, success, and the people pleased with their agreement, that now groan under the miseries of their division. But whence his insatiate poverty in the midst of his excessive wealth should constrain him is not understood, wants, and wealth are inconsistent. This libeler hath great poverty of sense in the midst of his excessive expressions. He goes an ill way to prove that the King was so uninclined to Parliaments, and that poverty compelled him, if he had wealth certainly that would have kept him from hazarding a course so disliked. He shallbe rich, and poor, that some may contemn his poverty, others may grudge his wealth.  
The King hoped by his Freedom, and their moderation to prevent misunderstandings. To this says Iconoclastes, wherefore not by their Freedom, and his moderation.  
The Champion cannot suffer a King to pass without signifying to him, that there is no difference between King, and subject. The King had resolved to use Freedom in his concessions, and hoped they would use moderation in their demands. This man would have him say, that they should use Freedom in their demands & he would use moderation in his concessions, hath he not made it a proper speech? Will his wise, and well principled men think him a fit Champion to break Bell, & the Dragon? But he gives a reason, why the King would speak sense, for he thought says he Freedom to high a word for them, and moderation to●… mean for himself, and he concludes, this was not the way to prevent misunderstanding. It's sure this man took the way to make misunderstandings, that would have Freedom applied to the people, what ever the subject be, that is spoken of, and its like he would be well pleased, that they had Freedom from law, prosperity, loyalty, and obedience, which might be as well spoken, as the sense he hath framed to prevent misunderstandings.  
He says the King still feared passion, and prejudice in other men, not in himself, and doubted not by the weight of his own reason to counterpoise any faction, it being so easy for him, and so frequent to call his obstinacy reason, and other men's reason faction.  
He had great reason to fear passion, and prejudice in others, which he had so often tried, and which they, that then feared not have since found true, and the concessions the King purposed, and performed might make him confident to counterpoise any faction, but the libeler will have it believed, that he, which granted more, than any of his Predecessors was obstinate, and they, that demanded what former Parliaments thought unreasonable, and impious, had reason. But the King was deceived, that had to do with Monsters, not reasonable men.  
We in the mean while must believe, that wisdom, and all reason came to him by Title with his Crown: Passion, prejudice, and faction to others by being subjects.  
King's have advantages above others for wisdom, and reason, they are assisted with divers Counsels, and in public affairs reason must be presumed in Kings, and faction feared in subjects, nature being averse to submit, and interests, and partialities incident to all great Assemblies, and the detraction from the wisdom of Rulers in the Rebel's foundation, and a sure sign of corrupt intentions.  
He was sorry to hear with what popular heat elections were carried in many places. To these words of the Kings he says sorry rather, that Court, letter, and intimations prevailed no more to divert, or to deter the people from their free election of those men, whom they thought best affected to Religion, & their Country's liberty, both at that time in danger to be lost.  
They were in danger to be lost by a Traitorous conspiracy with an invading enemy, but no other danger imaginable to any. There was never less cause to complain of Court letters, and intimations, nor ever greater mistakes of persons chosen, the Country's affections to Religion, and liberty making way for the insinuations of Hypocritical seducers, and had the Countries known the dispositions of the men they chose, as their Actions have since discovered, they would not have trusted them with their Religion, and liberty, which they have betrayed. This Image breaker declaims against the violence, & levity of the people, and here calumniates his Majest: for observing the popular heat, whereby elections were carried in some places, it being a most known truth, that popular, heat is as frequent upon such occasions, as any other, witness the long annimosities between families, and the great contentions, that arise from such Elections.  
Among the many clamours in the late Parliament, where malice was as busy, as this Author is now to find out Court letters to divert, or deter the people from free Elections, there was not one instance produced of such letters or intimations. How wickedly industrious many were to blow abroad jealousy, & suspicion of the danger of Religion, & liberty, & how causelessely the people in many places were drawn into passion by vain surmises, is too well known, and it is too late, for the Image breaker to seek to reduce the people into those misopinions, which they have detected by too dear bought experience, for they well see, that there was no way so certain to endanger Religion, and liberty, as that they were seduced into, upon pretence to preserve them.  
And such men they were, as by the Kingdom were sent to advise him, not sent to be Cavilled at, because elected, or to be entertained by him with an undervalue, and misprision of their temper, judgement, or affection.  
Though such, as were elected, were not sent by the Kingdom, but by the respective places, one not intermeddling with another, yet if Iconoclastes had not been more forward to express his impotency, then marry in producing reason, he would not have spoken of being Cavilled at, whereof he had not montioned the least colour, and if he hold the persons of men elected so sacred, & the King faulty for not esteeming them, as he ought, what is the reason, that he defends the Tumults, that reproached, and assaulted them●… What is the reason he professes so much honour to those Masters, that plucked them out of the house, & kicked them into prisons? King's send for their subjects to advise with them, and Iconoclastes might find by the Elections of members of the lower house, that they were sent to do, & consent to such things, as should be ordained with the common Council of the Kingdom, and therefore mistakes their directions, that says they were sent to advise him, & with what childish levity doth he insult on his sovereign, for undervaluing of the temper, judgement, or affection of persons chosen, as if their Elections refined their natures, & sublimated their tempers, as this man's Rebellion hath inflamed, and besotted him.  
In vain was a Parliament thought fittest, by the known laws of our nation to advise, and regulate unruly Kings, if they instead of harkening to advice, should be permitted to turn it of, and refuse it by vilifying, and traducing their advisers, or by accusing of a popular heat, those that lawfully elected them.  
If a Parliament were thought fittest by the known laws of our Kingdom, to regulate unruly Kings, it was certainly in vain, for such Kings, as stories report most irregular, were least regulated by Parliaments, but on the contrary the Parliaments concurd to their desires, and in such extravagant Actions, as were the greatest blemishes of their Government, & ●…conoclastes doth well to make a supposition of known laws, for he knows not any, that thought his supposition true, for the known, laws will not suppose an unruly King, and therefore cannot think, of a way to regulate what they will not suppose, but were it supposed, that a Parliament were the fittest way to regulate unruly Kings, doth it follow, that there willbe no heat in elections, nor no misadvice in persons elected? Must the King take all for truth, and reason, that any of these advisers will tell him? Or is a Major part of them so infallible, as the whole Kingdom must stand, or perish by the advantage of a few voices, & perhaps one only? But this breaker hath broken out into this unnatural heat, upon the alone mention of heat in Elections, a matter not only of possibility, but known truth.  
His own, & his children's interest obliged him to seek, & preserve the love, and welfare of his subjects. To this of his Majest: he says. Who doubts it, but the same interest common to all Kings, was never yet available to make them all seek that, which was indeed best for themselves, & their posterity.  
But if it be the interest of Kings to preserve the love, and welfare of their subjects, in vain doth Iconoclastes from the transgressions of particular persons defame the sacred office of Kings, and endeavour to set up usurpers, whose interest cannot so much oblige them to the love, & welfare of the people. He says all men are obliged by their interest to honesty, and justice, but that consideration works little in private men. It seems by his writing, it works little in him, that so little regards honesty, and justice.. But his interest is not to regard it, for the interest of his profit; and esteem with his Masters cannot be maintained by honesty, and justice, and that interest is more prevalent with him, than the interest of a good conscience, or heaven itself. He might well have discerned, that his Majest: argued from the Humane, or Civil interest, which men are apt to judge strongest, and the breaker impertinently diverts the sense to talk of men's failing in the exercise of virtue, when their temporal interests are the cause of their miscarriage, and therefore his Majest: reason was strong, that since his interest, as well, as right carried him to the inclination he mentioned, it might be more probable to others. But the Image breaker admits no reasons, nor gives any, but magisterially lays down his position, that Kings have less consideration of honesty, & justice then other men. It were an injury to that high calling to offer an answer to such a barking detractor against the most approved, most ancient, and most sacred office for the preservation of Humane society, that will deprave that, which God hath sanctified, and will make those, by whom God dispenseth the blessings of peace unto men, the greatest Enemies to God, and goodness.  
He intended to oblige both friends, & Enemies, and to exceed their desires, did they but pretend to any modest, and sober sense. To this he says mistaking the whole business of a Parliament, which meet not to receive from him obligations, but justice, nor he to expect from them their modesty, but their grave advice uttered with Freedom in the public cause.  
This man mistakes the whole business of a Parliament, that would exclude modesty from the advice, and liberty from the advised. The freedom, that the libeler intends is inconsistent with modesty, aswell, as Monarchy, Traitorous dispositions having an Antipathy to moral virtues. How often have Parliaments made petitions to their King for graces, & were they not obliged, when they were granted? But it cannot be expected, that such, as despi●…e duty should willingly acknowledge the right of those, to whom it belongs, and such, as use no modesty will acknowledge no gratitude, or obligation. If their advice had been grave, their behaviour would have been modest, and they whose duty was only to advise, had no pretence to Command, and dictate, nor they, that were to receive Justice from their King, to snatch what they desired, and become judges of their own demands. Such as will not be obliged by laws, nor oaths cannot by benefits, & favours, and such, as have robbed a King of his power, grow quickly to that height of impudence to deny he had ever any, as this Author, that is so Brutish to affirm, that Kings cannot oblige their subjects, & thence it follows, that they owe no thanks to God for a good King, as they profess to owe him none for his good Government.  
His talk of modesty in their desires of the common welfare argues him not much to have understood, what he had to grant, who misconceived so much the nature of what they had to desire.  
His excepting at the talk of modesty shows how little he understands other modesty, or the right, or practice of Parliament. Is not humility a word of larger signification, than modesty, and yet this breaker will make modesty contrary to the nature of the Parliaments desires, and the King's grants, when humility is the common expression of the Parliaments petitions to the King. And he might well have said the King understood not, what he had to grant, if he had not expected his subjects desires to have a modest, and sober sense. Can there be desires of the common-welfare, that exclude modest, & sober sense? But the truth is the desires of the late faction in the name of Parliament had neither modest, nor sober sense, and thence the libeler would infer it unnecessary, and it was very far from the nature of what they had to desire to demand their King's Crown.  
And for sober sense the expression was too mean, and recoils with as much dishonour upon himself to be a King, where sober sense could possible be so wanting in a Parliament.  
And must it be the King's dishonour, if an Assembly of Parliament want sober sense, how does that recoil upon him, can he make them otherwise? Iconoclastes lately reprehended his mention of heat in Elections, and now it's the King's dishonour, if the Parliament want sober sense, was there never experience of a Parliament, that wanted sober sense, or was any man so savage, as to hold sober sense too mean for a great Council? We have seen not only sober sense, but all Religion, reason, law, & Justice, wanting in a Parliament, being taken for the prevalent party, and Histories record it to have happened, more, than once. King's have been unhappy in such Parliaments, but the dishonour, and infamy rests upon such Assemblies, and these Apologists are the Trumpets of their shame, not the covers of their nakedness.  
The odium, and offences, which some men's rigour, or remissness in Church, & state had contracted upon his Government, he resolved to have expiated with better laws, and regulations. To this he says the worst misdemeanours of rigour or remissness he hath taken upon himself, as often as the Clergy, or any other of his Ministers felt themselves overburdened with the people's hatred. He instances in the superstitious rigour of his sundays Chapel, remissness of his sundays Theatre, that reverend statute for Dominical jigs, & Maypoles derived from the Example of his Father james, which testifies, that all superstition, and remissness in Religion issued from his authority, and the general miscarriages in state imputed chiefly to himself.  
That the remissness and rigour of some men may contract odium, and offence in the best Governments was never doubted, but that this libeler would take occasion from his Majest: intention to expiate them with better laws, to cast them on his Majest: shows that this Rebellion arose not from offences in Government, but wicked inclinations of ambition, & covetousness, and that amendments were not desired but confusion. It was just, & honourable, that the King should take on him the defence of his laws against Sectaries, and the protection of officers, in the exercise of just authority, against the hatred of frenitique persons. The hypocrisy of the schismatical party, that professed great tenderness of conscience, and grief to see Children whip a top on a sunday, was ridiculous to all sober men, yet these are the motives to embroil a state. That, which he calls the superstitious rigour of his sundays Chapel is no other, than observation of the order of the Church of England, which none, but the Bedlam Brownists ever called superstitious. His Majest: Chapel had nothing in the exercise of Devotion, but what the laws of his Predecessors had appointed, and this must be his rigour. That, which he calls his sundays Theatre it seems are recreations upon sundays, and to that he profanely, and scurrilously adds his Dominical Jigs. Can a Christian, that hath respect to the day, make Dominical the matter of his jest, but having abused sacred titles to impious Actions, they proceed to scoff with them. He intimates a book published touching recreations, wherein his Majest: followed the example of his Royal father, and the advice of the most learned Divines. Judaisme, and ridiculous superstition of the hypocritical sectaries chiefly occasioned that book both in the time of his Majest: and King James. Permission of sunday recreations is more agreeable to the doctrine, & practice of other Churches, than the prohibition, & the pretended tenderness of conscience in the Sectaries, appears as false, as frivolous, and these Sectaries, that make this imaginary rigour, and remissness a foundation to overthrow a Kingdom allow no limits to their own rigour, and remissness, taking all liberty to themselves, & denying any to others. Why are these doughty objections made against his Majest: when all know it touches not him particularly (if it were considerable) but his Father, & queen Elizabeth, in whose times recreations on sundays were more practised, then in the time of his Majest: & by the way we may take notice of his scornful appellation of his Father James. And for the miscarriages in state, we may expect, that as the Actions will be by this Author unfaithfully related, so they will appear of as little weight for a ground to those Calumnies, which he frames upon them.  
His Majest: disavowed none of these acts, till this Parliament, and here seeks to wipe of the envy of his evil Government upon his substitutes.  
His Majest: always disavowed illegal Acts, and whatever other men's rigour, or remissness had contracted. And must a King satisfy the curiosity, & malice of all, that cast envy on his Government●… And was there ever a Parliament, wherein laws were not made to expiate the odium contracted. When his Majest: seeks to take away the occasions of evil in his substitutes, he deserves the love, and thanks of his people, but it is the practice of Rebels to cast the rigour, and remissness of the substitutes upon the Government. His Majest: ought not to bear the evil of other men's Actions, and his Government willbe glorious to posterity, as it was happy to them, that enjoyed it in despite of envy, and his Author, and such, as seek to wipe of the guilt of this lewd Rebellion, by pretences of evil Government, which can no more justify their fact, than provocation a private Duel, sufficiently clear his Majest: of their reproaches by the lightness of these objections, and by offering vulgar envy, as a reason to destroy the Kingdom. He goes on jeering the King's promises, for reforming Religion, as too late, and because popular confusions had overtopped reason, therefore he concludes their Justice in working mischief, and breaking all the bonds of faith, and Religion. The purposes, which his Majest: had for reforming Religion, could not by him be expressed artificially to gain abatement of that violence, under which he suffered, for they are no other, than what he had often proposed in the beginning of the Parliament, and the works of the dead King lose not their weight, because they declare to the world the unjust usurpation of his authority.  
All his undertake heretofore declared him to have little, or no judgement in that work of Religion. This libelers book declares him to have little conscience of Religion, & no wonder, if schismatics are so shameless in the contempt of the greatest judgements, that differ from them, when they acknowledge the authority of no person over them, and that, which Iconoclastes pronounces here of the King, he will not stick to determine of all the world besides, that agree not with his sect. Sectaries are no less insolent, and cruel, then false, and fantastic, there being not any like excess in such, as attain to highest preferments in Church, or state by ordinary ways, as in those popular seducers, presumption being of more force, than truth with vulgar spirits, and thence this Champion of schismatics not only vilifies his Majest: judgement in Religion, but tells the world, That his breeding, or course of life could not acquaint him with a thing so spiritual. The breeding, and course of life of this generation of sectaries is not unknown, and they seek to supply with impudence, what they want of ability. It were a fault to mention here his Majest: parts, learning, and piety, and the Scripture, which directs us to try the spirits hath given us such marks of the false, and lying spirits, as we should be much wanting to ourselves, if we could not judge those men, that are proud-boasters, despisers of Parents, despisers of Dominion, Traitors, faith-breakers to be such, as discern not the things of the spirit, though they pretend to them.  
The Reformation, they could expect from him must be some politic form of an imposed Religion, or perpetual vexation to such, as comply not with that form  
And let all the Churches, that profess the name of Christ through the world be produced, and there is none of them, but have a form of Religion which this libeler here calls politic, and an imposed Religion, and the observation of such forms are in all Churches exacted with some penalties, and hereby all men may see, that we have not to do with a confined Rebel, that hath only disaffection to the Government of the place, where he lives, but one, that accuses all Churches, but his own Conventicle to have little, o'er no judgement in Religion, and not acquainted with a thing so spiritual, for the ground of this reproach is from his Majest: resolution to use forms in the public duties of Religion in the Church.  
The like amendment, he says, he promises in state, not a step further, than his reason, and conscience told him was fit to be desired, wishing he had kept with in those bounds, and not suffered his own judgement to have been overborne in some things, And this he says is to set up an Arbitrary Government, & all Britain to be chained to the conscience, judgement, and reason of one man, as if those gifts were entailed upon him, with his Fortune to be a King.  
We know not the Misteri●…s of this man's Religion, otherwise we might demand of him, why the King should go further, than his reason, and conscience directed him, and why the libeler, & his Mates should hold it lawful for them to spurn at all laws both in Church, and state upon pretence of their reason, and conscience against them, he cannot deny to have ●…oue this, & they should do well to show, how the King may go against his reason, & conscience. Is it entailed upon him with his Fortune, as a King to have less privilege, than they? & must he renounce his own reason, and conscience to the advice of a Parliament? And must they control him, and the Parliament? Surely the King must give an account to God for the Talents, he hath lent him. But how can the breaker conclude, from the King's forhearance of Acts, wherein he is unsatisfied in his conscience, that is to set up an Arbitrary Government when as nothing is introduced? And why must not all Britain be chained to the judgement, reason, and conscience of the King, as well, as all Israel, God's own peouliar people, and not only all Britain, but the whole world are Chained to the reason, judgement, and conscience of their Rulers be they one, or many, And the seducers would persuade us, that Britain could not be happy, unless it were reduced to its 〈◊〉, and governed by a multitude of Kings, & Religions. God had promised peculiar assistance to Kings, and Commands the people's obedience to them, & the miseries of the Kingdom many be imputed in a great part to what his Majest: observed, that he had suffered his own judgement to be overborne in some things.  
A Tyrant may make this pretence, and it were in vain for any Parliament to have reason, judgement, or conscience, if it th●…arted the Kings will.  
It were much more tolerable for a Tyrant, to pretend conscience in governing, then for a people to pretend conscience in rebelling, and this libeler hath reprehended the people's levity, and violence so sharply, as he cannot if he pretend reason, subject the reason, judgement, and conscience of the Rulers to the control of the subjects. Because Tyrants may pretend conscience, therefore by good logic no King may use it, and because some Kings may not rightly govern, therefore he will have the right judgement in the people, which he so much despises, and which, as it hath been the means of the Rebels present power, so it hath been in all ages the cause of confusion, and misery to states, and Kingdoms. The reason, judgement, and conscience of a Parliament is not therefore in vain, because not infallible, it is most probable, that a King will follow the best Council, but it cannot be presumed that in Parliaments, the greater part will continue subjects, if they may be Kings by saying they willbe, and it was the wisdom of our Ancestors, that would have no laws made without the will of their King, and they never trusted such, as they chose further, then to present their desires, and offer their Council unto him, and consent to what should be ordained by him with advice of the Lords, & it were in vain to have a King, if he were not empowered to judge of Counsels, or if laws might be obtruded upon him, and the people without him. The present Calamities testify how unhappily, and absurdly a Parliament seeks to Command, whose office is to Council, and pretend Council useless, unless they may deprive him, whom they advise of the benefit of Council, taking away his power to use it. To what end do they Council, if there be none to be Counselled, but all to be commanded?  
That thus these promises made upon experience of hard sufferings, and his most mortified retirements being thoroughly sifted, contain nothing much different from his former practices.  
His Majest: expressions being thoroughly sifted contain nothing in them, but pious, and Princely considerations, and from this libelers own mouth all men may see, that his Majest: practices, against which they maliciously exclaim were consonant to Religion, and Justice, and only opposite to Traitorous, and schismatical licence. It was the libelers profession to parralel his Majest: fair spoken words, as he calls them to his own far different Actions, and now his words, and deeds being sifted by malice itself are not much different, the libeler is some what ingenuous to discover his own vanity, and falsehood.  
He leaves it to prudent foresight, what fruits in likelihood his Majest: restorement would have produced.  
We have seen already the fruits of the inhuman cruelties exercised upon him, and the continuance, and increase of those abominable impieties, that attend such Actions, where of the libeler makes a large profession, who confidently obtrudes lavish lies, for known truths, petulant insolence, for sober sense, & maxims of villainy, for sound Arguments, which are the bitter fruits of disobedience, and Rebellion.  
To that part of the section, which he calls the devout of it, and modelled into the form of a private Psalter, he objects nothing, but his spleen, that it is not to be admired, more than the Arch-Bishopps late Breviary, and other manuals, and handmaids of Devotion, and these he calls the lip work of every Prelatical leiturgist, quilted out of Scripture Phrase, with as much ease, and as little need of Christian diligence, or judgement, as belongs to the compiling of any ordinary, & saleable piece of English Divinity, that the shops value.  
The Authors of leiturgies, and helps to devotion, have their memory blessed by the benefit, which many devout souls have acknowledged to have received from their labours, and the cruelty, which bloody Rebels exercised on the person of the late Archbishopp, and their other barbarismes, towards the Prelates, to please that kennel by whom they acted their Rebellion, hath satisfied the world of the nature of Sectaries, of whose bloody disposition, many by sheepes-clothing were much deceived. Quilting of Scripture Phrase was wont, to be the praise of their long wound Lecturers, who used it more for sound then sense, but it seems their spirit is changed. The libeler will hardly get credit, unless with those, for whose sake he doth not profess to write, that is his wise, and well principled men the Sectaries, if he affirm, that there is more need of Christian diligence in the bold, and extempore babbling of their senseless zealots, than the compiling of those Leiturgies, and manuals, he mentions. And such, as have observed the presumption of this rabble in their prayers, will believe they hate diligence, as much, as they want judgement. Why English, or saleable should dininish the esteem of Divinity is not understood, but because they are common terms, he would have his readers understand, that they signify nothing, but common matter, and he expects, that some will think English, and saleable Divinity of no regard, though they understand no other.  
But he proceeds such a kind of Psalmastry, or other verbal devotion, without suitable deeds, cannot persuade any of Zeal, and righteousness in the person.  
But such, as make Psalmastrie a word of contempt, relish not the Zeal of the sweet singer of Israel, and their deeds are odious to all good men, that seek matter of reproach upon the devotions of others, and make their malicious surmises positive truths. The instances of Tyrants counterfeiting Religion are frequent, and that hypocrisy is inseparable from Tyrants, by usurpation such as this libelers Masters, whose want of right, seeks protection from dissembled virtue, but this seldom happens to Kings by just Title, whose power wants not that support. His comparing his late Majest: to known usurpers, that confirmed their Crowns, gained by robbery, and kept with falsehood, & blood shows his odious shamelessnes in the dissimititude, & whoever observes the profane assumption of the Titles of piety, by these Monsters, & their hypocritical professions, to mask their wicked ends, shall find, that Andronicus Comnenus; and our English Rich. 3. Came short of them, not only in counterfeiting Religion, and conscience, but in falsehood, and cruelty. Instead of shake spears scene of Rich. 3. The libeler may take the Parliaments declaration of the 29. May, where their words are. The providing for the public peace, and prosperity of his Majest: and all his Realms, we protest in the presence of the allseeing Deity to have been, and still to be, the only end of all our Counsels, & endeavours, wherein we have resolved to continue freed, and enlarged from all private aims, personal respects, or passions whatsoever, and again in their petition of the second of June, they tell him, that they have nothing in their thoughts, and desires more precious, and of higher esteem next to the honour, and immediate service of God, than the just, and faithful performance of their duty to his Majest: and the libeler will not find in history, or poet words of a deeper hipo●…risie in the mouth of a villain, nor more contradicted by their Actions. That which he adds from his Testimony out of shakespeare of the imagined vehemence of Rich. the 3. In his dissembled professions, holds no proportion with, these hipocrisies, really acted, not fancied by a poet, and this libeler hath learned to act a part out of shakespeare, and with Rich. 3. accusing loyalty, and innocency for high Crymes, and crying out against their wickedness, that sought to restore the disposessed heirs of the Crown to their right, and amplifying their offence, as the highest against God, and man, and wherein comes the libeler short of his pattern in this scene.  
He says herein the worst of Kings professing Christianisme have by far●… exceeded him, and he gives his reason, for that the King hath, as it were unhallowed, and unchristned by borrowing to a Christian use prayers offered to a heathen God.  
And doth saint Paul exceed the worst of Kings professing Christianisme by borrowing to a Christian use the words of an heathen Philosopher, and poet, did he thereby vnhallow, and unchristen Scripture?  
His meaning is, as follows afterward, that the King used a prayer taken out of S. Philip Sydnies' Arcadia. After the first Edition of his Majest: book, the Printers finding the great vent of them, in the following Editions Printed prayers, and other things in the King's name, not belonging to the book. Among these prayers, there is a prayer taken out of the Arcadia. That prayer is neither made by a heathen, woman, nor to a heathen God, but is composed by the Author a Christian without reference to any heathen Deity, and the Author is not thought to unchristen prayer by it, the libeler himself saying the book in its kind is full of worth, and wit, but as his outcry hath no cause from the matter, so here is no evidence of the fact, that his Majest: made use of that prayer, or popped into the bishops hands as a relic of his exercise, though he might warrantably have used it and professed it.  
But he goes on to show what he can say upon this occasion. Who would have imagined so little fear in him of the true all-seeing Deity, so little reverence of the holy Ghost, whose office is to dictate, and present our Christian prayers, so little care of truth in his last words, or honour to himself, or to his friends, or sense of his afflictions, or of that sad hour, which was upon him, as immediately before his death to pop into the hand of that grave bishops, who attended him, as a special relic of his saintly exercises a prayer stolen, etc.  
All men, that have observed this Author's practice hitherto rest assured, that he hath so little fear, or reverence of the alseeing Deity, so little care of truth, or honour, as he sticks not to charge his Majest: with facts neverdone, and innocent Actions, with transcendent guilt. If his Majest: had used the prayer, or delivered it, as he imagines, no man of Christian sobriety could charge the fact with Crime, what one word, or sentence is there in that prayer, which a Christian may not use, but the Image breaker hath a great quarrel to all forms of prayer, and by the reason he produces, that the office of the holy Ghost is to dictate, and present our Christian prayers, all set prayers want reverence to the holy Ghost, so tender is he of the best reformed Churches, of whom he so often makes a property. And whence concludes he no care of truth in his last words, when the King never spoke of it. He aggravates this fact by the person of the grave Bishop, who had been a Prelatical leiturgist, had it not been to paint a slander. The laughter, which he conceives is caused by the thought of this, that he, which acted so Tragically should have such a ridiculous exit might rather strike horror in the libeler, for his malicious opposition to truth, that will so contrary to his own knowledge charge him to act tragically, that had governed so mildly, and to have a ridiculons exit, that left the world with so great piety, and such universal grief of the people for his sufferings, but desperate wretches laugh at the wickedness they act. His Majest: friends have had good experience, that his Enemies, who have spared no pains to traduce him, would not forbear any occasion of detraction. His Majest: enduring afflictions with admired patience, his suffering death with Christian fortitude, his virtuous life, & holy Martyrdom, cannot be blasted by an Atheists scorn, nor a Rebel's malice.  
His conclusion in the begging of the question, that it is clear the King was not induced, but constrained to call the last Parliament, which by his own showing is apparently false, for if there had been such a constraint, the Lords in vain petitioned, and all the necessities, that he hath supposed may concur with the King's inclination to call a Parliament, and if necessity had constrained him to call a Parliament, what should hinder, but he might avouch in the ears of God, that he did it with an upright intention to his glory, and his people's good. If necessity of his people's preservation, or welfare cause him to call a Parliament, may he not use these words; Whence would the Image breaker have it a cause of trembling, more, than any thing spoken in the presence of God. The permitting man's wickedness is no approbation of it, nor a token of his hatred to those, that are afflicted by it. There are some, whom God hath given over to delusion, and of that the libeler appears to have a great measure, who not only believes lies, but is the Author of them, making the names of Religion, and conscience, and the fear of God baits to dec●…ive, and venom to reproach   

Upon the EARL of strafford's DEATH.  
THis chapter he says is a penitent confession of the King, and the strangest, if it be well weigbed, that ever was auricular, for he reputes here of giving his consent, though most unwillingly to the most seasonable, and solemn piece of justice, that had been done of many years in the land: But his sole conscience thought the contrary.  
Impieties that were strange heretofore, are common with this libeler, and it is unheard of that repentance of an act conceiveded sinful by the athour, was reproached by any before this Atheist, he never weighed neither repentance, nor confession, if he had, he would never have thought it strange, that his Majest: should confess, that he sinned in following a multitude to do evil, and if the murder of the Earl of strafford had been Justice, is it strange, that such, as had acted in it without sufficient satisfaction to their conscience, should confess their sin in concurring to such an Action? Was it not an injustice, that was done unwillingly, and ought it not to be repent of? If his Majest: sole conscience thought the contrary, was it not sin in him to consent to the fact, and is it without experience, that a single man in an Assembly hath judged the right, and the rest proceeded in the wrong, but he applies himself to readers, whose affections, and capacities, are proportioned to his expressions, and therefore his Majest: confession is the strangest, that ever was auricular. He would have them believe, that his Majest: discourse in this Chapter was popish auricular confession, else his Jnigly of auricular, had no congruity with a written confession. For the merit of that, which he calls solemn piece of Justice, no age had produced such a solemn, and formal piece of villainy, which is by so much more odious, as it had the figures of law, and Justice.  
And thus was the welfare, the safety, and within a little the unannimous demand of three populous nations, to have attended still on the Singularity of one man's opinionated conscience, if men had always been so tame, and spiritles, and had not unexpectedly found the grace to understand, that if his conscience were so narrow, and peculiar to itself, it was not fit, his authority should be so ample, and vinversall over others, for certainly a private conscience, sorts not with a public calling.  
The welfare, and safety of these three populous Kingdoms, had been probably preserved, if they had attended on his Maj: conscience, and what hath been the consequence of that spirit, and grace, which he says they found, and was indeed the infusion of impious inclinations into many by the spirit of error, & disobedience, but the most desperate, & languishing misery, & danger, that ever lay upon the Kingdom. And these graceless miscreant's sport at the name of grace, & profane the profession of it. He would be understood a little modest in adding with in a little to unannimous, but being weighed, his impudence will appear little less in this, then former passages. If the three Kingdoms be considered in comparison to that small number, that understood the case of the Earl of Strafford, it was a very little part of the Kingdoms, that made the demand he mentions, & if he would advantage his cause by the cries of those, that were stirred up by the Seditious Seducers, to cry Justice, their giddy wilfulness, aswel, as ignorance, & lewdness, will add little to the weight, though it encreas the number of these demaunders. But this man thinks conscience unfit for a King, & therefore would not have so narrow a conscience have so large an authority, for he says a private conscience sorts not with a public calling, & declares that person rather meant by nature for a private fortune. The must professed Atheists, & loose debauches, never avowed a greater scorn of Christianity, neither is there an Author extant, that hath adventured so far upon the reasons of men, as to complain upon a King for Tyranny, and errors in Religion, & with the same breath, charging him with unfitness to be a King, for want of a wide conscience. These men are true to their principles, to make vehement professions of Religion, though they hate it, and in the midst of their profane fasts, & presumptuous thanks giving, they jeer at all Religion, & conscience, & profess to the world, that a public conscience ought not to be narrow, nor stick at any thing, & as their conscience is, so is their practice, & they, that made no conscience of their loyalty, make no conscience of exercising their power.  
He, whose conscience thinks it sin, to put to death a Capital offender, will as oft think it meritorious, to kill a righteous person.  
If his Majest: had thought the Earl of Strafford, a Capital offender, he had made no conscience of his death, and this libeler vainly supposes conscience of sin, to put to death a Capital offender, which cannot consist, with a conscience so informed, neither doth an erroneous conscience in sparing blood, as oft think it meritorious to kill undeservedly, though it be nothing to the present purpose, for he can fasten neither upon his Majest: conscience of sparing a Capital offender, or killing a righteous person. But in this whereof he reputes.  
That the sin of signing the Bill of straffords execution, he would not have matter to trouble the King's conscience, and his reasons are, That all men looked upon him, as one of the most impetuous instruments to advance any illegal design.  
The Earl of strafford was a man, that the Seditious disturbers of the state hated, and feared, and sought, underhand to raise the malevolence of others against him. If any men have so far lost reason, as to measure the Ministers of Kings by the libels of Traitors, they are likely to take the best men for most guilty, and if a King should sacrifice his faithful Servants, because they are not looked upon with a good eye by the multitude, he may not expect to be served by men of fidelity, or merit, and we have seen, how the people's looks have been won, and lost.  
That he had ruled Ireland, & some part of England in an Arbitrary manner.  
The word. Arbitrary in the beginning of the late Parliament was used to scare the people, and made to signify great affrightments to them, but that bugbear is now grown ridiculous to children, for all men see, that in all places of Government much is left Arbitrary to the Governor, and it was evident to the world, that the Earl of strafford did nothing in an Arbitrary manner, without Precedent of his Predecessors, and the Judges in Courts of equity, might be aswell made criminal for proceeding in an Arbitrary manner as he. That he had endeavoured to subvert fundamental laws was a supposition, not a fact, and if the Image breaker look over the Articles, where with he was charged at his Trial, he will find nothing of such a Crime. To subvert Parliaments, and incense the King, against them was not as much, as urged against him at his Trial, that Article being declined by his accusers in regard of known falsehood, and that the Earl of strafford advised the King, to call the former Parliament. That he had endeavoured to make histolitie between England, and scotland was a legend devised for vulgar temper, not rational consideration, for both Kingdoms being under one King, they must be Rebels in either Kingdom, that make war against one another without him, and what dreamer can fancy that any Minister of state, that were affected to the King's designs, as this libeler supposes the Earl of strafford to be, would stir up hostility between the nations. They have not yet adventured to charge the Earl of strafford with stirring up the scotch hostility, and if he endeavoured to refist them, is that to make hostolitie be 'tween the nations, It hath been the practice of these Rebels to style men incendiaries, and malignants, that opposed their Rebellion, and such evil Counselors that advised any course to prevent their attempts, and the following confusion but though this vain delusion were cast abroad among the people, it was never offered, as a charge against the Earl.  
That he had counselled the King, to call over that Irish Army of Papists, which he had cunningly raised to reduce England, as appeared by good Testimony then present at the consultation, is unseasonably remembered by the libeler after those Rebels, whom he serves, have several times drawn in foreign Armies into England, reduced the nation to serve an usurped power, set up an Arbitrary Government, subverted the fundamental laws, and destroyed both King, and Parliament. It may astonish Knowing men to read this Author, objecting Capital offences to the Earl of strafford, and numbering up for instance the same Actions himself defends: so as it cannot be an humane error, but hellish-fury, that hurls him into such mad contradictions, and its worth the observing, that to this particular he adds, as appeared by good Testimony then present at the consultation, well Knowing, that the Testimony was not only single, but subject to most just, and apparent exception in regard of known enmity, and former prevarication in several examinations upon oath, and it no way helps a false Testimony, that he knew the truth, or that he was present at a fact, whereof he makes an untrue relation, and if the Earl of strafford had counselled the King to make use of the Irish Army in either Kingdom in case of Rebellion, how comes that to be an offence, though that was not the truth, that he spoke of England, nor the Army raised against England, and is it a commendable cunning, to raise an Army against a Rebellion.  
His reference to 28 Articles directs us how to know, that he trusts on number more than weight, and those Articles remain a Testimony to posterity of the ridiculous pretences which effected such mischief. He saith the Commons by far the greater number cast him, and yet is so absurdly impudent to charge the King with singularitc of conscience, and allege presently a part of the lower house of the same opinion. The Lords, he saith, after they had been satisfied in a full discourse by the King's solicitor, and the opinions of many judges delivered in their house agreed likewise to the sentence of Treason. Those Lords, that condemned the Earl of strafford, might be satisfied by terror of the Tumults, and their own corrupt passions, never by law, nor reason. It's well known, that the Lords, and Commons were assaulted, and threatened by the unruly rabble of the City, and Suburbs, if they condemned him not, they had not freedom in their coming, or going to the house, or sitting there. There was no one judge, that gave his opinion for the sentence against him, and the solicitors discourse was very strong against the present Rebels, wholly impertinent to the case of the Earl of strafford, and showed his own deceit, and the sottishness of them, that relied on what they understood not. Divers lords for sooke the house having not liberty to be present, so far were the lords from being satisfied. That which he calls a sentence of Treason, was an act of power, it being a Bill to take away his life, but an exception of all men else, from being proceeded against for the same matters, in ordinary Justice, and this very Action, so scandalous in itself, and so grievous to many, that consented to it, must be dressed out with a shameless commendation, to accuse the King, for his repentance of a fact, which so much afflicted him. That the people universally cried for justice is no wonder, if we consider former examples, and they had a Precedent in the people of the jews, that cried Crucify. If we believe this libeler, telling us how light, and violent, they are in their motions, or if we look upon the acts of a powerful faction, then prevailing with them, that could easily make them cry, what was put in their mouth, we may easily judge the injustice of their cry, and their ignorance of the cause, and a sober author would have hated, to borrow an Argument of Justice, from popular outcries, which are the most evident proof of injustice, and oppression of innocence.  
He says none were his friends, but Courtiers, and Clergimen, the worst at that time, and most corrupted sort of men, & Court ladies, not the best of women.  
His for friends, and many Enemies, render the proceedings against him more, then suspected, and men may easily believe, that in such a condition fury was the accuser, and malice, and cowardice the judge. The confining his friends to Court, and Church, is the effect of the libelers engagement to schism, and Rebellion, who holds such loyalty, and affection to the King, and conscientious reverence to the Church, for the marks of great offenders. If multitude of Enemies be a Testimony of guilt, the best men will become the worst of sinners. But having no friends, as he says, it adds much to the right of his cause, that so many who were neither Courtiers, nor Clergymen, nor any way obliged by him, or the Court, should in discharge of their conscience declare their dissent to that bloody law, though they were thereby objected to popular fury. His impertinent railing at Courtiers, and Clergymen argues his malice, not Crime in them. His mention of Court ladies was for want of matter, and their activity in state affairs belongs not to this occasion.  
The King declared to both houses, that no fears, or respects what so ever, should make him alter that resolution, founded upon his conscience, and says either than his resolution, was not founded upon his conscience, or his conscience received better information, or both struck sail, for within few days after, four of his bishops picked the thorn out of his conscience, and he was persuaded to figne the Bill.  
Men, that are sincere often fall, but such never have consciency, nor sincerity, that jeer at it, and make the falls of men, and their wounds of conscience matter of their mirth. Though his Majest: did that, which he had formerly professed to be against his conscience, could he not repent of that frailty of falling from his resolution? Or might he not afterwards discover the errors of those reasons, that induced him to it? If fears were any motive to what he did, the curse lies on them, that caused it, and on them, that reproach him with it. Poets have not fancied a higher degree of wickedness in fends of hell, then in their malicious glory of compelling others to sin, and reproaching their repentance for sin. Experience hath represented his Majest: fortitude, and that not his personal fears, but his apprehension of the Kingdom's misery wrought most on his passion, and we cannot find Parallel expressions to those of this libeler in his Scoffs at conscience, and picking the thorn out of it, unless amongst those desperate, and profane Atheists, that make it the highest pitch of wit to render things sacred most ridiculous.  
Perhaps, it wrung his conscience to condemn the Earl, not because he thought him guiltless, had half these Crymes been committed against his personal interest, as appeared by his charge against the six members, but because he was principal, and the Earl but accessary, and thought nothing Treason against the Common wealth, but against himself only.  
Playing with conscience he cannot part with, whose own is insensible. In those particulars he hath rehearsed against the Earl of Strafford, no one of them could be charged upon the King, and the nature of most of the Articles could not admit a supposition of the King's activity in them. The charge against the six members contained matter of direct Treason against known laws, & his Majest: cannot be supposed to think the Earl of Strafford guilty, because he charged the six members, with some offences laid to the charge of the Earl of Strafford, but never proved, yet it was an infamous injustice of them that so violently proceeded against the Earl of Strafford, and would not admit an accusation for the same offences against others. If his Majest: thought, that no Treason could be committed, but against himself, he thought no otherwise then the law hath provided, & the accusers of the Earl of Strafford maintained at his Trial. And the libeler must check himsefle for his imagination of Treason against the Common wealth, which had not a being, unless he will make a Treason by Prophecy, & antedate his ordinance. He well knows England was a Monarchy, and that his Masters profess the change of it into a supposed free state. These Traitors, that would imagine some Treason against the King are come to affirm, that there are no Treasons against the King, for they are sure they have committed all, that concern his person. His impertinency is very tedious in demanding, why the King should seem satisfied to sign the Bill by those judges, and Ghostly Fathers, as he calls them, of his own choosing, and now pretend, that it was the importunities of some, and fear of others made him sign.  
He does not produce any Testimony, that the King professed himself satisfied, or had he been satisfied, it was no bar to his future information, & repentance, but an instance can hardly be produced, that ever any man's repentance of a known fact was traduced, or scorned by any, before this libeler, & he might aswel jeer at many famous saints, and Martyrs, that fell from their resolutions, and after recovered, as at his Majest: And the picking out of his thorn, striking sail to his fear, and a fleeting conscience, may upon the same grounds be the most eminent penitents in the Church of God. To make his Calumnies stick, he says. That his Majest: ensuing Actions declare he could dissemble satisfaction, for that he had the chief hand in a conspiracy against the Parliament, and Kingdom. How the King could conspire against his Kingdom, or what should be his end is not intelligible, & when a King is traduced by Rebels for a conspiracy against the Parliament, and Kingdom, no men of common reason can receive such a palpable fiction, but this great conspiracy, which he says came to light by the examinations of Percy, Goring, and others was to rescue the Earl of Strafford by seizing the tower of Londen, to bring up the English Army from the north, joined with eight thousand Irish Papists raised by Strafford, & a french Army to be landed at Portsmouth against the Parliament, and their friends. And where is the offence in all this, if it were true, and a powerful faction assume the name of Parliament? No wise man will blame the King, if he had done such an Action to prevent the miseries, which he foresaw, and the Designs, that were plotted against him, but this story is now stale, though it then served the turn to distemper the people. The examinations, which he speaks of, do not yet charge the King with the knowledge of this design, but the readers of Iconoclastes must be of miraculous stupidity, if they think it a Crime in the King to intend the bringing up of his Army from the north, or any other force, and think it lawful for the Rebels against him to bring up their Army against the Parliament, and pluck them out of the house. Was not the Tower of London always in the King's possession, and might he not make it good against Traitors.  
For which purpose he says the King though requested by both houses refused to disband those Irish Papists. Though there were many reasons, why his Majest: refused to disband the Irish, and the request of the houses were a vote constrained by Tumults, not the result of a free debate, yet had it been so, that his Majest: had refused to disband them to prevent the plots of the Traitorous faction in Parliament, he had just reason to do it. And as the Religion men profess, though true, doth not privilege them from offending, though they are thereby a scandal to their profession: So Irish Papists, or any others of contrary Religion may be employed against such, as have stained their profession by such Actions. These Rebels sought shelter from their Religion for their Treason, & persuaded the people of their sincerity, because Papists fought against them, but it was in truth their infamy, that gave the reason, and the frequent repetition of Irish Papists shows, that it is a stale to mislead the weakest capacities, that can only suspect, not prove, nor discern.  
He concludes the King as Criminous, as the Earl, and therefore he says, instead of detesting his ambition, evil Council, violence, and oppression of the people, he falls to praise his great a bilities.  
It had been a Kind of slander to forbear the due commendation of such abilities, as all men admired, and an unexcusable injustice to reproach the memory of the innocent with the false accusations of malicious Enemies. If his Majest: had recounted any faults of the Earl, it had been no satisfaction to his conscience for consenting to his death, but it had been a sign of an unsound mind to seek matter of excuse for an illegal sentence from the disposition of the suffering party, and such Actions, as the law had not made the merit of such a sentence. The world is well informed now, that those Rebels account the due performance of just authority violence, and oppression, and that their chief hatred against the Earl of Strafford was for his fidelity to king, and Kingdom, and his opposition of Rebellion his evil Council.  
That beneath the decency of a King, he compares him to the sun which in all figurative use bears allusion to a King, not to a subject.  
If such be the Kingly Prerogative, that the sun bears allusion only to Kings, not to subjects, then must this libeler confess himself to be of that sordid generation, which by that influence are raised out of sinks, and puddles to obscure that glorious lustre, and his observation of this allusion might justly make him reflect upon himself with detestation contending against such clear light, and s●…andring truth itself. But virtue in other persons besides Kings hath been set forth by allusion to the sun, and his trivial exception at the decency of that allusion shows him as insignificant, as will full.  
He hath a conceit, that the King Knitts contradictions as close, as words can lie together, not approving in his judgement, and yet approving in his subsequent reason, all that Stafford did, as driven by the necessity of times, and the temper of that people The King's words are, I cannot in my judgement approve all he did, driven it may be by the necessity of times etc. And let the reader judge, whether this libelers falsification be not Knit, as close, as words can lie together, and its like he knew it by his impertinent use of the Phrase close Knit to his supposed contradictions. Though the King justly excused some things, which he could not approve, doth he therefore approve all, and doth the libeler think, that what a man cannot approve, he must think inexcusable, and that Circumstances do not alter the quality of Actions?  
But he says it is the marvel, and may be the astonishment of all, that have a conscience, how he durst with the same words of contrition, wherewith David repented the murdering of Vriah, repent his lawful compliance to that just Act.  
It is no marvel to men, that know these Rebels, though heretofore it might have been the astonishment of all, that such should offer to persuade others of their esteem of conscience, that make it their common scoff, and while this libeler, charges the King with no less than murder in consenting unwillingly, and consequently in him to an unjust sentence, makes an exclamation, why he should repent in David's words for the like Crime. The libeler well knows, that if it had been to a lawful sentence of condemnation, yet blood guiltiness lies, where consent with the tongue, had not the persuasion of the heart, & when the King, thought blood lay on him, should he think to hide his sin from God? & this profane Sectary wonders a sinner durst repent. These miscreants are loath to behold their murders in those bloody colours, which the truth of God gives them, & therefore they will call that Act just against the cry of their Consciences, as they stirred up the people to cry justice without knowledge of the fact.  
It would have taken much from the heaviness of his sin to have told God in his confession, how he laboured, what dark plots he had contrived, into what a League entered, and with what conspirators against his Parliament, & Kingdom to rescue so notable an instrument, etc.  
Doubtless the King would have taken that course, if he could have charged himself with any sinful labour in that kind. That he ought to have used all his power, and skill to have rescued that Earl, was his duty to God, and a person so cruelly, & shamelessly oppressed; And all men know what false fears were pretended, what ridiculous plots were imagined to disorder the people, and when there is such apparent discovery of Traitorous plots, and such avowing of Traitorous Actions, there can be none so infatuated to believe, that all necessary prevention of such wicked designs was not to withstand the ruin of the Parliament, and Kingdom.  
It was fear, which made him fain both the scruple, and the satisfaction. And what fear could make him fayne a scruple, whom could he fear, if he had not scrupled, but God only? and where doth it appear, that he feigned satisfaction, but it's the libelers want of the fear of God, and men, that makes him thus fearless of slandering, and contradicting.  
Repentance came not on him, till a long time after, when he saw, he could have suffered nothing more, though he had denied the Bill.  
Though the King say, he could have suffered nothing more, though he had ●…ed the Bill, he never finds, that repentance came not from him till long after, but knew very well, his repentance followed the fact close at the heels.  
He asks a question, how he could understandingly repent of letting that be Treason, which the Parliament, and whole nation so judged. He hath already told us it was all thost the whole nation, and the greater part of the Parliament, but he finds now, that any diminution induces doubt, and it must be the Parliament, and whole nation. May not a man understandingly repent, because the whole nation was in the same fault? how many Acts of Parliament have been made, whereof it had been happy for King, and people, they had repent? there need not an cnumeration in so Known a truth.  
It was a worldly repentance, not a conscientious, or else a strange Tyranny, which his conscience had got over him to vex him like an evil spirit for doing one act of justice to fortify his resolution from ever doing so any more.  
We may see what account this man makes of sin, or conscience, that thus derides the terrors of conscience. We may believe their consciences cauterised, that are such strangers to vexations of conscience, and that sin, and Rebellion have got a strange Mastery of them, that fortifies their resolutions against all repentance, and the approbation of it in others. This libeler cannot persuade himself, that when he calls murder Justice, and Rebellion loyalty, that he is believed, though he profess admiration, that men disrelish those his prime qualities, and makes the execration of such wickedness to be strange infatuation, and hardness of heart, and so calls the King's unwilling, and forced consent to an act, he judged evil, the tasting of a just deed, and his repentance for it, he calls spattring at it. The Devils are tormented with the repentance of others, and their Agents blasphemously deride it, and its doubtful, whether the pity, or detestation ought to be greater to wards such desperate persons, that call the consent to an execrable murder, tasting of one good deed, and the resolution against the like spattring at it, no doubt this man spatters at conscience, & direlishes all repentance, nothing being so natural to him, as the opposition to piety.  
That woe is denounced to the Scribes, and Pharisees for straining at a gnat, and swallowing a Camel. We scarcely find so great a Camel swallowed by the Scribes, and Pharisees, as many, that are greedily devoured by this libeler. His profane, and malicious scorns, and reproaches of repentance in this very section, and magnifying an execrable Murder are Camels in the Judgement of true Christians, though it seem not so to that sense, which is wholly reprobate, the straining at gnats, and swallowing Camels was never more apparent in any sect of men, than this libeler, and his crew, and if the ruin of three Kingdoms be so big, & bulky, as he confesses, and would falsely have to be the deeds of his late Majest: and that a woe belongs to them, what may this libeler, & his Complices expect, that have strained at forms, and Ceremonies, & swallowed down not only perjuries, and Murders, the defence of odious sins, and the reproaching of Christian duties, but have undoubtedly brought this ruin upon his Majest: three Kingdoms.  
He follows his common place of reproaching his Majest: conscience, and says, if it were come to that unnatural di●…rasie to digest poison, it was not for his Parliament, and Kingdoms to feed with him any longer. This Chapter the libeler hath composed for a satire against conscience to make it more a bhord by his crew of Cannibals, with whom none can feed, but blood thirsty savages. Could he name a greater dyscrasy than what he commends, that confines conscience to shed blood, exludes it from sparing. These Traitors had made falsehood, and disobedience unnatural to them, and thereby they caused such, as sought to preserve themselves from that pestilence, to avoid them, & those venomous persons according to their malicious quality sought to infect with their disposition, or destroy by their rage all that came near them, or restrained their Company.  
That the King would persuade us, that the Parliament escaped not some touches of remorse for putting Strafford to death in forbidding it to be a Precedent for the future; but he says in fair construction that act employed rather a desire to pacify the King's mind, not imagining, that this after Act should be retorted on them, whether it were made a Precedent, or not, no more than the want of a Precedent for this.  
It's some what strange, that the Image breaker finding his rigour only to rail would meddle with this Argument, but it seems he apprehended the hope of a fallacy in the word after, & would insinuate, that this Act was made after the murder, which was made to authorize it, and in a fair construction it hath not the least shadow of a desire to pacify the King, for it did not diminish any of their power, or purposes, that contrived that Act, but only to exclude this fact from ordinary Justice, which in a fair construction implies, that it was not law, but will, and power, whereby they proceeded. The truth was themselves saw, that by the consequence of that fact of theirs, all men's lives, and fortunes were exposed to danger, and ruin, and no Magistrate, or officer, but might be drawn within the compass of Treason, by the Rules they had held with the Earl of Strafford, & all they, that were present at the debates of that busnies know well, that their proper fears caused that provision in the Act, and though themselves were not bound to Precedents, they were afraid, that others would follow their Precedents, as in truth they ought, if this Precedent had been according to law. He would not have, that this Act argued in the Parliament, their least repenting, when it argued so little in the King, who accused the six members for the same Crymes, which he would not think treasonable in the Earl.  
The accusation of those six members was of other, and higher Crymes, besides some of those objected to the Earl of Strafford, and upon better grounds, and if it had been only those it shows apparently, that they, that would not proceed upon that accusation, repent of what they had done against the Earl of Strafford, or had no conscience at all, but were only guided by corrupt respects of person, and interest, and his Majest: might try what they would do against persons evidently guilty of that, which they had judged so high a Crime in another. For the discovery of their former false proceedings; that the King held nothing Treason, but against himself. He hath been already told, was the judgement of the accusers of the Earl of Strafford, and he might have known it to be so far from a Tyrannical principle, as he calls it, that it is the rule of law, and Government, for have not his Masters changed the stile of proceedings against offenders, which the law formerly used in regard of their change of Government, and devised one according to their new model? It's possible they, that devised that clause in the Act, did not expect, it would be retorted upon them, they were blinded with their fury, and precipitation. But the Image breaker might have observed, that a greater evidence of their injustice could not have been provided. He that is so shameless to insinuate the King's instigation to that clause in the Act for the death of the Earl Strafford, which were a madness in any man to suppose, may aswell pretend it for his death. The six members must stand condemned, if he acquit them, for the contrary of what he affirms is constantly true. And it were folly to ask him, why he should conclude the six members guiltless, that never were tried, when they were accused of such facts, as he himself says were Treason in others, for he will certainly say it, though he think it not.  
He concludes against the King's conscience in saying, that he bore that touch of conscience with greater regret than any other, in regard of the proditory aid (he supposes) sent to Rochel, and Religion abroad, and a Prodigality of shedding blood at home (as he phrases it.)  
There cannot be a greater evidence of the King's innocence, and the Rebel's lewdness then their absurd accusations of him who after their barbarous reproaches, and cruelty make his greatest Crime the resistance of their Rebellion, and the misfortune of an expedition in favour of Rochel, and Religion. No man is so senseless to believe that Rochel could have defended itself without other aid, than their own, & if the King had not intended their relief, he needed not have undertaken such chrageable, and dangerous expeditions, & whence can any reasonable man, collect that the King's assistance to them could beproditory, when they were not their by hindered to use their utmost endeavours, besides the English succours, and hereby we may see how miserably the people of England have been misled by hypocritical Traitors who while they made profession of conscience and Religion, acted the greatest villainies against Religion and conscience that the worst of Atheists ever attempted, and shame not at such assertions of falsehood as common States blush to be detected of.  
The reason he says is worth the noting, why the King would have notice taken of so much tenderness, which is, he hoped, it would be some evidence before God, and man to all posterity, that he was far from bearing that vast load, and guilt of blood laid upon him by others, which hath (he says) the likeness of a subtle dissimulation.  
When the Prophet David humbled himself, and put on sackcloth even that was turned to his reproach, and his Majest: tears, and afflictions of soul are no less reproached by these vipers, than the greatest sins, that could be repent of. Cursed shimi will call David a man of blood, and his repentance for the murder of one man with bitterness of soul shallbe counted a dissimulation, rather than the wretch will allow it any evidence, that he was innocent of that blood, he would lay to his charge. This was not the first time his Majest: charged himself with that innocent blood, the Rebels published his Cabinet, wherein they found it, and he might well hope, that God would clear his innocence, as the light, and his righteousness, as the noon day. Prayers may be made for mercy to a man's name, and a penitent may piously hope God will make his repentance evident to men, and his sorrows for one sin, an evidence he was not guilty of many of the same Kind. His Majest: hopes not, that his expressions here willbe evidence, but that his regretts, which were Known not only to God, but men could be evidence, how far he was from the guilt of what his Enemies charged him with, and to declare a hope of the benefit of repentance is no more like a dissimulation, than repentance is like a justification. If his Majest: had shed the blood of thousands, whom he counted Rebels, as this Author mentions, he could not suffer regretts of conscience, though he had a sorrow of heart, his understanding being satisfied of the Justice, and necessity of the fact. But those horrid Traitors, that embrued themselves in the blood of that innocent King, were hardened against the sparing of multitudes, and would secure their consciences by reproaching his Majest: repentance, and transferring the blood of war upon him, which their Rebellion, and cruelty had spilt. This libeler in this very page within few lines told us, that strafford was by him put to death unwillingly and presently concludes, thus by dipping voluntarily the tipp of his finger in the blood of strafford whereof all men clear him, he thinks to escape that sea of blood, wherein his own guilt hath plunged him.  
And may not a man's own conscience strike him for that, which all men clear him of? but that himself hath related to be otherwise in this case, where so many concurred in Judgement against the death of the Earl of Strafford, and when so many have made confession of their own unhappiness in the consent to that Action, and so few at present, that do not abhor it, and think it a great cause of God's displeasure against the nation, it is far from truth, that all men clear him. The Libeler holds a single murder, but dipping the tip of the finger in blood, & gives just cause to conclude, that his conscience is not touched with shedding a●…ea of blood. All men must confess, it a cause of greater regret to have his hand in the blood of one man against the persuasion of his conscience, then erroneously to enter into a war, where many are destroyed upon the opinion of Justice, but the known Justice of his Majest: cause, lays the blood of this war at the Rebel's doors, whose malice, and Treason, not ignorance, or error drew upon them the guilt of that blood of Strafford, & those thousands, which the war hath devoured. If the King had never published his repentance for the blood of Strafford, all knowing men would have judged he had cause to do it, and if he had never gone about to purge himself of that blood which the war had shed, all men would have cleared him of it.   

Upon his going to the HOUSE OF COMMONS.  
COncerning his unexcusable, and hostile march from the Court to the house of Commons, there needs not much be said.  
There need little to be said for his Majest: defence in going to the house of Commons, who had so high a provocation to make an hostile March, and took the way of so mild, and peaceable a coming to it, but this Author's impudence in calling it unexcusable after the many violences, and hostile Marches of his Masters unto that house, and their taking out, and driving away the members will never be excused. How shameless is this man to call his Majest: going to the house of Commons with an ordinary guard without Pike, or Muskett an hostile March, after the March of a complete Army led by his Rebel Masters against that house. But he urges for proof, that his Majest: confesses it to be an Act, which most men cried shame upon, which his Majest: says not at all, but that his Enemies loaded it with obloquy, indifferent men grew jealous of, & fearful, and many of his friends resented, as a motion rising rather from passion, than reason.  
The cries of his Enemies prove nothing, but their own passion, & partiality, and the jealousies of men are oftener resolved into their own mistakes, than the truth of Actions. The opinion of his Majest: friends condemned not the Action as injurious, though they might think it passionate, and if this Author could set aside the malice, and corruption of his heart, he might justly learn from his Majest: clearness in stating his own Actions, with observing all the Circumstances of them that make to his disadvantage, to forbear these feigned discourses of every Action he writes of.  
That in one of his answers to both houses, he made profession, that he was convinced that it was a plain breach of the privilege, it was greater satisfaction, than ever King gave his houses of Parliament, and it must have been an inexcusable disloyalty in them, to press him after such a profession, and make it matter of complaint. 'tis true his Majest: denied any intention to break their Privileges in that Act. But no man yet could assign a reason to exclude the King from any of his Courts, or Counsels, and why he might not aswell come to the lower house as to the higher, and speak to the Commons in their own, aswell, as send for them to the higher house, or else where, as was both law, & Custom. And as no privilege of Parliament doth extend to Treason, but that a Constable may apprehend any member of that house being accused of that Crime, so why the King should be forbidden to come to the house to cause Traitors to be apprehended, none but Traitors, will find a cause, but here he says he represents it fraudulently. We have found already it hath been fraudulently expressed by the libeler. He says the King would make some benificall use of his worst Actions And surely his Actions, which were most charged with guilt appear just, and shame his accusers.  
These men meaning his friends knew not the just motives, and pregnant grounds with which I thought myself furnished. To these words of his Majest: which he hath interlaced with meaning his friends, he says, his best friends knew not, nor ever could know, and it would have tended to his justifying to have named them in this place, and to show his own impertinence the next words he citys of his Majest: are, that, he had discovered, as he thought unlawful Correspondencies, which they had used, and engagements to embroil his Kingdoms. What more would he have had in this place? But he says suppose them real, and known, what was this to that violation, and dishonour pu●…t upon the whole house, whose door was forcibly kept open, & all passages near it beset with swords, & pistols cocked, & menced in the hands of about three hundred swaggerers, and Ruffians, who but expected, nay audibly called for the word of onse●…t to begin a slaughter.  
But suppose them real, was it not a matter of more importance to apprehend such conspirators, then to omit the opening the door of the house of Commons? Is it a dishonour to have Traitors taken from them. There need not any answer to his pretended tenderness of the house, that approves such open violence against them with Pikes, and Musketts, but reproves swords, and Pistols. Doth not he think, that all men look upon him, as a common prostitute, that uses such aggravations of a cause, which himself defends, though accompanied with outrage, and violence. A word of onset to begin a slaughter could never be expected by such an inconsiderable number, armed only with swords, and pistols, a strange preparation for a Massacre, but there are men apt to be disordered by any rumours of danger, and some are willing to have a pretence for unwarrantable Actions, & thence proceed these onsets in the air. He would willingly persuade the Rebel rout, that whatever the King may do for the securing of himself, & Kingdom, Rebels may do to destroy him, and usurp his Kingdom, and therefore to that, which his Majest: says of the correspondencies and engagements, which the accused members used to embroil his Kingdoms, the Libeler answers, that he remembers not his own conspiracies with the Irish, and. French, English and scotch Army to come against the Parliament, the least of which attempts by whomesoever he says was no less, then manifest Treason against the Common whealth.  
To imagine a Monarchy, and Commonwealth, or Republic in the same state can enter into none, that understand either, nor that a King can commit Treason with his subjects, or against them. King's have been charged with Tyranny, never with Treason, till those brutish undertakers. If there had been any law to make such a Treason, this libeler would never have added the word manifest, for 'tis a sure Rule with him to add most vehement asseverations, where he knows there is no colour of truth. He well knows how careful the people of England were, that Treason should not be made Arbitrary, and therefore they were confined into one positive law, and in that law this Author finds not his fantastical Treason. Can any, but mad men dream, that when the privilege of Parliament extends not to Treason, that they cannot commit Treason. It's Treason by the law to levy war against the King, and that this libelers Masters have acknowledged, and can he find it consistent in the same Government, that there can be Treason in the King to levy war against the Parliament, and because a King may have confederations, and Alliances with Foreign Princes can subjects have so too? These are not the opinions, but the Stratagems of Rebels. The people of England are bound to assist their King against any without distinction, and the law hath provided for their indemnity, though the King miscarry, but laws are chaff, when Rebels Reign. The particulars he mentions, if they had been real on his Majest: part, as they are only imaginary, the Actions of the Rebels have given Testimony to their Justice, and necessity.  
To demand justice against the five members, there needed not so rough assistance. But the success tells us there needed more, for these members were guarded with an Army, and a fleet, and instead of being committed on such an accusation, which themselves resolved could, not be denied by law, they protected them against law.  
If he had resolved, meaning the King, to bear that repulse with patience, wherefore did he provide against it with such an armed, and unusual force. Is a King's guard any unusual force, and though he resolved to bear a repulse with patience, he could not resolve to tempt the malice, and insolence of those, that waited, but opportunity to destroy him. But had he provided any force to secure himself against insolence, does that condradict his bearing the repulse with patience, and here the libeler casts away his Argument, that he may use his scurrility, that the King's heart served him not for such a desperate Scuffle. So the great hostility, and provisions for a Massacre is come to no more, then to have hazarded a desperate Scuffle with the unarmed house of Commons. The King's heart served him for the highest hazards, where he held his courses just, and honourable, but it never served him to act such violences, as these Rebels have feigned, he intended.  
There were two statutes, that declared he ought first to have acquainted the Parliament, who were the accusers. These statutes this Author, nor any man else ever read, and if there had been such statutes, that men ought not to be accused, before the Parliament be acquainted, who were the Accusers, they were much to blame that committed so many for Treason without any Accusers, and that these two statutes should never be practised, or known before now? How comes it, that the King, nor his Attorney general can accuse a man of high Treason, when the meanest subject of the Kingdom may do it? It's well known, that the house of Commons upon the word of MR. Pym, without the least knowledge of the fact, or any accuser, or witness, charged the ●…arle of Strafford of high Treason, where were these laws then? His Majest still professing to govern by law, as he says, did no way break it, and he was no way obliged to name any accusers, especially to the Parliament, where a Rebellious, and potent faction united themselves to the Accused members, that had contrary to their own Rules denied that proceeding, which they declared just, and according to law.  
The fair tr●…all, which was offered, was no other, then to take opportunity for justifying those members, what ever the proof were. Had it been thinks he a prudent Act in the King to have accused Traitors, and made a Commission to their fellows to judge of the fact. He could not doubt of the same Justice from these men, which he found in many other occurrents. Could he suppose, that they would condemn a Traitor, that had combined to prosecute the Treason, and it was not for want of just matter, but the forefight of injustice, that caused his Majest: to let fall his proceedings. When Rebels are protected by open force, when the power, and impetuosity of Tumults are boasted of by this Author, when the inclination of the potent faction unto the members is confessed, he would yet have the King choose such a Trial.  
He would have it a thirst of revenge in the King against the members for opposition against his Tyrannous proceedings. If their innocence of the Treason had been as evident, as his Majest: of Tyrannous proceedings, they had never been accused, and if they had not been conscious of their guilt, they would never have sought Tumultuary protection, and if his Majest: had thirsted for revenge, he needed not have gone to the house of Commons to have satisfied it, but Malefactors count legal pcoceeding the malice of Enemies, and effects of displeasure.  
To that the King (says he) miss but little to have produced writings under some men's hands, the libeler says he miss, though their chambers trunks, and studies were sealed up, and searched, which though altogether false, there might be such writings, and its like there were, which caused the house of Commons to be so jealous, lest their chambers, should have been searched, that they made an order to use violence against any, that should search, a very grave vote, and a sure sign of good Justice, if the fact had been brought before them that would prevent the discovery, and deny a search of persons accused for Treason.  
The King says God's providence would have it so, and to that the Libeler joins, that curbs the raging of proud Monarches, aswell, as of mad multitudes.  
Is it the curbing of proud Monarches, when the miss of evidence against Traitors? If the King had produced this writing, he mentions, had that been a Monarch's rage? But why doth he join the mad multitudes, whose rage was then so fierce, he may believe, as he says, that God will set bounds unto it, and turn them against their misleaders. Why pregnant grounds, and probabilities, may not both concur in one cause no man understands, though this Author would have probabilities a diminution after pregnant grounds had been used. His resemblance of Queen Mary's cushion, whereto he likens the King's proofs, would have suited with the clout, and pistol, the stables under ground, the Danish fleet, and their many other ridiculous devised Conspiracies, the bringing up of the northern Army, the landing of the french at Portsmouth, cutting throats by the Papists, and the disignes of the spanish fleet, fit only for the story of the knight of the Son, or the wand'ring Jew.  
As Kings go now, what shadowy conceit, or groundl●…s toy will not create a jealousy. And was his Majest: jealousy created by a toy, when those persons have acted that, which he was then jealous of. Can this breaker accuse him of causeless jealousy, when he defends the fact? And is it a shadowy conceit, if Kings are jealous of such Rebellious inclinations, as this Rebel vaunts of? And if these Rebels might have their will, there should not be a King left to be jealous, and while they profess their purposes, accuse Kings of unjust jealousy, and if subjects go now in other places, as in England, the world will have cause to know, that all the jealousies of Kings were necessary to the preservation of mankind, & that there is no jealousy of any King so causeless, as the attempts of ambitious Reformers.  
That his Majest: denies, he hath designed to assault the house of Commons, is not contradicted by his answer to the City, that any course of violence had been very justifiable, The libeler guesses, it was not far from his design, because it might be so, and concludes as senselessly, that because his Majest: forbore an act, which he held justifiable, it discovered in him an excessive eagernes to be avenged on them, that crossed him, and that to have his will, he stood not to d●…e things never so much below him. So eager is the man to rail himself out of reason. If he had an eagernes to be revenged, he would have done high things, and not below him. It was no becoming sight to see the King of England so affronted, and abused by his own subjects, many beholding disobedience, and vulgar insolence with sad hearts, and grieving at the ruin of Government, and that his Majest: was constrained to call for Justice, and be denied it. Such as lament the misfortunes of Princes, cannot but abhor the Rebellion of subjects, and this unbecoming sight to see the King of England one while in the house of Commons, by, and by in the guild-hall among the Liveries this libeler doth not remember out of affection to the King's person, or office, but out of joy, that he was enforced to such extremity. If he had had any sense of duty, or regret at any Action ill becoming a King in regard of his place, or dignity, he would not so scurrilously descant on his misfortunes, with the terms of Solicitor, pursuivant, apparitor for that prosecution, and it is a plain Testimony of the Rebellion then begun, when the King was driven to Actions beneath his Majest: & this libeler will hardly allow a King more, than such offices, for he says the King's office is to execute the Parliaments Command, and either in that he believed not what he said, as is most certain he did not, or else he vainly objects the doing of Actions beneath him, but it appears his desires are to reduce all Kings to the lowest of the people.  
That though the King in his answers to the Parliament said, that as he once conceive he had ground enough to accuse them, so at length, that he found as good cause to desert any prosecution of them, yet here he seems to reverse all.  
He seems so to none, though some out of wilful malice would have it seem so, ' The King found, that he had good cause to desert the prosecution in regard of the injustice, and violence of the Rebel faction, And is there any thing said here to the contrary of it? Could the King find any cause to continue the prosecution upon the cleer●…t evidence, that could be produced?  
It is the Method of the false Sectaries to insinuate an opinion of their virtue by rigid censures of others, whereby they draw men from observation of their own lewdness, & they seem very sharp against sins of most common obloquy, & offensive to sobriety, and thence the libeler calls his Majest: guard the spawn, and shipwreck of Taverns. Such, as were of his Majest: guard may not think to escape these false tongues, when their King hath tasted so largely of them, and these hypocrites think to hide their blood guiltiness, pride, robbery, perjury, & oppression by reproaching their Enemies with Stews, and Taverns. The principal zealotts of this Rebellion were the tags, and rags of the people, who were glad to hear voluptuous living, and riot objected to the King's party, that they might compare their beggary, and base condition before other men's vices, whether true, or feigned. If the house of Commons declared, that the coming of those Soldiers, Papists, and others with the King was to take away some of their members, and in case of opposition, or denial to have fall'n upon the house in a hostile manner, they showed themselves men of as little credit, as this Author, for the world knows, that they neither had, nor pretended proof of such a purpose, & their declarations in that kind are no truer, than their professions of loyalty. If the house had denied their members, and opposed, was it ●…esse than Treason?  
He infers from the King's profession, if he purposed any violence, or oppression against the innocent, then let the Enemy persecute my soul, & tread my life to the ground, & lay my honour in the dust, that God hath judged, and done according to the verdict of his own mouth. The king well knew his Enemy persecuted his soul, when he wrote this, and that he was in the hands of those, that would take away his life, but assassination was no proof of his guilt, nor of God's judgement of his cause, and these word●… used by the prophett, and him are not an imprecation for trial, but a deprecation of the offence, and it was not to satisfy men, but to acknowledge his judgement of the Crime to God. The king's party are assured, that the proceedings against him were odious to God, & man, and this Action touching the members was no other, then necessary Justice, and there appears not any purpose of violence, or oppression of the innocent, and in vain do murderers seek to shelter themselves from the guilt of their impieties by pretending Gods secret Counsels, The sincerity of his Majest: heart is no less manifest, because he fell into the hands of wicked men, who cannott tread his honour in the dust, which outluies their fury, and though they murdered him, his life is with the Lord, and their infamy endless. God wi●…l bring their wickedness upon their own heads in his due time.  
The King's admirers may see their madness to mistake this book; But all men see his madness to traduce the book, and to profane, and prostitute all things sacred to his lewd detractions, who says it is his doomsday book not like that of William the Norman his Predecessor. Thus making the common appellation of the great day of the Lord an inducement to vilify the kingly office, which must be a day of wrath to such mockers, as ask, where is the promise of his coming, which did these Traitors expect, they would not proceed so presumptuously in their wickedness, and compile a book of it against that day. The Admirers of the king's book are no white mistaken, but they see the breaker very much mistaken in his confidence, that thinks all men mad, because himself is so, and they were mad indeed, if they received his sense, or saw not, that only rage at the excellency of the king's Book, not right understanding made him seek these silly objections, and face them with such ostentation.   

Upon the INSOLENCY Of the TUMULTS.  
HE must confess to have here a neat, and well couched invective against Tumults, which surely ought not to be answered with a impudent defence of them. The misfortunes of Princes are the mirth of Rebels, and therefore he says Rehoboam the son of Solomon could not have composed a better. It was not only the son of Solomon, but his Father David, and himself too, that felt the fury, and danger of Rebels, and Rehoboams misfortune doth not mitigate the sinful Revolt of the ten Tribes, which the Scripture calls Rebellion, and this Author scoffing at his haste to escape their fury shows how affectionate: he is to Rebelliaon. That the Tumults at whitehall were not so dangerous, as these at sechem he cannot affirm, for those Tumults at whitehall have produced greater impieties, and Calamities, than those at sechem, and those Tumults have since, felt the scourge of their violence, as those at sechem soon did; their revolt being punished by God, who gave them a King in his rage, that brought in Idolatry with their Rebellion, which after many sore afflictions at last rooted them out of their land, and they ceased to be a people.  
He would insinuate, that because this is a neat invective, therefore the King's Household Rhetorician made it, but this hath as little credit, as his exceptions have truth, or weight.  
That the matter considerable is, whether these were Tumults, or Noah, next, if they were, whether the King himself did not cause them. Doubtless he would not have it believed, that there could be any Tumults, nor any Rebellion against him, for if there could be any, he knows themselves have committed it. The known laws allow no causes of Tumults from provocation, for if so, tumults may judge of laws, and law makers, as these defended tumults presumed to do. His first cause is the King's unwillingness to call the Parliament, but these tumults were after a parliament called; His not enduring to be overswayed by them. Were this a cause of Tumult, or Rebellion, there would never be cause wanting of such disorders in any kingdom, or state, when the Counsels of kings must be subject to vulgar appeals, & Tumults must reform the king's Judgement.  
His often repeated imposture of the Kings tempting the English, or scotch Armies is grossly introduced for a cause of the Tumults, when the Tumults preceded these suppositions, and we may see what causes this man will have of Tumults, that will make subsequent Actions the grounds of them.  
The proffering the four northern Counties to the scotts was an invention as ridiculous, as the Author's commendation of an honest discovery of a thing never acted. He formerly spoke of Timpanies, and Queen Mary's cushion, which might have caused him to have forborn such a gross, and exploded a forgery.  
That the Parliament, or people discerned a malignant party was no other, than the artifice of the conspirators in Parliament to devise names, which the people understood not, and suggest terrors to them from things, that had not entered into their thoughts, and of that nature was this name of malignant-faction brought forth by the Junto to amuse the people, but he might well remember, that not as much, as the name of malignant party was hatched, when the Tumults begun.  
The Rebellion in Ireland was then broken out, which was not till near fix months after the insolence of the Tumults began, and that Rebellion in all probability took example, and encouragement from these Tumults  
The imaginary conspiracy of Scotland while the King was there is not of a piece, the tumults having preceded the King's journey thither, & that conspiracy he knows vanished into air, & could give no more occasion of Tumults, then of this Author's remembrance.  
That great numbers of unknown persons resorted to the City was as unknown to such, as were then there; as the persons to this Author, and as such resort is known to be no cause of such Tumults.  
The King being returned from Scotland dismisses that guard, which the Parliament thought necessary in the midst of so many dangers to have about them. It's true the conspirators in Parliament either from the guilt of their consciences, or advantage to their plots pretended apprehension of danger, that they might have a guard, which they might make use of to execute their designs, and affront the members of the house ●…hat refused to cuncurr to their plots, and therefore no guard pleased them, but such, as were composed chiefly of such persons, as made up the Tumults.  
The King dismissed the guard, which the Parliament thought necessary, & put in another contrary to the privilege of that high Court, and by such a one commanded as made them no less doubtful of the guard itself. It's very likely, that they had as little doubt of danger, from any other, as from the guard, for they sought to create dangers to others, feared none to themselves, but from their own guilt. It's well known there was not the least appearance of danger, but from what that faction intended, and such desire of a guard was no less unknown, then ridiculous to all former Parliaments, and it was so far from being a privilege to that high Court, that the leaders of the faction in the lower house procured a vote to desire it of the king. And how could it be contrary to the privilege of that high Court for him to change the guards, that had first placed them? The guard, which the king appointed was commanded by the chief officer of that guard, and because he gave command to keep of the Tumults, therefore the Rebel faction, concluded their busnies could not be done by such a guard, nor such a Commander. Which they therefore says he discharge, deeming it more safe to sit free, though without a guard in open danger, then enclosed with a suspected safety. And in what safety sat they, that were threatened, and abused by those Tumults every day. The visible cause of a guard was the Tumults, but the cause, why guards were desired was to act the same for which the Tumults were raised, and the danger pretended was a deceit, for they, that desired a guard would rather be without one, than not have a Commander of their own faction, and the houses found no inconvenience in the want of a guard, but in the insolency of the Tumults, which the seditious faction invited, & would not have them hindered by any guards.  
The people therefore lest their worthiest, and most faithful Patriotts, who had exposed themselves for the public, and whom they saw now left naked, should want aid, or be deserted in the midst of these dangers, came in multitudes, though unarmed to witness their fidelity, and readiness in case of any violence offered to the Parliament. It hath been aldeady observed, that these Tumults preceded the desire of guards, and they were so far from being acceptable to the Parliament, that the house of Lords desired their restraint, and invited the lower house to concur with them to suppress these Tumults, and though the factious party withstood the motion, yet it was thought necessary by a great part of that house to join with the Lords in that desire. And how could they witness their fidelity to the Parliament, when so great a part thought them a grievance? And why did they menace, and assault the members of both houses? Why did they prescribe resolutions to the Parliament, and in case their demands were not granted, denounce terror to the opposers? Is this fidelity to the Parliament? This Author need not seek such blind excuses for Tumults, that justifies open Treason, no doubt those his faithful Patriots well understood, that their greatest danger was from the law, which they had violated, and they would be secure by subverting it, and engaging, multitudes in their own guilt. The king had reason to send into the City to forbid such resorts, and nothing, but sedition could encourage, or permit them.  
The supposition of the kings envying to see the people's love devolved on another object, shows, that Rebellious inclinations were the desire, and strength of the leaders in the lower house, & the envying may be properly changed into indignation, that subjects should break their duty, and become workers of their own misery such Tnmultuous licence had not so much probability to hinder any action of the King towards the Parliament, as to ruin the Parliament, & kingdom. The faction feared not any action of his Majest: but endeavoured to promote their own designs against him.  
He is now come to tells us some reasons, why the Parliament petitioned the king for a guard after they were content to sit without one, and while be maintanies a power in his imaginary Parliament to murder the king, he presents them petitioning the king for a guard, and their words, which he will not take notice of are worth observing. The Knight's Citizens, and Burgesses of the house of Commons, your faithful, and loyal subjects, who are ready to lay down their lives, and fortunes, and spend the last drop of their blood to maintain your Crown, and royal person in greatness, and glory, do cast themselves down at your Royal feet, with such elaborate deceits did they hope to persuade the king to give them a guard to oppress himself. Their subsequent actions have been a full Comment upon these wicked dissimulations, and these false professions convince the present shameless challenges of power in these, that thus address themselves.  
That blood was drawn in a fray, or two at the Court gate, and even at their own gate in Westminster hall. Are not these proper motives for a Parliament to call for guards? A Constable of a Parish might more reasonably set a guard about his house after the parting of a fray, than the Parliament seek for an armed guard upon such an occasion. If the tumults were so seditious, as to show their insolency at the gate of white hall, or Westminster hall, and any of them were wounded in such disorderly resorts, it had been just, and necessary to forbid their coming in such numbers, and provoking such danger, and their continuance is a mainfest sign, that these tumults were not the voluntary motion of the people, but the instigation of the factious party in Parliament.  
That it was reasonable, and just for the Parliament to make choice of their own guards, and Commander will only appear to such, as had traitorous plots against the King, and the choice, that they made of the Earl of Essex shows by their after employment, and his ensuing Actions, that the King had just reason for the refusal, and though this Author think, that he hath said somewhat by naming him the Kings own Chamberlain, yet all men see, that these obligations, which the King had put upon that Earl, could not with hold him from being a leader to the mad multitude against King, and Kingdom.  
It is the right of inferior Courts to make choice of their own guards, which is utterly false, but can he tell, that ever an inferior Court undertook to be guarded by a Militia, or that ever they had other guards, then from Constables, and inferior officers, whom they might require to keep the peace, and do their duty, and no Court could ever make choice of any guard either for number, or Commander.  
He says, that why the King refused the guard desired, the next day made mainfest, for than he came to block up, or assault the house of Commons. It soon appeared, wherefore they desired a guard, to protect Traitors, & destroy the King. That the King came to block up, or assault, the libeler hath already confessed to be false, for he did it not, when it was in his power, & if he had refused a guard for that reason, he would have performed it, & it's impertinently alleged for the cause of those tumults, when he hath showed, that those tumults were begun long before, for he lately told us of the blood drawn at the gate of white hall, and Westminster hall, which himself knows was in the tumults.  
He proceeds to say, that he had begun to fortify his Court, and entertained armed me●…. How absurdly doth he produce any acts of his Majest: which were occasioned by the tumults to be causes of the tumults? fortifying his Court, and entertaining armed men, there was good cause for, and what could it signify, that the King fortified his own house? B●…t an app●…hension of danger. And how could it offend any, unless such, 〈◊〉 were disaffected to his safety?  
He says these men so entertained standing at his Palace gate reviled, and with drawn swords wonnded many of the people, as they passed by in a peaceable manner, whereof some died. His own relation makes it more than probable, that such, as were wounded gave the occasion of the hurt they had, for they were not drawn to the Palace gate, and might have quietly passed by though any of his Maj: Servants stood at the gate, & the truth is they daily provoked his Maj: with insolent, & menacinge words, & Actions, & enforced such, as guarded the Court to repel them with force, & if they were reviled, they gave the provocation by their seditious carriage, & these armed men are now come to drawn swords there being no arms found by this Author, but swords, wherewith the persons usually walked, & which were necessarily drawn against that rout.  
The passing by of a multitude, though neither to St. George's feast, nor to a tilting of itself was no Tumult. The expression of their loyalty, and steadfastness to the Parliament, whose lives they doubted to be in danger was no Tumult. but wherefore should such a multitude resort, that had nothing to see, unless they were tumults? If a multitude, of people either at St. George's feast, or a tilting should threaten the King, or with violence press into his Court, and reproach, and assault such, as they found there, this would be a tumult, & somewhat more, but this was not all these tumults acted, they assaulted the members of both houses near their doors, they threatened them, that consented not to what they would have, they prescribed to the King, and both houses, what they should do, & doth this trivial discourser make no difference between such Actions, that are the most pernicious disorders in states, & the coming of a multitude to see a tilting. If the purpose of such multitudes had been preservation of the lives, or safeties of any members in Parliament, it was very unsuitable to their pretence to inquire into the proceedings of the houses, & assault, & menace the members. The loyalty, which he says they bare to the Parliament was il expressed by breaking the privileges, & wronging the members, their loyalty was due to their King in the first place, & they owed nothing to the Parliament, but as their King's Court, & Council, but the Author thinks fit they should break their sworn loyalty to their King to maintain a faction against him.  
If it grew to be so, the cause was in the King, & his retinue, who by hostile preparations, and actual assailing the people gave just cause to defend themselves. can himself believe this dream of his, when he reads it over, that the king's preparations against the tumults after a long continued insolence against him, should more excuse them for increasing their violence, then justify their first attempts? Need they come to white hall, or Westminster to defend themselves, but these disorderly, & absurd pretences are fit Apologies for a tumultuous rout.  
These petitioning people needed not have been so formidable to any, but to such, whose consciences misgave them, how il they had deserved of the people, and do non forbid such petitioning people but those, wose consciences misgave them, how il they had deserved of the people? why then were the kentish petitioners, and others so roughly handled coming unarmed, & more peaceably, than these Tumults? And do the libelers Masters permit such petitioning people at present, unless it be some of their own suborning? And are the people, which he so lately described to to be exorbitant, and excessive in their motions become such exact judges of all men's merit, and determine of punishment without respect to their Rulers. If the libeler would have shown what these Tumults wanted to make them criminal, and wherefore other Tumults were condemned, he would have found means to have come to himself, & have said, that Tumults, were necessary, Preparations to Rebellion.  
That the King was so Empha●…icall, and elaborate on this Theme will redound less perhaps than he was aware to the commendation of h●… Government, for in good Governments they happen seldomest, and rise not without cause. It is more than perhaps, that this libelers commendation of the Tumults will condemn his defence. If Tumults never happen without cause, we must accuse the best Governments of giving that cause, we are sure David's Government wanted them not, but Absalon, and Sheba shall condemn the man after Gods own heart. Did this libeler think any truth in scripture, or was he at all acquainted with it, that will have a just cause for all Tumul, s, when we read so many against Moses by the children of Israel? And if he had pleased to have perused the Roman story, he must acknowledge many causses Tumults in that state. It's like he holds, that Demetrius, and his Craftsmen had a cause for their Tumults, and surely it was not so violent, as the Tumult he defends. And if all Tumults, and Rebellions be caused by ill Government, we may reasonably conclude, that the people needed not Governors, that knew so well how to govern themselves, and did never judge a miss of the Actions, or Counsels of their Governors. The libeler at first said he took up the gauntlet for liberty, and the Commonwealth, which he hath now expounded to be for destruction of liberty, and Kingdom by Tumults.  
If they prove extreme, & pernicious (that is the Tumults) they were never counted so to Monarchy, but to Monarchical Tyranny. Who doubts, but Rebels will pretend Tyranny, & oppression. Did ever reasonable man before this unreasonable creature pretend, that Tumults were not pernicious to all governments, & can any man conceive, that they will not grow extreme, if not prevented, but left to their own violence? what is become now of his judgement of the people's excessive, and extravagant motions, are there none in Tumults? Can any Rebellion want a pretence, if the extremity of it be a proof of Tyranny in the Rulers? There can hardly be supposed an assertion more vo●…de of truth, & modesty. What public wickedness was there ever acted to the subversion of Kingdoms, but by Tumults? How many usurpations, how many murders of most virtuous Princes have been acted by Tumults? But this libellet glories in those exploits of the rabble, and makes the Calamities they have brought on others the matter of his mirth.  
Extremes he says are at most Antipathy. If then the King so extremely stood in fear of Tumults, the inference will endanger him to be the olliert extreme. Where doth he find in his learning, that Tumults, and Tyranny are at any Antipathy, which are but one, and the same thing, for was there ever greater Tyranny exercised, then by Tumults? And are not the laws of all states most severe against Tumults? And can there be any inference from thence, that the Government is Tyranny, are not Government, and Tumults at most Antipathy? It's a certain Rule, that all watchful Governors will fear Tu●…ults. The King had just cause to fea●…e the Calamities ensuing the violence of Tumults, and this trifler vainly infers his fancied extremes from a prudent foresight, and if there were no other example of causeless, and mischievous Tumults than those the King complained of, they only were sufficient to instruct the world upon what mistaken rumours they are raised, and unto what desperate impieties they proceed.  
He never thought any thing more to presage the mischiefs, that ensued, than those Tumults. To this says the libeler. Those Tumults were but the mild effects of an evil, and injurious Reign. Tumults the prodigious, and pestilential reigns get up in a mild, and gracious Government, wherein seditious, and traitorous factionists take liberty to defuse their venom among the people, and mild tumults, and loyal Rebellion are phrases agreeable to this man's modesty.  
Those signs were to be read more apparent in his rage, and purposed revenge of those clamours of the people. That those tumults might overcome the patience of any King, the severity used upon less provocations by others is a full evidence, but his Majest: moderation was constant, rage, and revenge being only legible in his Enemies. That tumults did presage the mischiefs ensuing, all knowing men concur with his Majest: and discern the libelers servile defence of popular clamours.  
Not any thing portends more God's displeasure against a nation, then when be suffers the clamours of the vulgar to pass all bounds of law, and reverence to Authority, to this he says, it portends rather his displeasure against a Tyrannous King. As God sometimes gives an evilKing to a people, so whenever he destroys that King by the contemptible vulgar, it is a sign of the increase of his displeasure, and seldom, or never was any King good, or evil so destroyed, but the people's sufferings were increased.  
That those, whom he calls a supplicating people, and that did no hurt to law, or authority, but stood for it in the Parliament were a Rebel rabble cannot be doubted, since the libeler defends them, and he cannot be believed they did no hurt to law in as much, as he defends the subversion of law, and the attempts of this supplicating people, that were in order to that end. This supplicating is one of his abolished Ceremonies, The libeler tells, that they ought to have stood for law, the world knows they did the contrary, and he is witness both of their guilt, and his own falsehood.  
That they invaded the honour, and freedom of the two houses. To this he says, It is his officious accusation, not seconded by the Parliament, who, had they seen cause, were best able to complain. And how were they able, when they were threatened, if they did complain, and because the Parliament is overawed by Tumults, that they cannot complain, therefore their freedom is not invaded. But how shamelessly he charges the King with the officious accusation, he tells us in the next words, for he says, if they struck, 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 freedom of the two housce invaded, when their members are struck, and menaced? And is it an officious accusation to say so? 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 undervalue of their temper, judgement, or affection, and here defend the rascallity in striking, and menacing the members, and not only undervaluing their temper, judgement, and affection, but handling them, as cullions. Never was libeler more passionately malicious, more blindly absurd, more wilfully false, yet he thinks he hath a reserve against all opposition, for he says, if their petitioning unarmed were an invasion of both houses, what was his besetting it with armed men. Is striking, and menacing so quickly returned to petitioning, Is it a way of answer not to speak to the question? Did ever Kings of England come without an armed guard to the Parliament, and do they beset the house, when the guard is at the door? And can he say, that the Kings coming with his guard to the house is a greater invasion of the honour, & freedom of the houses, than the striking, and menacing the members by the Tumults? Doubtless he had consulted better to his credit to have said nothing, then that, which was so different from the case himself had stated, and his repetition of petitioning, and supplicating people is no other, than the noise of the Ephesian Rabble, that great is Diana of the Ephesians.  
The King says, They forbore not rude deportments, contemptuous words, and Actions to himself, and his Court. And to this the libeler says. It was no wonder, having heard what treacherous hostility he had designed against the City, and his whole Kingdom, that they forbore to handle him, as people in their rage have handled Tyrants here to fore for less offences. The supplicating, and petitioning people may use 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 designed Treacherous hostility against the City, and Kingdom. The last thoughts, that mad men had before their distraction run most in their fancy in the time of their frenzy, and these Traitors having lost all reason inculcate still those ridiculous frauds wherewith at first they seduced the people. The designs of Treacherous hostility was one of the Ceremonies, which its now time to give over. Who but an I diet can believe, that the King can have Treacherous designs against his Kingdom, whereof shall he be King, & whom shall he have to execate hostility against his own Kingdom? but these dreams of the blowing up of Thames, and tales of wind mills, and fiery Dragons are over, and it's become the people's sorrow, and shame to look back upon the cheats, whereby they were deluded. He cannot name any Tyrant ill handled by tumults upon such pretences, as he makes, & the most wicked Tyrant was not so guilty, as that people, which exercised their rage upon him, yet the libeler determines, that the tumults fury is as justifiable, as the Parliaments order, for he ascribes no more to the one, than the other.  
They were not a short ague, but a feiree quotidian fever. And the libeler says he may best say it who most felt it. He will rather boast of the greatness of their villainy, then reprove the impiety of it, and therefore he sport's himself with the injuries of it, after his appellations of mildness, and supplicating people, and extols the highest of their violence, as a fierce quotidian fever, and he is so Lunatic, that out of his malice to the King, he calls them mild, & out of his insolence confesses them violent, and deadly.  
The King would persuade us, that men scared themselves, & others without cause. And all men are now satisfied of the truth of it, the frauds being so apparent, and confessed by this breaker.  
Wise fear, and suspicion would find weapons. And we have found by experience, that Rebels by suggesting vain fears, and suspicions have gotten weapons, and armed the people to their own destruction.  
Upon the Kings repeating the mischiefs 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 says, if there were a man of Iron such as Talus by our poet spencer, is feigned to be the Page of justice, who with his Iron flail could do all this, and expedititiously without those deceitful forms, and Circumstances of law worse, than Ceremonies in Religion, I say God send it done, whether by one Talus, or by a thousand. Religion, & laws are less than Ceremonies in this Author's account, and when Pages follow not, nor acknowledge, Master's Justice will be ill waited on, such cutthroats are not the Pages of Justice, but the furies of hell, and these this libeler prays to God for; what will not such call Justice to satisfy their ambition, and cruelty? Poets are short in their fancies of what the English Rebels have acted. Their Giants were Pigmies to these Monsters, and their Hydra too few heads, & too little venom for the service of these Enemies of mankind. What a silly property does this libeler make Parliament, and laws, that subjects them to Tumults, and how barbarous are their proceedings, that made endeavour to subvert fundamental laws a Capital Crime, and here he commends the fact, & calls them deceitful forms, and Circumstances of law. Might he not better have said, they would make good their villainies by the sword, then prevaricate, and say, and unsay, and pretend Religion, and yet pray God to send Tumults, and Confusions to break all laws in order to their designs?  
The King says, they subdued the men of conscience in Parliament, backed, and abetted all seditious, & schismatical proposals against Government Ecclesiastical, and Civil. To this he says. That it was not the King's grace, but this Iron flail, the people, that drove the bishops out of their Baronies, cathedrals, Lords house, Coops, surplices, papistical innovations, threw down high Commission, star chamber, gave us a triennial Parliament, and what we most desired. And is not this brave? Is it a credit to a Church to be thus reform? Is this the Christian Religion to glory in oppression, robery, and Rebellion? There is no doubt, but many things granted by his Majest: in the late Parliament, were Acts of grace in respect of his compliance with importunity, in hope thereby to preserve the people from a Civil war, not in respect of the nature of the things granted. The libeler might have remembered, that the King never consented to drive the bishops out of their Baronies, or cathedrals, and his Triennial Parliament, which he so much commends is repealed by his new Masters, for the people must not look for the execution of any such law. And this Iron slaile, the rashness, and cruelty of a disordered multitude hath thresht, and broken the bones, & sinews of the people, and made them know the difference between a golden Sceptre, and an Iron flail.  
In revenge whereof he says he now so bitterly inveighs against them. And how can the libeler think it bitter, when their Actions, which he confesses exceed in impiety the greatest Crymes, that ever were inveighed against? And if we could wonder at any thing, we might wonder at his mention of Schismatical proposals consented to by the King, when he well knows, no one thing by him mentioned of cathedrals, or Ceremonies was consented to by the King, & no less strange is it, that the other particulars are by him recited, as intended by the King to be the Sedi●…ious proposals, though all of them are not free from that name, when as there were so many seditious, and Traitorous proposals besides these.  
That these Tumults played the hasty midwives, and would not stay the ripening, but went straight to ripping up, and forcibly cut out abortive votes, to this he opposes, that the Parliament complained not, and therefore those confluxes were not by them thought Tumultuous. And were they not thought Tumultuous by such, as they had expelled, and driven away from the Parliament? And did he but in his last words call them an Iron flail, and recount the wonders, which they wrought, and now would not allow them to be Tumults? We may besure the seditious faction in Parliament stirred them up, and such, as differed in judgement, or affection from them, were enforced either to be absent, or silent,  
But what good man had not rather want, any thing the most desired for the public good, then attain it by such unlawful, and irreligious means, which is says the libeler had not rather sit still, and let his Country be Tyranized, then like men demand their rights, and liberties, And that is the people ought, when they think fit to Rebel against their Governors, and say their laws are deceitful, and their Government Tyrannical.  
This is the artificiallest piece of fineness to persuade men to be slaves, that the Court could have invented. Is it not Scripture, that we may not do evil, that good may come of it, And what other thing doth the King say, or this libeler make the artificialest fineness of the Court, Traitors persuade men, that they demand their right, while they seek only to oppress the right of all men by a lawless usurpation, and no man can doubt, but such, as Rebel will make pretences, and not spare the laws of God by profane interpretations, nor the Actions of their Rulers by false representations.  
The moral of this lesson would better serve the teacher, and it is the libelers sense. What good man had not rather want a boundless, and arbitrary power, and those fine flowers of the Crown called Prerogatives, then for them to use force, and perpetual vexation to his faithful subjects, nay to wade for them through blood, and Civil war. And have not these Rebels waded through blood, and Civil war to place these Prerogatives, & flowers of the Crown upon themselves, and continue force, and perpetual vexation upon the people of England to set up a boundless, & arbitrary power. The King's just Prerogatives, and flowers of his Crown were of absolute necessity for his people's safety, & they could be a vexation to no faithful subjects This libeler hath inherited cain's lurce, a restless motion, and discord within himself, that here talks of faithful subjects, and by, and by will allow none to be subjects, nor faithful, but the King is their officer, and no oaths bind them to him.  
The King says, who were the chief Demagogues to send for those Tumults, some alive are not ignorant, he says the King cannot coin English as he could money, & 'tis believed this wording was above his known stile, and orthography, and accuses the whole composure to be conscious of some other author. And this learned observation upon the word Demagogue deserves the Laurel. Why is demagogue amore hobgoblin word, than Pedagogue? And why should the one be above the kings known stile, & orthography more than the other? And why may not the king make an English word current, as well as another, There are very many whose known stile, and orthography is beneath the Kings, that could have transcribed Demagogue out of many English Authors without offending against orthography.  
If these Demagogues were men of reputation with the rabble, it adds not to their reputation with knowing men, nor lessens the guilt, nor danger of those tumults, but rather made them more mischievous; & the base sort of people have such most in reputation, as are nearest to their own condition being strangers to virtue, and true worth.  
The King says complaints were made, yet no redress could be obtained. To this he returns the Parliaments complaint of danger, and that it cheered them to see some flore of their friends, and in the Roman, not pettifogging sense, their Clients so near about them. Though he sometimes use the names of Justice, and Patriotts, and love of Country, yet he affects nothing more, nor praises any thing so much, as seditious contrivances, and exploits, and to defend the Tumults, while he would deny there were any, and the seditious Gracchy, Catilnie, and other conspirators against the Roman Senate shallbe commended, for what were these Clients in the Roman sense, but a powerful number of such persons, as were ready to fire the state at the command of their Patron. The Senate never made use of such Clients, but the power of private men by them became the ruin of that state, and he hath given himself a full answer, why the Parliament complained not of the Tumults, when he boasts, that they were cheered to see them.  
The Parliament, and people demanded justice for those assaults, if not murders, meaning those pretended brawls at the Court gate. If any had demanded Justice they might have had it, for what should hinder? the proceedings of no Court were shut but by the Rebels. And it is not Poetical fury, but Bedlam distraction to compare the hurts done in a fray, ptrovoked by an unruly rabble to the shedding of the blood of Nabaoth, and the murder of the king to the revenge of Nabaoths blood. Their choice of the place for that execrable Act before the king's Palace gate is only an evidence of the pride, and malice of their hearts, and of their selfe condemning consciences, that contrived Circumstances to disguise their cruelty with a counterfeit of Justice.  
The king complains, that he found no declarations of the bishops could take place against the Tumults. To this he asks, was that worth his considering, that foolish, and self undoing declaration of twelve cipher bishops, who were immediately appeacht of Treason for that audacious declaring? Surely it was worth the considering in regard of the Justice of the declaration, and the Injustice towards those bishops, and there can hardly be produced a more impudent Act by an assembly of men, that would allow tumults to offer violence to their members, and charge their members for complaining of the injury with Treason. And as they proceeded without shame, or truth, so they make it their mirth, that they could by such a ridiculous means, effect so great a villainy. That declaration, which he calls foolish, and self undoing will stand a perpetual Monument of the virtue, and courage of these bishops, and the infamy of those Cipher Lords, that committed them. And if the bishops were pulled by their Rochetts, as he admits, was not this a just cause in fear in his Majest? And doth this pulling by the Rochetts amount to nothing but petitioning? This libeler says, the bishops deserved another kind of pulling. And no doubt he would have justified their murder in the streets, as well, as the Kings since, and that must not have been the blood of Nabaoth. He would infer, that the King had no cause of fear, because he came the next day after his going to the house of Commons into the City without a guard. The King believed at that time the City was not so totally debauched, but that he might find some, that would guard him against the disloyalty of others, and those humble demeanours, which he mentions are well known to be most insolent provocations of base people, and though at that time the infection was not so venomous, as it grew afterwards, yet the king found disloyalty very apparent.  
Though the King might have feared in regard of his own guiltiness, yet he knew the people so full of awe, and reverence to his person, as he dared to commit himself single among them. If the King had known guiltiness in himself, he could not have hoped for that awe, and reverence, but his going single at such a time, and after so many affronts shows the audacious scurrility of this Author, that hath taunted at him so often for sears, and terrors, and now says he dared go single among such outrageous tumults. And if awe, and reverence to his person were a commendation to the people, as this libeler would have it, it must be the brand of infamy upon him, and his Rebellious pack, that have trodden awe, and reverence underfoot, and wickedly despised, and murdered him.  
He would prove, that the King had no fears after all the reproachful scoffing at his fears, because he went into Scotland after the bishops had been worse handled, then in England, and after two Armies had entered England against him, and this he says argues first, that he was a stranger to England, and full of diffidence. To the Scots only a native King in his confidence, though not in his dealing, next he says, which shows beyond doubting, that all his fear of Tumults was but a pretence. We cannot boubt, that this Author's brain is as Giddy, as the Tumults, for to prove, that the King had no fear of the Tumults, he affirms him diffident to the English confident of the Scots, and labours much to make periods of non sense, that he may use words of Calumny. Might not the King have cause to fear in regard of their malice, though not his personal suffering? And doth not his libeler show his vain falsehood, that here makes the king fearless, and so lately made mirth of the terrors of the Tumults. The libeler doubted he should not find credit to his many contradictions touching the tumults, & therefore turns about to another theme of the King's relation to the scotts, and is so void of sense, as having affirmed within ten lines before, that the king was confident of the awe, and reverence of the people of England to his person, here says he was full of diffidence.  
But he says he took occasion from the Tumults of absence from the Parliament, to turn his disorderly bicker to an orderly invadinge. That the King might be absent without showing a reason why, from his Parliament, no man of knowledge, or common reason ever doubted, and he might, as well go to York, as into Scotland. But he must be persecuted by disorderly Tumults, if he stay, and followed with a form Army, if he depart, and they, that sought Colours, and disgiuses for the Tumults grow so impudent to raise an Army for the King to fight against him.  
The King says he would not have weakened himself by so many former, and after Acts, if he had meditated war, as some suspected, when he left white hall. The libeler says his former Acts did not weaken him, & it might come into his mind after passing these Acts. That which strengthened the Rebels must weaken him, and was the Act for continuance of the Parliament, without which they could not have sat, nor acted, nor deluded the people, nor part of their strength, nor the King's weakness? But he that objects cunning fetches, and evil Counsellors to the king now allows him nothing, but improvidence, and fear.  
The King doubted not, but all had gone well, if the Parliament had sat still free, as it was in its first election, and says the libeler, his not doubting was all good men's greatest doubt. And these are the good men, that could not endure a free Parliament, and the libelers Parliament, that must govern is a new model, not a free Parliament, as it was at first elected; that stood not with their Rebellious disignes, and his good men doubted, that all would not so well with them, if that sat still free, & therefore the Iron flail must thrust the bishops out of the Lords house, and purge the lower house, and yet it is still Tyranny, and obstinacy in the King by this man's judgement not to accept all the Dictates of this ridiculous pack, and he hath a narrow conscience, and not fit for the public, that follows not the cry of this kennel.  
To the King's resolution to hear reason, and consent, as far, as he could comprehend. The libeler asks, what if his reason comprehend nothing, but his own advantages, was this a reason to be trusted with the common good of three nations? Yes truly, and it is no Paradox, that if the King comprehend his own advantages, it is sufficient for the common good of the three nations, for whatever is their common good is his advantage, and whatever is his advantage is their Common good, but all his Patriotts for whom the libeler is so Zealous have advantages of their own, that are opposite to the Common good of the three nations.  
The King says, as swine are to gardens, so are Tumults to Parliaments To this says the libeler. The Parliament could best have told us, had they found it so. And doubtless such of the Parliament, as found it not, may be accounted among the number of these swine, or the herdsmen of them.  
But he says one great hog may do as much mischief in a garden, as many little swine. And it seems, that the like evil spirit, as entered into the heard of swine hath possessed this libeler, and driven him on head long in his Rebellious impudence.  
The King says, he was some times prone to think, that had he called this last Pa●liament to any other place in England, the sad consequences might have been prevented. To show, that the place could have made no change, the libeler instances in his Majest: first Parliament at oxford, which was dissolved. What doth that prove to contradict what his Majest: says, that if he had called the Parliament at another place, these sad consequences might have been prevented? Does the libeler think, that because there was misunderstanding between the King, and some of his Parliaments, that they would therefore have run to the same extremities, that the faction in this last did, or that these factionists could have brought this mischief upon the kingdom, by like Tumults in another place.  
He goes on to say, that the King called his last Parliament at Oxford a Mongrel Parliament consisting all of his friends. No doubt there were in that Parliament many loyally affected to his Majest: but it cannot be denied, for time hath tried it, that there were many among them, that were spies, and disturbers corrupted by the Rebel faction at Westminster, and their own base inclinations, who sought to disorder all Counsels, and consultations.  
The libeler would comprehend the whole people of England within the Tumults, & interprett the King's prayer against the tumults to be a prayer against his people. Is it not God, that stilleth the raging of the sea, & madness of the people? And is not a prayer for the people to pray they may be delivered from such madness, and yet this libeler says, that the king praying to be delivered from the Tumults prayeth to be delivered from the people, and blasphemously concludes, God save the people from such intercessors. And we cannot believe, that God is in his thoughts, whose mouth so often abuseth his name.   

Upon the Bill for TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS, and for settling this, etc.  
HE says the Bill for Triennial Parliaments was a good Bill, and the other for settling this at that time very expedient. And this he says in the kings own words was no more than what the world was fully confirmed he might in justice, reason, honour, and conscience grant them, for to that end he affirms to have done it. This man hath a confirmed enmity against truth, & cannot make a right recital. The king's words are, that the world might be fully confirmed, in my purposes at first to contribute what in justice, reason, honour, and conscience I could to the happy success of this Parliament, I willingly past the Bill for Triennial Parliaments. The greatness of the trust, which his Majest: put upon the people by passing that Bill was a strong Argument, that he would deny nothing, which in Justice, reason, honour, and conscience he might grant, not that the world was confirmed he might grant that Bill in reason, honour, and conscience in respect of the matter of it, for a great part of the world was of opinion, he might with better reason have denied it, had not his desire to show his purposes of contributing what he could to the happy success of the Parliament moved him. And they might be confirmed thereby of his purposes to deny nothing, which in Justice, reason, honour, and conscience he could contribute to the happy success of the Parliament.  
It is the King's manner to make virtues of his necessities, and that neither praise, nor thanks are due to him for these beneficial Acts. It cannot be expected, that Rebels will retain gratitude, that have cast of loyalty, but let us look on his reasons, and the first is, that this first Bill grants much less, than two former statutes yet in force by Edw. the 3. that a Parliament should be called every year, or oftener, if need were. Either the libeler is vain in producing this instance, or in commending the Bill, that gave much less, than two former laws in force, and he must make the Parliament very inconsiderate, that would so much importune a law so far short, of what former laws had enacted. His ancient law book called the mirror, and his late Treatise, that Parliaments by our old laws were to be twice a year at London, carry as little Authority, as clearness, what those Parliaments were they mention, but neither the statutes, nor law books did ever affirm the right of calling Parliaments in any other than the King, or that he might not defer the calling of them, if he saw cause, and these statutes were made to declare the subjects duty to attend the King in his Parliament once a year, or oftener, if need were, and there was no reason why oftener should have been inserted into the law, if any obligation were intended thereby upon the King. And its contrary unto the writ, whereby Parliaments are called, that the time of Parliaments should be defined, for it is recited to be an Act of Council to call a Parliament, which needed not, if it were necessary at a prefixed time.  
The second Bill he says was so necessary, that nothing in the power of man more seemed to be the stay of all things from ruin, than that Act. We are sure, that nothing did more confirm the designs of the Traitors nor hasten that ruin of the Kingdom they have wrought, than that Act. All men discern the fraudulent artifices used to gain that Bill by pretending public debts, which seditious faction had contracted, and intended to increase for the carrying on of their Rebellion, and his Majest: in granting that Bill hoped to take of those occasions of it? the Reports, which they cast out among the people of his unwillingness to raise money for discharge of the Armies. These charges were occasioned by the King's ill stewardshipp, but the world is satisfied, it was from a traitorous conspiracy of the guides of this Rebellion. He alleadges his needless raising of two Armies to withstand the Scots, which no man, but a professed Rebel can so call, for should he have raised no Army, but left all to the mercy of the invader? next he had beggared both himself, & the public. When by this libelers own confession the King had received no supplies from the public for raising those Armies, and these shameless Traitors blush not to talk of the Kings beggering of the people, when the great plenty his Government had enriched them with, is so visible in those vast levies, which the Rebels have since made upon them.  
The King left us upon the score of his needy Enemies. If they had not been too much friends to the traitors of England, there had been no score to them, for all men know whatever they received from England was by the contrivance of the Traitorous faction in Parliament to accomplish their ends. To diseng age him great sums were borrowed. Which its well known was not to disengage the King, but to advance the designs of the Traitors, who dealt under hand with some of the Scots to protract the Treaty, that the charges might be increased.  
The errors of his Government had brought the Kingdoms to such, extremes, 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 Kingdom's confusion, and all men saw there were no extremes to be recovered at the time of passing that Bill, but the return of the Scots, 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 property could not endure.  
The King past these Acts vn●…illingly. It cannot be doubted, but the King foresaw the danger of both, and the libeler might have seen 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 beyond all remedy, and though to avoid a Civil war he made some concessions in hope to bring the people to see their own good, which might turn to his, and their greater mischief, if by them ill applied, yet his Majest: deserves praise, and thanks for such Acts of grace, and the necessity, which this libeler so impudently urges to take of his Majest: just thanks. was the danger of a Civil war, which his Majest: sought by these Acts to prevent, and might have entered into with less hazard before the passing of these Bills, than after. The libeler only increases the infamy of the Rebel's ingratitude, and his own impudence by obt●…ding necessities to take of the King's grace in passing those Bills, and it had not the shape of a Masterly brow, but gracious aspect in his Majest: saying the greatness of the obligation above their deserts, that he had put upon them by passing the first Bill, and the Masterly brow suits not with the following scurrilous conceit, that the king's recital of the obligation he had put upon them by that Act was, as if he had begged an office to a sort of his desertless grooms, and these desertless grooms now Rule the new Republic, there being none, that had the least desert that would accept such a Traitorous 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 need not spend time to prove, and his consent was moved from the reason of the time, not the matter, and the ●…ller hath well observed, that they had offended him much more after the passing of the former Bill, which is not to their credit, but shame.  
It was fear made him pass the Bill, lest the Parliament, and people ●…neenfed by his conspiracies should resent his doings, if he had added the de●…all of this only means to secure themselves. Either his memory is short, or his absurdity unnatural that so lately said the king's fears were pretences, and does he think, that his Majest: could fear their resenting more at that time, then afterward, besides his supposed fantastical 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 avoid a Civil war, and assure his people of his purpose by committing so great a trust unto them, neither can there be imagined other cause, why the passing of that Bill was so much importuned by the Rebels, but to secure themselves, for being conscious of their own guilt they knew themselves unsecure, unless they gained a power over King, and laws. The libeler cannot excuse neither the ingratitude, nor disloyalty of the Rebel party in Parliament, from the King's consent to these laws to present disorders, and mischiefs, which in themselves had not been fit, for his consent at another time, and their insolence in binding him first of all his Predecessors, shows their corruption, and guilt, that would use so much violence, & difloyalite to a Prince whose, gracious Government had least of all his Predecessors provoked it.  
The King taxes them with undoing what they found well done. The libeler says. They undid nothing in the Church, but Lord bishops, Liturgies Ceremonies, high Commission judged worthy by all true Protestants to be thrown 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 Bedlam pattern. These false Sectaries talk of Church, & true Protestants just as they do of Parliament, as long, as it consists of their own limbs, it must be obeyed, but if it descent from their Commands, than they are worse, than Ceremonies in Religion. Doubtless all true Protestants abhor this den of schismatics, that boast of their Rebellious defacing of the Church, and hate their society, there having not been yet any true Protestant, Church, that ever pretended, that Lord bishops, Leiturgies, Ceremonies, or high Commission were worthy to be thrown out of the Church the greatest part of Protestants retaining the like.  
They undid nothing in the state, but irregular, and grinding Courts. The Courts they took away were judged by all wisemen to have been profitable to the Kingdom, and fit to be continued, and the best Governors sometimes grant that to the people's irregularities thereby to preserve them from proceeding to their own ruin, which were sit to deny at another time, & it's their Zeal to public safety, not fear, and dissimulation, as the libeler calls it.  
It was a greater confidence of the people to put into one man's hand a power to Summon, and dissolve Parliaments, than the King put in the people by the Act of continuance of the Parliament. And if the libeler could show 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 own 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 king's power to dissolve, or the people's confidence?  
This is he says not only the assertion of this Parliament, a strong proof, but of our ancient law books, that no man ever read, which aver it to be an unwritten law of Common right so engraven in the hearts of our Ancestors, and by them so 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 Ancestors, where are those law books? But how many hundred years since was this engraving worn out, surely if there had been either such an unwritten law, and so constantly enjoyed, and claimed, it would have been often enroled ere now, but the libeler expected applause for his conceit, not credit to his assertion.  
If the Scots could charge the King with breach of their laws for breaking up that Parliament without their consent, it were unreasonable, that the wisdom of England should be so wanting to itself, as not to provide against the not calling, or arbitrary dissolving of Parliaments. If they had provided against it, where was the confidence he talked of? It follows not, that because the Scots charged the King with breaking of the Parliament without their consent, that therefore the King offended in it, neither was the wisdom of the English nation wanting to itself in leaving the calling, and dissolving of Parliaments Arbitrary to the King, it being a power essential to Monarchy, and we have seen, that the taking away of that power dissolves the Government, and draws confusion, and misery upon the state, and it cannot be avoided, but that from a power erected to affront the sovereignty, there must follow sedition, and Civil discord. People must depend upon their King's grace, and goodness for redress of their greivances, whose power, and safety consists in their welfare, not seek by violence to be their own Carvers, and the people never found so great suffering by submission to their, Kings, as by seeking ways to oppose them.  
It appears, that if this Bill of not dissolving were an unparallelled act, i●… was a known, and Common right. That it was an unparallelled Act he doth not deny, that it was a Common right no where appears, and how can that be an unparallelled Act, that is a Common right? He says it's not enroled, and how then shall it appear to be Common right?  
What needed written Acts, when as it was anciently esteemed part of his Crown oath. His Crown oath is well known, and may not be tried by estimation, but inspection. The libelers estimation hath as little proof, as authority. He refers the lawerlie mooting of this point to a book called the rights of the Kingdom written it seems by some Author of as much fidelity in his quotations, as this libeler in his narrations, and to other law Tracts being neither his Element, nor proper work, since the book, which he hath to answer pretends to reason, not to Authority. And he holds reason to be the best arbitrator, and the law of law itself. And it appears by his writings, that reason is neither his Element, nor work here, for had he use of reason, he would not refer us to books, that are only of Authority to prove the ignorance, and boldness of the writer, neither could reason judge it a law, that a king should not dissolve a Parliament, till all particular greivances were considered, though the setting of it might prove an incurable grievance, but his reason would have the Parliament defend the Kingdom with their votes, as the Roman Senators their Capital with their robes against the Gauls.  
The King must not be at such distance from the people in judging what is better, and what worse. That the people are not the best judges of what is better, and what is worse the libeler himself acknowledges, saying they are excessive in all their motions, and is it not reason, that the King then should be at such distance in judging, but the libeler seeks to be at great distance with truth, that says the Kings own words condemned him, that he had not known as well with moderation to use as with earnestness to desire his own advantages. Where as the King spoke not of himself, but others, his words were, If some men had known as well with moderation to use, as with earnestness to desire advantages of doing good, or evil. Doth this man think reason the law of law, or falsehood the Master of both law, and reason, that so palpably belies the book before him.  
The King says a continuael Parliament, he thought would keep the Commonwealth in tune. To this says the Libeler. judge Commonwealth, what proofs he gave, that this boasted profession was ever in his thought. The king doubtless thought not, that every Parliament would keep the Commonwealth in tune, but a Parliament, that preferred public good before private faction.  
The King saith, as he relates him, some gave out, that I repented me of that settling Act. The Libeler says, his own Actions gave it out beyond all supposition, for he went about so soon after to abrogate it by the sword. here the Libeler omitts a material word, which the King used, which was soon, for the King's words are, that I soon repent. It is well known that the wicked use, which the Traitors made of that settling Act, might give the king just cause to repent him of it, but as the king used not the sword till many Months after the passing of that Bill, so the cause of his Arms were the violent, and Traitorous Actions of a faction, not the abrogation of that Bill.  
The King calls those Acts, which he confesses tended to their good no more Princely, then friendly contributions, as if says the Libeler to do his duty were of Courtesy, and the giving back of our Liberties stood at the mercy of his contribution.  
He would have it believed, that Parents can do nothing for their children's good out of favour, all is of duty, and no thanks belongs to them from their children, nor any from subjects to their Sovereigns, or rulers, for the greatest benefits they receive by good Government, and all the vigilance, watchfulness, & piety of Princes for the people's good is not at all thanks worthy, these are the Maxims of Rebels, and if Kings will not yield up their power, they may be compelled, and the quitting of Government, for which Kings must give account to God, is by these men's Divinity the giving back of liberties, being no other, then to give licence to all wickedness, and bear the sword in vain.  
The kings says he doubts not, but the affections of his people will compensate his sufferings for those Acts of confidence. To this says the libeler, not his confidence, but his distrust brought him to his sufferings, and he trusted ne'er the sooner, for what he tells of their piety, and Religious strictness, but rather hated them as Puritans, whom he always sought to extirpate. The libeler himself cannot deny, but that if the king had not had confidence that those Acts of his would not have beme abused, he would not have granted them, for if he had not been so confident, it had been much more eligible for him to have run the peril of a war without granting them, and we have seen by experience, that many as well as the king were deceived in those, that professed piety, and Religious strictness, and though the king had just cause to hate the faction of the hypocritical Puritan, yet he thought, that there could not so much impiety lurk in many under such profession of piety, and Religious strictness, as hath since exceeded the most blasphemous Atheist, and had the king sooner disinherited, he had in humane reason prevented much of the Calamity, that hath befallen himself, and his kingdom.  
That those Acts of the Kings did not argue, that he meant peace knowing, that what he granted out of fear, he might assoon repeal by force. It is no argument, that he would do it, because he might do it, but it is one of the libelers usual Arguments to conclude from the possibility to the being, and there cannot be a greater Argument of a man's desire of peace, then to part with his right to prevent a war, and by this rule of the libeler there must never be peace, nor end of Rebellion but by the destruction of the king, because their guilt is still unsecure.  
That the Tumults threatened to abuse all acts of grace, and turn them into wantonness. This says the libeler is abusing of Scripture not becoming such a saint to adulterate sacred words from the grace of God to the acts of his own grace. And is it an abuse of Scripture to say the King did Acts of grace? and whence then comes it to be an abuse of Scripture to say the people abused the King's grace, or turned it into wantonness? was it not a sin of wantonness in the people and may it not be so expressed without any abuse of Scripture. Scripture is abused, when it is applied to a profane, & ludicrous sense, but the words here are not transferred from a right signification. There are divers words, that signify both divine, and humane Actions, & there is no abuse of them in either sense And the libeler having excepted to the use of an expression of Scripture, presently makes bold with Scripture saying, that Herod was eaten up with worms for suffering others to compare his voice to the voice of God. when as the Scripture says, he was eaten up of worms, because he gave not God the glory. And is not this to adulterate Scripture but nothing is sacred to Rebels.  
That the King by this Phrase gives jealousy, that he likens his own Acts of grace to the Acts of God's grace cannot be understood, no more than the use of the name of mercy, or justice should give jealousy of likening humane virtues to divine Attributes, though there be a difference between resembling, and comparing,  
The libeler says from profanes he scarce comes of with perfect sense, To prove, that he shows himself senseless. The King's words are, that being not in a Capacity to have taken r●…ge in a hostile way, he could not have given his Enemies a more desired advantage, then by so unprincely inconstancy, to have assaulted them with Arms, thereby to scatter them, whom but lately he had solemnly settled. And where is the libelers exception? he says what place could there be for his inconstancy to do a thing, wherein he was in no capacity? There was place for inconstancy, if he had endeavoured to undo that, which he had done, though he were not in a capacity to have effected it, and if the libeler had sense he would not have miss it & come of without it.  
He would not have, that considerations of hazard, and dishonour, withheld the King from that course, and that he would prove, because he made a war, & yet objects fears to him for the cause of all his Actions, and ●…om then●… might well conclude that nothing but extremity caused him to defend himself by war.  
The king says his letting some men go up to the Pinnacle of the Temple was a temptation to them to cast him down headlong. By this says the libeler, he compares himself to Christ who is not at all named. The Parliament to the Devil, which is not neither, and that ●●●ling Act his letting them go up to the Pinnacle of the Temple. The libeler says its a goodly use of Scripture. Similitudes of Actions imply no Comparisons of persons, but the congruity of the allusion made the libeler angry, and yet he may not be believed, that the Actions of some Traitors, and particularly his Masters may not be resembled to that of Judas without comparing the person betrayed to Christ.  
He says, it was no Pinnacle of the Temple, but a Nabucadnezars' Palace, from 〈◊〉 and Monarchy fell headlong together. Those Rebels have robbed, and ruined the Temple, as Nebucadnezar did, and they, that glory in casting king, and Monarchy headlong have the spirit of that tempter, which persuaded our saviour to cast himself down. The people now, as these of old find it the extremity of desolation to be without King, and Church, and it is an horror to them, that the unclean spirits of Rebellion inhabit the King's Palaces.  
The King says All the Kingdoms of the world are not worth gaining by ways of sin, which hazard the soul. And says the Libeler, he left nothing unhazarded to ●…pe three. He hazarded nothing, but what he was bound to God, and his people for the preservation of his Kingdoms, and these Rebels left no wickedness unattempted to get them.  
The Act of settling was no sin of his will, and the Libeler says, It was a sin of his unwillingness. But his falls hood is proved wilful in this, as in most of his assertions. The King confesses the ill consequence of that  
Act, but he says it was not a sin of his will, because it proceeded from other men's malice, and though he willingly past the Act, yet he judged the Evil ensuing, not the Act of his will, and it was a sin of the Libelers will, that so knowingly perverted his meaning.  
The Libeler says, that at his prayers, he had before him the sad presage of his ill success. And is it his fault to discern his Enemy's cruelty, and his own afflicted condition?  
But he says his prayer books no sooner shut, but other hopes flattered him, and that was his destruction. It's not impossible, but he might have hopes, but his misfortunes will be the guilt, and destruction of them, that caused it without God's great mercy which they yet despise.   

Upon his RETIREMENT FROM WESTMINSTER.  
THe King says, I stayed at white hall till I was driven away by shame more than fear. And says the Libeler in his Messages, and declarations and in the whole Chapter next but one before this he aff●…rmes, that the danger, wherein his wife, children, and his ●…e person were by those Tumults, was the main cause, that drove him from white hall, and affirms here, it was shame more than fear, from whence, and the Ld. Digbies speech to the same purpose, he says, we may discern, what false, and frivolous excuses are avowed for truth. We may see, how wilfully, and absurdly this Libeler will contradict truth, and himself, that not only in one Chapter, but in every Chapter past upbraids his Majest: with fears, boasts, that by fears he was compelled to consent to the death of the Earl of Strafford, and to pass those Acts, for which he deserved no thanks, because he did them for fear of the Tumults, and is now so shameless to call them false, and frivolous excuses.  
The King formerly expressed, that valour is not to be questioned, for not scufling with the sea, or an undisciplined rabble. And though he had not a base fear he could not be unapprehensive of violence intended by that rabble, and it cannot be doubted, but that a King must have a greater measure of shame than fear to see such insolences, and if this libeler 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 thinks his readers have a short memory, as well as sense, and therefore he regards not the repugnancy of his own Periods.  
He magnifies the courage, and severity of Zeal to justice in Rebels of former times, and calls them our fore Fathers, and that their folly, & wickedness may have some excuse in following subtle conspirators against their King, he calls it courage, and severity of Zeal, and that he may authorise their lewdness, he says their courage was against the proud contempt, and misrule of their Kings.  
He says, that when Rich. the 2. departed, but from a Committee of Lords, who sat preparing matter for the Parliament, not yet assembled to the removal of his evil Counsellors, they first vanquished, and put to flight Robert de Vere, his chief favourite, and then coming up to London with a huge Army required the King, then withdrawn for fear, but no further of then the Tower to come to Westminster, which he refusing they told him flatly, that unless he came they would choose another. And who can read this relation, but must judge, that it was a Traitorous conspiracy of these Lords, and a giddy, wicked Rebellion in the people? By what law was the king bound to attend these Lords, or what authority had they to prepare matter for the Parliament, more than any others of the Kingdom? Is it not a known Treason to endeavour to depose the King, and did not the late Parliament profess to abhor the thought of it? And how comes it to pass, that these Lords have a power to threaten the King with deposing him? What Rebels can be convicted by any law, if this Action be not Treason? The libeler gets 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 Traitors mentioned by Mr. Solicitor against the Earl of Strafford. His folly in seeking to draw an Argument from the Actions of Rebels, to prove a Crime 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 Peers, and Counsellors, which did tend towards a Parliament, for by that Rule he must attend in as many places, as there are factions no sober time ever pretended, that the king was bound to attend the Parliament, which was to be called, and dissolved by him, and our Ancestors would be esteemed as void of reason, as loyalty, if their Parliaments were governed by a Tumultuous rabble, and the king were obliged to do what they would have, though the whole kingdom were bleeding to death of those wounds, which their impious, and inconsiderate violence, and fury had inflicted.  
The king says the shame was to see the barbarous Rudeness of those tumult to demand any thing. And this the libeler 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 restrain that barbarous rudeness.  
The worst, and strangest of that any thing they demanded was but the unlording of bishops, and expelling them the house, and the reducing of Church discipline to a conformity with other Protestant. Churches. And this the libeler would have no Barbarism. What did the Parliament there, if the Tumults may demand the alteration of the Government of Church, or state? Can it be presumed, that a rout of Mechanics could determine what, was conformity to other Protestant Churches. The libeler at first remembered Mr. Solicitours discourse against the Earl of Strafford, there he might have found, that it was Treason to go about, & assemble a multitude to alter the Government of Church, or state; And to seek the unlording of bishops by force, in that manner they did was Treason by the law, and we have seen, that this desperate rabble, whose demands the libeler says were but the unlording of bishops, and the like think the murder of the king, and destruction of his family no other than a but.  
They were demanded by the Parliament, which is untrue, but they were demanded 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 forsook the helm, and steerage of the Common wealth. He withdrew himself from that storm, which the Traitors had raised against him, and admitted not any steerage, when all was whirled by tempestuous Tumults. The libeler would willingly mince the causes of his Majest: departure, and therefore he catches hold of the mention of shame to exclude fear, & from the barbarous rudeness of the Tumults to demand any thing, he would conclude; there were only demands, & no barbarous rudeness, and would make the last word to exclude all, that went before.  
To be importuned the removing of evil Counsellors, and other greivances was to him an intolerable oppression. To offer violence to him for his protection of faithful Counsellors, & the support of Government in Church, and state was intolerable, and though the libeler do commend the violence of the Tumults, yet here he calls it only importunity, and the King's denial of the impetuous demands of a rabble to change the Government in Church, and state denial, and delay of Justice. If violence be lawful, as he often affirms, why doth he mince his defence, and so often fly to these terms of importunity, and petitioning?  
The advice of his Parliament was esteemed a bondage, because the the King says of them, whose agreeing votes were not by any law conclusive to his judgement, for says the libeler, the law ordains a Parliament to advise him in his great affairs, but if it ordain also, that the single judgement of a King shall outballance all the wisdom of his Parliament, it ordains that, which frustrates the end of its own ordaining. There is no doubt, but in a Monarchy the dependence of the people is upon the King the greatness of whose interest in the prosperity of the Kingdom is more likely to oblige him to their preservation, than any number of private men can be encleined to, and as the law ordained a Parliament to advise him, so it forbids them to command, or prescribe him, though the Major part of Parliament involve the whole, It's against all reason to include the King, who is always furnished by law with his other Counsels, & may see good reason to prefer the Counsel of the smaller number, and that law, which ordained the Parliament to be called, and dissolved by the King had destroyed what it ordained, if the King had been bound to consent to all advices given him by the Parliament. Such a restraint upon the King not only makes void, and useless those select Counsels, which by law are continually to advise him, but destroys the Government of Monarchy, which the law cannot intend, and gives the Parliament the absolute sovereignty, which the people would not live under being contrary to their desires, and dispositions, & the trust reposed in such, as they elected.  
The King's judgement may descent, he says, to the destruction of himself, and Kingdom, And so doubtless may the judgement of a major part in Parliament, and we have found by long experience, that Parliaments have produced Acts to the prejudice of the state, and corruption of Religion, but this libeler holds all means frustraneous, that beget not Rebellion, and as in his affection he prefers the judgement of the Parliament, before the Kings; so any Company, or committee of Lords, that conspire against him, as appears by his late remembered instance against Rich: the 2: And what power he would have in the Parliament over the King, he would place in the Tumults, his admired Iron flail over the Parliament, and prays unto God to send them, that they may purge the Parliament, and prescribe laws both to the King, and them, and therefore he judges, that it is unlawlike, that a remedy so slender should be the utmost means of public safety. And we are sure, that Rebellion, the only remedy, which he approves, is the destruction of all public safety, and shows the Libeler as unable to judge of law, as unwilling to obey any.  
He concludes, that the King's negative voice was never a law, but a reasonles Custom grown up from flattery, or usurpation. And how shall we judge, that so long a Custom without contradiction was no law? & that the contrary was an unwritten law, and constantly enjoyed, & claimed. Can he think, that because the support of Rebellion is a subversion of law, that therefore Rebels reasons are the rule of law? And yet he is confident, it is better evidence, than Rolls, and records, & as they deal with law, so with Scripture making their fantastic dreams, & Diabolical infusions the Canon of their Religion. And the Monarchy of David, and his successors ordained by God, and that had both a negative, and affirmative voice, was a reasonless Custom from flattery, or usurpation.  
He proceeds to show the strength of his Argument. Because the negative voice is claimed to one man, not as a wise, or good man, but as a King. And how doth he claim the power of the Parliament as to wise, or good men, or as to elected men? And it may be easily supposed, that the Major part of the Parliament may not be so wise, and good, as their King, especially so assisted by other Counsels, as kings are, and it were no abusive thing to Summon Parliaments, though the King do take their advices by weight, & not by number, but it were an abusive thing, that such, as were called to advise, should take upon them to determine.  
The King says. The whole Parliament represents not him in any kind. To this says the Libeler. If the Parliament represent the whole kingdom, the king represents only himself, and a king without his kingdom in a Civil sense is nothing, nor without, nor against the representative, and so his negative as good, as nothing, and though we should allow him something, yet not equal to the whole kingdom, nor them, that represent it. But what answer is this to the King, that being not represented, cannot be bound by the votes of them, that represent him not? Is the Libelers making him nothing, or not equal to the representative any reason why he should be bound by their votes? The King is by law, & reason the representative of the Kingdom, & as this sottish libeler cannot deny it out of Parliament, so he might well see, that the election of persons to advise him, doth not take away that supreme representation, which the law hath given him. there can be nothing more absurd, then that an elected company representing subjects to their King, should take away the Kingly representation, & it is a ridiculous sophistry, that because the king is not the subject, therefore he is without his kingdom. The people in Parliament are represented petitioning, and consenting, not commanding, and revolting, & it is repugnant to their condition to be equal, or not inferior to their King, which were to destroy the relation of king, & subject.  
The king maintains to be no further bound to agree with the votes of both houses, than he sees them to agree with the will of God, with his just rights, as a King, and the general good of the people. The Libeler would allow him freedom with due bounds, but not, that he should have a negative, upon that, which is agreed by the whole Parliament. Where are his bounds now? for if he have no freedom, where they agree he hath none at all, for if they do not agree, he can neither consent, nor dissent, but such poor sophisms are the reason of these popular Tribune's, and they will have both affirmative, and negative in the Tumults, but not in the King.  
To know the will of God better than his whole Kingdom, whence should he have it? The Libeler doubtless will, affirm, that himself knows the will of God better, than many whole Kingdoms, and why will he deny that possible to a King? I may ask him, why he should call the judgement of the Parliament, or a Major part of it, the judgement of the whole Kingdom, when the Major part of the Kingdom be of another mind, if because they represent it, then why may not the King's judgement in the highest representation be preferred before theirs? If the Libeler were put to tell whenever such an Action had happened, that the king dissented from his whole kingdom, he would hardly find it, when people have in greatest multitudes opposed their king, they were rarely, or never in the right.  
To know the will of God better, than his whole kingdom, he asks, whence should he have it? Court breeding, he says, and conversation of flatterers was a bad school. But conversation with Sectaries, & Rebels was worst of all, kings may be presumed to have better breeding, than any others, and the Libeler in another place argues from the kings breeding a greater expectation of ability. Flatterers are most hateful to kings, and their principal breeding is to avoid the insinuations of such deceivers, but the present faction have outdone all Court flatterers in falsehood.  
The king could not judge of his own rights, but he had a right to keep them, when they were judged. He says the king had no right by law to judge in any Court. And yet he judged in all Courts, all judgements 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 king's presence among them, because the king judges by his delegates doth he not judge, or can they judge his Crown to themselves.  
That the king cannot judge of Treason, & felony because he is held a party. And why did he then exclaim, that the king should hold no Treasons, but against himself, 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 king's rights, he says, must give place to general good. But it is general evil to take away his rights. He may not yield to Traitors, that desire him to part with them for their own advantages. It is no arrogance in a king to suppose a clearer insight of the general good, than others, though chosen for the Parliament, whose breeding, and condition could not qualify them for such a descerninge, and it is a fond imagination in the Libeler to suppose the Parliament the king's Council, and suppose the king void of Judgement to discern the soundness of their advice.  
They have most authority to judge of the public good, who for that purpose are chosen out, and sent by the people to advise him. But it necessarily follows, that he hath most authority, whom they are sent to advise, their authority being to advise, his to determine, and being sent to advise they destroy their own authority, and office, when they Command.  
If the King see oft the major part of them not in the right, it had been more his modesty to have doubted their seeing him more oft in the wrong. The libeler prescribes modesty 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 seen the often Levity, and precipitation of a Major part, he should have doubted of their seeing him in the wrong, however they own him duty, as their king, he no submission to them.  
That the King ought to grant the people's rights, and liberties, because of right demanded, it being his duty, not his bounty to grant these things. But it is the subjects misery, aswell as their madness to demand the king's rights, as their own, and we know, that the demands of Rebels are for themselves, and to take away the people's rights, aswell as loyalty, and we find, that there were such, as the king mentions, whom no fountain of Royal bounty was able to overcome, and for whom the comparision of hidropike thirst was very favourable being more insatiate than gusters in a wine cellar, and nearer the nature of horse leeches, and swine.  
The King confesses a rational sovereignty of soul, and freedom of within every man, and yet with an implicit repugnancy would make useless that freedom of will in all other men but himself. That cannot be by using the liberty of his negative voice, for are the wills of other men captivated because they cannot do as they will, & because the king will not do what they will have him, and because men are subject to Government is freedom of will denied them?  
Them, that yield him the obedience meaning the king, he pronounces worthy to be slaves, which he infers from these words of the King, the he deserves to be a slave, who captivates the rational sovereignty of soul, and liberty of his will to compulsion. And how can the libeler draw any such conclusion from these words? Laws, that restrain Actions do 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 evil, and in such case a law may not be obeyed, though violence may not be used against the lawmaker.  
What that Freedom is which cannot be denied him as a King, because it belongs to him as a man, & a Christian the Libeler says, he understands not, if it be his negative voice, 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 freedom in giving his vote in Parliament, therefore every man ought to be there. The Libeler need not be ashamed to confess 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 liberty of will in giving his vote, and by what Logic could the Libeler thence conclude, that all, that have not a negative voice to what the Parliament propounds are no men, nor Christians? If the king have not a negative voice, he hath no voice, & every members of Parliament hath a voice affirmative, & negative, and they deny that to the king in denying his negative voice, which they allow all, that have any voice.  
He demands what was he himself all this while, that we denied it him, as a King. He had the freedom of his will, when he gave no vote against it, but all the world says that you were Traitors in the denial. His natural liberty of will was not taken from him by your Traitorous violence, though his right to use it in his kingly office were Rebelliously withstood. If a King be prohibited the use of his reason in his Government, he is denied that, which belongs to him as a man, and a Christian, and these impudent Traitors are so cauterised, that they scoff at their Lewd villainy ask whether he did not enjoy the liberty of his will, when they had imprisoned, and deposed him.  
He asks, might not the King have enjoyed both reason, and conscience governing us as free men, by what laws we ourselves would be governed? And how could he govern, if you make the laws, he might be governed? And who shall govern, when every man is a lawmaker, and he could not enjoy reason, nor conscience governing by laws he approved not.  
It was not the inward use of his reason, and conscience, that would content him. Doubtless it ought not being a King, but says he to use them both as a law over all his subjects in whatsoever he declared as a King to like, or dislike. The King were no King, if his subjects might make laws without him, and his reason, and conscience ought to be his laws in governing, and he justly said. It were better to be without the Title of King, if it should carry with it such a vassalage, as not to suffer him to use his reason, and conscience in what he declared as a King to like, or dislike which use of reason says the libeler most reasonles, and unconscionable is the utmost, that any Tyrant ever pretended over his vassals. Tyrants were never esteemed by their pretences, but by their Actions, & it shows that these men knew not, what Tyranny was, who make a just right of all Governors, the use of reason Tyranny, and that, which never king was thought fit to be denied, though Tyrants abused it. Tyranny is in the abuse of power, not in the rule of Government.  
In all wise nations the Legislative power, and the judicial execution of that power have been distinct. But never divided being always subordinate one to the other, the judicial execution depending on the Legislative.  
He makes an assumption, If then the king be only set up to execute the law he ought no more to make, or forbid the making of any law, than other inferior judges. But if the king be set up to make law by the advice of his Council the Parliament, can they make laws without him, but this Libeler, that would be thought so strong at Arguments, talks himself into contradictions, and allows the king, neither the one power, nor the other, for he affirms the king cannot judge, and make laws he must not, and what will he conclude, sure, that his own nation is not wise, nor himself honest, or rational.  
He cannot reject a law offered him by the Commons, no more than make a law, which they reject. And hath it sense, that because a man cannot do an Act without the advice of another, therefore he must do what that other advises? The man dictates, and would be believed, though the Commons never did, nor could offer a law to the king, for he well knows it must pass the Lords before it come to the king, but he was loath to mention the Lords, lest it should cry down the noise he hath made of the kings single judgement, for the Lords house may not have a negative in his judgement, notwithstanding their number. But why is it offered the king, if he may not reject it, and whence hath it been, that so many Bills have been rejected in all ages, without any complaint.  
When Kings come so low as to fall upon Philosophy, which before he neither valued, nor understood is a signe they are then put to their last trump. If the king had not valued nor understood Philosophy, he could not have made so pertinent use of it, and if the Libeler had understood Philosophy, or valued truth, he would have given better signs of it. Could not his Majest: discourse of his reason, and will, but it must be out of the way, or above his ability. But why is this a sign, that kings are then put to their trump, why the use of Philosophy more than other, learning? Though kings come low, Rebels will come to seek corners to hide themselves. He shows not how Philosophy breaks the neck of their cause, or how he hath made advantage of Philosophy against the king, but we find how his elaborate contradictions, have broken the neck of his own cause through out all his discourses.  
The king says he cannot think the Majest: of the Crown of England to be bound by any Coronation oath in a blind, and brutish formality to consent to whatever its subjects in Parliament shall require. And says the Libeler, What Tyrant could presume to say more. And the law itself, Religion, and reason never said less.  
It cannot but be yielded, that the oath, which binds him to performance of his trust, aught in reason to contain the sum of what his chief trust, and office is. But what if it do not, is there an argument to be drawn from what the oath ought to be, but is not? The oath may contain the general duty of Justice, & right, but it neither did, nor could comprehend all the ways of effecting it.  
The libeler says, that the King's negative voice is not contained in that oath. But that oath oblidges him to govern by just laws, which comprehends a negative to all unjust laws, and can it impose an obligation upon the king of doing Justice, and not give him a liberty of judging what is just, or unjust?  
The Libeler says, that his oath requires only his assent to those laws, which the people have already chosen, or shall choose, there is no such word in that oath, and his mention of the Latin, and old English of that oath are of another sense, & that the libeler was conscious of, & therefore he says. All reason admits, that the people should not lose under a new king what freedom they had before. but their freedom consists not in an exemption from sovereign power. It is the custom of Rebels to contradict, & corrupt all laws upon pretence of their private reason, & allow no reason but what concludes against just authority, he well knew there was not that double sense he assigns, but we will make his sens the king's oath? if the people's choice be referred to the time past, it implies not, that their choice was or ought to be a law, though they had a choice in the laws made, as still they have, & they could not lose what they never had, & the Parliament, which at first mentioned the king's oath acknowledged, that as they did not determine the question how far forth the king is obliged, to follow the judgement of his parliament, so as to conclude that a new law might be mad without his consent. so they acknowledge that the contrary may be truly inferred out of all they had said.  
That if the King deny what the Parliament hath chosen, he makes himself superior to his whole Kingdom. And who doubts but he is? do not they which take the oath of supremacy acknowledge it? The libeler says the general maxims of Policy gainsay it. The general maxims of Rebellion do, but Policy cannot. It is impossible in Policy, that he to whom every soul must be subject, should not be superior to them all.  
Our own standing laws gainsay it, as hath been cited in Remonstrances that the King hath two superiors, the law, and his Court of Parliament. The merit of those remonstrances are near the rate of this libel, though as yet they never mentioned such standing laws, & if there had been such standing, laws the Author would have found them enroled, but that he doth not, & how absurdly such a pretence is obtruded, when the superiotie of people, & places is in quesstion to name the superiority of law, which holds comparison with sciences, not with people, & that the Parliament should be above the king, who is the head of the Parliament, without whom a Parliament hath no being is as Monstrous to reason, as law, & it is impossible that the law can say, that the king hath no superior but God, & say, that the Parliament is his superior, & the king might well say, that this was blind, & brutish formality, and no part of the law, his oath, or duty, but such brutish formalities Rebels use to blind the people.  
The King, and Peeraes represent only themselves, the Commons are the whole Kingdom. Which is as apparently false, as that the Common Council, of London are the whole kingdom, & the commons in Parliament have no power from the people, to do any thing without the king, & Lords.  
Infinite mischiefs may grow while our safety shall depend upon the over weening reason of one man. And we find by experience, that desperate ruin inevitably follows, when our safety depends upon the agreement of a multitude. It is the nature of sectaries to be wise in their own conceit, and thence come arrogance, and contempt of Government, & it is a principal in their schism to improve this natural insolence, and contemn all Estates, and abilities of men dissenting from them, & though his Majest: were of most eminent natural endowments this libeler calls him a man neither by nature, nor nurture wise. Which shows he understood not wisdom in others, nor was sensible of his own folly so apparent to all his readers. That a King should want breeding to make him wise, is strange in the libelers own judgement, and that the experience, & breeding of the King was eminently extraordinary the world well knows.  
He calls the King's negative his will, & the Parliaments demands advice. May not their demands be wilful, and his negative advised? The nature, and nurture of this libeler is disobedience, and therefore will have the King's wisdom to be will, & the Rebel's rashness wisdom, and it is impossible, that men, who have sucked in such principles should ever be obedient to any Government, studying only how they may disaffect subjects to it.  
He says the King's error was imperious, and force was used not to dispel error out of his head, but to drive it from of our necks. These Rebels sought to be imperious, & put the yoke upon the necks of the people, and that, which restrained them from an absolute arbitrary power, which was the King's negative, they would take away by force, and place negative, and affirmative in themselves. The libeler says well that force was not used to dispel error, which was used to enforce consent, and to make error, and shows their wickedness, that took that course.  
The King says the uprightness of his intention will excuse the possible failings of his understanding, who seriously endeavours to see the best reason, & faithfully follows it. This the libeler says is a position false in law, & Divinity. But for that we must take his word against all law, & Divinity. But he says its contrary to the Kings own better principles, who affirms the goodness of a man's intention will not excuse the scandal, and contagion of his Example. And doth it contradict what the king had said, of the excuse of error in judgement, by the uprightness of the intention, because a man cannot excuse an evil Action by the intending a good end, where there was no error of the fact, but a known evil.  
His not knowing through corruption of flattery, & Court principles will not excuse him. But we are sure, that this libelers wilful falsehoods, corrupt, and Rebellious principles condemn him, and make him odious to God, and man, and he is not like a Pilot mi'sled by a wand'ring star, that may be possible, but like a Pilot, that will not be giuded by stars, but maliciously destroys the ship, and men, and this Author might sooner excuse a drunken Pilot, than a savage Piratte, and such are they, who wilfully practise doceites, and cruelties under the name of national rights.  
They used force to acqiut their own reason, and conscience from force That is they used force to Domineer over king, and people, and establish their own will for law. And to rebel against their king is to arqiut their reason and conscience.  
The king says never thing pleased him more, than when his judgement concurd with theirs. The libeler to this says. That was to the applause of his own judgement, and would aswell have pleased any self conceited man. But could the king despise the judgement of the Parliament, as this addle headed libeler continually exclaims, and make it matter of applause to himself, that his judgement concurd with theirs? Could he slight their judgement, and conceit his own credited by their concurrence? If he had no other esteem of their judgement, than the libeler would have believed, doubtless he might have suspected his own Judgement, for concurring with theirs; And whence comes itt, that a self conceited man would be so well pleased with such a concurrence? A self conceited man scorns the concurrence of other men's judgements, and prefers his own against all others, but reason cannot be expected from this man being use les to his undertaking.  
The king says in many things he chose rather to deny himself then them. And says the libeler. That is to say Trifles, for of his own interests, and personal rights he conceives himself Master. And who can deny itt, but he is Master of them, and yet he hath parted with these, land could he part with any thing whereof he was not Master? And were all these laws, which the libeler commends, trifles?  
To part with if he please saith the Libeler, not to contest for against the Kingdom, which is greater than he, whose rights are all subordinate to the Kingdom's good. If he may not contest for them, he must part with them, though he please, or not please, but being for the Kingdom's good, he is bound to contest for them, and it is to ruin the Kingdom, when subjects contest to take them away from the King. Those rights are in compatible with subjects, and inseparable from Governors, and are no more subordinate to the people's good, than Justice, or law are, but they are the people's good, and the people are subordinate to their Rulers in judging what is their good. But he must part with them because the Kingdom is greater than he, as the Libeler says, That is no reason, but it is according to the Rebel's principles, that there is no right, but force, & the weaker may not contest against the stronger.  
The libeler is very copious in his declamations against Monarchy, and it would be tedious to follow him in his verbofitie, he excepts to these words of the King. In what concerns truth & Iústice, the right of Church, or his Crouwne, no man shall gain his consent against his mind. And says the libeler. What can be left then for a Parliament, but to sit like Images, whilst he assumes the best ability of judging, or restrains all men from enjoyment of any good, which his judgement thinks not fit to grant them. And what were a King but an Image, if he were bound to grant, whatsoever his subjects in Parliament demand of him, and to what end do they take an oath of Allegiance, if he were bound to quit it, when they ask it? And are there any so sunk in understanding, as to believe, that it is the office of a King to judge of nothing, and the right of subjects in Parliament to command all things. But this man is of Achitophells' mind, that if his Council be not followed, he will go home, & hang himselse. Advice from subjects to a King is ordained by law, but the subjection of a King to advise is monstrous, and unsupposable. The Author's repetitions of railing Epithets upon what concerns the King, or his Actions, & commendation of the wicked Actions against him, will not alter the nature of one or other, and his vehement asseveration, that the law, and coronal oath require the King's undeniable assent to what laws the Parliament agree upon, is not out of opinion of truth, but the strength of his language himself showing the contrary aswell as the Parliament.  
The King says he had rather wear a Crown of thorns with our saviour, then to exchange that of gold for one of lead, whose imbast flexiblenes shallbe forced to bind, and comply to the various, & oft contrary Dictates of any faction, when instead of reason, & public concernment they obtrude nothing, but what makes for the interest of parties, and flows from the partiality of private ●…ills, & passions. The libeler says many would be all one with our saviour, whom he will not know. They who govern ill those Kingdoms, which they have right to, have to our saviours Crown of thorns no right at all. Such as are Rebels to lawful Princes, & usurp Kingdoms, will never wear a Crown of thorns with their saviour, nor can hope to be known by him, while they suck the blood of his anointed, and Tyrannise over kingdoms so wickedly gotten. That Crown of thorns, which this libelers savage soldiers, and others set upon the last king, is now his Crown of rejoicing in heaven, & honour among men, & the infamy of these hellish miscreants. The libeler twists thorns, and snares for himself by his shameless Calumnies, seeking to make the assassination of a gracious king his own demeritts.  
A Crown of gold is not due to him, who cannot first wear a Crown of lead, not only for the weight of that great office, but for the compliance with them, who are to Council him. A leaden Crown may well express stupidity, and baseness, and the Crown of gold better agrees with sound Council, which is compared to apples of gold in pictures of silver, then lead which shows only that imbast flexiblenes to the various, and oft contrary Dictates of any faction, and is only a weight of punishment, not of office, which the gold represents, but Traitors cannot endure a Crown of gold upon the head of their king, they will only allow him a Crown of thorns, or lead.  
The libeler taxes the king for want of modesty, in imputing want of reason, and neglect of the public, rather to the faction then to himself, because the faction was the Parliament. And he must be a man void of all modesty, that doth not judge such Actions as the king complained of to proceed from want of reason, & neglect of the public, interest of parties, & partialities of private will, and passion. The sectaries were wont to deprecate all accusations of irreverence to their King, and complain, that they were wronged, but the question is now changed, & contempt of the King is their great virtue. The libeler throughout this whole discourse rejects the consideration of the King's conscience, & hereto these words of the Kings I know no resolutions more worthy a Christian King, then to prefer his conscience before, his Kingdoms, says the sentence is fair in seeming, but fallacious, for the conscience may be ill edifred. And because it may be so, is it fallacious, that conscience must be preferred before Kingdoms? These hypocrites, that pretend to Rebel for their conscience, accuse the king for refusing to pass a law, in regard of the contrary persuasion of his conscience, and it must be an ill edified conscience in him to forbear an act, & a rightly informed conscience in them, that commit an act so bloody, & scandalous to the whole world, & so dangerous to the souls of many, that were drawn headlong into that sin, the King's conscience cannot be preserved without his negative voice, and therefore he might justly assert it to be his right by law, & when the libeler can persuade men, that Parliaments are infallible, and free from faction, & that Rebels are best judges, of what is for the Kingdom's good, he may hope to be believed, that the king denied that, which law, his oath, and office bid him grant. And all men see, that under the name of the advice of Parliament, Rebels have introduced their own wills for laws.   

Upon the QUEEN'S DEPARTURE.  
WHat concerns it us here to hear a husband divulge his household privacies, extolling to others the virtues of his wife, an infirmity not seldom incident to those, who have least cause, Just Testimony to virtue is never an infirmity, but necessary from the husband, where conjugal affection hath derived the hatred of his Enemies to his wife. If the divulging of household privacies concerned him not, it is his lewdness to take occasions of derision, & base language from it. Treasons to the mind are as pestilence to the body, that turns all diseases into its own malignant humour, for this Libeler cannot forbear despite to the King for speaking that, which he saith doth not concern others, nor to the Queen for being named.  
How good a wife she was to himself, how bad a subject is not much disputed, And to whom was she a subject, to the Rebels? Those that acknowledge themselves subjects to the King, will have the Queen esteemed a bad subject for her Zeal to his State, and safety, these evil spirits, that possess the Rebels persuade men, that it is a fault to be bad subjects, and yet will allow none to be subjects, but the King, his wife, and children.  
It need be made no wonder, though she left a Protestant Kingdom with as li●…le honour, as her mother left a Popish. This mention of her mother shower the extension of a Traitorous malice, that spares no relations, nor conditions though unconcerned. Those, that compelled the Queen's departure did more contribute to the dishonour of a Protestant Kingdom, & the Protestant Religion, whereof they take the name without the truth, than the greatest Enemy to the Protestant Religion could have effected, what the case of her mother was we inquire not, but the world sees, that these injuries to her Majest: exceeded example, & Rebel's injustice fixes no dishonour, but on themselves.  
The king says this is the first example of any Protestant subjects, that have taken up Arms against their King a Protestant. The Libeler says it can be to Protestants noe dishonour, when it shallbe heard, that he first levied war on them, and to the interest of Papists more then of Protestants. But than it is dishonour, if he first levied not war upon them? And all that read his book must conclude, that they first leavyed war upon him, what else doth he mean by defending the Tumults, seizing the forts, and Militia, raising an Army, & upbraiding the king with fears to hazard such a scuffle. But were it otherwise, the Protestants have disclaimed his Traitorous pretence of taking Arms against the King under colour of Religion, or otherwise, & hold it dishonour to their Religion, that such Rebellious principles should be charged upon them, and nothing could be more for the interest of Papists, than that Protestants should maintain, and practise that doctrine of Rebellion. The world is satisfied, how disloyally the King was prosecuted by Arms, and had it been otherwise, subjects ought to petition not return violence, and in all the excuses that these Traitors have used, they never mention any offer of satisfaction to the King, or desire to lay down his Arms, but require his submission, and giving up his rights, or otherwise they would take it by force. The precedence of the Scots war will not take of the dishonour.  
He says, It's a groundless, and dissembled fear, that she, that was for many years averse to her husband's Religion should be now the more alienated, & can the Libeler deny, but that the aversion of any may be increased, and confirmed by the wickedness of the persons of the contrary Religion, how groundless then, and shameless is his exception?  
If the fear of her delinquency, and justice demanded on her, was any cause of her alienating the more, to have gained her by indirect means, had been no advantage to Religion. As the King observed, that this was the first example of Protestant subjects, that took Arms against their king: so this of charging the Queen with Delinquency was the first example in that kind, that traitorous impudence had produced, & when it shallbe heard, that a company of such vile persons charge the Queen with Crymes for assisting her husband, they willbe assured, that not fear of Delinquency, but their barbarous cruelty might more alienate her, & disadvantage Religion. Them, who accused her he says well enough known to be the Parliament, the King censures, for men yet to seek their Religion, whether doctrine, discipline, or good manners. And so doth the whole world, whatever name the Libeler give such men, who are well enough known to be a Traitorous faction.  
The name of true English Protestants is a mere schismatical name. And why? Are there not several confessions in the Protestant Churches, & do they hold one another schismatics for that reason? How often hath this Libeler named the best reformed Churches, is not that as much a name of schism? he is ignorant in the nature of schism, though he be so well practised in it, and its strange he would observe a Schismatical name from the title of a nation, and not from his title of Independency, that produceth as many titles, and distinctions, as there be Parishes, or Parlours.  
The King ascribes rudeness, and barbarity worse than Indian to the English Parliament. To the Libelers Parliament he very well may. He says the King ascribes all virtues to his wife undervaluing the great Council of his Kingdom in comparison of one woman. And not only he, but all good men abominate that wicked Council, which used such rudeness, and barbarity towards her, and from hence the Libeler tells us there are examples of mischief under uxorious Magistrates, and Feminine usurpation. And must Magistrates therefore have no wives, or no affections to them? And the examples of feminine usurpation are more frequent in Republican Tribunes than Monarches.  
The king says, her tarrying here he could not think safe among them, who were shaking hands with Allegiance to lay faster hold on Religion. The Libeler says that he taxes them of a duty rather than a Crime, it being just to obey God rather then man. And is perjury, and the breach of Allegiance obedience to God, and do men obey God, that break one Commandment upon pretence to keep another. The Scripture tells us he that breaks one Commandment is guilty of all, but these are they that say they love God, and yet hate their brother, hate and kill their King God's vicegerent.  
The libeler says 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 Libeler was not of their Council, for the time required they should keep their mask longer.  
He is offended at the King's prayer, that the disloyalty of his protestant subjects may not be a hindrance to her love of the true Religion, and says that he never prays, that the dissoluteness of his Court, the Scandals of his Clergy, unsoundness of his own judgement, lukewarmness of his life, letter o●… compliance to the Pope, permitting his nuntio here, may not be found far greater hindrances. All these put together are far short of the scandal of the disloyalty of his subjects. The Court dissoluteness is made a common place of scandal, not verity in respect of the application, there being not such excesses in his Majest: Court, that deserved a special observation, and the restraint of dissoluteness was more observable, than the Crime. As to the scandals of his Clergy, though we must believe, that offences will come, yet the scandal of the present disloyalty was more offensive to those of different Religion, than any disorders in Civil conversation, and the injustice of the Rebels towards the Clergy, hath showed the untruth of the scandals, that were cast upon them, & though their malice traduced, & persecuted them, their proofs could not convict them of the scandal supposed. His Majest: own judgement cannot be overcast by a Rebel's malice, and his exemplary life cannot be stained by a Libelers pen. His letter to the Pope was no complaince, nor could it give offence to protestant or hope to Papist, & these Rebels, that comply with Turks, and infidels lest of all think it a compliance. The Libeler well knows there was no nuntio in England, and if the King should have denied the Queen the exercise of her Religion, whereto he was bound by the Articles upon the match, he had given greater scandal by breaking the Articles, then by permitting her the repair of persons in matters of her Religion. But says the Libeler, they must not sit still, that is not Rebel, and see their Religion snatched away But they have Rebelled to snatch away Religion. He says, It's known, that her Religion wrought more upon him, then his upon her, and his favouring of Papists, and hatred of Puritans, made men suspect she had perverted him. No doubt suspicions were industriously raised, and carrefully nourished against the King, though they believed them not, that made use 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 discerned to that wickedness they have since avowed.  
From his suppositions he ascends to his exclamations. What is it, that the blindness of hypocrisy dare not do? It dares pray, and think to hide that from the eyes of God, which it cannot from the open view of men. We find this very frequent in this Author, and in this very Period, that in contempt of God, & men, charges the King with Crymes he not only knew false but which are so known unto the whole world, and conclude against ' his own narrations, and others view.   

Upon his repulse AT HULL, and the fate of the hotham's.  
HE makes an introduction, that Hull was the Magazine of Arms, which the king had bought with money illegally extorted from his subjects. He thinks, that if goods be ill gotten, its lawful for him, and his Sectaries to rob him, that possesses them, else to what use is it mentioned with what money the King bought these Arms? But had the king no means to procure Arms but by illegal exaction? sure that will conduce little to the Apology of this breaker, that Galumniates the King so much for seeking means from his subjects for public safety.  
Next he says these Arms were bought to be used in a causeless, and most unjust Civil war against Scotland. What was the war in Scotland to hotham's taking of Hull, or seizing the Magazine, when the war was ended? Railing will neither make the war unjust, nor the mention of it here any way extenuate the usurpation, but shows the barrenness of his matter by his repeated insignificant falsehoods.  
The Queen he says was gone to Holland to set to sale the Crown jewels a Crime heretofore counted Treasonable in Kings. It's like such a Treason, as he makes to buy a Magazine of Arms to resist an invader, he should have done well to have told, when this heretofore was. It's likely they that held it Treason in Kings to have sold Jewels of the Crown would have made it some Crime to have bought Jewels for the Crown, and it is no Treason now to sell the Crown, Jewels, and all by his cut throat crew.  
The Parliament was not ignorant to what in●…ent these sums were raised. their own actions told all the world they were necessary to be raised.  
The Kings refusing to settle the military power in trusty hands upon their petitions, and doubting he would possess himself of Hull, they were necessitated by the turbulence, and danger of the times of their own authority, to put●… the Kingdom into a posture of defence, and to send Sr. john Hotham to take Hull into his possession. How many lewd lies have they sent abroad into the world, that the King made war upon them, and it was the Libelers own pretence in the beginning of the last Chapter, & now plainly tells they seized Hull, because they suspected the King intended it, and because he would not settle the militia, as they desired. If he had no power over the Militia, why did they petition him? If the Parliament be his superior why did they petition at all? Do superiors petition inferiors? But what was that turbulence, & danger of the Kingdom, was there any more, than what themselves had made by rumours, and Tumults, and is not the seizing of a fort an Act of war?  
The King had attempted the same before. And was that any cause for them, because the King sends to his Castles, or forts, must they therefore take them from him? And he says letters of the Lord Digb●… were intercepted, wiss●…ing the King to retire to some safe place. And therefore these Rebels would provide he should be safe in no place.  
The King offered to g●…e in person into Ireland, and that he would Arm his guard from his Magazine of Hull. The Parliament he says foreseeing the king's drift petition him, that they might have leave to remove the Magazine of Hull to the Tower of London. So careful they were to have the Rebellion in Ireland proceed, that they desired his Majest: to forbear his going into Ireland out of consideration of danger to his person, when as they intended to destroy him at home, and the true cause was, that they would detain these Arms to make war against him, if he would not submit to be deposed, and to keep the money given for Ireland to drive on the war here.  
The King afterward going to Hull required the Governor to deliver him the Town, whereof the Governor humbly desired to be excused, till he could s●…nd to the Parliament. It seems the libeler would not have that a denial.  
The King proclaimed Hotham Tray●…our before the Town ●…lls And no man dobuted, but he was so.  
The King gave order to stop all passages between him, and the Parliament. And had he not reason to prevent supplies, and intelligences to a Traitor?  
Yet says the Libeler he demanded justice, as upon a Traitor, using a strange iniquity to require justice upon him, whom he had debarred from his appearance. Traitors must be apprehended before their appearance, and it was a strange iniquity in them, that would not apprehend a Traitor, as in Justice they ought, but a most execrable impiety in such as pretend Justice, to clear a malefactor without hearing both parties, as the libeler says the Parliament did Sr. john Hotham, for he says the Parliament no sooner understood what had passed, they declare Sr. john Hotham had done no more, than was his duty. They meant no doubt his duty to them, as fellow Traitors, not to his king, and sovereign.  
That this proves that to be false, which is here affirmed by the King, that his greatest Enemies had scarce confidence enough to abett, or own it. And such, as knew the manner of their proceedings at that time, know the truth of what the King affirms, and though the necessity of their engagement made them own it, yet there were very few, or none, that esteemed it an act of Justice in them, but of Policy for their own security. The king says it affected him more with sorrow for others, than anger for himself, nor did the affront trouble him so much, as their sin. The libeler says, there is use of this book to show us what a deluded thing the creature is, which is called the vulgar, who will believe such vain glories as these. And surely we cannot believe any creature so deluded, as those, for whose capacity the libeler writes, that makes the deluded vulgar judges of laws, and kings, yet here spurns it as a despised creature.  
The strangeness of belief that he imagines, as that the King proclaimed him Traitor without due process of law. If he could have told what the due process of law was, no doubt he would. If a thief, or murderer be taken in the Act, or escape, must there not be a proclamation for his apprehension? If Traitors be in Arms against their King, is it choler, or rashness to proclaim them Traitors?  
The King had lately been convinced of his illegallitie with the five members. He was injuriously denied Justice against them, which produced the second insolence of Hotham.  
The King's relation declares his anger to be incensed, as he had, but doth it follow from thence, that he was not more sorry for others, then angry? May not a father's sorrow for his son's disobedience, exceed his anger, and may not a King desire the punishment of a Malefactor, because he pities his person, & grieves for the ill consequence of his offence? Yet this trifling Libeler, would infer, that the king could not be more sorry, then angry, because his words testify impatience of delay till Hotham be punished.  
It's a strange operation of sorrow, that stirred him so vehemently to have Hotham punished, and not to have him rep●…nt. But this exception is more strange, that a man may not be vehement for the punishment of one, for whose offence he is grieved, and there may be just cause of sorrow, for an Act, which the repentance of the Actor cannott remedy. He knows well how little his Majest: was likely to work upon Hotham at that time obstinate, but it was a necessity upon his Majest: to endeavour, that he should be proceeded against injustice.  
There hath not been observed in the King a sorrow for his own sins, nor for such sins of others, as cannot be supposed a direct injury to himself. This man will not have the King's sorrow for his sins observed, nor acknowledged, we have seen his malicious detractions of the King's sorrow for his consent to the death of the Earl of Strafford, and it cannot be expected from such men, that they will give Testimony to any truth, that deny all evidence of it.  
The King's labour to have the sinner only punished willbe c●…ed revenge. And why? They pretended justice, not revenge that after cut of Sr. John Hothams' head. May not a King do justice without revenge? The injustice in abettinge, & protecting Sr. John Hotham at that time was the ground work of the succeeding evils, and the same men, that denied justice at his Maj: desire took revenge of the same insolency afterward.  
Hull was not the Kings own town, but the Kingdoms. And how became they a Town, have they not all their liberties, and grants from the King? He might have said that Towns under a popular Government were the peoples, but in a Kingdom, it is a fantastical dream, & the laws deny a possibility of any such property having placed the sovereignty of the Kingdom in the King, & such a conclusion of right is inconsistent with a kingdom.  
The Arms he says were public Arms bought with public money, or not his own. If the king have money from the public may they take it away again, to what end then do they give him subsidies, if the money be still their own, and they may take away what is bought with it.  
Had they been his own, as much as the private house, and Arms of any man are his own the law permitts not to use them in away not private, but suspicious to the Commonwealth. If vulgar suspicion may check public employment, he may not look long to use any thing. And is it a crime in the king to use his private wealth in a public war? No doubt, but his Majest: property is as much, as any private man's, else his kingly office had little honour, or strength, and he is not accountable for the use, which he makes of his Estate either private, or public, and there was no fear of the use, that the king would make, but from Traitors, that would prevent his defence.  
The King by his overtalking seems to doubt of belief touching his patience at H●…ll. He expected not, nor valued the belief of Traitors, but such as soberly consider what he says, will not judge him over talking, but modestly expressing his own temper, which endured so high a provocation.  
The king says he could not, but observe, how God not long after pleaded, and avenged his cause. The Libeler says most men, and commonly the worst are apt to interpret the judgements of God to the justifying of their own cause. It's possible the worst men may do so, but we see it very frequent with the best. The Prophet David often takes notice of Gods dealing with his Enemies, & wicked men. The Libeler might hence observe his Masters, the worst of men, that interpret, and expound the Judgements of God, and the event of providence to the justifing of their Rebellion how often hath he in this Libel taken up that Argument, and in this very Chapter makes an observation of God's Judgement upon the King, from their murder of him before his own Palace gate. And how frequent are their successes produced as profess of the goodness of their cause, but his Majest: observation is not grounded upon the event, but the evident Crime of Hotham, which all men held Treason, but such, as would allow nothing to be Treason against the King. Although we know not the reasons of God's ptoceeding, who often leaves good men to suffer, and wicked men prosper, yet when we see the prime instrument of a wicked design perish by the hands of those, whom he served in his unlawful enterprise, we may justly take notice of the proportion between the sin, and the punishment.  
His comparing Saul's conjecture of an advantage God had sent him in David's being at Keilah, hath no●… resemblance to the taking away of Hothams' life, Saul being not only deceived in the advantage, but conscious of God's disfavour.  
Hotham was safe, and successful, while be continued true to the Parliament. But the guilt of his conscience made him unquiet.  
If God had purposed such an end for his opposition to the King, he would not have deferred to puinsh him till of an Enemy be was made the King's friend, nor have made his repentance the occasion of his ruin. These presumptuous Rebels dare sit in judgement upon God's ways, and prescribe a rule sor his proceedings. It's true, because judgement is not executed speedily, the hearts of the children of men are set upon evil, & the Libeler judges, that if the judgements of God be not apparent in his time, that is forth with, they are none at all. God brought his judgement upon the son of Ahab, and not upon himself, because he humbled himself, and God punished the sins of David upon his posterity, though he forgave him, and we may conceive the judgement of God upon a wicked Act, not the repentance of it, though it come after in time. Strafford Duke of Buckingham was an active assistant to Rich: the 3: in his usurpation, and after revolting from him perished by that power he had raised, which all men look on as a judgement upon his first compliance with that Tyrant, and the sat of Hotham, and that Duke hold great proportion in regard of their Actions, and sufferings.  
Glorious deeds done to ambitious ends find a reward suitable. And that the Libeler might justly apply unto Sr. john Hotham, who made popular applause the end of his Treason, and perished by popular fury.  
Men may here take notice what thanks he had from the king for revolting to his cause. Repenting Traitors may have mercy, but they deserve not thanks, & though his punishment may be remitted, the infamy of his Act will survive.  
Because God judges not by humane fancy, therefore says he such events, as are obvious to every fancy, are most like to be erroneous. And then such Acts of providence, as make men say surely there is a God, that judgeth the earth are most likely to be mistaken. Although Common fancies are likely to be deceived, it is a sorry inference from thence, that what is obvious to every fancy weak, and wise, should be more likely to be erroneous.  
The king so far pitied Hotham, as he thought he at first acted more against the light of his conscience, than many other men, in the same cause. To this the Libeler says. They who act against conscience are least of all to be pitied either at the Bar of humane, or divine justice.. Desperate sinners, as most miserable, are most to be pitied in Christian Charity, though justice proceed more severely against them, pities are part of justice, the Libeler is acquainted only with the operations of malice, not of pity, whereof his whole discourse shows him destitute, otherwise the kings pity could not argue him destitute of the Common grounds of nature, as the Libeler infers, and shows that he esteems the common grounds of nature, Acts of Tyranny, and insultation upon others, ruin, hatred, and scorn being all the Charity, that Sectaries practise.  
He says the king jerkes at some men's reforming to models of Religion, and that they think, all is gold of piety, that doth but glister with a show of zeal. To this says the Libeler. The piety of his Prelacy model, glisteren more upon the posts, and pillars, which their Zeal, and fervency guilded over, then in true works of spiritual edification. The repairing, and beautifying of the houses of God was the highest commendation of many of his faithful Servants, and the Scripture gives that for the high commendation of the famous Jehojada, and we may expect spiritual edification from those, whose zeal, & fervency carries them to bestow their goods on such Actions, nothing but destruction of Church, & piety from those, that decry such commendable, and necessary works, & we have found, that such men, as have pretended to spiritual edification, by traducing other men's zeal in the outward service of God, have proved at last rotten Carcases guilded over, and painted sepulchres.  
He is sorry, that Hotham felt the justice of others, and fell not rather in to the hands of his mercy. The libeler says he should have showed, what mercy he had used to such as fell into his hands. He needed not show that, whereof there are so many Examples.  
But says the Libeler, whathever one man might have expected, the whole nation found none, but had been swallowed up in blood, had not his power failed. What need the King produce Examples of his mercy, when his most ma●…icious Enemies offered nothing to the contrary, but the war, which they had necessitated him to make. There cannot be an Argument more convincing of the want of all justification in these Rebels, than their perpetual recourse to an incredible assertion, that the King caused the war, which besides the falseness of the allegation is not of weight to argue want of mercy, when as Princes, and states may casually be engaged in a war, and yet be far from cruelty, or designs of revenge, and his Majest: known backwardness to a war, and moderation in it, show his compassion as eminent to the public, as particular persons.  
The King says Clemency is a deb●…, which he ought to pay to those, that crave it, since we pay not any thing to God for his mercies, but prayers, & praises. This says the Libeler hath sound of gravity, but the significance of nothing pertinent. And yet it signifies, that we are to forgive others, because God forgives us. But says the Libeler we ought by this reason as freely to pay all things to all men. We ought no doubt freely to pay what is due to all men, but the Scripture more particularly requires Clemency, and forgiveness from us in regard ourselves have most need of it from God, and the Libeler shows a great emptiness of reason, that calls this an empty sentence, and upon this occasion to repeat the payment of the king's duty to the kingdom, when as he declares, that nothing, but the giving up of his Crown could be a discharge of his duty, so grave a judge is he of debts, and duties.  
The King pities Hotham, but aggravates rather than lessens, or concealos his fault. Conceal, or lessen it, he could not, aggravate he doth not, & being a King his pity ought not to destroy his judgement, nor deceive him in the offence of those he pardons.  
If a reiterating judge be worse than a Tormenter, a reiterating standerer deserves Torment. The mention of a malefactors' offence, or repetition of a public transgression is far from a Triumph, and as this Act of Hotham was a groundwork of infinite misery: so his Majest: deep sense of the mischief of that fact, might reflect on it with serious observation, and pity without any Triumph.  
He is angry that the king says after times will dispute, whether Hotham were more infamous at Hull, or at Tower hill. And says what knew he of after times, and while he sits judging the fate of that unhappy father, and son, knew not, that the like attended him before his own Palace gate, and as little knew, whether after times do not reserve a greater infamy to the story of his life, and Reign. The libeler well knew by the book he seeks to answer, that his Majest: well knew the power, & malice of his Enemies, while he wrote this, and that he expected they would show their utmost cruelty to his honour, aswell, as his life, but he was well assured their injustice, & disloyalty could not effect what their impiety designed, and as long as Religion, or reason inhabit the world, his story cannot be blotted in after times, but it seems the libeler is apprehensive of future infamy, though he think himself assured of present power.  
He would seem an Enemy to vain repetitions in prayers, but its only of such things, as Traitors will not pray for, otherwise there is large experience of the vain babbling of sectaries in their prayers.  
He says its too presumptuous in a written, and published prayer to take it as a favour from God before he knew it was intended him. He knew God had brought a severe punishment upon a known offence, and how could this be presumption to mention it, in a published prayer, but how can the libeler call it the sacrisie named by Eeclesiastes, that practices such particular thanksgivings for successes, when as the cause he maintains, and prosecutes is so notoriously wicked.  
The King says Let not thy justice prevent the objects, and opportunities of my mercy The Libeler says. To folly, or Blasphemy, or both shall we impute this, shall the justice of God give place, & serve the mercies of a man? all other men, who know what they ask desire of God, that their doings may tend to his glory. And doth not he, that prays he may be able to show mercy to his Enemies, pray, that his Actions may tend to God's glory, Is not God glorified in the mercies of men? Is not mercy in men a gift of God, and can this tri●…ler pretend sin in that prayer? which desires of God, that his Justice may not prevent their mercy to their Enemies, May not men pray for their Enemies, pray to have judgements diverted from them, pray to have an occasion to show them mercy? But this libeler, that esteems so little to Blaspheme is careless how falsely he charge it on others.   

Upon the listing, AND RAISING ARMIES.  
HE begins with the King's mention of Tumults, the demonstrations he calls them of the people's love, & loyalty to the Parliament. Which in their nature more than the king's denomination were demonstrations of disobedience to law, hatred of Government, & disloyalty to the king. Their petitioning was in the Authors own judgement the height of violence, & Barbarism, which he compares to the Iron flail, & those Arms which he calls defensive were so apparently a Traitorous histolitie, that the ends, which he assigns for them admit not the least colour for the appellation of defensive.  
The King takes no notice, that those listed about him were the beginners of these Tumults. Neither could he of so strange an imagination.  
The king says his recess gave them confidence, that he might be conquered. The Libeler says, other men supposed both that, and all things else, who knew him neither by nature warlike, nor experienced, nor fortunate, yet such says he are readiest to embroil others. How well he performs the first period of his book not to descant on the king's misfortunes his readers may here see, that makes the king's misfortune his reproach, and a ground of their wicked confidence to Rebel against him, but that such men are readiest to embroil others is not so certain, but undoubted they are not readiest to embroil themselves, and no valour, nor experience, whereof his Majest: is well known to have had a great measure can stop a slanderous tongue. The mischiefs brought upon his Majest: kingdoms sprung from such persons, as sought their advantage by such broils, which all men see the King could never expect.  
The King says he had a soul invincible. And the Libeler says, what praise is that? the unteachable man hath a soul to all reason invincible. And is an invincible courage no praise? He seeks to show his wit by applying invincible to unteachable, when as if he had cited the King's next words, as he ought, he had lost his jest, for the King says, he had a soul invincible through God's grace enabling him, but he breaketh sentences, and truth, lest he should break for want of matter.  
That the King labours to have it thought, that his fearing God more than man was the ground of his sufferings. The Libeler says, he pretended to fear God more than the Parliament, who never urged him to do otherwise. And did they not urge him to do otherwise, when they urged him to do that, which was against his conscience? But there need not more be spoken of this, for the Libeler calls that a narrow conscience, which will not follow a multitude against its own persuasion.  
He shows his levity beyond that Creature he calls the vulgar, who now affirms the King was drawn by his Courtiers, and bishops, and yet in the beginning of his book he says, that the discourses, and preachings of Courtiers, and Prelates against the Parliament was but a Copy taken from his own words, and Actions, that all remissness in Religion issued originally from his own authority, all miscarriages in state may be imputed to no other person chiefly then to himself.  
He goes on to compare the words of Saul, that he had performed the Commandment of God to the King's mention of his fearing God, & the kings upholding the Prelates, against the advice of the Parliament, & example of all reformations, is not much unlike, if not much worse, no nearer like, than this Author's writings to modesty, & loyalty. Is the advice of the Parliament, and the example of all reformations equal to the express Command of God? The examples of all Reformations, himself tells afterward are not concurrent in the matter he mentions, and if they were so, are all points of reformation equally necessary, and of the same obligation with the command of God? and was the Reformation of the Church of England no reformation? Why then doth he say all Reformation? And is not the Church of England equal, if not superior to any part of the world, that hath reform? But we see what account these hypocrites make of the Example of all Reformation, that have set up schismatical confusions of Religion in contempt of all Reformation. His Majest: did no more in upholding the Prelates, than what the example of the most primitive times, Godly Emperors, & holy martyrs instructed him in, which no Reformation ever contradicted, and he had no reason to hearken to the advice of such, as then called themselves a Parliament, who had broken all the laws, and privileges of Parliament, expelled the members, and were governed by Tumults, & a company of Bedlam Sectaries against the doctrine, and practice of the vinversall Church. The practice of Saul in persecuting David well suits with the course of these Rebels, but they have gone beyond him in malice, and disobedience in the matter both of David, and alsoe the Amalekites, he broke the Commandment of God in sparing Amaleke, these traitors presumptuously break the Command of God in destroying their King, & Church. And this man exceeds Saul's presumption, that makes the preservation of an order continued in the Church in all ages as bad, or worse, than the sin of Saul.  
He says acts of grace are proud, unselfe knowing words in the mouth of any King, who affects not to be a God. Certainly this Libelers words show him not only in affection, but in Act a proud unselfe knowing man. Are there no Acts of favour, no Acts of mercy in Kings, but all of necessity, but enough hath been said to these brainsick dreams.  
Never King was less in danger of violence from his subjects, till he unsheathed his sword, nay long after, when he had spilt the blood of thousands, they had still his person in a foolish veneration. Should a Christian call that, which God Commanded, & David practised foolish veneration, but they whose wisdom is Rebellion, hold Divine wisdom foolishness. And was he in so little danger from those, that held that veneration foolish, were there none, that held so, when they affronted him, and threatened him every day? To what end should multitudes come about his Palace, and cry Justice, when they sought murder? What would they have done if he had denied their demands, shall we believe they intended no violence, or shall we believe, that they, who had seized the forts, and navy, and usurped the Government would have used no violence to his person, when they had him, if he plied not with them? It's true many were not wholly unshamed at the first, but the malice, and ambition of others was sufficiently confirmed, and the multitude easily falls by Example.  
The King complains, that Civil war must be the fruits of his seventeen years reigning with such a measure of justice, peace plenty, and Religion as all nations either admired or envied. The Libeler says for justice let the Council table, star Chamber, and high Commission speak the praise of it. We may be assured that malefactors will never praise Court of justice, we know Sectaries, and seducers hated the high Commission, and seditious Libelers the star chamber, & conspirators, & incendiaries the counsels of Kings, and there were no Acts passed in these places of such exception, as the measure of justice, which he enjoyed was not admired, or envied by all nations.  
His mention of abolishing Parliaments detracts not from the measure of justice, peace, plenty, and Religion, & we have found what injustice hath succeeded.  
The displacing of honest judges he hath misplaced to detract from the justice of his Majest: Government, and as the placing of judges was in his Majest: choice, so he might take notice, whether their places might not be better supplied by others, and the change of two judges, for that's the number in seventeen years, is beneath an exception, his railing declamation against corrupt Government being only in general deserves not an answer, and the known prosperity, peace, and plenty of the Kingdom, are a sufficient confutation of such imaginary oppressions.  
He says what peace was that, which drew out the English to a needless, and dishonourable voyage against the spaniards at Cades. It was that peace the Parliament desired, and if the voyage proved successels his Majest: by preventing further danger, and preserving peace notwithstanding the miscarriage (which must be the dishonour only of the managers) sufficiently testifies how well he deserved of his people for the continuance of their peace, and safety.  
He asks next what that was, which lent our shipping to a Treacherous, and Antichristian war against the poor Protestants of Rochel. What is this against our peace at home, and though there were ships of ours used against Rochel, 'tis sufficiently known they were not lent against Rochel, and the Dutch ships, which were used, as ours were not lent to a Treacherous, and Antichristian war.  
He asks what peace was that, which fell to rob the french by sea to the imbarring all our merchants in that Kingdom. Is not this man mad, that will charge the use of the shipping against Rochel for a Crime, and call it a Treacherous, and Antichristian war, and presently charge the King for making war against the french, upon the ground of using his ships against Rochel, and call it a robbing of the french by sea, and is it possible to avoid the loss of Merchants in case of hostility?  
He proceeds to cry out on that unblessed expedition to the Isle of Ree doubtful whether more calamitous in the success, or design. Was not the design in the favour of Rochel, did they not desire it? and yet he calls the ill success of that Action the betraying all the flower of our military youth, and best Commanders to a shameful surprisal, all, and execution. And who betrayed them, and to what purpose, what advantage could his Majest: have by such a loss? And was the war against Rochel Treacherous, and Antichristian, and the relief too? But this Libeler is resolute to defy sense, and reason, & now he hath spoken against the peace we enjoyed, whereto doth it amount, was there any interruption of our peace at home, and was there not cause for these expeditions abroad, If there were not the Parliament failed in their Council to the King in advising the war with spain, and complaining of the french for the misimployment of the ships against Rochel?  
If peace were intended us at home, what meant these billetted soldiers in all parts of the Kingdom. Dotario noth he know the meaning, that mentions Cades, and the Isle of Ree, where they were employed, surely he is so intent on words, as he loses his Memory, aswell as his other faculties.  
But he hath found out a design of Germane horse to subdue us in our peaceful houses. These Germane horse have made much noise, & yet were never discovered, and the King, who was advised to make a war in Germany, and other places by the Parliament could not use Germane horse, but against England. But what is all this to the great measure of peace we enjoyed above other nations. Can any man, that reads this Libelers wilful impertinency judge other, then that he fights blindfold, who would extend these foreign voyages, which had not the face of war at home, and continued not beyond the four first years of his Majest: Reign, to diminish the measure of our peace so long enjoyed, and that in the midst of so many miscarriages, and conspiracies both at home, and abroad.  
For our Religion he says, where was there a more ignorant, profane, and vicious Clergy learned only in the antiquity of their pride. The pride of these Sectaries contemns all learning, & antiquity, which condemns their fantastical, & presumptuous novelezing. The learning of the English Clergy is too well known to the world to receive any disreput from the Streechinge of night oules, and of Kats.  
No wise man could see, what was left for other nations to admire or envy, but to pity. Other nations saw who had enough to cause them to admire our happiness, not to pity our condition, and of this there is a large Testimony.  
But says the libeler, wealth, and plenty in a land, where justice Reigns not is no Argument of a flourishing state, but of nearness rather to ruin, & commotion. The blessings of God, peace, and plenty are often turned into wantonness, and wickedness by the people, and are often a sign by the people's abuse of ensuing ruin, or commotion, and of this the present condition of England is a great Testimony, but it was never denied, to be the flourishing state of any nation, and he will find little credit to his supposition, that Justice Reigns not, where there is wealth, and plenty in a land.  
There were not some miscarriages only of Government, which might escape. And of that nature are all the particulars gathered by him, if they had been true, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to arbitrary Government. There was a distemper, and disaffection to Government in many seditious seducers, but an viniversall distemper, and reducement to Arbitrary Government could not consist with the oppression of that tranquillity, and security of the people, which was visible to all men, the loss whereof brought on by these Rebels is too late lamemted.  
That his Majeest: owned the Actions, and protected the persons of men in highest favour with him is no argument of this vinversall distemper, no more than the vulgar cries against rulers is an Argument of their miscarriage, or the people's moderation, who will have persons removed from Government, and yet not agree, who shall succeed them. It was an Argument of great distemper in a people, that cried out against the King's evil Counsellors, that could not judge of their Actions, but of no vinversall distemper in the Government, neither could the king with piety, & justice leave his Ministers to the malice of conspirators and barbarity of Tumults.  
The king says, whose innocent blood hath he shed, what widows, or orphans tears can witness against him? The Libeler thinks he hath given an answer by saying the suspected poysonnig of his Father not enquired into, and he advanced, who was aceused by Parliament to be Author of the fact, and many years of cruel war on his people in three Kingdoms. It is a wonder to amazement, that such, whose language hath no Limits of truth, or modesty should not be able to forge a probable Calumny, the Records of the Parliament show, that no man was accused for the poysoninge of the king's Father, nor poisoning named, ct the fact was fully enquired into, and all witnesses examined, that had any knowledge of Circumstances touching it, and must this be the particular to prove the king guilty, of shedding blood? We may see upon what grounds they will draw blood, that offer such pretences for taking the blood of their king. Is it possible, that a Tyrant in seventeen years' Reign could not be proved guilty of the blood of one man? And can a Rebellion be more apparently convinced, then by the seeking a cause for it from the resistance, that is made against it, and the endeavour to suppress it? Was ever a cause so barren of excuse, that had nothing, but it's own guilt for defence?  
But he hath found out a scotchman, not unacquainted he says with the affairs, who affirms, that there hath been more Christian blood shed by the Commission, approbation, and connivance of King Charles, and his Father james, in the latter end of their Reign, then in the ten Roman Persecutions. And is not this a doughty authority, what could he say more to prove himself a false varlett? Whoever saw, or heard of this shedding of Christian blood, is it possible, that so much blood should be shed, and no man know it, but this Scotchman? Was all the world so negligent to take notice of it, and did the Scotchman, and this Author think, that the blood of the late war made up this number, they may then expect vengeance upon themselves, and their bloody crew for it, either here, or hereafter. They value such, as suffered in the ten persecutions at the same rate they do their King, and their conscience, and if they thought persecution odious, why do they exercise a persecution upon Christians as cruel, as these persecuting Emperors?  
He says not to speak of those many whip, and other corporal inflictions, wherewith his Reign alsoe before this war was not unbloody. And is a Reign bloody by inflicting death upon robbers, and murderers, or whipping, and the Pillory upon, Cheats Infamous Libelers, and seditious disturbers of Government, but of these latter the number was very small not exceeding four in seventeen years, and these merited the punishment they had, & an higher had not exceeded their crimes. Is the execution of law a bloody Reign, he finds none, that suffered banishment, nor any that died in prison, but such as were restrained by ordinary Justice.  
He cannot pretend an arbitrary power in any of this, that the King infested the true Church is no other language, then what good Princes always received from Sectaries, who accuse always for their restraint, infesting the true Church, but all men now see they are the malignant Compamy that infest the true Church, & the seducers of simple souls.  
But he hath a proof of blood above exception, where no blood was drawn, and that is the six members, whom all men judged to have escaped no less than Capital danger. Doubtless they had merited Capital punishment in the judgement of all knowing men. That a just King may be offended for the escape of malefactors is easily believed, but that saying the birds are flown argues much trouble is a secret to all men, and a proverb as often applied in jest, as earnest.  
The libeler says, that if some vulture in the mountains could have spoke, he could not have uttered fitter words at the loss of his prey. The excesses in blood, and cruelty of these Rebels cannot be expressed to the full, by the savage nature of any Creature. The grinning of dogs howling of wolves, and hissing of Serpents are not more hideous to nature, than the petulence of vile persons against kings are abominable to Religion, and piety.  
Because Nero was unwilling to set his hand to the execution of a Common Malefactor, and wishing he had not known letters he would prove the King prosecuting Traitors to have no great aversation to blood, but it strongly proves a bloody conspiracy, when the contrivers are held innocent, and the King made the offender for seeking just punishment, and the Triumphs of such, as protected those persons, and their impudent braving the King at his very doors argued their haste to the shedding of that blood, which since hath covered the Land.  
Touching the cause of the war, the King says, It was not my withdrawing from whitehall, for no account in reason could be given of those Tumults, where an orderly guard was granted. The libeler says, that if it be a most certain truth, that the Parliament could never obtain any guard fit to be confided in, than some account of these pretended Tumults may in reason be given. But if they be not only pretended, but apparently Tumults, there can be no account given of them, at least the libeler undertakes it not, and that they could not obtain a guard fit to be confided in, is false, for they had a guard, and Commander of their own nomination, though not the Earl of Essex.  
The King asks, whom did he protect against the justice of Parliament. The Libeler says he endeavoured to rescue Strafford, that was from their injustice, if he had done so.  
But says the Libeler he endeavoured it, though with the destruction of them, and the City, commanding admittance of new soldiers into the Tower. And is it a necessary consequent, that the admittance of new soldiers into the Tower were to the destruction of Parliament, and City. But did not such, as like blood hounds, & wolves hunted the Earl of Strafford, that they might not lose their prey, and the sweetness of their revenge in drinking his blood, stir up the Tumults to the destruction of King, Parliament, and Kingdom?  
What can be disputed with such a King, in whose mouth, & opinion the Parliament itself was never but a faction, and their justice no justice, but the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabble's. The Parliament was never a faction in the King's mouth, but it is in every man's mouth, that the Parliament hath been overswayed by a faction, and a faction have called themselves the Parliament. And how can the Libeler define a Parliament, but he must acknowledge that those, whom the King calls a faction were no Parliament, and that their Actions were no Justice, but the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of Tumults, and rabble's? himself proves it by the commendation he gives the Tumults, for effecting these Acts, which he now calls the Justice of the Parliament, & no wise man could think 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 than the parties accused. But who can talk with such a man, as this breaker, that reputes Monarchy Tyranny, order in the Church an imposed Religion, and laws worse than Ceremonies in Religion.  
He compares the avoiding of his mad judicature to Catilnies' flight, and excepting to the Roman Senate, and Caesar's injecting scrupulous demurs against the Decres of the senate upon Lentulus, and Cethegus. But did either of them object, that the power of Tumults overswayed the senate, or that the senate wanted freedom, and had oppressed the members of it? If Catiline had set up a senate as Caesar did afterward, and these Rebels have in England, & oppressed the legal Government, the exceptions had been very just, but exceptions against particular senators for private animosities cannot derogate from the judgement of the whole being free.  
That such reasons were urged for Strafford, was never heard at his Trial, 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 clearer passage to their design.  
The King vouchsafes, to the Reformation, which both Kingdoms intended no better name than innovation, and ruin both to Church, and state, and the expelling of bishops out of the Church, ruin to the Church, and out of the house of Peers ruin to the state. And he asks how happy the nation could be in such a governor, who counted that their ruin, 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 ruin of Church, and state, and the innovations, and ruins mentioned by the King to be agitated by some men are not restrained to the cause of the bishops, though that alone, and the manner of proceeding in regard of the injustice, violence, and the dangerous consequences, that attend it, threatened ruin to Church, and state. It is strange, that a people may mistake their ruin for their deliverance, & that a wise Prince by denying them their will may keep them from perishing, which their own errors would cast them into, but such, as knew how small a part of the people, & how contemptible, affected those innovations, and how they were cherished by the leaders of Rebellion to strengthen their party, and how others were drawn in by hopes, and fears, to comply with a potent faction for their profit, or safety, and how great a party both for number, & quality detested these innovations may well conclude that neither the nation thought it their deliverance, nor the King's refusal other, than a just care, and providence for their good.  
It is not likely, that the house of Peers gave hardly their consent to the Bills against the bishops, that so 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 no weight against plain proof.  
If their rights, and privileges were thought so undoubted in that house, than was that protestation no Treason, and the house will become liable to a just construction either of injustice for so consenting, or of usurpation to expect, that their voting, or not voting should obstruct the Commons. The privileges of the bishops had they not been undoubted, they needed not, an Act of Parliament, nor so many Acts of violence to take them away, neither can the Commons pretend to greater right for their sitting in the one house, than the bishops in the other, and the Libeler hath rightly concluded, that their protestation was no Treason, but that their accusation by the house of Commons was a false, and ungrounded Clamour, and their commitment by the Lord's house an odious injustice, but it could be no usurpation 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 concur, & usurpation when they descent? But Lords house, & Commons house are usurpers, when they obstruct the Dictates, and overswaying insolence of rabble's, and Tumults.  
The Commons were not to de●…st for five repulses of the Lords, Noah not for fifty from what in the name of the Kingdom they had demanded, so 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 than they would do to their King, but our, or not our makes no difference to resolute Traitors. The Lords were so far their Lords, as they were not to persist by the power, wherewith they were entrusted for the kingdom in their demand after the Lord's refusal, for to what end hath the law ordained a Lords house, and the Commons so long practised their addresses to them, if they may do what they please without them? Doth the use of the name of the kingdom add any right to them, that have not the power of the kingdom, and demand things to the destruction of the kingdom? The king allows not such a faction the name of a Parliament, which hath nothing of either house, but some members, that assume the name without the privileges, and authority, that constituted it.  
Though the Bill against root, 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 own malignity deserted the Parliament, that was no warrant for them, who remained being far the greater number to lay aside the Bill. He well knows 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 divers plainly dissented to that Bill. The injustice of them, that remained was intolerable that refused all reparation, or security 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 kingdom, the injury was so apparent, & the pretence of malignancy so ridiculous against the deserting members, that no sober man can imagnie enticement, or overawing to be the cause of their withdrawing, and these remaining members ought to have forborn by their duty to the kingdom, the passing of such a Bill in the absence of so many members, but they, that will forbear no degree of treason cannot probably abstain from breaks of privilege, and less injuries.  
He says this degrading of the bishops was orthodoxal in the Church ancient, and reform. What will not this man say? We need not wonder at his other impudencies, that will affirm the taking away the order of bishops orthodoxal in the ancient Church, which never wanted them.  
The King says he was bound besides his judgement by a most strict, and undispensable oath to preserve that order, and the rights of the Church. And says the Libeler. If the letter of that oath be not interpreted by equity, reformation, or better knowledge, than was the King bound to grant the Clergy all privileges granted to them by Edward the Confessor, and so bring in Popery. Equity must be admitted in all interpretations of oaths, and so must better knowledges, but the knowledge of other men is no exposition to him, that takes an oath, if his own knowledge be not convinced. The King hath sworn to preserve the privileges of the Church, to be a protector of the bishops, and by what equity, reformation, or better knowledge would this libeler induce the King to break this oath? If Sectaries say the calling is unlawful against the judgement of the universal Church, must the king believe this, & think himself absolved of his oath? The King never doubted, that his oath could not bind him to sin, but he was assured, that it was a sin to break his oath, when it was no sin to keep it, and while his conscience was not informed of any unlawfulness in the matter of his oath, his sin must be the more heinous to act against his oath, aswell as his knowledge.  
The Libeler talks of laws of God, and truth of the Gospel. But his schismatical fancies must over rule laws, and oath, & though the Germane Emperors, or other Kings had no cause to levy wars upon Protestant subjects under colour of a blind, and literal observance to an oath, it had been a wickedness in their subjects to make a war on them to compel them to break that oath.  
It is not to be imagined, if what shallbe 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 Kingdom, neither is the king bound to uphold it, as a thing established. Certainly laws are very vainly said to be made by the King, if he have no voice in the making of them, and if they may be unestablished without him, and it was a wickedness, aswell, as weakness to bind him to uphold laws, and to govern his people justly, that had not so much as voice in the making of their laws, & that was bound to govern by wicked laws, if the Parliament would have them, such Imaginary powers cannot consist with Religion, law, nor reason in the Government of England.  
The King says had he gratified, he thinks, their Antiepisconall faction with his consent, and sacrificed the Church Government, and Revenues to the fury of their covetousness, they would then have found no colourable necessity of raising an Army. The Libeler to this says. It was the fury of his own hatred to the professors of the true Religion, which incited him to persecute them with the sword of war, when whips pillories, exiles, and imprisonments were not thought sufficient. It's certain such a generation of Traitors, as have persecuted the King with a war, justly merited to be whipped out of all Kingdoms, and while this Libeler frequently sports at the King's necessities, he is not ashamed presently to call the war voluntary on his part. If the King's fury incited him to a war, he would not so often have sought peace, nor been denied peace without the sacrifice of the Church.  
But the Libeler says to colour this war the King cannot find 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 need not a colour for making a war, whereto necessity enforced him. It is apparent, that the sectaries in England intended to devour these Revenues, and have effected it, and they profess to seek it by the sword, because they could not have it otherwise.  
But the Libeler says, it was never in the thoughts of the Parliament till exhausted by war, their necessity seized on that for the Commonwealth, which the Luxury of the Prelates had abused to Common mischief. They need not have been exhausted, if reason, Justice, or Religion could have contented them. They will make a war, and rob, and steal from other men to maintain it. Did not their pretended necessity come from their war to take away Episcopacy, and is not the necessity of their own making to get these Revenues? What if goods dedicated to God's service were abused to luxury, were there none else in the Kingdom so abused? Must they make choice of the Patrimony of the Church for a sacrifice to their covetousness, that they may spare their private?  
That the King consented to the unlording of bishops at Canterbury the chief seat of their pride, for God would have it so. And can he tax the King for his allusions upon the fate of Hotham, and obserring the course of God's judgements, and himself 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 than a punishment upon 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 says his consent to that Bill of putting bishops out of the house of Peers was from his firm persuasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution of their rights. The Libeler from hence argues the pure mockery of a Royal assent to delude for the present. May not sober times revoke what distempered madness had necessitated, and ●…ad not the King just cause to think, that after times would see the obliquity of that Bill?  
The Libelers consequence is that we may hence perceive the wisdom, and integrity of those votes, which voted his concessions at the Isle of weig●…t for grounds of a lasting peace. And why might they not be so, though some of them might not be thought fit to last long? And that by the judgement of both King, and houses? But what were they, that voted, were they not the Libelers Parliament, in whose behalf he hath so often expressed his anger for the Kings disesteem of them, and calling them a faction, and now will have neither wisdom, nor integrity in them?  
He says from the kings pr●…fefsing the continuance of his judgement touching Episcopacy, there is a fair justification of the Parliament, who notwithstanding his obstinate mind omitted not means, and patience to have gained him. They omitted not reproach, and violence, but other means, or patience they used not, and the Libeler hath contrived a conviction of his Parliament, that their not gaining his consent to their demands was the cause of their war, which he hold justified by the King's continued aversion.  
The King says a great show of delinquents was made, which we●…e but consequences of his, and others withdrawing, or defence. This says the Libeler is a pretty shift to mince the name of a delinquent into a necessary consequent. It is injustice to make the name of delinquent a property, and snare for innocence. It's plain, that the faction would have all, that adheared not to them, or left them delinquents, and if such an extension be not minced, the law itself will be, whose Rules will not define delinquents, but the observation of them become delinquency.  
He says a Traitor is the consequent of his Treason, and a Rebel of his Rebellion. And such are certainly delinquents, but forsaking their society is not a Crime to denominate a delinquent, and such only were by the faction called delinquents.  
The London Tumults was the King's over●…orne Theme, and stuffing of all his discourses. Which was not at all mentioned in this place, but 'tis a Theme of difficulty to the Libeler, and wherefore, he would stop the belief of it by his thread bare repetitions of the blood of the war, delinquents, Tyranny, and Popery, which are become as vain, as the taunts of children.  
He turns to the Scots, and Covenanters, whom he calls misobservers of the Covenant, and asks how they will reconci●…e the preservation of Religion, etc. With the King's resolution, that esteems all the Zeal of their prostituted Covenant no better than a noise, and show of piety, etc. For the Covenanters, and misobservers of the Covenant we leave to debate their own controversies, but no man knows what he supposes, that by those principles the King might at length come to take the Covenant, and that then all had ended in a happy peace, which he hates upon any conditions, but his own.  
He makes an opposition between the Kings t●…lling God, that his Enemies are many, and telling the people they are but a faction of some few prevailing over his Major part of both houses. Might not his Enemies be many, though a faction of a few prevailed over the Major part of both houses, and wherein doth the King misappl●… David, or David accuse him? But the Libeler sticks not at misapplication, nor false accusations.  
The King says he had no passion, design, or preparation to embroil his Kingdom in a Civil war. The Libeler says, true, & yet formerly said, that his fury incited him to prosecute them with the sword of war. How doth he handle his outworn Theme?  
But he gives a reason, for that the King thought his Kingdom to be Issachar, that would have couched down between two burdens of Prelatical superstition, and Civil Tyranny. As his Majest: subjects had peace without burdens, so the rest of Issachar was more eligible, than the blood, and Treachery of Simeon, and Levi, whose rage, and cruelty their Father cursed upon his death bed, but such attempts the libeler likes better than Issachars' ease.  
He says the King had made preparation by terror, and preventive force. The fury of a war is come to terror, and preventive force. It's certain the Rebels had used all means to prevent his defence, & his terror must be little, whose force they had surprised.  
The King says God will find out bloody, and deceitful men, many of whom have not lived out half their days. The Libeler says, It behoved him to have been more cautious, how he tempted God till his own years had been further spent. Is it temptation to rely on the truth of God's word? And may not innocent persons, whose lives are ready to be taken away by blood thirsty Tyrants reflect upon God's word touching wicked men's being cut of, though they see their own life expiring?  
The King in his prayer says, that God knew the chief design of this war was either to destroy his reason, or force his judgement. The Libeler says This is hideous rashness accusing God before men to know that for truth, which all men know to be false. And is it not horrid presumption in the Libeler to say all men know that to be false, which himself confesses true. And we must expect, that the wickedness of these Rebels, which accuse verity of untruth will reproach the sincerity of his Majest: in praying for his Enemies with hypocrisy, their own corruption excluding confession of others integrity.   

Upon their seizing the MAGAZINES, AND FORTS.  
THe beginning of all war may be discerned by the Counsels, and preparations foregoing, not only by the first Act of hostility. And by Counsels, and preparations foregoing, such as were the alteration of the Government, which this breaker confesses to be their chief end, and without which no peace could be granted, we may easily conclude, who made the first Act of hostility, for these pretences, which he musters up have neither the nature of Counsels, nor preparations for the war, but are made excuses for Acts of hostility, which they would not have pretended, had they not begun the war. The particulars need not examination, but shall only be named to lay open the nakedness of their pretences.  
And first he says no King had ever more love at his first coming to the Crown. It's true, but that moved envy in the seditious faction, who sought to infuse contrary inclinations into the people.  
He says never people were worse requited first by his mistrust, that their liberties were the impairing of his Regal power. He had soon cause to mistrust, that the conspirators plotted to undermine his Regal power, upon pretence of the people's rights, & to that purpose raised jealousies among them, the original of all Rebellion.  
Next by his hatred to all those, who were esteemed Religious, doubting, that their principles too much asserted liberty. His Majest: profession, and practice sufficiently vindicate him from this aspersion to hate those, that were esteemed Religious, but his piety permitted him not to esteem hypocritical sectaries Religious, and his prudence instructed him, that these schismatics, which this Libeler calls Religious maintained principles destructive to Government, which they then abjured, but now avow.  
That this was seen by his persecuting, which was never seen, for the dissolution of Parliaments he hath been already answered, but the untruth, which he hath added, whether more ridiculous, or abominable may not pass unobserved, which is, that these dissolutions were after they had granted more money, then would have bought the Turk out of Morea, and set free all the greeks. And yet the Parliament gave more to the Scots for invading England. Doth this gross Mountebanque think, that the value of a subsidy in England, & the number of them, that were granted to the King are so unknown, what owls, and buzzards doth he think would cast their eyes on his papers? surely, if they be saleable, it is for sport, or scorn, and he might aswell have said, it was enough to subvert the Turkish Empire.  
He says the King took Council, how he might subdue them to his will. The reason of this pretence is to excuse their Rebellious conspiracy to subdue him to their will.  
The design of Germane horse is a bugbear long since derided. billeting of Soldiers in all parts. Which were raised, and employed in that war, which the Parliament advised, shows that impudence itself is bankrupt in pretences for their villainy.  
That the pulpits resounded all property to the King, and passive obedience to the subject. Propertie they meddled not with, but it was their duty to God, to preach the king's sovereignty, & the people's passive obedience, and what affinity hath such preaching with Counsels, and preparations for a Civil war.  
His mention of exactions cannot be omitted, though false, & impertinent. Disarming of Trained bands is not done by using some of their Arms in the public service, and it was far from preparation to a Civil war, to use Arms against a stranger, but what is this, that was done so many years before?  
The frained bands he says were the most proper strength of a free nation. And yet they are not permitted in some Republics, though instituted, and improved by our Kings.  
That Ammunition was engrossed, and kept in the Tower was far from the design of a Civil war on the king's part, it being a right of his prerogative, but a sign of their conspiracy, and intention of Rebellion, that were troubled at the kings care for overseeing the Ammunition of his Kingdom, and preventing the misimployment either at home, or abroad.  
The not buying without licence, when no man was denied to buy cannot be interpreted a restraint, and the high rate could not imply any design of war, it might be of benif●…t. But were not all the places of England not only allowed, but commanded to have their full stores for their trained bands, and had not all ships their full proportions of Ammunition? These are potgun preparations for a Civil war.  
But says the Libeler, these were his Counsels, either to a Civil war, if it should happen, or to subdue without a war, which is all one. No doubt it's all one in the Author's Judgement, for he esteems the means to preserve obedience a sufficient ground for Rebellion. But if the King provided against a Civil war, if it should happen, is that a reason in subjects to make it? And do not they begin the hostility, by whom this war happens, and if the King's preparations were, if a Civil war should happen, must not this Civil war happen by others, not him, who prepared only to prevent, and defend:  
Thus far he hath left the first Act of hostility upon his Masters, and now he comes to the raising of two Armies against the Scotsses, which were both disbanded before this war begun, and who was the defendant the world well knows.  
But he says the latter of them was raised to the most perfidious breaking of a solemn pacification. His railing signives his own impiety, and want of matter that instead of declaring the fact of the first English hostility seeks for scandals from a Scotch Treaty, and would make the King perfidious in his defence, because they are Traitors in their assault.  
He comes now to the beginning of this Parliament, and talks of bringing up the Armies, and his often decanted Irish Papists, and french Army, that never struck blow to be Counsels for beginning a Civil war, but these apparitions were vanished long before the war begun. The letters to the King of Denmark have been sufficiently cleared from being Counsels, or preparations to make a Civil war, and the Libeler cannot fix any preparations upon the king, but in case a war should be made upon him, which was then plotted, and evident to all knowing men.  
He says these, and many other were his Counsels towards a Civil war. If the king should have taken no Conncell to have resisted the violence, not only prepared, but begun against him, it had been unkingly, and unnatural, knowing how maliciously, and perficiously the conspirators had called in the Scots, bribed them with vast sums of money racked from the people upon pretence of the king's service, how they had treacherously corrupted divers officers, and soldiers of the king's army, how they had dispersed false reports of him, and his A●…tions to disaffect the people, how they had given licence to all lewd persons to preach heresy, and Treason in the pulpits, how they had endeavoured to weaken the bonds of Government by punishing men for observing the laws, by commending, and rewarding malefactors, how they had affronted the king, and stirred up the rabble to threaten violence to him, if he refused their demands, and must he not now prepare for his defence, or submit his judgement?  
His refusing to disband that Irish Army shows no intention of his to a Civil war, but the Rebels earnest solicitation for the disbanding of that Army, and the English Army, likewise leaving the Scots undisbanded shows their false pretensions, and malicious preparations by disarming the king of all Armies to subdue him to their wil These Rebels, that seized the Tower to strengthen themselves for making a war would have it believed, that the Kings keeping it, which had always been in his possession, was a preparation to make a war, and while they affronted him in his Court every day would have his guard preparations to make a war.  
These wagons of ammunition to be prepared by the King in that low condition, and want of all things for war, which he then was in, are somewhat strange, although necessary for him against the continued Acts of violence used by the Tumults, and avowed by the saction in Parliament, and their continual preparations for a war, and it is a demonstration of the Libelers impudence, that would have such contemptible preparations in respect of the Rebel's force by land, and sea, and possession of the forts, Navy, and City of London, and Magazines of the Kingdom, should be for the making of a war upon them, which was in all reason so unable to withstand them.  
The appearance of some hundreds of horse at Kingston, shows how greedy they are of pretences, that make such a scare crow a cause of their Rebellion.  
And the Queen's buying of Arms, and the forces raised in york shire were much less than needed, when the Rebels had assumed the Militia of the Kingdom under their own Command. And their petitioning the King for peace (which the Libeler mentions to be that while) was that the King would submit to their Government, and do what they required, and with what face now could any ingenuous man deny, that the chief design of the war was either to destroy his person, or force his judgement.  
As to act of hostility, it is not much material, in whom it first begun after such Counoells, and preparations. It is material to the truth of the fact, whatever the Counsels were, but he hath not named a Council, or preparation for war but succeeding the design of Rebellion, and violence begun, against their rage, all that he supposes on the King's part, that looked towards a war being only defensive, and on the part of the Rebels plainly oppressive,  
But he says in the Act alsoe the King will be found to have had the preceedenice, if not at London by the assault of his armed Court upon the naked people, and his attempt upon the house of Commons, yet certainly at Hull, first by his close practices on that Town, next by his siege. Was the Kings going with his guard to the house of Commons a proper army to make a wa●…, they heretofore called it a breach of privilege, and is it now grown so big with time to be called a war? And must that, which continued not an hour be defended with an Army raised many months after? And is his Iron flail, and the Parliaments Clients, that were so terrible to make laws by force become a naked people, & the ragged Regiment a formidable Army? But if these do not prove the King to have done the first act, for it seems he doubted it would not, yet at Hull he is sure, and if the King had fortified all, or any of the Towns of his Kingdom, is that the act of war? Is not the law evident, that he may do it, and hath it not been the approved practice of all ages? And if he beseidged Hull, who began the war, they that surprised it, or he that would recover it? And yet the Libeler gravely concludes from this fardel, that the King is truly charged with beginning the war, though the particulars themselves evince the contrary.  
He says that at the Isle of weight, he charged it upon himself at the public Treaty. What he did at that Treaty is well known to be in order to the procuring of peace, and though they, that treated with him would have an Act to acquitt them for their security, yet that could not alter the fact, and the King took nothing on himself by consenting to pass an act, if the Treaty took effect, which act by law, to whose interpretation only it was subject, could not be expounded to charge the king with the beginning of that war, but so mainfest is the untruth of their pretence, that they would aid their cause by inferences from an Act of their own importunity, and violence for their own security.  
He says the securing of Hull was no su●…prifal, but a timely prevention. But was it not always in the King's power, and Custody before, and what they did to Hull, they did to his other Castles, and is it no surprisal to dispossess those, that are in possession?  
He says it were folly beyond ridiculous to count ourselves a free nation, if the King against the Parliament might appropriate to himself the strength of a whole nation, as his proper goods. And is it less ridiculous to count themselves a free nation, if the Parliament may appropriate to themselves all the strength of the kingdom, as their own proper goods against all the people, are they more a free nation, because they have many Masters? Our nation justly accounted itself a free nation, and yet a king had all the strength of the kingdom appropriated to him, as his own proper goods, and they have seen how their liberty was preserved by that constitution, & how it hath been lost by usurpation of this right in the name of Parliament.  
The Parliament had never the life; and death of laws in their power, and the people never thought it for their Security, that they should, and the Libeler may with as good reason call succeeding acts preventions aswell, as this taking of Hull a Securing. Are not the taking of Town's Acts of hostility under what name soever, had not the taking of Hull been an Act of hostility in an Enemy? And is it less in a Rebel? The question is now of an act of hostility, not the right of it, and that the taking of a Town is not an act of hostility willbe incredible to the meanest capacity, and no less, that the Parliament have a power of hostility against the king.  
He says the law of the land is at best but the reason of Parliament. And the reason of Parliament is no reason if it differ from the opinion of Sectaries, witness his censure of voting the king's concessions a ground for peace: & it were as dissonant from law, as reason, that a kingly Government should be subject to the reason of a Major part in Parliament.  
The king says, they knew his chiefest Arms left him were those only, which the ancient Christians were wont to use against their persecutors, prayers, and tears. At this the Libeler makes an exclamation, O Sacred reverence of God, respect, and shame of men, whither were ye fled, when these hipocrisies were ●…ttered? Was the Kingdom at all that cost of blood to remove prayers, and tears. Shakespeare could not have framed a fitter exclamation for Rich. 3. Doubtless reverence of God, respect, and shame of men are fled from this man, that makes this vain, & profane outcry. Doth it follow, that because the King got strength, therefore he was possessed of it, when they rebelled against him? doth not he reproach him, that all his adherents hardly amounted to the making, up of one ragged Regiment strong enough to assault the unarmed house of Commons? And can he think there is a God, that cries out sacred reverence of God, upon occasion of these words of his Majest: was ever king more destitute of aid, and might more truly use that expression than he. Those thousands of Cavaliers, whose number he so often despised, and now advances are a conviction of his contempt of God, and men, and his profanes is more abominable, than any oaths, curses, and carouses he supposes. And the numbers mustered on Heworth Moor were a sufficient proof of the King's want of Arms to make a war, as they were then the matter of the Rebel's scorn, & were not the Libeler as vain, as wicked, he would not have mentioned the sale of the Crown jewels, to buy Arms for a ground of his exclamation, when nothing could shame him more, were he capable of it, for may not a man justly say, that the cheisest Arms left a King were prayers, & tears, when all his visible means to procure Arms were the Jewels of his Crown? & those guns, which were bought with the Jewels, he calls deadly instruments of war, but the instruments of Rebels are harmless, and unkilling. Men of corrupt consciences think they may profane the name of God at their pleasure by making their lewd constructions of words, and Actions. And although this libeler jeer at the King's weakness in the beginning of this war, which was visible to all the world, & the strength he found was unexpected by his Enemies, and that all men judged prayers, and tears his chiefest Arms, yet because strength came to him, the Libeler calls Ammunition, Regiments, and Brigades, prayers, and rears, his ordinary Arms being slander, untruth, and profanes.  
In his next words he says, they, who fought for the Commonwealth have by the help of better prayers vanquished. It seems he holds not their prayers their chiefest Arms, who trusted more in other Arms, than their prayers, and might thence have reasonably concluded, that their success was not given to their prayers, but permitted for the sins, & scourge of the nation.  
The King reckons not the want of the Militia in reference to his own protection, as his peoples. Not considering says the Libeler, how ill for seventeen years he had protected them, and the miseries are like a forked Arrow, it cannot be drawn out without incision of more flesh. He hath told us, that those miseries of seventeen years were peace, and plenty, which those merciless Physicians will cure by an endless war, letting out the blood, and tearing the flesh of the afflicted people, and we now discern what Physic they intended for the Kingdom. Saws to dismember them, sword's to lance them, and famine to pine them, till they were sufficiently purged of their former prosperity, and he need not have used so many shifts to deny the beginning of the war, when he says the cure of the Kingdom was to be made with incisions. What want of protection appeared in those seventeen years, never people were more secure? But the man mistakes the scene of his exclamation, as his Sermonizers there notes, & tell the people of suffering that knew none among them.  
He says the wings of faith may be mistaken for the wings of presumption, Presumptuous men are mistaken of the wings of faith, and this Libeler hath sufficiently expressed himself one of them, and may fear by his presumption to fall head long.  
The King says, that the Parliament have hung the Majest: of King-shipp in an airy imagination of Regality between the privileges of both houses, like the tomb of Mahomett. To this says the Libeler, he knew not that he was prophesying the death, and burial of a turkish Tyranny, that spurned down those laws, which gave it life, and being, so strong, as it endured to be a regulated Monarchy, he was not prophesying, but relating a plain story how a just Monarchy was oppressed by a Turkish imposture, and Tyranny, and an Empire set up in an Army of Janissaries, that spurned down all law, and Religion, and as the Turkish doctrine of propogating their superstition by blood, and war was preached unto the people, as their duty to do the like for their new heretical fancies, so their deceits in making the King a fantastic supposition, and his authority nothing else, but the opinions of the two houses was as gross, and lewd, as the imaginary Miracle of Mahometts Tomb.  
From the King's words touching the use of the Militia, that he would but defend himself so far, as to defend his good subjects from these men's violence, who persuade the world, that none but wolves are fit to be trusted with the Custody of the shepherd, and his flock. The Libeler would infer this a clear confession from his own mouth, that if the Parliament had left him the sole power of the Militia, he would have used it to the destruction of them, and their friends. And is an use for defence against wrong, and fraud, an use to destruction? And if the faction called Parliament be not permitted to destroy the shepherd, and his flock, is it a destruction to them? But they knew themselves wolves, and could not be secure, while any power was out of their hands, & therefore would persuade, that they were fittest to be trusted with that, which was the sole defence against their rapacitic.  
He says the King hath been often told, that he had no more power over the sword, than the law. But who told him so? Never any but known Rebels Parliaments have always said the contrary, and the practice of it in all times was never questioned. Though Kings cannot be ordinary Judges, yet all Justice slows from them, and by their Commissions, and because their condition, and place requires, that Justice be administered by their deputies according to the Custom of all Governments, therefore they have not power to use the Militia, which is most proper to their place, and cannot be separated from their person, could not be told by reasonable men.  
The pretended fear of Rebels, that he may by this power control the law they will not extend to their own power of the militia, and may not their Rebel general control all laws by the power of his Army? And doth he not? The subjects of England understood the security of their laws to rest in their King, whose interest they knew it was to preserve them. Tyranny, and breach of laws would make his Estate unsecure, and dangerous, and therefore they fought to defend him against such, as would destroy their laws, and him. But in this clamour of the Libeler he only seeks to vilify Monarchical Government, and to persuade all people, that live under Kings, that they are not free, and understand not what is liberty, as is in other forms of Government the people were not Commanded, and might choose their own laws, and order their wars. There is frequent experience in the Roman Commonwealth of the Rebellion of the people under ptetence of liberty, and seditious inclinations will assoon take occasion to object Tyranny to senates, & Parliaments, as kings What state can those Rebel's frame, that may not degenerate into a Tyranny, but they only feeke pretences for their Rebellion against the present Government to transferr it to themselves.  
The King is contented to resign his power for his own time. And says the Libeler he is careful, we should be slaves to his posterity, and leave us the legaice of another war about it. There is no doubt, but the Rebels desired the Militia to enslave the people, and destroy the king, and they would rather be devils than subjects. This Libeler makes no difference between a subject, and a slave, and though they pretended the settling of the Militia in respect of present danger, yet they are so impudent to reject the kings offer to settle it for his own time.  
He says the King calls the Parliament a many headed Hydra of Government, and not more eyes than mouths, which he falsely recites, for the King says, As this many headed Hydra of Government makes a show to the people to have more eyes to see, so they will find it to have more mouths too to be satisfied, and here the Libeler according to his custom answers sense with non sense, for he says, surely not more mouths, nor so wide, as the dissolute rabble of his Courtiers both he's, and she's, if there were any males among them. Doth he make a question, whether any males, and yet talk of a dissolute rabble? And are the new senators commanded single life to prevent the generation of Traitors? But the Kingdom finds, that those numbers of lean kine have devoured more in seven years, than all the Courtiers in seven hundred.  
He says to dispute what kind of Government is best would prove a long Theme, it sufficeth, that his reasons here for Monarchy are found weak, and inconsiderable. We have the word of a grave Author for it, who hath made long invectives, & yet never handled the Theme, nor answered any one reason produced for Monarchy, & though it be a long Theme to dispute what Government were best in his judgement, yet he might have made the question shorter by disputing, whether subjects might Rebel to subvert the Monarchy under which they live, And he would have Tyranny a ground for Rebellion, and that Tyranny to be Monarchy, and if the dispute be long, the solution willbe very easy.  
The King is not our sun, though he would be taken for it. And why did he say, that the sun in all figurative use, and signification bears allusion to a King, & blames the king for his comparison of the Earl of Strafford, and here reprehends the allusion to himself? but they willbe the sun, and set the world on fire.  
He asks wherefore we should not hope to be governed more happily without a King, when all our misery hath been by a King, or by our necessary vindication, and defence against him. He may not well hope to be governed happily by those, that have gotten power by wicked Arts. An unjust power will seek to support itself by the same means it was raised. It cannot be hoped, that they will govern happily, that seek the oppression of the greatest part of the people, and that can secure their private fortunes, what ever become of the Kingdom. They cannott hope for God's blessing, which only can make happy upon the many wilful, per●…uries, hipocrisies, & cruelties, which they used to usurp this Government, and the persecution, and murder of their lawful sovereign, and they, that pretended misery they knew not for a ground to change their Government, will find it by their folly, and madness.  
He says the King would be thought enforced to perjury by having granted the Militia, by which his oath bound him to protect the people. The Libeler asks, if he can be perjured in granting that, why doth he refuse for no other cause the abolishing of Episcopacy? The Libeler himself hath expressed other causes of his refusal to abolish Episcopacy, but why may not one be perjured in both, being equally bound by his oath. If the Libeler have a sense in this, it's very mystical, unless he mean, that a man need not fear many perjuries, that committed one.  
The protection of Delinquents was no part of his oath, but of the innocent, and that he ought to do against popular fury, and any usurped authority under what name soever.  
That he was to protect by such hands, as the Parliament should advise him, was no part of his oath, and he could poorly protect, that must expect such hands, as others should allow him, that were an oath to as little use, as the power it supposed.  
He may not hold a violent, and incommunicable sword over us under the show of protection. And must there not be a sword of protection, because it may be turned to violence, this is Rebel's Logic, that would have no Judges, because they may be corrupt? & these, that terrify the people with the dangers of violence under lawful Governors use power most Tyranically, but wherefore incommunicable, he thinks it a thundering word to startle the people like Arbitrary Government, and fundamental laws. Is the sword of the supreme power communicable, if it be in many hands, what if they fight one with another, which is the sword then to protect the people, and how will they fight for their Liberties?  
The King says, that his yielding the Militia was from the love of public peace, and assurance of God's protection. The Libeler asks, wherefore this assurance of God's protection came not till the Militia was wrung out of his hands. Whence can he conclude, that it came not till then? But the wring of the Militia out of his hands shows how impudently these men pretend right, or truth for their Actions, must a man give up his strength, when it is demanded, because he hath an assurance of God's protection, and because he sees some reason to part with it, as the king did for love of public peace, must he not therefore have an assurance of God's protection? his holding it fast was his duty, and the wring it from him hath open injustice both in the Act, and intention. And the Libelers profanes in jeering at the kings saying, that God was able abundantly to compensate him, as he did to job whatever honour, power, or liberty Chaldeans, sabeans, or the Devil himself deprived him of saying job used no Militia, nor Magazine at Hull. Is not unlike the Apostates scoffing at the Christians patience, and suffering.  
The King says, Although they take all from him, yet can they not obstruct his way to heaven. The libeler says, 'tis no handsome occasion to tell us whither he was going. And hath it been an unhandsome occasion in the saints of God to take occasion from their afflictions to declare their resolutions? But these are his common censures.  
He says private prayers in public ask something of whom they ask not. But prayers upon a public occasion lose not their reward for being public.   

Upon the NINETEEN PROPOSITIONS.  
THE King uses plausibility of large, and indefinite words to defend himself at such distance, as may hinder the eye of Common judgement from all distinct view, and examination of his reasoning. It is the Libelers labour to keep his reasoning from Common view, and therefore seeks to divert the readers by chimerical suppositions, and invectives against Monarchy, and repeated common places of misgovernment. Upon examination the King's plain, and distinct reasoning will appear convincing to every right judgement.  
The Libeler says. The king shows not, how it can happen, that the peace of a people should be inconsistent with the conscience, and honour of a King. And doth this man hold, that the King ought to sacrifice Religion, Justice, and piety for the peace of his people? Shall he destroy innocent men, and persecute Christians to procure peace? Or are these things consistent with honour, & conscience? and may not such things be desired by a wicked people in order to peace? And therefore the Libeler vainly presses, that nothing is more agreeable to the conscience, and honour of a King, then to preserve his subjects in peace.  
And is there anything more contrary to the conscience, & duty of subjects, then to procure a Civil war, by demanding concessions of their King, which in honour, and conscience he cannot grant, & which being granted would be no ground for a lasting peace, though it avoided a present war.  
The Libeler asks which of the propositions were obtruded on him with the point of the sword, till he with the point of the sword thrust from him both propositions, and propounders. A strange question in this Libeler, that hath so often obtruded the fears, and terrors raised in the King by the Tumults, and Iron flail, seizing of the Magazines, and not leaving him a sword, that had a point to thrust, but this Theme is too much soiled by so often repetition, and yet he proceeds to talk of merciless obtrusions, which for almost twenty years the King had been forcing upon tender consciences by all sorts of persecutions. And these tender consciences he will allow to be preferred before the peace of the Kingdom. Truly these are not large, and indefinite words, but apparent absurdities to the eye of every Common judgement, that the pretended conscience of every hypocritical sectary must be preferred to the peace of a King doom, and the King must be allowed none, but lose life, and Kingdom, or prostitute his conscience. The Libelers examination of the King's book, it seems was no other, then of his own writings, that huddles up contradictions, and absurdities so obvious to the first sight. His labour to declaim against persecution is not matter of fa●…t, and the impertinency of it hath been already sufficiently detected.  
The king says Many things are required of him, nothing offered in requite all. And the Libeler demands. What could satiate the desires of this man, who being King of England, and Master of almost two millions yearly was still in want. And yet the Masters in the new state affirm in their declaration, that the constant Revenue of the Crown exceeded not a hundred thousand pound a year, And why should not the King expect contributions from his subjects, aswell as all his Predecessors still had? And why will this man deny him supplies, that so often obtrudes his wants, and he will have the King content with Rebel's Charity, and allows them to take all from him, when they list, as the subjects money, this is the supreme honour, and Revenue, that the king ought to content himself with.  
It was for honour's sake, that they put the King upon the giving part, not that it belonged to him of right, for he says all laws are in the hands of the Parliament, and King-shipp itself. He says it, and yet we must believe him, that England was a Monarchy, if the Majesty were not in the king, how was it other, than a republic, and it was for honour's sake, that they have been subjects these many hundred years, wherefore would he have the world believe wars were made between compe●…tours for the Crown of England; was it only to be a king in a play, but we find, that what Rebels can attain by power, they will assert for right, and they, which have had so many denials, and have professed conscientious, subjection at last come to say, it was for honour's sake, and of form, not necessity, that they were subjects.  
The Libeler proceeds to show, that Monarchy cannot permit the requisites necessary to society. That the will of one man in Government is contrary to freedom. And why not the will of five hundred to the freedom of the rest, as much as that one? These men think that their clamour against the power of one man hes a great influence upon the ignorant people, which might have had some belief before they had tried their new Masters. If we look upon the most ancient stories of the world, we find the people both in peace, and war commanded by one man, nature teaching the necessity of one general in an Army, and the Government, which God himself appointed to his people was by one man, and as moses was at first, so were his successors, and the kings after Saul, and David, and this Libeler can speak nothing of this power of one man, but must censure, and vilify Gods own institution, he offers nothing against Monarchy but what hes equal opposition to Parliament, and all forms of Government, for the people's good, for which he says the king hath his rights, will assoon become a pretence for Rebellion against any Rulers, as kings.  
His denial, that the King is not greater than his Parliament, is only opposing his bare word to all sense, and reason, for doth the greater petition the less, and yet the Parliament constantly petition the king.  
He says the King can do no wrong. And have not they then, that pretend he had done wrong committed disobedience, and wrong?  
The King can do no right but in his Courts. And if they be his Courts, and his deputies, and do all in his name, doth it not follow, that it is his doing? And though the kings sit not ordinarily in their Courts, yet they have often sat in several Courts, and in Parliament the King himself gives orders, as appears by the Precedents of all times, and wherefore did the Parliament prefer their petition of right to the King, and importuned his answer, if he had no power to do right, but by his Courts? But what concerns the administration of Justice by deputies is not peculiar to England, but to all other Kingdoms.  
Without his Courts he is no King. And yet they are his Courts, and cannot sit, but by his grant.  
If the King do wrong in the highest degree, he must do it, as a Tyrant, not as a King of England. But he is still King of England, though a T●…rant, and if subjects may judge their King, the ordinary acts of sovereignty willbe wrong in the highest degree.  
If he cannot, as one greater, give oft to the Parliament, as the Libeler supposes, and that it may be termed the Courtesy of England to ask any thing of the King. They would not have importuned the Acts, that have passed this Parliament, nor have used their Iron flail to obtain them, and by his rule subjection is no more the Courtesy of England, than all other Countries,  
We never forced him to part with his conscience, but it is he, that would have forced us to part with ours, and doth he that refuses the demand of another, force his conscience, that demands? Doth the King's denial force his subjects consciences, because they force themselves to Rebel? and enforce him to say what they will have him.  
The Author's descant upon the King's words of the incommunicable jewel of his conscience discovers, how he hath exposed his own to the flattery, and slavery of his Masters, and had he thoughts of conscience he would not have valued it at the basest price.  
The breeding of Most kings hath ever been sensual, and most humoured. He speaks it of his own sense, and inclination to such base offices. King's have greatest cause to avoid such breeding, and persons of such condition.  
The kings descent from his whole kingdom is a supposition of that, which never was, and were impossible ever to happen, but should it happen, they that are governed must submit to the governor, and that by all the Rules of divine, and humane law.  
The Libeler saying the king prefers his love of truth before the love of his people the King's words are, the love I have of my people's place hath great influence upon me, but the love of truth, and inward peace hath more. And who thinks not, that it ought to have so? For his search of truth, he had gone amiss, if he had rested on those propounders, which the Libeler prescribes him. And that unaccountable Prerogative, which the Libeler says is the truth he loves, would have been judged a truth by the Libeler, if he had retained either fear of God, or love to his Country.  
It is our ill hap, that three kingdoms should be pestered with one conscience, which scrupled to grant what the Parliament advised him. But it was the misery of the three kingdoms, that a faction of depraved men, that had cast away conscience should oversway the Parliament, and demand grants for their own ambition against the kingdom.  
These scruples to many he says seem pretended, to others upon as good grounds may seem real. And to this it seems the Libeler inclines, for no reason will permit, that he should suffer so much upon a pretence of conscience.  
It was the just judgement of God, that he, who was so cruel, and remorseless to other men's consciences, should have a conscience so cruel to himself. And were not they, that were so cruel to his conscience, condemned by their own being herein the instruments of hell to afflict the consciences of others, but these miscreants can sport themselves with their own si●…s, and others, sufferings. Hath he made as much as a pretence of the King's cruelty to any man's innocence.  
The Libeler recites, that the King said he thought fit to deny some things in honour, & Policy, though he could approve them, which is not at all said by the King, but that some things, which a King might approve, yet in honour, & Policy might be denied at some time to some men. And who doubts it, can there be a want of such considerations in a King?  
Good Princes thought it their happiness to be always granting. How could that be, if it be true, which he says they had nothing to grant? But good subjects never demanded that, which should make their King unable to grant any more.  
He remembers himself now, that good things were to be granted for the things sake, indifferent things for the people's sake, and he hath made it his continued Theme, that the King could grant nothing in favour, but all was necessary in Justice, and it is apparent, that the kings large concessions invited these ingrateful Rebels to make those shameless demands, which themselves knew no king in honour, Policy, and Justice could grant.  
Undoubtedly his Coronation oath binds him to a general, and implicit consent to whatever the Parliament desired. And then undoubtedly the king must be in worse condition than any subject, for no man but he is bound to such a blind obedience, and it is a strange blindness in this man to offer such a thing to be believed, which himself holds incredible, for he says, the King's oath cannot bind him against necessary reformation. And can it then bind him to make wicked laws, which must be reform? Is the Parliament infallible, & may they not make ill laws? What is the reason, that the Libeler, and his Sectaries would not give obedience to Acts of Parliament upon pretence of conscience, & ought the king to consent to such laws, as the subjects ought not to obey?  
The King ought not to vie wisdom with the Parliament, and why then do the Libeler, and his Sectaries vie wisdom with all former Parliaments?  
Any of the Parliament may as far excel him in the gift of wisdom, as he them in place, and dignity. But it's very unlike, and near to impossible, especially, if we look to the experience of all times, and it is often found, that a King is wiser, than all his Council; And though the libeler say sure it was not he, meaning the King: as wise men, as any of his Council, or Parliament thought it was he, & never good subjects contended with their King for that comparison.  
The king says, that that were, as if Samson should have consented to put out his eyes, that the Philistines might with more safety mock, and abuse him. And this says the Libeler out of an unwise, or pretended fear of scorn for yielding to his Parliament, he gives cause of suspicion, that he made a scorn of his Regal oath. Could any man suspect, that his Regal oath bound him to such a dispicable slavery, that a king should be in greater bondage to his Parliament, than any vassal to a Lord, a king might justly scorn such an oath, that would make him scorned by all, when he had taken it, but the Libeler had no better answer, and therefore retreats to his Common refuge of insignificant repetition.  
The King says to exclude him from all power of denial seems an arrogance, The Libeler adds in the Parliament he means, and asks, what in him then to deny against the Parliament. It is no arrogance to deny in him, that is asked, but arrogance in him, that asks, to receive no denial.  
The king says its least of all becoming those, that make their addresses in a humble, and loyal way of petitioning, who by that confess their inferiority, which oblidgeth them to rest, if not satisfied, yet quieted with such an answer, as the will, and reason of the superior thinks fit to give. To this the Libeler says, petitioning in better English is no more than requesting, or requiring. And is it not good English to call our prayers pititions, and is it better English to say we require, when we pray, and is requesting, and requiring the same in good English? Is the petitioning of his new Masters requesting, or requiring?  
Men require not favours only, but their due, and that not only from superiors, but equals, and inferiors. It's the first time, that such requiring of favours was heard of, and a sorry inference, that because men require of ●…qualls, they may of superiors, and that there is no difference between superiority of Government, and superiority in fortune, or Title.  
It was called, petitio consulatus, when the noblest Romans went about, and begged that dignity of the meanest plebeians naming them man by man. But might not those, to whom they went, deny their petition? Could they require their election, as due, and was their begging, requiring? He would willingly make bad English out of good Lattyn, though good Latin may be no good manners from a subject to his king, and it is absurd in Government for any to pray, that aught to command? & the Libeler seems distracted that would have petitioning requiring, and prove it by the signification it hath of begging.  
They petitioned not, because all of them were inferior, but because he was superior to any of them. But why then do they petition in their politic Capacity as a Parliament? He tells us at last, it was for fashion's sake more than duty. But why then did they profess it to be their duty? He tell●… us the Mysteries of their Religion, their professions, and promises are Ceremonies, their submissions for fashion, this is the doctrine of cut throats.  
By plain law cited before, the Parliament is his superior. And why had he not brought in petitio principy, as well as petitio consulatus using it so often, and that in good English is begging the question. Doubtless he thinks, that some believe it is plain law, because he saith so, but such, as read his book find he understands not law, nor reason, and will not speak the truth, he understands  
It were a mad law, that would subject reason to supcrioritie of place. And doth not himself say it, that the Parliament is superior, and therefore the king's reason must be subject to it? and is not he mad, or senseless?  
He returns again to his invective against Monarchy, and one man's will, and so its only the king's Crime, that he was a Monarch, and if the King be not bound in a blind obedience to all, that the Parliament requires, we must all be slaves, a proper inference, and upon this he concludes, that petitioning was but form, because he doth not like the Kingly Government.  
It cannot be so absurd to bind the King to a blind obedience as to confine the Parliaments reason to the will of one man. Much more absurd to bind the King, and leave subjects unconfined.  
That the King did notbing, but what was opposite to his professed interest, cannot be supposed, but in his concessions to the late Parliament, and we find by sad experience, that nothing is more ruinous to the Kingdom, than a power in the Parliament over the King, and they have been so far from a power to confine the exorbitancy of Kings, that those illegal conventions, which acted the Tragedies of some Kings were but the stales to usurpers, and moulded to their will.  
That the King called them young statesmen he imputes to arrogance. Doubtless the King might have said much more, than what he did, that most part of these propounders were young statesmen, Is there a man in England, that doubts it, if he regard either age, or experience, how they have governed themselves, and the Kingdom all men see, who from so great tranquillity have turned it into a lamentable combustion, and despised the Kingdom's interest both at home, and abroad, that Phaeton's miscarriage was never so answered by the practice of any rash, and precipitate meddlers in affairs of state, as these usurpers, and as they drove furiously with jehu, so they practised his hypocrisy, that loved the Kingdom better than the commands of God, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, though he pretended Zeal for the Lord, and that omen of confusion from such fury, and madness, his Majest: prayed God to divert, but the Libeler is pleased with his own prognostickes, and makes augury a warrant for any villainy, though the wickedness of his Masters may give just occasion to think, their vengeance sleeps not.  
He comes now to dictate law, and tumbling of his repetitions, that the Parliament sit not, as subjects, but superiors, called not by him, but by the law. And doth not this man know the Parliament says all this is false, and that they are his subjects, and called by his writ. Surely this Libeler takes pleasure in outfacing all truth, otherwise he would not use such absurd, and palpable falsities, and that after himself had said the king was trusted with the summoning, and dissolving of Parliaments.  
Unreasonable desires might be unexpected by the king, and denied. We may see, that jehues fury, and Phaeton's rashness were not ill remembered to these men, that held the enforcing of old laws, repairing of injuries, moderate desires of reformation, so contemptible, that nothing, but the rooting up of the foundation of Government could be a remedy for the kingdom, whose great prosperity was their greatest grievance, and all those good laws, which he commends were useless, and to no purpose.  
That they, which came to the Parliament had no authority to redress greivances, but to desire the redress, was acknowledged a truth by the late Parliament, before their insolence was confirmed by the king's concessions.  
That their Fathers made as vast alterations to free themselves from ancient Popery is much mistaken, for whoever looks into the reformation of Religion in England shall find, that it moved from the head, and that the Parliament conformed themselves unto the Counsels taken by the king, and made not the alterations the Libeler supposes. Alterations were made, where corruptions had entered into doctrine, or practice, but it was very far from esteeming the primitive Church, a time of superstition, and plucking up by the roots, what ever was planted in the first ages of the Church. Sectaries are not to be judges of what varies from Scripture, their opinions arising from disobedience, must needs be full of error, and schism, and his Majest: had good reason to prefer the doctrine, and practice of the primitive Church before any modern opinion of reformation, and as all the pregnant, and solid reasons of the Chnrches beyond the seas wrought less with the faction in Parliament, than the Tumults, and rabble's, so far less with this Libeler, that defends a schism from them all under the divided Conventicles of Independency, and a crew of ignorant, and irreligious Hobgoblins that eat the fat of robbery, and oppression. And he here pretends the example of all the reformed Churches against Episcopacy, and afterwards confesses the Lutherans, who are the greater part of a contrary practice.  
The falsehood, & giddiness of their oracles are more ridiculous, them ever were the superstitious pilgramages of blind votaries. he, that thus reprehends the king's opposition to the change of Church Government, while he strives for innovation exclaims against it, as a Crime, for he says they would vindicate the Government of the Church, innovated, & corrupted, he should have showed from what time it was corrupted.  
The king says, such, as were looked upon before as factious in the state, & Schismatieall in the Church demanded not only tolerations for themselves in their vanity, novelty, and confusion, but alsoe an extirpatiou of that Government, whose rights they had a mind to invade. And the Libeler asks, was this man ever likely to be advised, who sets himself against his chosen Counsellors, and censures the Government of other protestant Churches as bad, as any Papist. Certainly such Counsellors were very unfit to advise, that were so ill qualified, such as the law judges offenders are incapable to judge of law, & that such were these demaunders is evident to all men, that know the laws, and Government of England. There are no Protestant Churches, that think their Government censured, if others differ from it, in any particular, but they will hold it a Schismatical insolence in any to endeavour to alter a Government well settled upon pretence to introduce another against the will of the king. It imports not any contempt of the kingdom, if such, as they chose be found either defective, or false, and to engage the kingdom in all the impieties, that men act, which are chosen by them is as absurd, as vainly pretended by the Libeler who will make a faction prevalent by Tumults, and sedition to be the kingdom, and the king should have had his kingdom in great contempt, if he had taken such a faction for the kingdom.  
He draws an Argument from the penalty of being a Christian under the heathens, and a Protestant under Papists. And surely had they sought to introduce their Religion with the destruction of the Civil 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 liberty of their conscience, not to enforce others.  
That our saviour coming to reform his Church was accused of an intent to invade Caesar's right, as good a right, as ever the Prelate bishops had, the one being gotten by force, the other by spiritual usurpation. Helps not the Sectaries, for our saviour was innocent of that false accusation, declaring his kingdom not to be of this world, & acknowledged Caesar's right, bidding the people to give unto Cesar the things, that were Caesar's, but this man's profanes would have the accusation true, and lawful to invade Caesar's right from the false accusation of our saviours, and blasphemously avows invading of the bishops rights, because one better than caesars, for to what other purpose doth he compare the rights of Cesar, and the bishops, unless to justify their dealing with the bishops. And accuse our saviour for intending the like to Caesar?  
The right of the Prelate bishops was gotten by spiritual usurpation. Could any Jew, Turk, or Pagan speak more reproach fully against Christiaintie, that the calling of those men, who were so eminent for suffering, and Martidome, and gathering the Christian Church throughout the world was a spiritual usurpation?  
The objection or to his Majest: repeating the arguments from law, antiquity, Ancestors, prosperity, and the like was very improper from him, whose repititions of Tyranny, slavery, single voice, consent of the kingdom, and such like have blotted so great a part of his book, and he, that would bind the king to follow the Example of other Churches will exclude antiquity, and the primitive Church, and authorize the schism of innovating Sectaries, because Papists have used Arguments against them.  
The king says, had he two houses sued out their livery from the wardship of Tumults, he could sooner have believed them. But says the Libeler it concerned them first to sue out their livery from his encroaching Prerogative, The law allows no livery from Royal Prerogative, but judges them Rebels that seek it.  
The Character set on them, that hunt after faction with their hounds the Tumults, the Libeler hath justified by his defence.  
It's no shame for a King to be a pupil to the bishops, whose calling it is to give him spiritual Council, but it were madness to be a laquay to such men, who take upon them to judge of the callings in the Church of God, which have no calling to it, much more to a rabble, whom the Libeler himself holds extravagant.  
That nimrod was the first, that hunted after faction could never be told by the bishops, much less, that he was the first, that founded Monarchy. The bishops could have named a more ancient foundation in Adam, and Noah. They find the hunters after faction by Tumults of a latter dale, Corah, and his Company, that Rebelled against Moses, and Sheba, that spoke to the Tumults, what part have we in David, or portion in the son of Jesse? and they find them in the cursed Jews, 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 Rebels in all times hollowed to, and the Mongrel sort never fail them, and these, that hunt with such hounds preserve beasts of prey to devour the quiett, & profitable.  
Certainly Parliaments made laws before Kings were in being, which must have better authority than his reason to prove; We find kings making laws before ever we read of Parliaments, & in Commonwealths we find their law makers were single men, as Lycurgus, Solon, and divers others.  
The kings holding his Crown by law, doth not imply another law maker than the king, who first made that law, whereunto the whole people were subject, but he, that so lately blamed repetitions unseasonably falls into his old road of disputing against Monarchy, which he pretends to decline.  
It hath been anciently interpreted the presaging sign of a future Tyrant to dream of copulation with his Mother. here is a conceit plucked in by head, and shoulders. Whereof was it a sign in Junious Brutus, that was directed by the oracle to kiss his Mother, his succeeding act was the expulsion of the kings, and change of the Government, was that less than Tyranny, or not so presaged by the oracle, as well as a dream? Parliaments can be no Mothers to kings, that are created by kings. The king is by the law of England Father of the Country, & the life, and soul of the law, but the Libeler will find out a step Mother an Athalia to destroy the seed Royal, and set her meestuous brood upon the throne, for these dreams were the delusions of some prime Rebels, and could not allude unto just Title, but conceits are grown low, when such dreams must be fetched in for reasons.  
And from his dreams, it is not strange, he should fancy allusions (which himself says are ordinary of the King to the sun) of force to swell up Caligula to think himself a God. And because these Rebels can not be Gods, they will be Devils.  
The King says, these propositions are not the joint, and free desires of both houses, next that the choice of many members was carried by faction. He says Charles the fifth against the Protestants in Germany laid the fault upon 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 take it for the advice of Parliament, and forbear to show the fraud, because Charles the fifth said the like upon another occasion.  
The Court was wont to tamper with Elections, and he says no faction was then more potent. And yet he affirms they prevailed not, where then was their potency?  
Because the king says, he cannot swallow such Camels of sacrilege, and Injustice, as others do, The Libeler says, he is the Pharisee, up, and down, is not as other men are. Is it Pharisaisme to profess with the Prophett David the dislike of them, that follow superstitious vainties. Because the Pharisee swallowed Camels, be such men Pharisees, that profess they will not? & because the Sectaries pretended conscience of Ceremonies like the Pharisees washing, the outside, while they devour the Estates of other men without remorse, are they not Pharisees? and are they only, that profess they cannot swallow such Camels Pharifees? this is a new found Pharisee.  
The three Realms all most perished for want of Parliaments. We have seen how near perishing they are by a Parliament, which hath committed more Injustice since it began, than all our stories have remembered for five hundred years before.  
The Libeler hath found out a new kind of sacrilege, for he endures not to have Church robbing called sa●…riledge, and that is to bereave a Christi in conscience of liberty for the narroumes of his own conscience. And by what Engine is this sacrilege committed, doth he, that abstaines for conscience sake bereave another man's conscience of liberty?  
He thinks to take away superfluous wealth from the Clergy is not sacrilege for that serves, as an excuse for their theft in taking from others what they pretend ill used, & we may see the love these Sectaries have unto the goods of the Church, that extenuate their impiety by pretending, that such men most oppose that wickedness, whose righteousness, in other matters hath been least observed. And these are no Pharisees, that traduce the opposers of their sacrilege for want of righteousness in other matters, this is their new righteousness, that allows none holy, but their own gang, and nothing unholy, that they practise, and therefore they will not see the King's virtues, lest they be driven to confess their own wicked Actions against him.   

Upon the REBELLION IN IRELAND.  
IT Could not possibly be so secret from whence it sprung, as the contriver supposed. And if he knew the contrivers, perhaps he might know, whether they supposed it would be secret, for they that pretended to be the principal contrivers avowed it openly.  
It cannot be imaginable, that the Irish guided by so many subtle, and Italian heads should so far have lost the use of reason, and Common sense, as not supported by other strength than their own, to begin a war so desperate against England, and Scotland. And truly it may seem, that they, who thought themselves wiser than Italian heads had lost reason, & Common sense, who letting lose, or rather cutting asunder the reins of Government, which held in that kingdom to a people naturally disaffected to those, unto whom they were subject, invited them to that Rebellion, first in a popular fury cutting of the Ld. Lieutenant, to gratify them, & then leaving the Kingdom without a successor, and preparing the way to a Civil war in England, stirring up jealousies against the King, and weakening his Authority, and composing Apologies for Rebellion, which would serve the Irish pretences, aswell as the diferences in England their designs, and those Italian heads saw as much advantage from our broils, as want of aid from other nations, who were busied to the utmost in their own most necessary concernements; And therefore the libeler vainly infers authority for assistance promised from England, unless it were from the faction in the houses, there being no visible strength then in any other, & there need not, nor could be any private assurance unto the Irish Rebels from any other, but that faction, and it is most apparent, that they neglected all means to remedy that mischief, busying themselves wholly in laying the ground work of the Rebellion in England, which they held their most necessary concernment, & this was ground enough for Italian heads to stir up that Rebellion.  
The libeler proceeds upon his suppositions, as if they were granted truths, & he would insinnate an equivocation in what the King says, That the sea of blood is enough to drown any man ineternall both infamy, and misery, whom God shall find the malicious Author, or instigatour of that effusion. Because he says the Rebels themselves will not confess, that any blood was shed by them maliciously, bu●… for the Catholic cause, or Common liberty. Therein they differ not from the Libeler, and his English Rebels, for they will not confess any of the blood they shed to be maliciously, but for Religion, and Common liberty, and thence the Libeler learns his skill to cast suspicions upon the plainest expressions of others, he well discerned, that the King used the word malicious for aggravation, not restriction, & his observation was captious, when he read in the following Period, that the King affirms, nothing could be more abhorred of him being so full of sin against God, disloyalty to himself, and destructive to his subjects, and calls God to witness, that as he could with truth wash his hands in innocence, as to any guilt in that Rebellion, so he might wash them in his te●…res, as to the sad apprehension he had to see it spread so far, & make such waste. And the Libeler himself after so impertinent, and malicious an insinuation confesses he denies, it both here, and elsewhere.  
But he says there is in it no such wide disagreement from the scope of his former Counsels, we are sure there could not be agreement with the scope of his former Counsels. It was agreeable to the Counsels of Rebels to defame the King with this aspersion, & it is not strange, that untruths may be affirmed in three Kingdoms in regard of the contrivers, that so industriously spread them. But let us hear his reasons or reports. It's most certain, that the King was ever friendly to the Irish Papists. And its certain, that what he says is self, but what's that to their Rebellion against himself, or destroying his Kingdom?  
But his certainty is, that the King in his third year against the plain advice of Parliament, like a kind of Pope sold them many indulgences for money. And was he a kind 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 year to the beginning of the Rebellion, but how does he hang this together.  
The advancing the Popish party he says, but instances in no particular, nor for negotiating underhand by Priests, which were as impertinent to an inference of the King's friendship, or causing the Rebellion, as the use of such persons by Ministers of State, though of different Religion.  
He engaged the Irish Papists in a war against the Scotch protestants, there was never popish engagement against the Scots for the King, if in the king's Army raised in that kingdom, there were Papists, it was without the engagement of their party, but their engagement by allegiance to their King, and whence doth it follow, that because the King raised an Army in Ireland he must therefore raise the Rebellion in Ireland? and as it's well known, that the keeping up of that Army would probably have prevented the Rebellion of Ireland, & that it was disbanded long before that Rebellion broke forth; so they, which complained so much of that Army, and importuned to have it disbanded, thereby prepared the way to their own Rebellion as groundless, and cruel, as that of the Irish.  
The summer before that dismal October a Committee of active Papists, all since in the head of the Rebellion, (yet Sr. Hardresse waller was one of them) were in great favour at whitehall, and admitted to private consultations of the King, and Queen. Then all Companies of Traitors are Committees from the example of the late Parliament. But he was loath to say, they were a Committee (as they were) from the lower house of Parliament in Ireland, which kept correspondence with the faction of the English Parliament, and made addresses to them, and were encouraged by them in their proceedings with the King, and their coming over was wholly to serve the design of the faction in England.  
But no mean matters were the subject of these conferences, for he gave away his peculiar right to more than five Irish Counties for an inconsiderable Rent. But it was not his right of sovereignty, neither was this, which he calls no mean matter a conference about the Rebellion, and this peculiar right, which this Libeiler accuses the King for parting with not to Papists peculiarly, but subjects in general, the accusers of the Earl of Strafford charged him for asserting to the King, and that inconsiderable Rent was in their judgement excessive, these are the colours of Justice, and truth, which these Rebels put on their Calumnies.  
They departed not till within two months before the Rebellion. Rebels ordinarily disgiuse their intentions, and therefore such might frequent the Court, as the faction in Parliament pretended affection, and duty, while they plotted to destroy the King, and now the Libeler resorts to his Scotch Author, who he says declares. What should move the King to those close meetings, he that believes Sanders, Carries, and other Papists in their virulent forgeries against Queen Elizabeth, may likely give credit to the Libeler, and his friend the Scotchman, and take up infamous Libels for true stories.  
The Libeler flies from hence to one of his common haunts, the design of bringing up the English, and Scotch Army, and thinks it no repetition, which he had so often obtruded, and he infers, that because the King could not prevail with them, he betakes himself to the Irish, who had in readiness an Army of eight thousand Papists, and a Committee here of the same Religion. But what to do to kill one another? If the King sought to make use of the Irish, that rebelled, he might more advantageously have done it, then by cutting one another's throats, and had they intended him assistance, they would not have consumed themselves against his subjects there, and how could he transport that Army from Ireland, that was disbanded before ever the Rebellion broke forth, and the Committee departed two months before.  
He tells us from his friend the Scotchman, that there were they, who thought now was the time to do service for the Church of Rome against the Puritan Parliament. It's very likely there were they, who thought the Puritan faction in Parliament had done more to the advantage of the Church of Rome by the embroiling of England, then ever had been done since the reformation, and they might well think it a fit time to attempt any design against the Kingdom. And did not the Libeler think, that there are among the vulgar such capacities, as receive legends, and Romanses for true stories, he would not so grossly produce such discourses of five Counties given to the Irish, and four offered to the Scotch, And of like stuff is his mention of the King's attempt to pervert the Scotch Army from their way homeward, and the plot, which he hath taken from his Scotch Colleague to remove out of the way such, as were most likely to withstand, or not further his designs. With this liberty of invention do these Traitors seek to mask their villainy  
That a Commission under the great seal of Scotland commanded this Rebellion. Was taken up after the pretence of the great seal of England was detected of falsity, and as this great seal of Scotland hath as much untruth, so it hath no more colour, there being no possibility for the King to use that seal, not at all in his power to such a Commission.  
The sending of the Ld. Dillon is of the same stamp, what the Irish did is easily granted, but the falsehoods of this Libeler, and his friend the scotchman are no mysteries of iniquity, but open, and detected cheats, & one quotes the authority of the other, as if they were strangers met by chance, and make Libelling their work to distract the people, and yet from these devices the Libeler will conclude, that the King cannot be doubted to be Author, or instigatour of that Rebellion. It had been ridiculous to cite a gazett, but a branded stigmatic, infamous. If his reason be moved by such Arguments, 'tis the less wonder, that his language, and practice is foe corrupt, and he may reckon himself among that rabble of the vulgar, he so much despises.  
These Testimonies likelihoods, evidences, and apparent Actions, which he mentions in the declaration of July 1643. Are of as little credit, as his friend the Scot●…hman. And there is not a more evident conviction of malefactors, than their declarations against the king are of the guilt of those, that contrived them, setting forth their duty, which they dissembled, and condemning their actions, which they disavowed.  
It is not credible, that the Irish Rebels would be foe far from humanity, as to slander him being so well received by him at Oxford. If a man had wanted an proof of the Libelers absurdity, he might here be furnished by himself, that draws an Argument from the humanity of the Irish, whose barbarity, and Treachery is so great a part of his accusation against the king. They who were received at Oxford upon offer of submission, were very far from pretence of such a Commission, and it may be aswell concluded they had a Commission at Oxford, as before, because they were there, and aswell concluded, that th●…y never Rebelled, as that they made no self pretences of their Rebellion.  
The king need not bring proofs against a groundless accusation, that contains not any evidence of fact, and a single denial by all laws is preferred before such a charge, and it is as likely, that the Rebels in Ireland should pretend his Seal, as those in England his authority, & no man doubts of the invalidity of a Rebel's pretence.  
This Chapter is not without witness of his good affection to the Rebels, which he collects from tha●… the king says, they were less in fault, than the Scots, from whom they might allege to have fetched their imitation, making no difference, says the Libeler, be●…eene men, that rose necessarily to defend themselves, which no Protestant Doctrine ever disallowed against them, who threatened war, and those who began a voluntary, & caus●…les Rebellion. If the Irish made war 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 book, and expelling bishops? Where lies the odds? Is it Protestant Doctrine, that they may defend themselves, and Papists may not, and that Protestants may Rebel for Religion, Papists may not? That were very much to the credit of Religion, but the Libeler will not acknowledge the protestants, nor their Doctrine, who maintain it to be unlawful for subjects to defend themselves against the supreme power, though Tyranically abused, and there is no need to fly to the Parliaments autho●…itie, if subjects may take Arms against their king upon pretence of defending themselves.  
The Libeler well knows the just indignation the Protestants abroad have expressed for this scandal, the king names not the Scots, but thinks, that their blame must needs be greater, whose Actions the Irish had to allege for their imitation, by how much protestant principles are more against Rebellion, than those of Papists such, as infer good affection to the Irish from such premises will easily make vain, or malicious rumours strong proofs.  
The King says, he hath the greatest share of dishonour, and loss, by what is committed. The Libeler, as before makes this no Argument, because every one, that offends God, or his neighbour hath the greatest share of loss 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 politic contrivance of the King, and now he would have it an act without design. Doth he think, that the malicious reports of him, and his Scotchman are of weight to make a man suspected of an act directly tending to his own undoing, and would the King instigate the Irish Rebellion for his own ends to have the assistance of the Irish, which by such engagement could not assist him. Though presumptions are no convincing proofs, yet they are more credible, than suspicions, or reports. It is a strong Argument for the people's confidence in their King more than in other men, because his interest lies chiefly in the common welfare of his subjects, and it is hard to believe, that a King will knowingly do any thing against that interest, and to his own loss, and dishonour, and whenever any have offended in that kind, the proof of it hath been more apparent, than the authority of rumours, and Libels, but here the act itself cannot have any possibility of concurrence to the King's ends.  
It too notoriously appears in another section, which he Mangles, but shall here have it whole. The King says, 'tis thought by many wise men, that the preposterous rigour, and unreasonable severity, which some men carried before them in England was not the least incentive, that kindled, and blew up into those horrid flames the sparks of discontent, which wanted not predisposed fuel for Rebellion in Ireland. The Libeler says that these some men are the Parliament. And if the Rebels had feed an Advocate, he could hardly have dazzled better. Truly the Libelers too notoriously doth not amount to a dazzling of any eyes from descerning his vain confidence. Does any thing herein excuse a Rebellion, that speaks only of what succeeded it? And if the king's censure of the proceedings of such, as managed the business against the Rebels, show an affection to the Rebels then certainly most Princes, that have had wars in Ireland were very guilty of that affection, that used like censures, but what the king says here was spoken in Parliament by divers members, who disadvised the preposterous severity, that was propounded, and afterward proceeded in, and it will rest an indelible blemish of a rash, and unadvised Council in those men, that in the beginning of a Rebellion would put a whole nation into despair, and fear of extirpation.  
That their wont oppressions, as they conceived should rather have made them against the King, than the Parliament is easily believed, for it's known to all the world they did rise against the king upon pretence of regaining their national liberties from the English oppression, as they called it, and since the Libeler seeth so apparent an Argument of their rising against the king, its blind madness to suspect their rising for the king. The Parliament than 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 used the Prelatical Religion, and to force it upon others made Episcopal, Ceremonial, and common prayer book wars. Such men, as made wars, and raised Rebellion to take away the order of bishops, Ceremonies, and book of Common prayer established by laws in the Reigns of best Princes with the advice of the most eminent confessors, 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 stigmatised for making not only Episcopal, Ceremonial, and common prayer book wars, but Antichristian, and Diabolical Rebellion.  
That the Papists knew these wars were their wars may easily be believed, for they must needs apprehend advantage from the Rebellion But it's well known, that the Papists are more jealous of Episcopacy, Ceremonies, and book of common prayer, as they stand r●…formed in the Church of England, then of the Directory, Extemporal devotions, independent, or Pres biterall platforms, that have no foundation in the Scripture, or the doctrine, or practice of the ancient Church, but what is this to the preposterous rigour, and uncharitable fury, that he would justify? Does he mean, that the extirpation of the Irish was the sole way to suppress open Idolatry, and is this what we may do Evangecally to be their Reformers? Is blood, & massacre Evangelicall reformation, & is kill, and reform the same thing? As that rigour observed by his Majest: was altogether unpolitique, so if it were intended in order to Religion, it was most abominable, such Massacres being the designs of irreligious persecutors, not Evangelicall Reformers, who though they fear not their adversaries, yet will not give them cause of scandal, nor desperation, and such, as make destruction their Reformation, show they fear men, whom they seek to kill, not God, whom presumptuously, and hypocritically they pretend to serve.  
His instance of King James is as impertinent, as scurrilous, that after the powder plot King james durst never do other, then equivoiate, and colleague with the Pope, & his adherents. Doth this viper believe, the Pope, or his adherents had any such thoughts? Was the writing against the the Pope a Colloguinge? The many invectives of Popish writers against him signify the plain contrary; besides the laws made by him against Popish recusants show, that the Author was in one of his lunatic transes, when he dreamt of that heckticke trembling.  
The retarding, and delays of relief to Ireland against that Rebellion, were so apparently discovered to proceed from the faction in Parliament, that there rests not the least colour to charge it upon the King. They converted the subjects money, and other preparations for the relief of Ireland to the raising of the Rebellion in England, and they hindered the going over of a new governor into that kingdom, because they would use his help to their designs at home.  
They were diffident to trust the King with an army, and therefore refused his offer to go in person against the Rebels. It seems they had little compassion on that people, that preferred their jealousies before their pity, & it is a plain Treason, and encouragement to that Rebellion to pretend distrust of their King, and shows they sought their own personal security before the remedy of that Rebellion, & the safety of the kingdom. His Majest: might justly find fault with those, who threatened all extremity to the Rebels, and they, that exclude all mercy to every single person, where multitudes are involved, and such, as followed Absolom with a simple heart, show neither humanity, nor Christianity, when Father's Brothers, Wives, and Children were destroyed by such an occasion, neither is Magistracy, and war under the gospel giuded by such passions, but by the rules of Christian pity, and such as give themselves the licence of universal Massacres, will not abstain from embruing their hands in the blood of their Fathers, Brothers, Wives, and Children, sparing neither ancient, nor suckling, King, nor Priest, defacing, all Monuments of Christianity, and turning Religion into the discourses of their hirelings, and all devotion into squint eyes, and disfigured faces, and erect an Empire in themselves with the slaughter of all, that submit not to them.  
The repetition of making the war by the King in England, is his Catholicon against all exceptions, and Gewgaws of the Crown, and Copes, and an●…●…lisses, and such trinketts, he thinks are names to sublimate his brain sick Sectaries into their frenetique fit, and make them cry out great are the Calves of their unknown Religion, whither they contemn the wisdom of God under the law, & his mercy under the gospel, and will rather wade through the blood of their Country, then endure power in the King, or decency in the Church.  
There is great difference between the instances of the destruction of the sichemites, and the disciples calling, for fire from heaven against the City, that denied lodging, and this of a nation by just war, & execution to slay whole famelies of them, who had slain whole families before. But where lies the odds, there was as much threatened to the Irish, as was done to the sichemites? Though there were a difference between the sins of some, there was no difference between the innocence of many, and there is no difference between them, that will destroy promiscuously without mercy, where all are not guilty in the one case, and the other. But why doth not the Libeler state his case right, and instead of families set down the whole nation, as the truth was? Did he shrink at the expression of the truth at large, and name families to diminish the guilt?  
That, which was done against the Benjamites, was by Gods revealed will in that particular Case, and yet there was a remnant reserved of them, that escaped the present stroke of the war, and they returned again to their possessions.  
The Libeler says, he speaks not this, that such measure should be meated to all the Irish, or as remembering, that the Parliament ever so decreed. But if they did so, than this shall serve for their justification, for to what end else is it, that he offers excuses?  
To show, that this homily, (meaning it seems the King's discourse) hath more of craft, and affectation, then sound doctrine. But either it is sound doctrine, or else the Libeler must justify the contrary, to which he says that which he speaks is not intended, and that, which he hath brought shows, that the homily he intends is sound Doctrine, and his intended opposition signifies nothing, but his own corruption.  
The King would have some punished, which he says were of least use, and must of necessity have been sacrificed to his reputation. And can he think, that the king caused the Rebellion, and yet would punish any for his reputation, might they not then produce it? and how then could he sacrifice them to his reputation, which would be more wounded by the punishing of one, than the sparing of all.  
The king says, some were to be pretected upon their submission from the fury of those, who would soon drown them, if they refused to swim down the popular stream with them. The Libeler says that fury is applied to the Parliament. If such were their condition, it's not misapplyed.  
The Libeler says, he remembers not they had so decreed, & if not, how could it be applied to them? And wherefore doth he except to the soundness of the doctrine, if it concerned them not?  
Those, who would not swim down the stream are Papists, Prelates, and their faction. He means not English Prelates, for they have not yet been charged with the Irish Rebellion, and if he mean the Romish Prelates, it were superfluous, having named Papists before, and why doth he say, that he speaks not, that such measure should be meated to all the Irish, when he would have the king esteemed a favourer of the Irish Rebellion, if he protected any Irish Papists upon their submission? For he says, by this, who sees not, that he, and the Irish Rebels had but one aim. And whoever thinks he sees it by this hath neither sight, nor reason, and there is nothing to be seen in the Libelers inference, but excessive impudence, and falsehood.  
The King says, some kind of zeal is not seldom more greedy to kill the Bear for his skin, then for any harm he hath done. This the Libeler renders our zeal, and would infer from thence, that the Parliament is more bloody in the prosecution of their justice, than the Rebels in their cruelty. And by what construction can he make that good? may there not be by ends in a judge, & yet his sentence not so bloody, as a malefactors' Crime, & he, that charges a Magistrate with a wrong end in giving a Just sentence, doth not diminish the Crime of the malefactor. Can any rational soul conclude upon the King's dislike of irregular proceedings against the Irish, that he excused their Crime? This is chaff to cast in the eyes of his bleerde Sectaries, for none else are so purblind, and there need no dispute, that the King perfectly hated the Irish Rebellion, & justly censured the proceeding in that unseasonable threatening of destruction. The instance of the bears skin was made by a member of the lower house at the time, when they debated that business, and yet they then thought it no favour to the Irish, nor censure of their own proceedings.  
The cessation, which the King made was in favour of the Irish, and without the advice of Parliament, to whom he had committed the managing of that war. The King plainly discerned, that the design of the faction in Parliament in managing the Irish wars was only to draw money from the people under that pretence to subdue England, and destroy him by taking away all assistance from him, and thence proceeds their Calumny upon the cessation; and their wilful neglect, and diversion of succours amidst the reiterated Cries of the protestants in that Kingdom, the importunity of the Lords Justices, and the visible growth of the Enemy shows the advantage they made of that Rebellion, & the King was bound in Justice, and honour to preserve that Kingdom, and in Christian pity to relieve his distressed subjects, which he could not do without resuminge the managing of that war, which had been so Treacherously miscarried by those he trusted, & as he made that cessation by the advice, & entreaty of his protestant subjects there, so they were sufficient witnesses of the low condition themselves were in, and the power of the Rebels.  
But the Libeler would prove, that the Protestants there were on the winning hand, because they kept their own notwithstanding the miss of those forces, which were landed in wales, and Cheshire, who without difficulty Mastered a great part of these Countries. The Protestants keeping of their own was by the benifitt of that cessation, without which they hoped not to keep it, and those Countries of wales, and Cheshire were not mastered by those forces, as the Libeler supposes, but protected by them against the Tyranny of the Rebellion then ontring upon them.  
The Declaration, which he vouches for proof is an infamy to the Authors, containing neither colour of proof, nor soundness of Argument, and of as little credit, as his own assertions. In the mean time those forces of the Protestants, which the king got by that cessation declare to the world, that the Irish Rebellion crossed his ends, and advanced those of the English Rebels.  
The waylay of provisions was contradicted by such apparent proofs in his Majest: answers, that until they make some reply to those particulars, their clamours will signify nothing but want of matter.  
The forces he called over stood him in no small steed against our main forces. That no way hinders, but that they might be termed handfuls in respect of the numerous Rebels both in Ireland, & England. The reasons of the cessation, besides the known evidence of truth, and weight have an addition of Authority from the Libelers calling them false, and frivolous without the least show of reason, it being his custom to style truth, and reason by such Titles.  
He reprehends the king for likening his punishments to jobs Trials, before he saw them have jobs end. And upon the same reason he will not allow the Trials of the Martyrs to have a likeness to Jobs, because the end in respect of Temporal felicity was not the same.  
The king says, he hath not leisure to make prolix Apologies, from whence the libeler concludes those long declarations, and Remonstrances, which he calls Pamphletts set out in his name were none of his. And is not this a tidy inference, because the king in prison expecting the execution of the cruel designs of the Traitors had no leisure to make prolix Apologies, therefore the declarations, and Remonstrances published by him, while he was at liberty were none of his. The king hath given sufficient Testimony to stop the mouth of a destractour, that no writings, published in his name were above his ability. If his declarations were weighty, and just, why are they Pamphletts? if not why, will not the Libeler believe him the Author whom he seeks to vilify, but the world knows the declarations in the name of Parliament were none of theirs, but voted upon the word of a junto by such as had not capacity, to understand them.  
That though the Common saying, that it is Kingly to do well, and hear ill be sometimes true, yet more frequently to do ill, and hear well by the multitude of flatterers, that deify the name of Kings. It can hardly be proved, that ever evil king had so many flatterers, as the best kings have detractours, and himself produces instances, how the multitude deified Simon Mountford, and such popular brovillions against their kings.  
For the peace in Ireland, the Justice of it is now apparent, and he, that pardons Rebels to save the effusion of the blood of his good subjects, shows greater tenderness to the good, than they, that by endeavouring to exclude all from mercy, expose them promiscuously to mutual slaughter, and may justly be judged to look upón both with an indifferent eye, and that neither Justice, nor pity, but greedy, and rapacious desires carry them to that cruelty.  
The King prays at large for the Irish Rebels. It seems Charity for Enemies is held a sin by these miscreants, otherwise he would not have censured a prayer so becoming a Christian, that God would not give over the whole stock of that seduced nation to the wrath of those, whose covetousness makes them cruel, nor to their anger, which is too fierce, and therefore justly cursed. The King deprecates the Rebellion of Ireland, and in his prayer concludes his innocence, and that if he had not studied the composing of the differences says, let thy hand be upon me, & my father's house. And this the Libeler calls a solemn Curse, which is his judgement of the Crime, and the assertion of his innocence. Though God aff●…ict his servants, his hand is not against them in wrath, as this wretch presumes to say, and looks not on that curse, which God denounces against bloody, and deceitful men, that pretend his service in the destruction of his servants.   

Upon the calling in of the SCOTS, and their COMING.  
HE, that observes how great a part of this Libelers book his invectives against Monarchy take up, & how frequently, and impertinently he offers his exceptions against Kingly Government in excuse of falsehood, and Rebellion, may well wonder at his exceptions to pretended repetitions, in the King's book he enters upon this Chapter with his opinion of the original of Kings to be servants of the public. And yet the people were subjects to them, and how far Kings mistake the nature of their office, that think they are Masters of the people. And yet God gave nations to serve them. Though their power is for public good, yet they have a peculiar propriety in that power, and Estate, as private men in their private fortunes, & its more for the people's good to be subject, though to an evil King, then to fall to confusion. And if rulers may not retain their power, because factious multitudes say, that they are but entrusted for the people's good, & that it is for the people's good, that they yield up the sword, they bore it in vain. Such a wooden sword have the Rebels provided for all Rulers, but themselves, for when they get power by their swords of steel, or mines of powder the people may not think, that they shall find such Lords of straw, as they pretend governor's of the people ought to be. We are taught by Scripture, that the people are commanded to hearken, and obey, not teach, & command, and though his supposition, that Government is in the people, and that they ordained Kings be vain, and false by the examples of Scripture, and of most Authentic histories, yet were it admitted, that a King came in by the people's consent, they are not after such submission Judges of their own obedience, or their King's power.  
It were vain to follow the Libeler in his exceptions to the words of favour, and gratification, as sounding pride, and Lordly usurpation, as if kings only had nothing in their power to oblige men with all, these are the spleenetique vapours of Rebellious distemper.  
For the King's concessions to the Scots, either touching Episcopacy, or the Militia, we shall hear his answer in due time, howsoever the king was not bound to the same Actions, where Circumstances varied, nor after a fuller understanding of the nature, and consequence of the things granted, and as his Majest: professed a clearer information after these Actions had passed him, so he evidently saw, that they were more against his subjects good, than his own, and that instead of preventing an Arbitrary power, it would have introduced an arbitrary licence, and confusion into the Kingdom, and such men, as prefer the bondage of popular confusion, or the licentious insolence of many Lords, are either enchanted with a witch craft of Rebellion, or stupidly benumbed with a senseless Lethargy.  
With what Zeal the Libeler reproves the abuse of Scripture, when he exclaims, as if it offended his conscience, we may perceive by the allusion he makes saying. Ireland was as Ephraim, the strength of his head, meaning the Kings, Scotland, as judah was his law giver, but over England, as over Edom he meant to cast his shoe. Hath this man reverence to Scripture, or the Author of it?  
He comes again to accuse the King for persecuting the consciences of Religious men, a known untruth, yet so much beloved by the Libeler, as he seems impatient to miss the repetition of it, and with this he joins his reproving the King's profession of being an Enemy of those, that forced the conscience because he had made a war, and lost all, rather than not uphold the bishops. It is an Argument, that he esteemed his conscience, that lost all for it. But the Libeler says, they were persecuting bishops. The King upholding bishops, upholds not persecution, or abuse, and th' e Libelers confounding the office, & ill exercise of it makes known his want of Argument. The falsehood of their Calumnies against the bishops is sufficiently manifested to the world, that after so many vehement outcries they have not proved on such act of persecution done by any one of them, & not the presons but the office, & law were the persecution in this man's judgement.  
The King obtruded new Ceremonies upon us, upon the Scots a new Liturgy There were no new Ceremonies obtruded by him in England, and this horrid Rebellion to take away the Ceremonies, and Government legally established, and continually practised, under the name of innovations, detects both the fraud, and outrage of their proceedings. The new liturgy offered the Scots by advice of their bishops, and Clergy, was an act befitting the care of a King, and no man will believe, that it was an offence to their consciences, who made no conscience of blood, and Rebellion upon pretence of their conscience, which the world sees was an hypocritical straining at a straw, and swallowing a Camel, and these tender conscience men have written their tenderness of conscience with the blood of their brethren; which will remain a memorial of their dissembled sanctity.  
What hindrance of the search of truth, he means is not understood, unless he would have the dreams of mad sectaries confirmed by authority.  
He would have the penalties of laws thought persecution of the conscience, and sectaries the Judges, and says, if himself (meaning the King) and his learned Churchmen were the obstinate part, should Reformation suffer them to sit Lording like the great whore? And are sectaries Libels convictions of Kings, and learned Churchmen, and the clamours of malefactors a sentence against the Judge? Such is the Government, that must now rule the world, and Reformation must be an Idol in the hands of a seditious sectary, whereto the people must fall down, and such unstable multitudes carried about with every wind of doctrine are likely to be those many waters, on which the great whore sits, which hath for corruption, and cruelty a great resemblance unto those false prophetts, that now seduce the people.  
These Clergimen were not to bedriven like sheep, but driven out like wolves. But they are thiefs, and wolves, that enter into the sheepfold by violence, and stealth, and the ambition, and greediness of these wolves will find occasion to suck the blood, and devour the flesh of the sheep.  
The king says, that he believes the Presbytery, though proved to be the only institution of jesus Christ, were not by the sword to be set up without his conjent, which is contrary saith the Libeler, both to the doctrine, and known practice of all Protestant Churches, if his sword threaten those, who of their own accord embrace it. But than it, cannot be set up by the sword, unless his sword threaten those, that embrace it; And this juggler denies, what the king says, and yet in effect professes it, and while he enrages the Tumults to set up their Presbytery with the sword produces Arguments only for defence. The reformed Churches profess to follow the ancients in suffering, not associate themselves to bloody Sectaries in Rebelling. And his next words impert that private men may not contend with Magistrates, nor use force against them.  
Though Christ, and his Apostles being to Civil affairs but private men contended not with Magistrates, yet when Magistrates themselves, and especially Parliament come to know Religion, they ought to defend it against any King, or Tyrant. What is defence to the question in hand of setting up Religion by the sword without the king's consent? May an inferior Christian Magistrate take Arms against his superior a Pagan to set up Religion. Is he not as much a private man as our Saviour, and his Apostles, where the Civil power hath not given him a right? And as a Civil right is not imaginable, so the pretence of a power from Religion is execrable, and false which will not permit an usurpation upon the Civil right. There may be a King, where there is no Parliament, and it is no more lawful for an inferior Migistrate, or to Parliament, who are but private men in regard of the Prince, whose deputies they are to take the sword to set up Religion against the King their sovereign, then for any private men, and were not the libeler distracted between evidence of truth, and his own corrupt inclinations, he would not instance in the name of Magistrates, and Parliament, that but the line before pretended the power of the people to do the same thing by the doctrine, and practice of all Protestant Churches, and would make them more public persons, than their Saviour, and his Apostles, he thinks his reviling language of Tyranny, and bloody bishops, and the King their pupil are irrefragable Arguments in the judgement of his pupils.  
There is a large difference between forcing men by the sword to turn Presbiterians, and defending them, who willingly are so. But than it is impious to force men to be so, what those wretches did to the King for not being so, and for not consenting to impose it, upon the kingdom by a law, the world knows, and the world is witness, and they have robbed men of their possessions by the sword to set up this new Religion.  
His charging covetousness, and ambition to be the events of Episcopacy, is schismatical malice, for Episcopacy in the beginning of the Church was attended with poverty, and persecution, but the libeler will make Martyrdom their ambition, and wants their covetousness.  
He will have, that English Episcopacy hath marks of schism, whether we look at Apostolic times, or reformed Churches, if he had showed wherein, it had deserved an answer, but we see what Apostolic times he means, that will not allow any Church of the world from the time of the Apostles till the present age, & because the Church of England is not universal, therefore all Sectaries may pretend themselves the Church.  
For the authority of Scripture, he need not take pains to prove it. The Church of England claims not power over other Churches, but to correct schismatics within herself. The exposition of Scripture may not be received from arrogant Sectaries against the judgement of the universal Church, & the King might very well reject such reasons, as they, which offered them, had so lately before disavowed, and pretended themselves scandalised with the imputation of such opinions. The greatest number of these pretended Reformers professed detestation of the opinion of lawfulness in taking Arms against their Prince, of the opinion of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, book of Common prayer, and Ceremonies, and who now would dispute with such men maintaining these renounced opinions with such bloody vehemency.  
It is not for the King to defend the Church otherwise then the Church would be defended. And what is the Church in the libelers sense, nothing but the crew of John of Leydons saints, and must the King follow them against the Church, these are the Divills factours to set up an Idol Religion.  
These deceivers talk of the power of the keys, in whose power holy things are, as if the keys, that Christ gave to his Disciples are transmitted to this distempered crew, that pretend a power of their own giving.  
Their Blasphemous pretence of enthusiasms hath been the wonder, and scorn of wise men, and that's the spirit which must not be fettered with a negative voice? But may it not be fettered by the Parliaments negative voice, and why is it more fettered by the kings than theirs? That which he calls Tyrannical, and presumptuous in the king, with the same breath justifies in the Parliament, and yet complains of Tyranny upon the conscience. Such consciences are senseless of Tyranny, aswell, as of sin having given themselves up to the Empire of hell.  
The kings negative voice could impose nothing, yet these desperate hypocrites say, they were compelled to implore the aid of Parliament to remove it from their consciences. And if the ground of their war were to take away his negative voice, their pretence of defensive force appears no other than violence, and persecution, which they so hypocritically complain of, & such tender consciences, as feel not salshoods, and Rebellion must be merciless destroyers of Religion, and Government, as these have proved.  
The King had cause to seek aid against Rebellion, and oppression, but that's no warrant for Traitors to link themselves by conspira●…ies to perform it, and the King might justly wonder at their confident boasting of God's assistance, as if they had the certainty of some Revelation, and flying to the Scots succours, while they were so furnished with provisions for war. And now after all the Libelers railing at Episcopacy Copes, & surplices, he will not permit. Arch Presbytery Classical, Provincial, and diocesine Presbytery claiming Lordly power, and superintendency to be imposed upon them. He●…res Babel confounded, and they, that were linked in disloyalty must part for Presbytery, and independency, and will not see the evil spirit, that first combined them in Rebellion, and now divides them to fight one against another.  
A Determination by the best divines in Christendom in a full, and free synod is he says an improbable way, and every true Church hath wherewithal from heaven to be complete, and perfect within itself. And why doth he tell us, that no Church denominated by a particular name binds our faith, or obedience, and hath any Romanist affirmed more for their infallibility, than he ascribes to every one of his Parlours, and wherefore is English protestant a Schismatical name, as he affirms, and that the whole nation is not to be thought so raw, as to need the help of other nations. But what is the whole nation to every conventicle, are these seperaists the whole nation? And why would he bind the King to other reformed Churches?  
If the primitive Christians had been of his opinion, General Counsels had been of little use, & the Disciples at Antioch needed not have sent to Jerusalem for advice in a question. But these men thus shuffle, and pretend the sufficiency of a nation, intent only the perfection of their Parlour congregations, and allow no sufficiency in Church, or nation, that submits not to their insolent prescriptions.  
He says the King accuses piety with want of loyalty, because he says in vain do men hope to build their piety on the ruins of loyalty. The King rightly determines, that piety is but pretended, where loyalty is despised, as such do that think it safe to renounce all fidelity to their lawful King, and his family, and depend on the faith of perjured villains upon pretence of piety, as he persuades the Scots to do.   

Upon the COVENANT.  
HE seems desirous to be short in this Argument, being a point, which he is loath to touch, till he see the success of some attempts, and he would not willingly be out of hope of the Scots, nor venture to displease them by his glosses.  
To the mention of the bishops possession here since the first plantation of Christianity in this I stand, and universal prescription since the Apostles till this last century he says, But what avails the most primitive antiquity against the plain sense of Scripture, which if the last Centurie have best followed, it ought in our esteem to be the first. But where is the plain sense of Scripture against antiquity? It's very plain, that these Sectaries no more esteem the present century, than the ancient, nor more the scripture then either of them, but take a liberty to vent their own fanatical, and arrogant fancies for Scripture, and reject all ordinary means upon pretence of a lying spirit. His Majest: meant not to oppose antiquity to Scripture, but where the practice of antiquity is consonant to Scripture. It's impious to reject the Communion of the first age. All helps of interpretation are fetters to the proud schismatics, and this Libeler, that so lately obtruded the Example of the reformed Churches in the case of Episcopacy, quickly scorns the Classical, Provincial, and diocesine Presbytery, and the last Century hath only seen the ascent of these Locusts, and he only likes that part of the last Century, wherein they crept forth, 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 far better reason believe the interpretations, and practice of the primitive Church, than any modern Reformers, and there were never any, but those Sectaries so shameless to deny the authority of antiquity, or charge it in this particular with an aberration from Scripture, and many learned men living under Presbytery acknowledge the dignity of bishops above Presbyters in the times of the Apostles. The Libeler likes any limitations in the Covenant, dangerous to the king, & so much of the Covenant as concerns the casting out of Bishoppsbut he will swear, and forswear comformitie to the Church of Scotland, or any other.  
That this Covevant had former practice, unless in the french League cannot be shown. The Libeler would have the Israelites entering 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, no Articles of their own devising, and as that was with the King so he hath found one without a King, for the Jews, after the captivitee took solemn oath to walk in the Commandments of God without consent demanded of that King, who was then their Master, and they had the Authority of that King. But did they take an oath to use violence against that King, if he consented not to them, or was the Covenent to walk in God's Commandments a new Covenant? This is like their pulpit proofs.  
That Protestant Churches have made Leagues, or Covenant against their King.  
Or imposed their confessions with Civil penalties upon refusers without their Prince is a notorious ●…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 Libeler holds needs no reconcitement. There is no doubt, but the Examples of Asa, and Esra were approved by Scripture, but they are far from the Examples of the present Covenant, and if the Libeler approve the taking of the Covenant, how doth he satisfy himself in the breach of it? he hath found out away, for he may aswell break that, as his oath to his King, and obligation to former laws, which he says are Conditional, and that condition to be expounded by every man at his pleasure.  
He proceeds to show the strength of the Covenant, and yet he will keep it one way, and his brethren of another name, and sect another way. If he Covenant oblige to contrary courses, it cannot be a Rule of Reformation, and as it clashes with former oaths to God, and the king rightly understood, so the clashing of these, that devised it, shows, that the spirit of peace was not desired by the contrivers, of that Covenant.  
That the King's book is replenished with Popish Arguments must be spoken in a Corner, not publicly with any modesty, 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 used in taking the Covenant were the arts of the deceitful composers, and it's well known it was an artifice used to persuade men to take it, that they might use the liberty of their own sense, and the Libeler willing to say some thing in detraction of the King upon every occasion, as if it were a sin to use truth, and ingenuity, transposes words of the Kings, which were used in reproof to additions of his own, as if the King approved these shuffling cautions, who he well knows detested both the Covenant, and them, and showed the inniquitie of these deceits, and we have seen, that these Cautions have made Covenanter, and anticovenanter, Presbiterian, and independent Rebel.  
The Libeler likes well the poverty of the Ministers of the gospel. And although the primitive poverty of Churchmen was very glorious, yet the Christian Laity were never so sordid to think a liberal patrimony unfit for them, and Religion hath little power, where the Clergy are trencher chaplains to gluttons feasts.  
These men, that judge poverty a curse to themselves hold it Christ's legacy to the Ministers. If there were any legacy, poverty was to all Christians, aswell, as Clergy, but we see, that notwithstanding these professions, their Levites now hold more pluralities without remorse, than ever were known, and shame not to contradict their former declamations, but it is the calamity of the Church, that greedy dogs devo●…re her patrimony, and barking detractours tr●…duce her Clergy.   

Upon the many JEALOUSIES etc.  
TO wipe of jealousies, and scandals the best way had been by clear actions, or till Actions could be cleared by evident reasons. Clear Actions, nor evident reasons will stop the mouth of malicious slanderers, nor abate the industry of conspirators in raising jealousies, But these, which his Majest: complained of were tempered only to vulgar capacity, and were long since hist at by all knowing men, who saw apparently they were not the opinions of the devisers, but artifices of deceit, and the progress of this Rebellion hath cleared all mistakes, and taken away all credit from these fopperies. It is very late for the Libeler to call to his aid the petitions, and addresses composed by the faction in Parliament, when himself accuses them for want of wisdom, and integrity, and whoever reads these addresses will easily find not only cause to suspect the truth of what they say, but plain proof of falls hood, and hypocrisy.  
That the whole Parliament conspired against the King, he never said, and the author well knows, that it was a potent faction only, to whom the King imputes this injury, though their being elected to that place is no exemption from a possibility of error, & Crime, and we have seen it beyond doubt, that this faction conspired to blow up the people's aff●…ions towards him, and batter down their loyalty by the Engnies of fowl aspersions, and have acted what the powder plot intended. The King offers not to purge himself by any other Arguments, than such, whose proof is visible to all the world, and the silliest people see, how they were cheated by factious Artists. The King's Arguments are not only demonstrable to the best but obvious to common understandings, and it cannot be expected, that such, as are resolute in wicked courses will ask forgiveness, or have it. The world knows the King, when he wrote this, expected the Rebel's cruelty, but feared it not, and there was not cause to use insinuations, which were not to be divulged, till his death. Tyrants, and usurpers are forced to flatter, but it's a wicked slander to charge him with flattery, that is fearless of cruelty.  
This Libeler profanely descants on Scripture, as he doth apparently upon the King's misfortunes, for ●…pon the Kings saying, that he could willingly be the ●…nah for restoring his people's 〈◊〉, if he did not foresee, that by the di●…erests of their, and his Enemies, as by contrary winds, the storm of th●…ir miseries would rather be increased then allayed. The Libeler says these winds were ne●…heard heard of in the compass. And it's very likely never regarded by those, who never guided themselves by other compass, than sea robbers, that make prey only their compass. But were not these divided mind●… heard of, when he spoke of Arch presbytery, and other subdivisions? And these winds he says were pretended to be foreseen 〈◊〉 he should be taken at his 〈◊〉. The King foresaw their intended murder, and though he feared it not, his word never was to be taken to make himself accessary to his Enemy's impiety. But that controversy, he says, divine lot hath ended. Suffering and Martyrdom hath been the lot of the righteous, but God's controversy with their persecutors is not thereby ended, and the Libeler r●…kons too soon, the end of his controversy, that entitles God with such Actions.  
The King's knowledge is sufficiently evident, and he hath distinguished the venerable grey h●…ires of ancient Religion from the old scurf of superstition, and the vertigo of novel profanes. And the whole some heat of his well governing shows his judgement in state Physic, and while Empirics, and horse leeches took upon them to amend the body, they turned the equal temper of it into the feaverous rage of T●…ing. There need no oracle to tell, who heated the furnace of this obloquy, it is sufficiently confessed, and they, that endured Nobuchadnezars' furnace might have warned this Libeler to have abstained from that allusion, for if the oracle of truth, God himself commanded the Jews to be subject to Nebuchadnezar notwithstanding his golden Image, and madness.  
The libeler might see his little wit ill applied in making the question, who deserved to be thrown in Nebuchadnezar, or his three Kingdoms? And this high conceit of his deserves the fieric furnace, that would persuade three Kingdoms, they might cast in their King.  
If his great seal were not sufficient without the Parliament to create Lords, his parole must be unable to create learned, and Religious men. Surely this man doth not see what he says, for it is a confessed truth, that the kings great seal without Parliament was sufficient to create Lords, and though his judgement could not create men, yet by the choice he made, men are satisfied, he discerned them better, than they, that would undertake to point them out.  
The opposition proceeded from heads far wiser, and spirits of a nobler strain, then ●…pular preachers. And are not their buff, and sword preachers popular preachers? And are those wiser heads and nobler spirits the Creators of preachers? And hath the tub overturned the pulpit?  
The Priest led herodians with their blind guides, are in the ditch already. These are the constant Testimonies of the Libelle●… reverence to Scripture, and things sacred, what's become now of the advice of the Parliament, and three Kingdoms? He was very much ●…verseene, that would have divided interests such unknown winds, and here blows away his brother Presbiterian for a Priest-led herodian, and blind guide, travelling as he thought to sion, but moored in the Isle of weight, And we see, that these, who began first with the bishops will at last have no Presbyters at all, but pretend with the Rebels against Moses, that all the congregation is holy, and will sail by the wind of their own brains without Card, or Compass. Factions are not only like Mathematical Lines always divisible, but perpetually dividing. The Kingdom of England cannot acknowledge the wisdom of those heads, from whom the design of destroying King, and Kingdom proceeded, men wilful for mischief are far from wise heads, nor is insolence, or inhumanity a Testimony of noble spirits. Popular preachers now see they were deceived in their own judgements, and abilities to govern, aswell as of the goodness of the laws they were governed by, and the persons, to whom they owed subjection, and that their planting of disaffection to the Church of England in the people could not attract reverence to them, but an attendance upon usurpers, who made use of such preaching to improve the people's disobedience to their lawful Rulers, and they may now see, that aversion to the Church is a false measure of sincerity, and that their followers after the shaking of their lawful governor's, call them, by whose ill principles they were misledd, blind guides, and while this Libeler would seem to be a Christian, he not only seeks to make the name a reproach, but the miseries thereof a scorn, whence comes his allusion of Priest-led herodians, but from the passage touching the place of our saviours nativity enquired of the Priests by herod. & travelling to sion is not the subjects of common pasquils.  
The King's letter to the Pope imports nothing to his purpose, and all men now see, that Religion is not at all in their thoughts, and that these repetitions are vulgar scare crows.  
The innovations alleged by professed schismatics, that innovate at unquestionably demonstrate their own confutation.  
His using the assistance of some Papists in settling protestantisme was unseemly, and suspicious. But the use of them against such, as would unsettle the Civil Government, and destroy the King under pretence of unsettling the Religion established, is just, and necessary, and it infers not, that the most part of Protestants were against him, because an active faction had surprised the strength of the Kingdom, and necessitated him to seek succours, where he might have them, the King never obtruded setlement of any thing new, but defence against violence of what was established, and Papists may fight for their King, though Traitors pretend to the Protestant Religion, for the ground of their quarrel.  
That no man ever thought, that the King had learned that difference of persuasion in Religious matters may fall out, where there is the samenes of duty, Allegiance, and subjection, And the Libeler asks, wherefore then such compulsion to the Puritans, and Scotland about conformity to the Liturgy? Doth the King say, that those of different persuasions ought not to be better informed, and sought to be gained to a right understanding? though there may be the samenes of allegiance, ought he not to seek the samenes of persuasion in points of difference? This is his common logic, and he asks, wherefore then no Bishop, no King? He might have answered himself, that there may not be the samenes of opinion touching allegiance in differences of Religion, though there may be, and it's now plain, though formerly not believed, that such, as would have no bishops, would have no King, and had not the samenes of intention, though the same duty, and obligation of allegiance to their King, as those of the contrary persuasion, and that Episcopacy is agreeable to Monarchy, the contrary not, but Rebels catch at every shadow, and offer ●…very dream for a truth, and are as light in obtrudinge pretences, as resolute to act their villainies either with, or without them.  
How diversified sects, can be all protestants, must be showed by some doctrines, that protestants yet understand not, and the medley of Papists, and protestants in a religious cause is no more disproportioninge of Religions, than the mixing of those diversified sects, which are no more protestants, than Papists. Masks, and disguises were the foreprophesied garments of Sectaries, and it is a sure sign, that their errors are wilful, not weak, sparing no falsehoods, whereby they may get power, and confating their pretences by their practice They heretofore professed great opposition to Papists for doctrines of Rebellion, now they preach the same doctrines, & are angry, that there are papists, that disclaim them. The ancient Christians held it a Religious cause to defend their King, & Country, & were mixed with Pagans in that cause, and so of late the protestants of France, and they held it unchristian to forsake that Religious cause under pretence of Religion, and those pretences taken from Religion, the letter to the Pope, and evil Counsellors, are apparent to be nothing, but vulgar cheats to enforce the King to consent to the Rebel's demands, and wrest hisscepter from him.  
The sharp afflictions of the Kingdom show they were not inveterate diseases of Government, but a sudden pestilence, and such, as can believe, that the Tyranny, of the present Masters are the laws of Parliament, deserve to be governed by a whip, not by a sceptre. The Libelers reproof of the people's levity, praise of popularity are inconsistent, and his argument of reproach from dissenting to what the Parlian●… advised, and his charging the Parliament for want of wisdom, and integrity turn all his arguments to his own shame, and show, that it is not right, but Rebellion he pleads for, and that he esteems neither Civil, nor Philosophical liberty which are confined to Government, but confusion, and licence without limits.  
If this Libeler would be subject 〈◊〉 Magistrate, and in the laws, as he professes, why doth he Rebel against the Magistrate, and the laws, and why doth he pretend the Parliaments Authority, if he may break that authority? As indeed he doth allow, that no obligations of Government can hold him, and by the same rule he pretends injury to be restrained in one thing, he may in every thing, and these Rebels like L●…r usurp above all 〈◊〉.  
Though men ought not to speak evil of diginties, which are just, yet nothing hinders to speak evil of those, who in their dignities do evil as oft, as it is the truth. Than the Scripture unnecessarily forbade to speak evil of dignities, for we may not speak untruth of any person, & if the Scripture meant no more than not to slander, in commanding not to speak evil of the Ruler of the people, St. Paul needlessely retracted his words of the high Priest. It shows how near the spirit of Lucifer, these men are, that pretend a right to practise whatever our Saviour, or such, as were inspired of God, forbade upon pretence of actions done by power extraordinary, and yet there is no example of this speaking evil of dignities, as the Libeler imagines, nor of public reproaches. Though Kings were reproved, i● was by such, as had particular directions from God, not by every wand'ring levite, and they did not defame them to others. And as his Maj: we believe was heard of God in mercy, so he might without injury to the Prerogative of Christ pray to be made the head stone of the conrer according to that subordination, which he held under God, and Christ in ruling his people.   

Upon the ORDINANCE against the book of COMMON PRAYER.  
INnovations are generally more dangerous, then old errors by how much peace is more desirable, than broils, and combustions. We have no warrant to believe such a condition in the Church of God, that should always be reforming, nor that the Christian Church had never lawful Pastors, nor any thing practised according to Christ's institution, till the present Sectaries revealed it to the wo●…ld. We have found by experience, that there is no dotage equal to tha●… men have upon their own opinions, nor any greater errors, nor mischiefs more dangerous, than such, which are introduced by pragmatical Reformers, who would conform the world to their fancies, and innovation is oftener obtruded under the name of reformation, than reformation is censured, and opposed under the name of innovation.  
The King says not, that the removing of the Liturgy was a thing plausible to the people, as he falsely relates, but says, that after popular contempts offered to the book, and those, that used it, it must be crucified by an ordinance. His Majest: likens not the rejection of the book to the crucifying of our Saviour, but the carriage of the rejecters to the cursed Jews, who crucified our Saviour, and these men, that rejected the book showed as little reverence to him, that was to be prayed to by the forms in that book, as to the book itself.  
King Edw. 6. confesses to the Cornish Rebels, it was no other, than the old mass book done into English some few words expunged, which is very false, though all, that is in the old mass book is not therefore to be rejected, and these men may aswell make an Argument they may not pray at all, because the Mass book prescribed prayer, aswell as reject forms of Devotion, because they were in the mass book.  
It was the Carnal fear of divines, and Politicians, that modelled the Liturgy, no further of from the old mass, lest they should incense the people. This hath been the conceit of Schismatical Politicians, though the lightness of it be very apparent, for it cannot be thought, that the people would be more incensed by an alteration of the prayer, than an alteration of the language, and the taking away of the external superstitions was more likely to incense the people, as it did, than any alteration of the Liturgy, and it had been very easy to have made any alteration in the Matter, when the language was changed, and in the time of Queen Elizabeth, when no such fear could be pretended, the demands of the schismatics for abolishing the liturgy were held frivolous and seditious.  
The Libeler says good desires rightly conceived in the heart, wholesome words will follow of themselves. But wholesome words will beget good desires, and how public prayer in the congregation can be used, unless a liturgy be admitted no true Christian can find a way.  
That the prescription of a Liturgy was not imposed, nor practised by the first founders of the Church, is an apparent falsehood, The Lord's prayer, and the prescriptions of the Apostles to make prayers for all men, for Kings, & all in authority, that we might lead a quiet life in all godliness, and honesty, and the many leiturgies yet extant convince all, but wilful gainsayers, and it had been in vain for the Apo●…le to command the people to obey such, as had the oversight of them, if they had no authority to prescribe things lawful, and honest, and this Libeler, that hath been flourishing with autho●…tie of the reformed Churches, h●…re condemns them all, who, none excepted, use Leiturgies.  
Without whose (meaning the first founders of the Church) precept, and example, how constantly the Priest puts on his gown, and surplices, so constantly doth his prayer put on a servile yoke of Liturgy. It seems the mention of gown, and surplice are instead of Arguments to his well principled men, and so is yoke of Liturgy, though by his own confession, that yoke is not in the Liturgy itself, but only for the supposed want of precept, or example, for if there had been either of them, as both are apparent, there had been no yoke in his judgement, neither can that be a yoke in Religion, which is not sinful, and sin there cannot be without breach of a law, and if the Libeler could reduce Leiturgies within that compass, he need not use those beggarly negatives, and if the using of Liturgy by the Priest be a yoke, do not the people's prayers, that put on the Priests extemporary words, put on a yoke of Liturgy? For are not his words as much yoke to them, as the public Liturgy of the Church to him? And it is evident, that they, who use no set forms in public prayer, direct them more to the hearers, then to God, studying for expressions of their own parts, while others, that use set forms have their affections more enlarged, and not yoked to the search of words.  
Set forms are not rigorously forbidden to any man's private infirmity. But they are rigorously forbidden, if they are thrust out of the Church, and every man's prayers, and spirit imprisoned in the pinfold of set words, hastily shuffled together by a man often times as defective in wholesome words, as sound Devotion, whose doses of unprepared words, and matter lead the people into imprecations, rather than prayers, & these men, that would confine all public devotions to the sudden raptures of every unlearned Levite, seek to shut heaven at their pleasure, though their hands are as short, as their understanding, and the spiri●…t of utterance, as it respects our prayers, is not exercised in words, but in the affections, which are utterances to God.  
What we may do in the same form of words is not so much the question, as whether Liturgy may be forced, as he forced it. And why doth he say forced it, meaning the King, when it was established by his Predecessors with consent of Parliament, which the Libeler so much pretends to reverence? And he may easily answer his question, that would have the form of words used by every Minister to be forced upon all congregations, and we may justly use the same words always, that contain pititions of all things necessary.  
The Liturgy comprehends not all truth. And doth he think, that all truth should be comprehended in prayer, or that any benifitt, or use of sacred expressions is de●…ed us, unless all the expressions of Scripture are contained in public prayer. We have the full benefit of all sacred expressions, if our nece●…ties are fully represented, but his spirit of utterance is the use of variety in expression, as if there were a necessity to use all expressions to the same sense, and he would have ws believe, that the benifitt of sacred expressions is barralled up in the new tub men whose prayers not only want salt, but are besmeared with profanes.  
Though God reign down new expressions into our hearts, yet it is not fit for the whole Church, to be yoked to the fancies of every Levite, who often mistake, Satanical injection for the dew of heaven, and he is much mistaken in his comparison of retaining the form of wholesome words to reserved Manna, but the loathers of this Manna of wholesome words are the true offspring of these murmerers, that loathed the Celestial Manna, and bread of Angles, because they had it all ways, accounting it a light food in regard of their sensual appetite, as these men now think the forms of the Church light in regard of the ordinary use, & of their own parts, which they would expose to the people, and therefore, if Leiturgies, were Manna itself yet if whorded up, and enjoined they will be found says the Libeler like reserved Manna, rather to breed worms, and stink.  
For the variety of words, though God have given us plenty, and that we ought not to be niggardly of them to him alone, yet we find long prayers, and vain repetitions condemned by God, and we are commanded, when we come before him, that our words be few, and the questing of Scripture Phrase in prayers is now found wanting in leiturgies, that was so lately scorned by the libeler for the lip work of every Prelatical leiturgist. Sectaries prayers, though dressed with variety of words are accompanied with a niggardly devotion, wherein God chiefly requires us to be copious, & this libeler is copious in blasphemy, that will have the word of God, if whorded up, and enjoined to breed worms, & stink.  
The libeler would have his scoffs received for Argument, & to vilify the use of set forms brings in the famine of the siege of jerusalem, when the Priests brought still the same loaves of the shewbread, not being able to procure new, & he would give us stones for bread, the Pharisees still continue their old leaven of hypocrisy, though their words be varied.  
If the Lords prayer had been a warrant for leiturgies, why was neither that, nor other set form after used mentioned by the Apostles, or commended to our use. It had beme very needelesly prescribed by our saviour, if it had never beme used afterwards, & it had been disobedience in the Apostles, if they did not use it, being by our saviour commanded. It is the common argument of heretics to accuse God of improvidence, unless he proportion his revelations to the measure of their fancies, & though the Counsel of God, & supernatural truths to be believed were fully revealed, w●… may not believe, that nothing was left to Christian prudence in the Church of God, and we cannot pretend want of revelation in this point, where we have such express prescription of the Lords prayer, and particular injunctions of the Apostle St. Paul, and if we m●…st expect such revelations, where is it revealed that every congre●… must use only such words, as the Minister thereof extemporally dictates in their prayers.  
If God left our words to be put into us without premeditation, why then doth the Libeler allow any man's private infirmity to use helps? will not God help private infirmity that way, Or is every one in the congregation without infirmity. How is any assured if the promise be universal.  
Our saviour encouraged his disciples with promise of assistance without their premeditation, And why doth he object want of Christian diligence to set forms, if it be a fault to use it, and all must be done without premeditation. And it's like his preachers pray & sermonize without premeditation by the stuff they utter, and we see what respect they bear to God, that pressed diligence in their actions touching this life, & Rebellion, & exclude it from devotion & that, which concerns God. what soever the Libeler says concerning Gods graces, is nothing to the question, touching the use of Leiturgies, unless he would have, that in the public congregation, every person should have his prayer a part, and bring that disorder, which the Scripture forbids.  
Voluntary prayers are less subject to formal, and superficial tempers, then set forms, for in those he, who prayeth must consult first with his heart, which in all likelihood may stir up his affections. But he doth most commonly consult with his brain both for matter, what is most pleasing, and what most proper in expression, and it is incident unto most to fall into an affection of their own conceptions, and abilities in these voluntary prayers, rather than true devotion.  
Affections grow lazy in set prayer, and come not up easily at the call of words. But much more easily, then in the labour for words, and matter, and those words are most empty of devotion, and prayer, which are the ostentation of the presenters abilities, who is apt to seek satisfaction in contemplation of his own parts, and his fervour is greater in looking on himself, than God.  
Ostentation, and formality may taint the best duties. And why not then the best institutions, and if unpremeditated babbling may be restrained without forbidding the spirit of God, which is in his sense his extemporary prayer, why may not laziness, and formality be reprehended in such, as use the public liturgy without forbidding the use of it, but it is, as himself says the Custom of hypocrites to take advantage at the least abuse of Good ●…gs, that under that covert, they may remove the goodness of those things, ●…her than the abuse.  
Constancy attributed to the use of set forms, he calls the constancy of the C●…oe to be always using the same Liturgy. And what then are his best reformed Churches? this shows him one of those chattering birds, that Abraham drove from his sacrifice, and this wretch trembles not to compare the set forms appointed by God himself in the Scripture to the Cuckoo, and t●…e use of the Scripture is the constancy of the Cuckoo  
The book for aught we know was composed by men neither learned, nor godly. But they are ungodly, that without knowledge will suppose them neither learned, nor Godly, but was the Martyrdom of many of them no proof of their Godliness? And are there no works, that prove the learning of those Composers, doth this man think upon the credit of the protestant Religion?  
No doubt the spirit helps our infirmities, but we have no promise, that the spirit shall enable every Christian to compose prayers for the whole congregation, neither doth the Libeler believe, that all his Ministers of the new Religion are so endowed, if he do, he hath few associates.  
It is God's promise, that where two, or three gathered together in his name shall agree to ask any thing, it shable granted. And how can they agree without a prescript form, is the agreement, that all must follow the desires of one? That there was a Liturgy in the Church, of the Jews hath not been denied by any learned man, & its apparent by the Titles of many of David's Psalms, that they were used by the singers in the ordinary service of the Church. That Christians used the Lord's prayer, and other set forms cannot be denied, and the Libeler is much deceived in his computation of the time, when Leiturgies begun, for the Church never wanted them, and we have seen by experience, that true piety, followed the use of Leiturgies, disobedience, and profanes the rejection of them, & such, as have rejected them, have proved not only Truants, but Apostates to all sanctity.  
What is said of Liturgy is said of Directory, and so farewell Presbiterian. We find, that none make such presumptuous claim to Ministerial gifts, as ignorant, and brainless persons, that have no Title by calling, or endowment.  
The King had no reason to object, that the Common prayer book was 〈◊〉, because it prayed so oft for him, for large, and laborious prayers were made for him in the pullpits. But it's well known, that the Sectaries were neither large, nor laborious in such prayers, and it's justly doubted, not sincere, when they used them, but would have men hear their hypocritical formality, not God to grant what they seemed to pray for, and all men can witness what prayers were made for him in pulpits after the liturgy was rejected, all the largeness, and labour appearing in their prayers was to reproach his person, and procure him dishonour, and misery.  
The King in his prayers presumes Leiturgies to be lawful. What should hinder? praying that the Church, and he might never want them. And what says the Libeler could be worse prayed extempore, he might have answered himself, that Prayer to want them was to call for Desolation upon the Church.   

Of the Differences in point of CHURCH GOVERNMENT.  
THe Libeler says, the Author in this Chapter discovers more of mystery, and combination between Tyranny, and false Religion, then from any other hand would have been credible. 'tis strange, that so obvious, a truth should be incredible from any hand. Was not Jeroboams new Religion the foundation of a Tyranny, and have not all usurpers in the Civil state pretended some false Religion? Was not Mahometts wicked imposture, and Tyraniall usurpation bred together, and have not the present Tyrants introduced a false Religion to support their power? Hath not schism been joined with the Rebellion?  
We may have learned 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, malefactors will compliane, that Judges hate them for their virtues. We find in the ancient Church, that Kings were the great protectors, and reformers of the Church, and its strange that the Libeler, if he had looked back at all, had not seen David, Solomon, Hezechiah, Josiah, and others. The Kings of Israel politicly opposed the true Church, for fear the people should return to the house of David, and if we look upon Pagan Kings, we find Cyrus, and Artaxerxes helping the establishment of the true Church. This Libeler hath discovered a great Mystery of Rebellion, that having made such outcries of Tyranny against his late Maj: here tells us the Tyranny 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 blasphemer sticks not to charge the Church of God, and the Doctrines thereof with opposition to Civil Government, and to command the destruction of Kings.  
Because the doctrine seems to favour Liberty, and equality. And are there not Republics that oppose the true Religion? True Religion presseth obedience, fa●…hood, and imposture always hold forth licence to the people. Is there through all the book of God one word in favour of this Rebel, liberty, and equality? And did not God plant his Church at first in an apparent inequality, and subjection both in the state Civil, & Ecclesiastical? And this brood of Sectaries have heretofore complained, that their doctrines were traduced as opposite to Monarchy. And neither Liberty, nor equality is sought for to the people, but to betray them to the power of these deceivers, who are grown to that impudence to pretend doctrines of confusion, and Rebellion to be the true Religion.  
The Church, as ancient prophecies foretold should dissolve all their power, & Dominion. Few sects professing Christ have appeared more Turkish, than these present of England, they fancy an earthly Kingdom 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 submit not to them. But certainly Kings understood not any such prophecies, nor feared such pretenders, who make prophecies to agree with their own wicked Actions, and ambitious desires.  
His first instance is in Pharaohs oppressing of the Israelites. And doth he believe, that Pharaoh knew their doctrines, or prophecies, the man might have learned more from the Text, that being strangers they might over pour him, and thence grew his persecution, not from the libelers imaginary doctrine. He makes a strange leap, that passes by all stories else, and would prove his position by his own authority, and expects, that his libel 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 so, and to prove the King did so, because kings did so, this is a stout Champion.  
There need no answer to his bawling of the king's suspicion of men most Religious, for time hath tried, that they were Rebellious, and wicked Traitors under the Masque of Religion.  
He could not use violence as Pharaoh did, and therefore chooses a more mystical way of Antichristian fraud, and like Balak to hire against a nation of prophets other esteemed Prophe●…s, and to wear out the Church by a false Ecclasiasticall Policy. The Sum is to suppress Sectaries, and prevent Traitors is this Ecclesiastical Policy, but where is this Mist●… of Kings hating the true Church, is there no true Church of God where there is Government? And what proportion hath this supposition of his to the kings proceedings? Did he erect bishops, or was there any Religion established, or publicly professed, which he opposed, but only false, and hypocritical factionists, which outwa●…lly professing the established Religion sought for gain, and pride, se●…retly to draw disciples after them to the disturbance, & subversion of the Church. There needs not any thing be said to his railing, his corruption being apparent by objecting it to the calling of bishops, and hates it, for the remedy against schism, which the Church had by them.  
The King bestowed livings according to the law, and the Policy was not his, but the ancient constitution of the Church, and this Monster, that reproaches the retaining any thing in Liturgy, 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 Ecclesiastical dignities, and the people's right in Elections was never pretended in England, and justly, and anciently forbidden in the Church, neither do any Canons in force support that pretence.  
That influence, which the king says is necessary for the Prince to have upon Churchmen, no man, that believes the Scripture will think unfit, but how can the Libeler make good, that the many Emperors, and Kings, that embraced the Christian Religion hated, and feared it, for so they must by his grounds? And how can he conclude from Pagan's hatred to Religion, that it was only from their kings, when as the stories are so plentiful in setting down the mad 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 governor's, to prevent their lewd endeavours, and thence proceed their declamations against Rulers, and their proclamations of Liberty, and that, which they call the bishops Tyranny is only their office to take away schism, and schism is the way to Rebellion.  
The Libelers judgement touching callings founded on Scripture, reformation, or graces of the bishops, and others is of the same authority, as the determinations of Traitors touching loyalty, and heretics touching sound doctrine, and his end never agrees with his beginning, but in railing, and incongruity, for but now he made it the King's Policy to hire the bishops, & now it is the bishops Policy to work that persuasion in the King of no Bishop, no King, the man well knows, that no Bishop, no king was the persuasion, of King James, who found it true by his own experience without the help of bishops, and yet so sottish doth this Libeler presume his readers, that makes the dependence, which bishops have only of the king the cause of such persuasions, & yet in their own subtle sense, they were of another mind, how them could their dependence be a cause of their persuasion, or was their sense subtle, and grossly mistaken. Thus those blattering devils, that in the beginning of the Parliament charged the bishops, to be antimonarchical thereby to conceal their malice against the king, now make it their Crime to favour Monarchy.  
He hath found a very strong proof, as he would have it out of the History of the Council of Trent, that bishops are most potent, when Princes are weakest, that argues not their dependence upon Princes, nor that aversion to bishops is not aversion to Princes, it was spoken of bishops depending on the Pope, not on Princes, and such Clergy men, as have their dependence on Pope, or people will never wish, that the king should be potent to master their dependency.  
From this the King set himself to the removal of those men, whose doctrine he feared would be the undoing of Monarchy. And needed he the Counsels of bishops to provide for his safety against such men? And is that the evil interest of Tyranny, and Episcopacy to prevent the designs of Traitors? Who were Traitors, if they were not, that would undo Monarchy? The doctrine, and designs of the schismatics are hereby apparent to be against Monarchy, and yet the prevention of such conspiracies is the Tyranny, and the corrupt Counsels of bishops, which the hypocrites cry out on.  
No temporal law could touch the innocence of their lives. And had they innocency, that plotted the undoing of Monarchy under which they lived, and could not the law touch it? Their disobedience to laws was a Crime inconsistent with innocence, and must necessarily be punished by the laws they disobey, and that, which he calls persecution of their consciences, and laying scandals before them was only the requiring of their obedience to Acts of Parliament, whose authority he so frequently cries up, and the inflicting of just penalties on their bodies, and Estates according to the laws was the duty of the Magistrate, to whom the execution of them belonged, although the indulgence they found from his Majest: in mitigating the penalties of law was a great cause of their insolence, and that Calamity they have brought upon the kingdom, and if the lives of these men be sought into, their pride, impudence, calumny, lying, perjury, covetousness, and cruelty declare their lives far from innocent.  
The man now breaks out into a thanksgiving for the successes of their Rebellion, and though these hypocrites despise the thought of a Church, and have no Communion with any Church, ancient, or modern, yet the resistance of them is war against the Church.  
No Papist could speak more scandalously against reformation, than that Episcopacy was the constant practice of all Christian Churches, till of late years' Tumult, pride faction, and covetousness invented new models under the Title of Christ's Government. It need not be observed again, how the Libeler is affected to the reformation, that despises all but his own Babel, and Tumults, factions, pride, and covetousness, the causes of some new models touches not so many, as he supposes, there being so many of the reformed Churches, that receive not these new models, but whoever they be, that obtrude them, as Christ's Government, Sceptre, and Religion, they will be marked with the same names, that are here mentioned by the greatest number, if not all of the reformed Churches.  
The Apostles were not properly bishops, next bishops were not Successors of Apostles in the function of Apostleshipp. If the Apostles were not properly bishops he should have told, how they were improperly bishops, for by his caution properly he admits they were someway bishops, and the bishops therein their Successors, though not in that part of the Apostleshipp which concerned special gifts, and the Testimony of Christ's conversation on earth, whereof they were eye witnesses,  
If they were Apostles, they could not be precisely bishops, and why not precisely, if bishops.  
They could not be Apostles, his reason is, because that of Apostle was universal, extraordinary, and immediate, the other ordinary fixed, and particular charge, and inspection. The calling of the seventy disciples was universal, extraordinary, and immediate, and yet they were no Apostles, and because callings were at first extraordinary, must not they, whose office it was to provide Successors to themselves, and others in the Church of God, ordain others into their functions, and is it an Argument, that because, when the Church was gathered, men had particular care of certain Churches, therefore they were not of the same calling with others, that preceded them in gathering these Churches, and the latitude of territory in the exercise of a man's calling doth not make difference in the function.  
It is against reason, and Charity 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 gospel, and the suddenness is not imaginable in the introduction of Prelacy, unless by Apostolical constitution in regard of the universality, and the Author cannot name any manifest corruption so sudden, and universal after the Apostles, though he pretend many.  
The Ecclesiastical History proves it clearly to be false, that no example since the first age for 1500 years can be produced of any settled Church, wherein were many Ministers, and congregations, which had some bishops over them. And his proof is out of Sozomen, who, he says, wrote above 1200 years ago, and his Testimony, that in the Churches of Cyprus, and Arabia they had bishops in every village, what then? he says what could these be more than Presbyters? Yes they were bishops, for doth any man doubt, that bishops, and Presbyters were not distinct in Sozomens time, who so frequently mentions it, and the Libeler complains of the corruption of introducing them in the ages foregoing, there are many Counsels before Sozomen, which were universally received, and in them subordinate of Presbyter to Bishop is the undeniable practice of the Church, and the quantity, or quality of Towns, or Territories, wherein bishops were placed, no way proves the lessening of their order, neither can it be collected, because bishops were in small villages, that therefore they were no other than Presbyters, but herein the Libeler shows his malicious opposition to truth in abusing Sozomen, who having said, that Churches had several customs, & instances, that though there were many Cities in Scythia, there was one Bishop only over all, and in other Country's bishops were in villages, not every village, & he might aswell conclude no Presbyters in Scythia, as none, but Presbyters in Arabia, and Cyprus.  
The same Author tells the like of other nations, and that Episcopal Churches did not condemn them. Wherefore should they condemn them? It's like they would, if they had taken upon them to exercise the calling of bishops being but Presbyters, for that was long before condemned by the Canons.  
He makes a large leap from sozomen to four hundred years ago, and then he says many western 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 bishops, & continue them still, & this the libeler might see in their own books.  
If we might believe what Papists have written of the Waldenses, he finds in a book written 400 years since, that those Churches in Piedmont held the same doctrine since the time, that Constantine with his mischievous donations poisoned, Thus the exploded forgery of constantines donation is made authentic to reproach the Church, Sylvester, and the whole Church. This is the Schismatical Charity to the first Christian, Emperor, and the whole Church, but the man might have remembered, that bishops by his own confession were long before the time of Constantine, and if we believe the waldenses themselves, they had bishops in their Churches, who held the same doctrine, and Government, and the antiquity of the waldenses proves, that they had bishops, otherwise they had beme condemned by the ancient Church, as Aerius, was, for if there had been any Churches, differing from universal practice in the time of Constantine, it is not imaginable, that they had been unobserved, & we find no mention of their dissent, but from the Papacy, and that long after.  
The famous Testimony of St. Jerome, whereto he reserrs the rest is far from declaring openly, that Bishop, and Presbyter are the same thing, but the contrary is manifest in him, sor what prose can there be drawn from saint Jerome, that bishops, & Presbyters were the same thing, who sajes, that before schism by instigation of the devil entered into the Church, & that one said I am of Paul, another of Apollo, another of cephas, all things were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters, and who will think, that there were no dis●…t orders, because things were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, & when these schisms began, and when things were so gove●…ed, were there not Apostles in the Church, and superior to Presbi●…ers?  
St. Jerome affirms, that bishops rather by custom, than ordainement of Christ were exalted above Presbyters. St Jerome speaks of privileges given to bishops above Presbyters by custom, but he affirms the power of ordination belonging to them, and not to Presbyters Though St. Jerome make a difference betwixt the ordainment of Christ, and the practice of the Apostles, neither he, nor any good Christian ever questioned the lawfulness, & authority of such Custom of the Church in the times of the Apostles, and this man, that in this very Chapter said the King produced no Scripture, and that antiquity was not of weight against it, now gravely determines that interpretation of St. Jerome in his sense shallbe received before intric●… stuff tatled out of Timothy, and Titus. Thus this profane hypocrite prostitutes Scripture, where it contradicts their practices, and St. Jerome shallbe preferred before Scripture, if he seem to favour their sense, and vilified beneath Esop's falls, if he descent from them.  
If it be far beyond Court Element what is said by his Majest: it is not above his own, the proper Element of this breaker is profanes, and impudence, and here again he importunately obtrudes the King's letter to the Pope, which he makes a chief support of his Traitorous pretences, but the authority of a gazet out of which he quotes it, is too mean to raise a scandal upon a Prince in the judgement of any reasonable men, and this man well knows th●… fraud in publishing that false Copy of the King's letter, which he wilfully passes by, and the satisfaction, which the King gave the Parliament, and whole Kingdom upon his return out of Spain, & the dissolving of those Treaties, which occasioned that letter must stop the mouth of all detractours to offer it as an argument of his Majest: inclination to the Roman Religion?  
The Libeler answers his Majest: argument to prove his sufferings out of conscience, not Policy, because his losses were more considerable than episcopacy with objecting hardening, and blindness, being himself hardened to oppose all light of truth, and shut his eyes against the clearest demonstrations.  
Where hath more faction, and confusion ever been bred, then under the imparity of his own Monarchical 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 bred in the constitution of Monarchy, but among the Enemies of 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, so he will hand over head affirm, that the far greater part in his Majest: three kingdoms desired what they have now done to throw down Episcopacy, which hath as little weight as truth the reformed Churches are not vilified one by another, though each maintain their several forms of Government, and his Majest: is far from vilifying those Churches, but the Libeler vilifies himself, and them that scoffs it their Archpresbitery classical, and Diocesine Presbytery, and their Priest-led herodians, blind guides.  
None but Lutherans retained bishops, and therein convinces himself of his often repeated untruths, that all the reformed Churches rejected Episcopacy for the Novations, Montanists having no other bishops, than such, as were in every village is another of his falsities in adding the word every, and it doth not prove, that these heretics had not bishops, and Presbyters, which Christians may have, though they live in Caves, and deserts, and its evident in story those heretics had bishops. That the Aerians were condemned for heretics the Libeler well knows, and the King naming them so meddles not with their particular heresies, and it is too obscure to be seen, that the King fastens that opinion touching bishops, and Presbyters for their heresy. Though the Clergy ought to minister the gospel, if the people supply them not, yet such temutie, and contempt quickly becomes a Carcase indeed. The Sectaries, that place their greatness in being the ringleaders of faction turn all Religion into a fantasme, and knowing they could never by any judicious choice obtain preferment in the Church profess the dislike of them, and seek their fortunes in seducing the multitude.  
It's easily believed, that wealth may breed vices in the Clergy, aswell, as others, but must they therefore be made poor, and others rich by the robbery of them? the King's choice of bishops will convince the clamours of the schismatics, and gives just cause to expect the evil consequences the King foretells of their removal. That the function of bishops, and Presbyters was not tied to place, though the exercise of it was by Ecclesiastical constitution, he hath been already told, and that it was necessary the Apostolic power for the Government of the Church must descend to bishops, there being no others, that ever pretended to it.  
How the Church flourished under Episcopacy, the extent of the Christian Religion over so great a part of the world doth sufficiently testify, & the corruption of many in that order doth not take away the benifitt of it, which acrewed unto the Church by the labours of others, and all ages have recorded persons of great learning, and holiness of life in that order.  
He talks again of the King's Coronation oath to give us such laws, as ourselves should choose, when he knoweth, that the clause, which he pretends to be in that oath imports no such thing, nor was that oath, wherein the clause is pretended ever ministered to the King, nor divers other Kings, nor ordained to be so.  
In likelihood they were nearer amendment, that sought a stricter form of Church discipline, then that of Episcopacy. But they that sought to remove Episcopacy would have the Church discipline in their own hands, that it might be loose, and in likelihood they would not be strict to themselves, his boasting of what the Scots could work by power, shows, that he regards nothing right, but power, and so he can prevail, despises all Justice, and conscience.   

Upon the UXBRIDGE TREATY.  
THat men may treat like beasts, aswell, as fight, no way opposes his Majest: Aphorism, which affirms Treaties, a retiring from fight like beasts to agreeing like men, Treaties being managed only by the use of reason, fight by force, and his Majest: spoke of the nature of Treaties, not the abuses of men in them, and though some fight may be manlike yet the Act is common to beasts, rational Treaties cannot  
The King's march, and fight at Brainford, the Libeler would make a thirst of war though in the rigour of Marshal law, it might have been excused in a natural Enemy that makes a trade of war. And may as justly be defended in the King, whom that faction, which proffered a Treaty to him at Cole-brooke intended to surprise him, having disposed their forces in such places, as must have effected it, if he had not speedily prevented it by that onset. What he intimates touching Oxford, Bristol, and scarborrow naming no particulars, he can expect no answer, & whoever looks over the memorial, of passages touching Treaties will find that the King's offers were so large, as nothing, but desire of peace could have moved him to it, and nothing but guiltiness, and ambition could be the cause of their refusal.  
That the faction in Parliament would have compelled him to part with his honour as a King, the Libeler denies not, but asks what honour he had, but the people's gift, & yet he seeks to defend the Actions of these villains, as defending themselves, and resorts to his common principles that Kings are but the servants of the people, who may dispose of their Kings, and their honour as they think best. And by his doctrine the King, and people must be the prey of every powerful Traitor. It need not be repeated, that the people's welfare consists in supporting the rights of their King, and that it is their misery to deprive themselves of him, and turn into confusion, and slavery to usurpers, And it is Monstrous, that a king's highest Court sitting by his regal authority should bandy themselves against their sovereign, and like vipers eat out the bowels of their parent, fight against that power, which gives them being, and by an unnatural malice of the members to the head cast the whole body into an incurable consumption. This insolence, and presumption of the pretended Parliament hath brought the loose rabble, and lawless Army to despise the representation, which they so much magnify, and do that unto them, which they did unto their king. It cannot be doubted, that subjects cannot with duty treat on equal terms with their king, and the practice of all times makes it manifest, that none but Traitors attempted it, and it was a sufficient proof of the kings desire of peace, that he sought a Treaty, where a submission was due to him.  
The King's instructions were to bribe their Commissioners with promise of security rewards, and places. How he proves such instructions he tells us not, but we are sure, that the demands of their Commissioners were security, rewards, and places, for they would have all in their power.  
There were but three heads of the Treaty, Ireland, Episcopacy, and the Militia, the first was forestalled by a peace, that the King might pretend 〈◊〉 word against the Parliaments Arguments. And if there had not been a peace made, it was a most detestable Rebellion, and blood thirsty cruelty to continue an intestine war against the King, and his people of England, unless a few Tribunes might have the management of that war in Ireland, and exclude the King from any interest in that kingdom, and yet this must be a defensive war on the Rebel's part.  
The King bids the Queen be confident, he will never quit Episcopacy, which informs us by what patronage it stood. And how could that inform you, even as well, as the Kings telling her, that Religion was the sole difference between them, informs you, that the Queen directed him in matters of Religion.  
The sword he resolves, says the Libeler to clutch as fast, as if God with his own hand had put it into his. And there is no doubt but he had, and it was a Rebellious wickedness in that faction, which sought to wrest it from him in despite of God's ordinance, and their own sworn subjection. In all these the King had reason, honour, and conscience on his side, and his pretence, that the Queen was Regent in all these is far from credible, when causes to the contrary are so obvious to every understanding. The Libeler himself professes their intentions to take away the Kings right, and would suggest to the world, that it was only the Queen's Council, that he would preserve his Crown,  
Wise men could judge the composure likely to be more miserable, then happy. But these wise men were taught by their guilt never to think themselves secure, and to prefer their power before their conscience, and the Kingdom's peace.  
The English were called Rebels during the Treaty. And why not? till the Treaty had made an abolition of their offence, for did they forbe are any of their reproachful terms, or Rebellious actions against the king, and his party during the Treaty?  
The Irish were called good, and Catholic subjects. And that some of them might be, though the Libeler cannot produce the instance of it.  
The Parliament was called a Parliament for fashion's 〈◊〉, and in the Counsel books enroled no Parliament. That it was no Parliament all knowing men agree, and the enrolling of their opinions, that held it no Parliament was no injury to the Treaty, and the King's appellation of them a Parliament, because they would not be treated with otherwise gives them no right, nor shuts up him from that opinion of their condition, which was true, and real. Christians treat with the Turk by those appellations, he will be called by, though they do not acknowledge them belonging to him.  
It was a devilish fraud, that the King in his own esteem had been absolved from performance, as having treated with Rebels, and no Parliament, and they instead of an expected happiness brought under the hatchett. Who now doth not see, that force, and guilt were the continuers of this horrid Rebellion, and blood, and that these Traitors perferred their private security before public peace? But whence is this collection of a devilish fraud by a devilish interpreter? If the King thought not the appellation due to them, which he gave them, doth it follow, that he must esteem himself absolved of performance of his promises therefore? These are dreams from devilish infusions, not reasonable suppositions, the titles of treating parties having no influence upon the performance of the things promised, and they of the other side might have said, they were absolved from performance, because they treated with the King's Commissioners under other Titles than they had, or were known by, but they would persuade the people, that they cannot be safe unless the master Rebels rule.  
May not that brat superstition be justly laid to their charge, that impose for the Sceptre of Christ's Kingdom a yesterday invention of congregational consistories, and make it Religion, and truth of God to root out Prelates of the Church of God?  
For the merit of the Treaties, and where the blame lay of their breach, the world hath long since full satisfaction, and that the Rebels came but unwillingly to Treaties, and with reserves always to break it of, never mitigating the rigour of any proposition in the least degree, and though the Libeler, and others spit Sulphur, and cast forth their clouds of lying, and slander, yet the evidence of the facts dissolve, and consume their venom, and confidence, and the meanest capacity descernes the falsehood, and cruelty of their proceedings both in war, and Treaties.   

Upon the VARIOUS EVENTS Of the war.  
IT is no new, or unwonted thing for bad men to claim as much part in God, as his best Servants. And all men look upon the Rebels in England, as the unparallelled prodigies of this hypocrisy, their claims unto God's service, and favour, the usurpation of those appellations, that belong to the Godly, their ostentations of fastings, prayers, and thanks givings, and severe censures of the persons, and manners of others, are a sufficient demonstration of this presumption of men hardened in wickedness, and resolved to prosecute ambitious disignes.  
He is yet to learn what good use the King made of these various events, neither will he acknowledge, though he see the use of insolence, & cruelty, which the Rebels have made of their successes against him.  
Those numbers, which the King grew to from small beginnings, came not out of love, but fled to be protected from the fear of reformation. A jolly conceit, what fear of reformation was there, or appears yet? It was necessary duty to oppose Rebels, and confusion, and that was then known unto the silliest people, but such, as were poisoned by the contagious doctrines of Rebellious Sectaries.  
Such a snow ball might easily gather through those cold, and dark provinces of ignorance, and lewdness. And can he think, that any Provinces are so ignorant, and lewd, as these sinks, and Kenells, whence the Rebels raked the rabble of rascallity, which they armed against the king? The libeler could not be ignorant of what all his party acknowledge, the great disproportion in quality both for place, and education, that was in the King's party above their own.  
The Libeler would have Gods long suffering sometimes to harden, and be the beginning of a severer punishment. But he overlookes that sensible obduration, which successes have brought upon the Rebels, and as they are a severe punishment upon the nation, so we may conceive by their wickedness, that their prosperity binds them over to greater judgement.  
He would convince the King of breaking laws, and that he had not the sword by law, not so much, as to unsheathe against a foreign Enemy. And by so palpable an untruth, it being known unto the whole world, that Leagues, and wars with foreign nations were made by the King alone we may conclude, he hath quitted shame, & is resolved to stick to his false assertions, and tottering Arguments, though never so contrary to his own Judgement, & knowledge, & here again he repeats his jaded discourse of a free nation, body of Parliament, and sword in a single hand so often spurred up, and down since the beginning of his book. The libeler, if he would have used Arguments should have expressed wherein his pretences differ from other Rebels, for all pretend Tyranny in their Rulers, & fight for liberty, but he will have fight lawful to make a new Republic, and to take the sword to destroy the old, & instead of making the King guilty of the breach of laws, justifies the Rebellion, because laws were executed. Whatever he objects for a reason of Rebellion against a King is as possible to any other Government, for are all Republics of one Religion, & may the subjects of different Religion from what is established in any state Rebel, & say it is unreasonable, that rulers must be obeyed, when they will not conform to the opinions of a sect, & so several opinions must decide their Religion by the sword. If such Rebels die Martyrs we have been much deceived of malefactors, and no Traitors will want a saint-shipp.  
This opinion of his touching the holiness of Rebellion, he says, is not the opinion, but full beleise of far holier, and wiser men, then Parasuicke preachers, For holy, and wise men the Libeler seems to be little acquainted with, and unless they be the scandal of preachers, and basest of Parasites none can be so vile to maintain such odious assertions. It's well known the Crim catching sermonizers to these Rebels have confidence enough to speak what they know not, & men hired to act a false part will blush at nothing; and therefore, though never King was established by parliament, nor could be, because they depended on him, and were called by him: though Parliaments never acted in law, C●…vill oaths, nor Religion but by the King's assent, and the oath which he calls the Kings, and hath so often mentioned, was never established by Parliament, yet against all evidence this libeler, & his Mates will affirm, that nothing was thought to be established, which that house declares to be abolished. It's like he means the house of Commons, which never till these black times pretended a power to give an oath, much ●…esse make a law, and such, as make these vast untruths outgo Parasiticke preachers, and all knights of the Post, that are yet discovered.  
It were absurd to give the Parliament a legislative power, and upbraid them for transgressing old Establishment. Whoever thought them to have a legislative power? Is not the King the Legislatour, and they his Counsel, and is it not absurd to give the Legislative power to them, that are to advise the Legislatour, and when the two houses desire the King, that it may be made a law by the King with their consent, is it not absurd, that one house should say all the Legislative power is in them? But there need no proof of their transgressing old establishments, when they confess it. It's like the Rebels think their heaven here, and they do not much value the loss of the other, and no man is troubled with his censure, to whom Charity, and truth are alike despicable.  
The Libeler, that scoffs at the seeking of heaven in forma pauperis shows his value of heaven, and seeks none but that, which is to be found in forma proditoris. He thinks to take of the horror of their death, that died in wilful perjury, and Rebellion against the king by raving against the king's party, who he says died most frequently with oaths, and other damning words in their mouths, And is so impotent to hope, that the Calumnies of a perjured wretch will find credit, for were he not distempered by hellish delusion, or sottishly drunken, he would not so stupidly affirm, that it was notorious, that they, who were hottest in his cause, the most part of them were men oftener drunk, then by their good will sober, it being a known truth, that men of most eminent sobriety were hottest in the king's cause, & these traitors never forbore any wickedness by their will but for their ends. The king need not a discovery to the state of their consciences, more than by their Actions, that fought against him, and he might justly believe they had never the better of him in their own consciences, where they were more afraid to encounter those many reasons from law, allegiance, and Christian grounds, then in a desperate bravery to fight. And is it to presume more than a Pope to say this? But he that will not stick at open falsification will not stick to slander thoughts, and offer conjectures for convertions, such as were most zealous in his Majest: cause had a sobriety unblemishable by a Traitors malice, and were not only free from druken distemper, but brutish insolence, and brazen impudence, which the Rebels rather affect, then repent of. And is there not a just cause, that the consciences of many should grow suspicious, and corrected by the pretensions of the misnamed Parliament, now proved false, and unintended? What's become of their making a glorious King, laws of the land, privileges of Parliament? Doth not every man see they are all in the dirt among the Libelers Ceremonies.  
But they never pretended to establish his Throne without our Liberty, and Religion, nor Religion without the word of God, ●…or to judge of laws by their being established, but to establish them by their being Good, and necessary. They never pretended, that his throne was inconsistent with liberty, or Religion, nor to judge of laws otherwise, then by being established. But who must be the Dictatours, the Parliament, which is crumbled into a close Committee, and state Counsel, or any rabble, that shall say this, or that law is not good, and therefore to be repealed, though established, he ought to have concluded, that they never pretended privilege of Parliament further than the subterranean junto, or the Tumults should judge necessary.  
To pray, and not to govern is for a Monk not a King. But is prayer inconsistent with Government? Those men will accuse the King for being a Christian, and have as little love to prayer, as obedience, a monk will better govern, than such a man pray, who is constant to malice, & falsehood, and this man that says to govern by Parliament justisies his Rebellion to take away Kingly Government.  
His legislative Parliament, and oppressed laws cannot be admitted, where other answer is wanting, but the Libeler hath long since thrust the force of them out of doors by his many prevarications, confining them all in the Cabinet of his own brain, which must determine whether they be good, and necessary.  
He is constant to john of Leidens' principles, that must take away other men's goods for doubt of ill using them, and because the King says, he feared the temptation of an absolute Conquest, therefore it was pious, and friendly in the Parliament to resist him. Their piety, and friendship were much alike, and the Libelers Riligion might come in for a share. It's very probable, that this war had never been, if the Act for continuance of the Parliament had not been consented to by the King, and that Act might stop the mouth of any reasonable man, from saying there was such a power in the two houses, as the Libeler dreams of, that desired that Act from the King, and it was never heard in our story, that ever Parliaments made war against Kings, as Tyrants, or otherwise, for how could they make awarr, that neither could, nor ever did pretend to sit longer, than their King pleased, & the immodesty, & ingratitude of the present Rebels have far exceeded the worst Examples.  
He is obstinate to his principles, and fears to attribute anything to the King's concessions, or denial, and had he granted less in all probability himself, and the Kingdom had suffered less.  
It cannot be doubted, but the Libeler will invert whatever the King says, and it is a great adventure, that he says the sins of their lives not seldom fought against them, and we have great cause to believe their prosperity did no less, that continue hardened in so execrable a cause.  
The King says he desires not any man should be further subject to him, than all of us should be subject to God. And this Mountebank holds this a sacrilege worse, than bishops lands, for he says he desires as much subjection, as is due to God, and so desires no less than to be a god. And is subjection to Princes in the, Lord subjection to them as God? And doth the King desire otherwise, that would have them no otherwise obey him, then that they might obey God, renouncing all obedience, that consists not with obeying God, but sale work must be slight, and the Libeler would not exceed his hire.  
The Rebels desiring the King's acquittal of them for the blood of the war confirms their guilt, not their innocence. Though God impute not to any man the blood shed in a just cause in respect of the ground, and reason of doing it, yet there may be temptations unto natural infirmity in acting a just cause, and the King was not without a sense of such danger, therefore the Libeler wretchedly begs an argument of his guilt from his prayer not to have blood imputed to him.   

Upon the REFORMATION Of the Times.  
Novelty, and perturbation are justly condemned not only by Christians, but moral men, and it is a novelty taken up only by Sectaries, that would confine all Religion to their own frenzy, and reject the universal consent of all times, and places, and not only boasting of the truth of their own delusions, but obtruding them upon the world, threatening fire, and sword to gainsayers, and yet they will pretend the example of our Saviour's publishing his gospel, and pretend like reason for their fanaticke conceits, 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 wind of doctrine shall think fit, & they would reduce Christianity 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 universal Church, and a rejection of whatever was received by the primitive, as those men now, neither did they presume to enforce others to their persuasion, and though novelty, and perturbation were objected to them, yet they still deprecated that guilt, and it is a most unchristian, and profane disposition to desregard laws established, and Religion settled upon presumption of private opinions, and these of men neither learned, discreet, nor honest. There is great difference between a clamour, and an undeniable truth, and we may not think, that popular compliance, dissolution of all order, and Government in the Church, schism, undecencies, confusions, sacrilegious invasions, contempt of the Clergy, and their Liturgy, and diminution of Princes are less 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 witness, that the present Sectaries are guilty of all these, The former reformers did not give occasion for such aspersions, that desired only the liberty of their own consciences from the practice, and belief of errors newly enjoined, and anciently rejected in the Church, or else followed the orderly reformations which Princes, and states authorised in their own Dominions, but these new reformers obtrude their dictates upon all the world, and will dispose of all Kingdoms with the Devil, 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 means to authorize all manner of Lewd sects, and Lunatic opinions. But synods are customary, and have their set times in all the reformed Churches, and if there be fraud, and packing in synods, as he says, whence come Parliaments, that are of like constitution to be free? Is there a privilege of Parliament to change nature, and that the members cannot be guilty of fraud, faction, and Treason? There is not only fraud, 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 Lewd Rebellion to introduce men's private opinions.  
The pulling down of Church windows, and Crosses, which were but Civil not Religious marks, defacing the Monuments, and inscriptions of the dead, mentioned by the King are the effects of a popular, and deceitful reformation in the account of all true protestants.  
That Protestants were accused by Papists, as these are charged by the King will not parallel guilt, nor hide the present Actions of these Traitors from view, and detestation.  
The Libeler doth very preposterously produce the Example of job, whose sincerity was accused to God, as a protection for the hypocrisy of Sectaries, while himself acts the part of him, that accused Job to God, and omits not the traducing of all proofs of piety, Religion, and Justice in the late King.  
But the infirmities of best men, and scandals of hypocrites in times of reforming can lay no just blemish upon the integrity of others, nor purpose of reformation. No man says it did, but if the Reformation itself be a novelty pretending not the consent of any times, but their own opinions of places of Scripture different from all others, if that, which is offered in the name of reformation be in itself 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 think, that any promoters of such an unchristian deformity can have any integrity, or Religion, and they are not blemished, with the Crymes of others, but their own. They, that have no public place, nor authority to reform the Church cannot be excused of presumption, if they (meddle with it, and such bu-sy bodies are moved with Carnal self seeking, and private ambition, not sense of duty.  
If any thing grew worse, and worse in the Church of England, it was the increase of Sectaries, who would cover their hypocrisy with censure of superiors, and laws. These Reformers pretend to reform laws, not corruptions, for though they talk of the time of the King's Reign, they pretend to reform nothing, that was particularly worse in his time, then before, and he might as well have asked, why Queen, Elizabeth in her forty years' reign had not reform, as peevishly talk, that his Majest: should not reform in twenty years, when it was held strange, that the schismatics should be so distempered to pretend a necessity of reformation, there being greater need of strengthening what was established. It is a Diabolical Method to change the order of the Church by destruction of the Civil state, & just reformation never opposes lawful authority in setting up a Government over others. Though Christians might reform themselves, they always judged it an abomination to impose their Religion upon the state they lived in. Private reformations are of Christian right, but public are the prerogative of supreme 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 worship God, though they be persecuted, they cannot truly, if they take the sword to subdue them, that are in authority, and they fear not God, that fear not their King, our fear of God binds us to use no violence against our King, nor upon others, our Allegiance to our King being a part of our duty to God, and as the Apostle convinces those, that hate their brother, not to love God, so in vain do they pretend to fear God, that offer violence to their King. Can a Christian break all the laws of the second table upon pretence of keeping the first? And did not he, that Commanded to have no other Gods, but him, command the honour of Father, & Mother? May a private Christian rob, and kill, because persons are not of his Religion. The scripture sajes, he that is guilty of the breach of one commandment, is guilty of all, and though Christians may not obey Commands contrary to the command of God, they may not use violence, & force, but these are the Pharisees, that teach men by making a vow upon pretence of God's service to disobey Parents, which our Saviour so much condemns. Christ's Kingdom is spiritual in the hearts of the faithful, not in a papal consistory, nor a congregational pullpitt, they were best Christians, that obeyed not wicked commands, but detested by all Christians, that used violence against their Pagan Governors, and the reformed Churches may see what Communion can be had with those, that profess those best Christians, that were least subject to their King.  
The King of Spain may profess to have his Kingdom from Christ, whatever his Religion be, he hath a just Civil right, which none ever doubted to acknowledge, but these hell bred Sectaries, that allow no right, but what is founded on their will, & his repetition of the Letter to the Pope upon this occasion shows he is under a famine of reason, that makes the King's constancy to the doctrine of the Church of England to proceed from his letter to the Pope, calling it enmity to the true Church, are any so mad to think, that the Pope was pleased with the doctrine of the Church of England? Did the Libeler think there were a God, would he write so wilfully against his own understanding, that the King engaged himself to hazard life, & Estate for the Roman Religion, he would then think, that God were near him, & writ down those words, which he will one day require an account of.  
The King prayed against his hypocrisy, and Pharisaical washings, whose prayer is, thou, who must give truth for hypocrisy suffer us not to be miserably deluded by Pharisaical washings. Poetical licence will not wash away wilful slander, and malicious falsification, but this man makes hypocrisy, and Pharisaical washings his chief study, and hates the prayers of others for his conversion from such wickedness.   

Upon his LETTERS taken, and DIVULGED.  
THE Publication of the King's Letters had quite contrary effects to these, which the publishers intended, and instead of discovering matter to their advantage, cast shame on their false aspersions, whereby they sought to withdraw the affections of his people from him, they set forth both his judgement, and affections opposite to Popery, & the Irish Rebels, and the peace made with them not out of favour, but necessity to divert the final destruction of the Protestant party there. The endeavours to be assisted with foreign forces, when so horrid a Rebellion had taken deep root was neither against any former professions, nor any rules of Justice, and piety, but naming of Papists, and foreign forces were the bugbears, wherewith the faction affrighted the silly people, and under pretence of revenging the blood of Ireland, sought to draw men inclinable to assist the King, or unwilling to fight against him into that employment, that he might be more exposed to their power, and they might have the better means to weaken him, and support their own Rebellion. These Letters have discovered their gross impostures in representing the King wholly Governed by the Queen, or others, showing clearly, that his own judgement chiefly steered his own affairs, and it's like the faction long since saw their own rashness in that Publication, and that the world took notice, that they were so far from doubting the King's affection to Popery, that their design was chiefly to declare his averseness to it, that they might prevent his succours from Princes of that Religion.  
That it was done by them without honour, & Civility, no man boubts, unless infected with Schismatical, or Rebellious malice, and between King, and subjects matters can never be in that condition, that his honour, and their duty are trifling, and superficall vanities, and with whom they are so we may not wonder at any brutish, and inhuman Barbarity, when was there an example of such a Treason against nature, and humanity to divulge the Letters between man, and wife touching conjugal privacy? And honour, and Civility being taken, as he would have it for discretion, honesty, prudence, and plain truth, the publishers of these Letters not only stand guilty of the breach of those virtues, but appear the venomous, and unnatural Traitors to mankind.  
To cover this base Act the Libeler says, that such courses are familiar with none more than Kings, and produceth, an Example out of Commines relating the discovery of a Letter by Lewes the eleventh written to him from the Duchess of Burgundy, which he says the Historian doth not charge with incivili●…ie, or dishonour. And is that the case of publishing Letters, that passed between man, and wife, and may subjects do to their King, what Enemies may one to another? The Libeler will say yes, for he holds no subordination, though the publishers professed the contrary, and would not be thought to have abjured their Allegiance, or that they took their King for their Enemy, but their practices were no more consistent, than the Libelers Arguments,  
The injury offered to the King's Mother was too well known to be a feigned suspicion or jealousy in him, and if they had not been guilty of that base aspersion, they would have acquitted themselves some other way, then by the publication, and frequent repetition. The Libeler appears to glory more in recital of it, then in the argument, which he can draw from pretence of saining a suspicion, and he, that sucks any imputations upon the King out of those letters must be a Beetle, not a Bee, and they, that from placing constancy to his wife, before the mention of Religion, and law will spin a web of determination for the priority of affection, have more of the spider's venom, than the Bees sweetness.  
They which esteemed their King, though one man the breath of their nostrils, thought the nation could not be happy without him, And the late Parliament, whereon the Libeler builds his faith affirmed in their declarations, the happiness of the Kingdom did soc mainly depend on his Majest: and the Royal branches of that root, as in an ordinary way of providence, they would not except it from any other fountain, or stream. And are they therefore a nation of Idiots, and miserable, as he says.  
The happiness of a nation consists in true Religion, piety, justice, prudence temperance, fortitude, contempt of avarice, and ambition. And how shall these be preserved in a nation, by the rule of the rabble? And bandying the Government with a racket between opposite factions, but these Rebels with the mad men of Munster will introduce new jerusalem with the destruction of their Kings, and Rulers, and the Libeler its like looks to be a great saint in this terrostriall Paradise, who says they, in whomesoever these virtues dwell eminently need not Kings, but are the Architects of their own happiness, and whether to themselves, or others are not less than Kings. The world hath been well acquainted with these Architects of Treason, and shall never want pretenders to those virtues, whose practice shows them the builders of Babel, that place their happiness in their power, and other men's confusion, the King appears eminent in these virtues, not only by his constant actions, but in his lious hold, which was admired for itts' order amongst strangers above other Courts, though by the Libeler traduced, as all laudable things are.  
To make reconciliation desperate, the Libeler holds reasonable, and asks, why they should fear it, and such, as intend not reconciliation with God, think they have no need to be reconciled to men.  
Their fact is not parallel to Cham's revealing his father's nakedness, for the King at that time could not be esteemed the father of his Country, nor had ever merited that Title. And might not Cham have said so to his father, aswell, as do 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 parallel to Cham's, nor from the merit of his curse.  
The Libeler professes averseness to all reconciliation upon pretence of Justice to the lives of them, that died for the freedom of their Country, and yet he will not profess to want Charity, and why then is it mockery with God for the King to pray, that God will judge his cause, and that the evil they intended return on their own heads, that they may be ashamed, and covered with their own confusion, as with a cloak the King forgave his Enemies, but still prayed unto God for the vindication of his innocence by the conviction of those false accusers, and this is not to wish them that evil, which hinders Charity, but prayer for that favour of God, which protects innocence, and that livery of detraction, and confusion the Libeler will rather wear, then exchange it for the robe of righteousness, whose malice to the living, not Justice to the dead draws these hypocritical pretences from him.   

Upon his GOING to the SCOTS.  
IT was not an excuse, but a real intelligence, that the King had of their consultations at London, designing mischief to his person, if he came there The junto did not use to proclaim their Counsels, neither was it pretended they did, and though necessity Counselled the King to adventure upon their loyalty, who first begun his troubles, yet the rigour of the English Rebels drew on that necessity, and the Kings coming to the Scots might work, if there were any remainders of loyalty to divide those, who were only joined by an unlawful, and dissembled confederacy, and it had not been an Act of malice, but prudence to resolve upon such an hope, for friends they could not be, that are contemned for an hireling Army, paid not in Scotch coin, but English silver jeered with their Brotherly assistance, and monthly pay, and a right understanding os the disaffection to the English Rebels towards them, might recall them to their duty to the king, and withdraw them from their disloyal combination.  
The scotts needed not armies to defend their liberty, & conscience, which were never invaded, & the charges were not out of charity to them, but for the necessity of those, who sent for the scotch assistace, he il pretends a cause for the scotts mistrust of the king in that case, where a ground of suspicion could not be imagined, & judges others by his own obduration, that loyalty once broken is rather tempted to a final shipwreck, then preserved by an opportunity to recover it.  
Providence doubtless is never cozened, but deceivers, though they falsify their faith to others must expect, that as their falsehood was permitted, so it will receive its detection, and demeritts.  
The man thinks much, that their professed loyalty, who fought against their King should be called a riddle, and as it was a very dark one to general understanding, so if they had preserved the King's person being in their power, they had given some solution doing what they said of their loyalty, not what their former Actions imported. And doth not the Libeler say, its ridiculous, that they, whose professed loyalty led them to direct arms against the King's person, should think him violated by their murder of him, which he calls Justice, & who understands not, that so necessitous may be the state of Princes, that their greatest danger may be in their supposed safety, and their safety in their supposed danger. But he would have, that the only way for the King's preservation was to sacrifice 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 war, and Rebels desist not from their violence, whether he strive or yield. If he contend, he is bloody, if he yield, he is wily, if he offer reason, he is obstinate, If he acknowledge, he is guilty, and thus the players of a Rebel game, having irrecoverably lost honour, & conscience play on still to gain power, & increase guilt.  
The words of a King are full of power by the law, and that law is not like the Nazarites lock of sampson, but an anointing they have from God, which is inseparable, though Rebels like the faithless harlot cut of his force, and Armies, yet the right of his power is inseparable, and if these Traitors had looked to precept, or Example, they might have found, that a King's word had power, and their persons reverence without respect to the merit of their Actions. David pretended not, that Saul had not authority of law, when he persecuted him without a cause, & when Saul's life was in his power. The King appeals not unto Libelers, and common pasquils 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 appear as thinly in his Actions, and writing, as could be expected from the meanest parts, bred up in the midst of so many ways extarordinary to know something. Surely the Monuments of the Libelers irrational assertions appear very thick in this whole discourse, and men may be amazed at his folly, that makes him run into so many absurdities to avoid the confession of truth, how often hath he objected to the King, that his breeding could not enable him to judge of matters, and here would advance his breeding to abase his parts, but such, as read the King's book, and his will see Monuments enough of his Majest: reason, and the Libelers absurdity, and impudence.  
The King's deliberations touching his leaving Oxford, though mature, yet foreseen to be of doubtful event, and therefore vainly observed by the Libeler to contradict his prayer. Though I know not what to do, yet mine eyes are towards thee. Wicked men contemn Princes, and God causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where their is no way. The punishments upon Princes are most frequent for the wickedness of the people, whereby they come to confusion, and have many rulers, but it was a wilful falsification of the Libelers to cite a Text as spoken of Princes, that was altogether applied to the people. Psalm 107.   

Upon the SCOTS Delivering the KING to the ENGLISH.  
THis objecting of selling the King by the Scots is so fowl an infamy, as befitts none to vindicate, but themselves. In the mean time the Libeler thinks, he may say with the high Priests to Judas confessing his sin of betraying our saviour, what is that to us, and he would have the infamy only rest on the seller, none on the buyer, and its like will, as he professes disagree with the King to the world's end, and will out babble all law, truth, and reason, that such as fought to change the Government, & destroy the laws, fought for them, and he may babble to the world's end, and not be believed against the evidence of the fact, and that miror before his face, wherein he sees all that acted, which he denies, renders him not only a denier of principles, but common sense, & the Traitors decree of non addresses was what they ever intended, though they had not a confidence to act it presently, and from that example of disloyalty, the Libeler, & others made a change of principles to suit with such monstrous productions. It's probable the Libeler would be ever answering fruitless repetitions, for his answers are no other, and yet he thinks himself not liable to censure for his stall repetition in the lines before of the kings being unalterable in his will, would have been our Lord, averse from Parliament, and reformation.  
If the Libeler retained any estimation of David's heart, he would not so often have reproached the use of David's words, And we have good reason to believe, that he, that suffered David's troubles, was supported with a measure of David's spirit, while his pe●…secuters exercised on him the malice of David's Enemies; And were not this Libeler possessed with an evil spirit, he would not borrow matter of sport from stealing David's spirit, nor reproach, and slander from Pamelaes' prayer. which may be used more warrantably then reproved, but he is drawn very dry that make such use of a scoff.   

Upon the DENYING him the attendance of his CHAPPLAINES.  
A Chapplaine is a thing diminutive, and inconsiderable. And the man would be ignorantly witty upon the name, as unknown. That a King should not desire the assistance of such persons of the Clergy, as were his Domestickes, & acquainted with his conscience, or that such persons should not have a place in the families of Kings, may seem a strange supposition in these men, that so much magnify preaching, as the shops of Mechannickes are turned to pulpits, and every Cooper grown a reverend Predicant.  
The Scripture owns no such function, not of Presbyter, for what else are Chapplaines, if he had looked for the names of his independent congregations, he had not found them in Scripture. But they, that know no places dedicated to the service of God, know no persons attending that service.  
The Church not avowing them, they are left to such further examination, as the Sons of Sceva the jew met with. And itts like they meet with such examiners, as the Sons of Sceva met with, such unclean spirits, as professed to know Jesus, and Paul, but hated both, and were the intelligencers of the Prince of Darkness, and the Libeler in their Phrase says, bishops, or Presbyters we know, and Deacons we know, but who are Chapplaines? He could not have chosen an Example more proper for his imitation, that hates the name, and function of bishops, and Presbyter, as those wicked spirits the name of Jesus, and Paul, & thence it is, that he hath gathered the Cobwebs of the stage to cast upon them, calling the Ministers of the gospel sewers, and yooman vs●…ers of devotion, and implements of the Court Cup'board, this is the devotion of these reformers.  
Their sending to the King Ministers, and others, whose excess of corrupt affections were become venom, and fury against all loyalty, was to render his condition more afflicted being only allowed to live among scorpions, and have his habitation with Dragons, who were not only insolent Traitors, but diminutive, and inconsiderable Creatures for a Religious charge. They denied him his Chapplaines in affront, and to increase the measure of his sufferings, and such, as feel not the absence of those Messengers of peace, which God hath appointed to bring glad tidings to his people, discover more profanes, than Michha superstition, and his ignorance condemns the presumptuous pretence to knowledge in those Rebels: he lamented the loss of his Levite, in whom, thoug erroneously, he thought himself blest in regard of his Tribe, these men think bishops, and Presbyters of no more use, than Micahs Idol, for the Libeler would not have household orisons officiated by Priests, but where are Priests forbidden that office. These men, that have so long used household Conventicles, and had their wand'ring Levites to officiate, now know no use of them.  
King's heretofore, David, Solomon, and Ichosophat might not touch the Priesthood, yet might pray in public, while the Priests stood, and heard. And doth it follow from the practice of these particular persons, that public prayer was not a part of the Priest's office, he might aswell conclude from the prayers of the publican, and Pharisee, because they were made in the temple, and the King did upon good grounds, believe, a particular blessing on the Priest's prayers, as on his sermons, though God admit all men to call upon him: And the Libeler shows with what Zeal those Sectaries call upon God, with whom the Priests prayers are the chewing of Matins, and yet these Enemies of God will be called Christians, whose whole language is the derision of all devotion Though the King had abilities of knowledge to pray beyond their mimic levites, yet he would neither usurp the Priest's office, nor neglect the use of it in confidence of his own parts, and the Monsters he mentions, its like would preach repentance for not sinning, and would as easily preach down true repentance, as preach up Rebellion, and the King had reason to give such conspirators the same welcome, that Solomon did to Abiathar, that abetted the Treason of Adoniah, And he could not hope, that Joroboams Priests, who were made of the lowest of the people, and supported the revolt from their lawful King would teach other doctrine, than what tended to subversion of Church, and state. We have seen, that with the sacrilege of the endowments of the Church, the Rebels have set up their Images of Priests, and have banished all devotion, and service of God censuring the saying of amen to a devout prayer for a superstitious responsory.  
The prayers made by the forenamed Kings in the Temple, and by the Apostles, and ancient Christians for above three hundred years were in vain, if the heart cannot safely join with another man's extemporal sufficiency. And whence doth it appear, that any of these prayers, that were made for others to join in, were made upon extemporal sufficiency, the contrary appears, when the Scripture expressly dictates the words, which the Priest shall use, whereto the people must say Amen, & there is not any story, from whence the want of Leiturgies in the first age of the Church can be collected, but there are Testimonies of their antiquity, aswell, as necessity of their use. It's a sign of a proph●…ne heart, that makes his mirth, of divinity, and a very little wit goes to the conceits of a closet Chapplaine, and a mind wand'ring after preferment, or his dinner in the time of prayer. Doubtless he esteems a dinner more, than devotion, that places the sum of his Religion in affected, and scornful suppositions of other men's intentions.  
He asks, what avails their praying with him. And why should men join in prayer at all, is there no efficacy in such conjuncture? We may not doubt both of assistance in our prayers, and blessing upon them by joining with our spiritual Fathers in that duty, and he, that hath most oil in his own lamp, will seek increase of it by those dispensers, which God hath appointed.  
The libelers objections are not like those apples of Asphaltis, whereto he compares the King's discourses, but like those fogs, and Mists, which arise out of a putrified matter, and are offensive to the eyes, whom they would hinder from beholding the sun, and are instantly dispelled with the same heat, that moved them.  
Many things were sung in the King's Chapel, that were not understood. It may be by some men, that would not, but such, as could understand what was read, might understand what was sung in the King's Chapel, there being neither strange language, nor note to make any thing unintelligible.  
His belief is, that God is no more moved with a prayer elaborately penned, than men truly Charitable with the penned speech of a beggar. There is no doubt of it, if there want devotion in him, that uses it, but what difference is there between a prayer elaborately penned, and hastily conceived, is God more moved with extemporal, then elaborate expressions, and are not the tunes of their new Levites too near the sound of Common beggars to be esteemed a fruit of devotion by the hearers?   

Upon his Penitential vows, AND MEDITATIONS AT HOLMEBY.  
HOw long the Sectaries have made the frequent use of places of Scripture in their prayers, the marks of their devotion need not be remembered, and now the use of places of Scripture must be hypocrisy in the King. His devotions must be persecuted aswell, as his Estate, and person, and the Libeler had wanted one principle brand of infamy, if he had omitted those censures of the king's piety upon pretence of the practice of hypocrites, and wicked men, and he will accuse the Godly, because wicked men have dissembled, & set parallel the clearest devotions of the saints of God to the expressions of the most desperate, and execreable sinners, he will prove the King short of true repentance, which is a subject undiscernible by a man of resolved impenitency, God only knows the truth of the heart, and such, as turn Charity into cursing are as far from a right understanding of others uprightness, as conscious of their own hypocrisy.  
He produces upon the King's imitation, and use of David's Psalms the sayings of Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Balaam, Saul, Ahab, jehoram, judas, and Simon Magus. That we may not doubt, but the same malice reigns in this railer, that appeared in these hypocrites, and he might have found, that this course, which he takes in standring the king was as frequent in former persecuters, as good words in the mouths of hypocrites, the Rebels against Moses charged him with usurpation, and imposture, saying, will thou put out the eyes of these men, David's Enemies cried fie on thee we faw it with our eyes, Job was charged to drink down iniquity like water, John the Baptist to have a Devil, and our blessed saviour to be a glutton, and a wine bibber. Virtue, nor ability never wanted detraction, & a just esteem of one, or other may not be expected from men, that have neither, for if they had either, they would not set themselves against both, he deals, as the Pharisees to watch the words of our Saviour to get a word for their accusation of him, and so the Libeler to cover the shame of his wicked cause, catches at the King's words to put of the guilt of their Rebellion, and makes it Gods disposing to that purpose, that the King says let thy anger I beseech thee be against me, and my Father's house, as for these sheep, what have they done? And by this says he acquitts the Parliament, and people, and takes the sin on himself, as David did. No doubt he took on him his own sins, for which God brought on him his affliction, but doth he thereby justify his bloody persecuters, though he were punish●… by a Rebellion, doth he acquitt the Rebels? Doth he mean wolves, when he names sheep? The King expresses his Fatherly pity to his innocent subjects, and the Libeler his emptiness of defence in assuming so impertinent an inference, as if David could not acknowledge God's Justice in the Rebellion of Absolom without the acknowledgement of his wicked Sons righteousness, nor the King use David's confession foe God's Justice upon occasion of the present punishment of the people by the sword, and his proof is suitable to his collection, for he says in the next line, he accuses the Church itself for the Church's Enemy. The next line is, let my sufferings satiate the malice of mine, and the Church's Enemies, sure the man would have his independent brethren the only true Church, that are the Enemies of it, their victories are by Miracle, and what then are the Turks, which were greater, and more strange than theirs? And let any man compare the boastings of the Rebels with the Enemies of God's Church in all times, and there will appear the greatest likeness, that hath been observed in men driven by Diabolical instinct, & thence proceeds the Libelers distemper, that having within so few lines before sought to hide their Rebellion, cannot retain the motives of it, and those he expresses to be liberty of schisms, the abolition of Bishepps, established laws, Kingly power, and leiturgy, the oppressing of loyalty getting all force into the Rebel's hands, and to withstand them herein is Tyranny.  
He resembles their sacrilege to David's eating the shewbread, and Ezechiahs' taking the gold, and silver out of the Temple. But did David make a war to destroy the Priests, that he might eat the shewbread, or Hezechiah seek to destroy the Temple, that he might take away the silver, and gold? And the primitive Church sold their sacred utensils to preserve their Priests, & bishops, not sought to take them away, that they might convert the sacred utensils to their private avarice, and the bishops sold those sacred utensils, neither Princes, nor people durst lay their hands on them.  
The Libeler will not endure any glory to be given to God, but by the medley of Sectaries, nor any restitution of the King, to his chief City, but with the spilling of his blood, and those that were faithful to him. In the beginning of Christianity men had to do with Pagans, who opposed Religion directly, and in this age we have to do with men, that would betray it to Pagans, by obtruding such doctrines, and practice for Christian, which may make it odious to moral heathens, who could only heretofore question the truth of our belief, but may by these new reformers take occasion to accuse our Religion of impiety, for these wretches represent it contrary to all the principles of Common honesty. The Rebels cannot believe a pardon, they know their demeritts so execrable, and therefore he will suppose the King would find means to punish, though he promised pardon. They know the falsehood of their own hearts, and thence is their suspicion. This libeler is not to be disputed with upon principles of Religion, that receives no Maxims, but of Rebellion, and Tyranny, God grants not always deliverance to his Servants from temporal evils, though they pray for them, and this profane Libeler concludes their prayers to be feigned, because not granted, his words are fit for detestation, and therefore to be observed by all, that they may abhor the black mysteries of this sect, for he says, God having cut him of without granting any of those mercies, it follows, that his resolutions were as feigned, as his vows frustrate. What Turk, Jew, or devil could say more against suffering Christians.   

Upon the ARMY'S surprisal of the KING at HOLMBY.  
THe loud noise, that the Libeler hath made hitherto of the great obstinacy of the King in not harkening to the advice of Parliament is ended, and the Parliament become a Council of scribes, and Pharisees, and they had been elder Brothers long enough, and it was now time, that the younger should have his turn, and the new model must dictate to the doting Parliament, and there must not be a prevalence in the house of Commons to discard those men of invincible valour without their due reward, and though they may murder the King, having taken away his sword, they may not think to deal so with them, that have the sword in their hands. The virulence of some false Ministers, which the King must not name without reverence, and their seditious tongues more zealous against schism, than Simony, or pluralities might in likelihood have done mischief between these Brethren, but it was prevented, and in despite of the Parliament, and these old warriors, and Zealous Ministers, the new model seize the King their Captive, and this is the law, Religion, Reformation, Liberty, and Parliament, which the king withstood, and the man after all his law determines, that irregular motions may be necessary on earth sometimes as well, as in heaven. Great worthies by disobeying law oft times have saved the Commonwealth, and the law afterward approved that unblameable exorbitancy. But wherefore hath he all this time made breach of laws so heinous, it had been ingenuous in him to have distinguished between the unblamable, and unblameable exorbitancy, & then he would not have found Coat, & Conduct-money, and the rest of his particulars rise so high, as the unblameable exorbitancies he now magnifies. But though Divine laws could not regulate the man's motions, as they do Celestial bodies, yet the obstinacy in his evil courses makes him go retrograde, and fight for law, and against law, for Parliament, and against Parliament, and trust, and Elections in Parliament are become scarecrowes to fright Children, not Conquerors.  
Though the Presbiterian be supplanted, he shall find a better portion, then uncircumcised Prelates. It's like the Jewish brethren seek to bring into bondage such, as receive not their Antichristian Marks, and profess the belief of revived heresies, eating the sacrifices of the dead. The story could not certify the King, that there was division of tongues, or hands in the builders of jerusalem, but it told him, that they, which built had the King's Commission, and God may in mercy to the nation remove these bloody brethren, that will destroy Jerusalem rather than quit their Tyranny over it. We may very well see the judgement of God upon the nation in this bloody war, and though it begun with the house of God, we may expect, that such men will not escape, that have been the firebrands of this dissension, and wrought so great misery upon the nation, and though the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites gloried in the Jews Captivity, as these Rebels in the Conquest, and Captivity of their King, and Sanballat, and Tobiah, and these other Enemies of the Church despised the weakness of the Jews in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, and in scorn said, that a fox going on it would overthrow it speaking with the same insolency, as the Libeler now uses, yet they may be assured, that God will remember his Church, and the Enemies thereof, as he did Edom in the day of Jerusalem.  
The Libeler is a good witness against himself, saying to counterfeit the hand of God is the boldest of all forgeries, and he, who without warrant, but his own fantastic surmise takes upon him perpetually to unfold the secret, and unsearchable mystery of high providence, is likely for the most part to mistake, and slander them, and approaches to the madness of those reprobate thoughts, that would wrest the sword of justice out of Gods own hand, and apply it more justly in his conceit, and himself makes the application, that usurps the hand of God in the successes, and victories of Rebels to the approbation of their impiety, and avow, the wresting of the sword of Justice out of the hand of God's vicegerent to employ it more justly in their own conceit, and dares slander the mysteries of high providence by binding them to their own fantastic surmises; What could he have spoken more appositely to his own condemnation? All men, that behold the dealings of the Army with that mock Parliament, do judge a very great proportion in that retaliation of the injuries, they had offered the King, & they, that would lay hands on the Militia are brought under the Dominion of those forces, which themselves had raised for that usurpation, and here again the Libeler would find somewhat to succour his feeble conceits of the beginning of the war from the King's confession, which says, no man is so blind, as not to see herein the hand of divine justice, they, that by Tumults first occasioned the raising of Arms, must now be Chastened with their own Army for new Tumults. And what now is the Libelers extraction from hence, that because Tumults were the first occasion of raising Arms, by consequence he himself raised them first against these Tumults. It's a crippled cause, that stands on such crutches. Though Tumults might be the first occasion, yet this was not the whole occasion, for these Tumults were seconded by seizing the forts, and Navy, & raising an Army by those, that raised the Tumults, and their guilt in raising Tumults, sought protection from a form Army, and this Method of divine Justice, sober men observe with reverence, while irrational, and obstinate Traitors attribute nothing, but their own successes to the hand of God in favour, which is in wrath to themselves, and others.  
These were new Tumults, for which the City was chastened, and cannot be referred to another far fetched cause so many years before. But the City, that raised Tumults for the Parliament many years before, is now punished for Tumults, for that same pretended Parliament by that Army raised out of them, and is it not evident here that the first inventors of mischief, are scourged with the whips themselves had prepared for others.  
The fact of Manlius defending the Capitol against the Gauls, and afterward thrown headlong from the Capitol for sedition, might restrain the Libelers wicked application of their murdering the King at the gate of whitehall to the merit of his actions done there, but the City suffered by an Action, which they had done for them, who now punish them for it, and they, that did a wickedness with applause, are punished for it by those that applauded it, the Actions of Manlius were opposite one to another, here the same.  
It was a mercy they had a victorious Army so near to fly to. But it was a judgement, that Tumults, which they had used to drive away the King, should drive away them, and the Libelers Logic's serves him to as little purpose, as his history, He would have, that the latter were real Tumults, the first but pretended, and why will he believe the Parliament for the first, and not for the latter? And why doth he call them those few of both houses, that withdrew from the first tumults, and those many from the latter, when it is most apparent, that they, which withdrew at first were three times the number of them, that forsoake at last.  
It is not the place, but the end, and cause, that makes a Parliament. And then all they, that say they have a good cause, and a good end are a Parliament, and what need is there then of a writ, or Elections? And Tumults are as good, as Parliaments, and the end, and the cause make them Tumults, and no Tumults, Parliament and no Parliament, and an Assembly at the bear garden is as good, as the house of Commons, he hath found the event to salve all, for they returned soon to their places, that fled from these latter Tumults, and that is the final decision of all controversy.  
The King brings in an inconvenient, and obnoxious Comparision of vengeance, as the Mice, and Rats overtook a german Bishop. And the inconvenience is, that the Libeler will from the name of Bishop wish the same evil to all bishops, that befell, that evil Bishop. Is the comparision obnoxious, because he is impertinent in following his own ●…haddow, and cursing those, that are innocent. Is it obnoxious, that the King supporting the order of bishops should produce the Example of an evil Bishop followed by divine vengeance? Is not the Libelers mentioning the seditious tongues of his false preachers more obnoxious, than the naming of the Germane Bishop? And is it not as easy to wish the Rats, and mice had pursued these false, and seditious preachers till they had driven them out of the land, as the bishops?  
Sorrow, and pity in an overmastred Enemy are looked upon, as the ashes of his revenge burnt out upon itself. An over mastered Enemy may be more, than Conqueror, and may have cause, and affection to pity the victor, and they most need pity, that least feel the want. The Triump●…s of Rebels are unnatural Prodigies, and the dances of devils. The pity of innocent Martyrs, which they expressed for proud persecutors was looked on, as the Kings by these villains, and the wicked Jews despised our saviours bidding them not weep for him, but for themselves, and for their Children. Although the Libeler so lately justified chastening of the Parliament, yet he will have it an injury in the King to persuade men against the Parliament, and so he ties the end, and the cause to what he pleases, and as long, as he can bring no better evidence, than the success of usurpation, he washes not of any guilt from himself, nor his rout.  
The just praises of an Enemy are esteemed honourable, & known truths cannot proceed from Craft, being so obvious to all, and it were nearer to madness, than reason to suppose, that there were not among those, which acted against the king, such as knew not what they did, and had as great ignorance, as the Libeler impudence, that censures the Charity of a prayer for such persons.   

Entitled to the PRINCE OF WALES.  
THe Libeler undertakes to show, that although the King had been reinstalled to his desire, or his son admitted should observe all his father's precepts, yet that would be so far from conducing to our happiness, that it would inevitably throw us back again into all our past, and fulfilled miseries. There is no doubt, but Traitors will tell the people so, and that there is no happiness, but under their usurpation, and though they engage them in endless wars, which the rebelling against just right must produce, yet they persuade the people, that the condition of war, and blood is more eligible, than those blessings of peace the Kingdom enjoyed under all their Princes. By our happiness he intends doubtless his Rebel party, whose happiness is to reign, and Tyrannise over the people, and that cannot continue with reinstalling the King. But the people of England expect not any end of their misery, but by restoring the just rights of their lawful King, and they now discern, that the success of a wicked cause was a judgement of God upon the nation, whose unthankfulness, for their long prosperity had justly provoked his wrath.  
He goes on to his proofs, that the king bears witness in his own words, that the corrupt education of his youth was not untruly charged upon him, or his Son, and that he gathers from these words of the Kings, Court delights are prone either to root up all true virtue, and honour, or to be contented only with some leaves, and withering formalities of them without any real fruits tending to the public good. And is it a proof, that because Court delights are prone to produce such fruits therefore all, that live in Prince's Courts must necessarily have a corrupt education, & might not this Libeler have clearly observed, that his Majest: was free from such a corrupt education, that had so clear a sight of the ill consequences of Court delights. Though there be these pleasures at the Court, it is not the education of Princes, whose youth is seasoned by instruction against the corruption of these baits. There are dangers to men's manners from abundance, and high places, and thence the Libeler would infer, that there must neither be wealth, nor power, but in the hands of his Pharisaical Sectaries, who never complain of such corruption. The desperate hypocrisy of these traitors is laid open by their own words, and Actions, and the Libeler from the King's caution to his Son by the example of Rehoboam frames an expression, as if the King affirmed it to be his own case, with such faithless dealing he addresses himself to his heedless readers, and tells all that he says, is the King's confession. There are doubtless men, that can relate the King's life, & will, but that need not in opposition to the slanders of Rebels, whose cause is supported by the lewdness of detraction. The long peace of the King's Reign, in the midst of wars round about us, shows, he was not idle in performance of the Kingly office, and the war, and misery, that since broke out, was the effect of great prosperity, which, as it corrupts the Court of Princes, so the minds of the people, and makes way for the designs of seditious Traitors, we had been sure to have heard slander enough upon the King's personal behaviour, if he had been obnoxious to any suspicion, or tainted with Court delights. The best Governments are subject to repine, and the great prosperietie of Solomon's Reign, when silver for the plenty was not esteemed, drew after it popular Complaints of heavy burdens, and whatever Rehoboam threatened, Jeroboam really performed, the madness of the people finding always their murmurings repaid with greater sufferings. The disobedience, and contempt of just authority, and of those principles of Government, and Religion, which the King teaches his Son have been the occasion of all our miseries, there being nothing like misery, or suffering before this horrid Rebellion.  
And now the Libeler will have the breeding open of his Majest: now li●…ng in the rugged, and boisterous licence of undisciplined Camps, and garriso●…s no better, than the effeminacies of the Court, and yet he will persuade us, that Rebels nursed up in that boisterous, and unnatural disobedience are fittest instruments of our happiness. Those principles, which the King had learned in his education, and which endured the Trial of a fiery adversity are received for sound by all such, as have not renounced reverence to Religion. Those principles, which the prosecution of a bloody Rebellion, and the continual exercise, of rapine, falsehood, & oppression, have fixed in the hearts of Rebels must necessarily make the words of the wise, & the ways of the just, matter only of contempt, and derision, and such, as have once broken the bounds of modesty, think it dishonour to have shame, and repentance, and will advance their confusions instead of order, their Blasphemies for zeal, their sacrilege for reformation, their Tyranny for law, and all the hell they fear is the loss of their usurped power, and the restoring of just right, and their jealousies of losing their own greatness provokes them still to an increase of their lewdness, making truth, and right the object of their spite, and persecution. These debauched Rebels proclaim, that there is no good but Rebellion, no work of God, but submission to it, and repentance for opposing it.  
If the Church of England be Antipapall, how comes it to be a schism? And why hath the libeler so continually made up his discourses with inclinations to Popery? Independency knows no schism, for if it allow every meeting its liberty, where is the schism?  
It's a Rule, that no Scripture, nor ancient Creed binds our faith to any Church denominated by a particular name. But he rejects, what was received by the universal Church. What doth that contradict the King's advice to his Son of his esteem of the Church of England, if he believe, as he did upon good ground, that it was agreeable in doctrine to the word of God? It is apparent, that these Sectaries are separated from all Churches of the world, and that Government, which they call Catholic had neither precept, nor practice in any Church, being newly crept out of hell to persecute the Church.  
No man was ever bid to be subject to the Church of Cornith, Rome, or Asia, but to the Church without addition. And why doth he deny to be subject to the Church without addition, was there never Church before this day? here we have the builders of Babel, none understand what another says, were not those that lived in those Churches of Corinth, Rome, & Asia commanded to be subject to the Governors of those Churches? Is it not the Apostles Command to obey those, that have the oversight of them, and may every man despise their new independent congregations, & seek for a Church without addition, and where then will he find him? We may imagine what manner of state such Church reformers will erect, and what it is they call reformation, that look upon all Churches, as schisms, because not rend into as many parts, as particular persons. These schismatics pretend the Church of England almost grown Popish, and yet nothing altered from the first reformation, & while they disguise their meaning by pretending popery to get the vulgar unawares to favour their dissembled zeal, they demand to have the Reformation unestablished. And the restraint of their Rebellion is Pharaohs prohibition to the Israelites, that sought leave tosacrifise to God. It was a greate●… testimony of the King's zeal to the Church of God, that he forewarned his Son to suppress errors, & schisms, his own experience having taught him, that these dogs, and evil workers are the greatest evils to Church, and state, and these destroyers, that are the reproaches of Religion, the Scabs, and biles to the Church, allow no protestant Churches to be communicated with, that are not tainted with the same putrefaction, that hath corrupted them.  
For the Civil state the king's precepts tend to the preservation of Civil liberty, and it was far from our Fathers to think, that any humane laws were immutable, but further, that laws should be altered at the will of a mutable multitude, and that their King should be excluded from the judgement of the reasons for a change. He falls from the question touching repeal of laws, and talks of saving the Kingdom, we may better trust the King with saving the Kingdom, than any number of men we can pick out, whose private fortunes may be saved, though the kingdom be lost.  
The Turks, jews, and Moors enjoy under the Turkish Government, what their industry, and labour have made their own. If that be true the Libeler is much out of the way to think it a reproach to Civil Government to compare it to the Turks; what Civil liberty doth the freest nation claim more, and what do these Masters of the new Republic pretend to allow more? Do they not plainly tell the people, they ought to have no more, than they will give them? Thus he will defend the Turk, Jew, and Moor rather than be an Englishman.  
There is no doubt, but the liberty of the subject depends on the Regal power in the first place. There is no liberty without Government, and where the Government is regal, the subject must maintain it, or be a Traitor, and give up his liberty for a prey to ravenous usurpers.  
That the King suffered it to be preached in his own hearing, that the subject had no property of his goods, but all was the King's right. Is a mainfest untruth, yet they, which make advantage of such inventions practise what they reproach, for doth not that thing they call a Parliament, consisting of a few contemptible persons profess, that all the goods of the subjects are at their disposing. By the laws of England no act can be a law without the king, though both houses propounded it, and in that negative voice of the kings, the people reposed their liberty, which they would not wholly intrust to a Major part of one, or both houses.  
The power of the whole nation is virtually in the Parliament. But there is no virtue in it without the king. And is it virtually in such a part of the Parliament, as either the Army, or the Tumults shall pick out? The Libeler hath borne witness for the king's Martyrdom, though he intended the contrary, and while he names the Rebel's war in their own defence, cannot avoid to tell the world, the Rebellion was to take away the Kings negative voice, and establish laws at their own will. Every man will bear witness, that it is Martyrdom to die, rather than burn incense to Idols, or Devils, and he that refuses to introduce schism, and disorder into the Church, and commit sacrilegious pillage of Church goods, and is persecuted to death for his refusal, is no less a Martyr, than he, that suffers for denying an Idolatrous worship, and this is not to die for Religion, because established, but that establishment, which we ought to preserve, and all the painting, & daubing of these Artisans of Rebellion will not deface that Martyrdom, which their own wicked hands have testified. There are no reformed Churches, that have abolished the Decalogue, & so long a king, that dies by a wicked Rebellion for not consenting to Trayterours demands is judged a Martyr by the best reformed Churches, but he does not look before he leap, that brings in the Romish Priests executed for that, which had been established, for he might have known they were executed by laws in force, and for doing what no law in force allowed, and there is a great deal of difference between heretics dying for errors against universal truths, and Martyrs dying for universally received truths.  
The legislative Parliament, and law of Coronation, and obstinacy of one man his so often chewed Rhetoric will not aid him to overcome so apparent truth, and no Parliament could have been so ridiculous, and contemptible a thing, as they, which abuse the name have now made it, spurning it too, and fro like a football at the will of the multitude, and no men are more marks for slaves, than such, as are destined to such a vassalage under such Masters.  
No toleration can please schismatics, that is bounded with any laws, and unless they have a liberty to tread down all law, and Religion, they account it not freedom, and such toleration, which other Churches account themselves happy in, these Sectaries account despicable, that will have it not beneath the honour of a Parliament, and free nation to receive a Schismatical pretended Religion, devised by a junto of Mechannickes.  
His suspicions of palliation are of the same stuff with his positions, and we may well think upon his own grounds, that the King's advice to his Son to be tender of the people, was sincere, whose destruction would be his undoing. Which might justly move a Prince to that tenderness. Powerful Rebels are no less infamous, then great, and these, who place the hopes of immortal praise in the excess of villainies, only erect the Monuments of their impieties the higher, that they may be seen by posterity, though they avoided for the present the height of Hamans' Gallows, and we may not think such men look to be remembered in mercy with God, who showed none to men. They think with Cain their sin greater, then can be forgiven.  
Although the King Exhort his Son not to study revenge, yet they believe, that he, or at least they about him intent not to follow that exhortation, and that he says was seen lately at the Hague. It's like he intends, the kill of Dorislans their Rebel Agent. Is that an Argument of studying revenge after Reconciliation, that a professed villain was slain in the heat of indignation, coming in Triumph with the blood of the Murdered King, as his Trophy? The Libeler would willingly persuade the multitude, that it concerns them as much, as those impious projectors of Rebellion to fear such revenge, and therefore they may not repent, but like himself maintain Treason to be the better cause, and to return to loyalty were fickleness, and instability.  
He cannot endure the Government by bishops, for he says, it is away to subdue the consciences of vulgar men to slavish doctrine. The doctrine he means is order, and obedience, and he would have a compendious way to schism, and Rebellion, and that's the grudge, which Traitors have at this Government, and their professed quarrel.  
He will not admit, that Parliaments can have freedom, if the King may deny any thing, which a Major part propounds, as if they had no freedom, unless the prevailing party were absolute Lords, and yet their freedom is preserved, though the Army pick out a few to be the Parliament, and send packing the rest, and this is the foundation of the English freedom, as he would have it, and that this Conventicle must have the name of Parliament, and not of a faction. The conclusion, that the Libeler would have is, that the Parliament should consist of a few Traitorous designers, to whose voice the rest must be only an Eecho, and the sound of a Parliament must be no other, than a bagpipe, yielding only such notes, as the breath, and stopps of the prime Masters allow it. We have seen those tapestry Parliaments, which he mentions, which stay, and remove at the pleasure of those Masters of the household; And should not the King have a power to stop the extravagant motions of these impetuous Commanders, which blasted all such, whose wisdom, and gravity offered wholesome Counsels for public safety, and ordered their mutes, and naughts to signify their pleasure The Kingdom would be sure of misery, as often, as they see a Parliament, and the people see they must seek their preservation in unity, which is Resident in the head, not in those broken fractions the subject of division, and such, as seek vents, and ouletts from the supreme Government are the whirl winds of misery, and confusion, but Traitors would have laws as easily broken, as the spider's web. And this Parliament, to which the King must be subject, himself will allow no more freedom, then to sit in the noose of their Military general, which when he pleases to draw to gather with one twitch, not only with his negative, but positive Commaud, shall throttle the whole nation to the wish of Caligula in one neck, and this the Kings negative was far from, and if the Libeler stitch together all the quibbles of pasquils, & satyrs, they will agree unto his Rebel Masters, but lose their property by his application to lawful Government. Where they have placed the Militia the Kingdom now feel, who understood not the word, when they were at first hoodminckt by it to seek they knew not what.  
The deliverance, which these men boast of is the deprivation of just Government, and the substitution of lawless will, and the people see, that they are so far from a deliverance, that they are delivered over to a languishing misery under the sharpest servitude, and they now find their Idolising a Parliament hath drawn them from their loyalty to him, whom God had set over them, and cast them under the hard bondage of these Masters, and like them, which rejected the sons of Gideon, and took the son of his servant to reign over them, they feel a fire of division kindled among them to devour one another.  
This Libeler allows not any thoughts of revenge in his Majest: now living for the murder of his father, and yet reproacheth him for making peace with the Irish, and not seeking their total extirpation, and the peace with them he calls a sordid, dishonourable, and irreligious seeking of his Crown. But the man is unwilling he should have any ways at all, and would persuade his Sectaries, for none else will believe him, that the King may not make peace with a Rebel submitting to oppose a Rebel persevering.  
That the Presbyter Scott, which woes the King now living is put of proceeds from his terms, not from his quality. Should not the people of England seek the restitution of their King, and legal Government, whereof they have been cheated with the adulterate ostentations of liberty, and redress of greivances, they would appear arrant beasts, that cried out, and bellowed by the instinct of their drivers, fight like brutes, till they ran into the pinfold, where they are reserved for servitude, and slaughter by those Masters, who alured them with food to put the yoke on their necks.  
The Libeler dislikes the king's conclusion, that Religion to God, and loyalty to the King cannot be parted without the sin, & infelicity of a people And says its contrary to the teaching of Christ, that no man can serve two Masters. These are fit Judges of our duty to God, or man, and fit reformers of Church, and state, that will have the service of a Master, or obedience to a father the serving of another Master, than God, and the spirit of God speaking by St. Peter, fear God, and honour the King must contradict the teaching of Christ, such Church makers do we now live with. Such, as served heathen Masters, may not leave their service, though they serve not their heathen Gods at their Command, and if they did desert their earthly Masters for that reason, they did not serve their Master in heaven, who will be served by their subjection to their earthly Masters, but he, that will serve himself cannot serve God, and that self service is the whole work of these Rebels, who pretend to put God in the first place, that they may leave him no place, and such, as desert their King upon pretence of God's service, desert God to serve themselves, and they will only enjoy their power, and wealth, and ease for God's sake, but suffer for him they will not, that kind of testimony to the truth of Religion, they account among the corruptions of the first ages of the Church, and they have found a more accurate, and pleasant way to serve God.   

Entitled MEDITATIONS UPON DEATH.  
BEcause the King affords time to inveigh bitterly against that murder, but in the Libelers language justice done on him, it will be as he says needful to say something in defence of those proceedings. Doubtless all, that wit, or impudence can offer in defence of that Barbarism is far short of a colourable excuse. He is courting of apocryphas, and makes a Prologue out of Esdras, and Josephus, Authors in his judgement, not less believed, than any under sacred, & brings forth the story of the three wise questions, and zorobabells determination for women, and truth. Quorsum haec? Though he be not asked, nor in a nation, that gives such rewards to wisdom. (his Masters have not that bounty to restore the King, that he may sit next him, their gratitude being of the same Stamp with their loyalty) he shall pronounce his sentence somewhat different, that either truth, and justice are all one, or else that justice by his office is to put forth more strength in the affairs of mankind. To what purpose doth he so solemnly produce this piece of Apocryphas, and pronounce his sentence different? justice is a virtue of the mind, and puts forth no more strength in the affairs of mankind than truth, but he talks of justice, and truth, as if they were members of the house of Commons. The sensual appetite of some is too strong for their understanding, and thence proceeded the conclusions for the strength of wine, and women. In others the understanding and reason are stronger, and there truth is strongest, but we may be assured, that in this Libeler, and his Masters, ambition, cruelty, and falsehood are strongest, and thence their Actions are an oppression, and defiance of truth, and justice, and they are grown so absurd, as from the Titles of strength given to virtues, and passions, this trifling Libeler would have them none resident, and to act without a subject. If zorobabel had made truth a fantastical person, as this man strives to have justice understood, he had surely lost his reward, as well, as the opinion of his wisdom. This man would have justice understood, as she is painted in a piece of Tapestry.  
justice had a sword put into her hand to use against all violence, & oppression in the earth. By whom was this sword put into her hand? Do these Traitors believe, that their magnifying of justice makes any man look on their Barbarous Actions with less detestation, or that justice is any part of their end, or Actions? Justice teaches Rulers how to use the sword put into their hands, but is armless against any violence, and oppression without the power of the Ruler. If the Magistrate do injustice, there is no justice committed to others against him. The wise man by the spirit of God tells us, that he beheld wrong, and injustice, and the cries of the oppressed, and there was no deliverer, and where then was the Libelers justice? was not violence there stronger than justice? Though divine justice cannot be avoided, humane justice often fails, and cannot reach the offender.  
She is most truly, who accepts no person, and exempts none from the severity of her stroke. Though by the Rules of justice, there is no accepting nor exempting of persons, yet the Magistrate, to whom alone the Rule belongs is confined to persons, and places, justice forbidding all usurpation, and striking is oppression, where lawful power gives not the sword.  
She never suffers injury to prevail, but when falsehood first prevails over truth, and that is a kind of justice done on them, who are so deluded. And is not falsehood an injury? why should justice suffer falsehood to prevail more than other injuries, and why should deluded, and deceived persons be deprived of Justice. And is it Justice to suffer deceived persons to be injured? This man sees the horrid Injustices acted by his Masters, and that must be a kind of justice, because (in his sense) upon deceived men.  
Though wicked Kings, and Tyrants counterfeit the sword, yet she communicates not her power to any, but such, as are just, or at least will do justice.. Doth justice communicate her power to every just man, or that will do justice, and are they not Tyrants, that take the sword, which is not given them by the Libelers own judgement. He would needs make justice a Goddess, and Poetical fancies, realities, and Bellona must lead an Army without a General. King's have their power from God, and God gives the sword ye even to wicked Kings; and because the power is given them for justice, it is called the sword of justice, though they use it ofttimes to Injustice, and though there are so many instances of wicked Rulers, who yet had their power from God, yet this impudent Blaspheamour says. It were extreme partiality, & Injustice, the flat denial, & overthrow of herself to put her own Authentic sword into the hand of an unjust, and wicked man, or so far to accept, and exalt one mortal person above his equals, that he alone shall have the punishment of all other men transgressing, & not receive like punishment from men, when he himself shallbe found the highest Transgressor. He believes not the Scripture telling us Gods advancement of divers Kings above their equals, & to that condition of impunity; And must it not necessarily follow from his principles, that God is unjust, and partial in so doing? And if all men be not punished equally in this life for the same offences? Can there be a greater Blaspheamy? Were it not the height of Injustice, if the governed should judge, and punish the Governor? Were it possible for mankind to subsist in such a state, or can there be a possibility of any right, or Justice in such confusion? The Scripture forbids us to judge another man's servant, but this man will have the father punished by the child, the Master by the servant, the Prince by the people.  
justice is, and aught to be strongest. The strength of public Justice is the Magistrate. Though Justice ought to be strong in our affections, and Actions, yet all men are not obliged, nor permitted to do all Acts of Justice. The execution of Civil Justice is the Magistrates office, it is the strength of Injustice to usurp the calling of others. From this Lunatic discourse of the strength of Justice, he concludes. That if by sentence thus written, it were my happiness to set free the minds of Englishmen from longing to return poorelyunder that Captivity of Kings, from which the strength, and supreme sword of justice hath delivered them, I shall have done a work, not much inferior to that of zorobabel. The sentence of this brain sick Libeler is very weak to work on any opinion, but the hath set free some Englishmen from the Captivity of a received error, for they were made believe they fought for their King, and this man tells them it was to shake of Kings, and surely his vainities, and deceits, and his Master's Tyranny will persuade the Englishmen to seek their return under the free, and glorious Government of Kings from the Captivity of these Tyrants, & usurpers, that have enslaved them; And that horrid murder of the King under the shameless pretence of justice, must necessarily work detestation of the fact, and a longing to be delivered from the Dominion of such Monsters. No doubt this Libeler would think it an happiness to be secure in his stolen power, but he must express more reason, and less impiety to effect such a work, & he may be assured, that as long, as there are men so ingenuous to acknowledge Justice, that they must detest his cause, and him. And though Kings be unaccountable to men for their Actions, it is no way contrary to the wisdom of zorobabel, who names not Justice, and if he had given that strength to Justice, which he did to truth, it had been in the same sense, understanding the force of Justice, as of other virtues. The strength of the King is over the persons, that of truth, and Justice over the mind. But if the King be accountable to men, are not they, to whom he is accountable by the libelers Argument not only stronger than the King, but stronger than Justice? And so Justice is not strongest, unless the sword be put into a mad man's hand, and the giddy multitude, from whom nothing, but Injustice can be expected may punish their Rulers. To what end were Governments ordained, if justice be only in the Governed? Were ever like Tyrannies, and Injustices committed by single Rulers, as by the unbridled multitude, and yet justice must have no strength in the mouth of a King, and the word of Rebels only must be the strength of justice, and this Champion, that binds justice to Rebel power, and excludes it from Kings, hopes to be a zorobabel to the Englishmen for his wise sentence.  
That no law of God, or man gives the subjects any power of judicature without or against the King, he will prove most untrue, and by that most ancient, and universal law, he that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, and here he says is no exception of a King. Though it be plain, that he, to whom the power of shedding the blood of the offender, is committed, must necessarily be excepted, unless they will suppose he must kill himself, doth the Libeler imagine, that by this law, all men were judges, or that the subject may judge the sovereign, who is not permitted by any law to judge an Equal? As the divine law appointed punishments, so likewise Rulers, and if people may judge their Rulers, it anulls all the Commands of obedience to superiors, all subordination in humane society, and all decision of Controversy, while every one may pretend his own opinion the Rule of justice.  
Next he hath found the place in numbers. Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer. But judges, to whom the law was given, were appointed to declare, who was guilty of Murder, and we may easily see, who had been the Murderers, if every man were to judge a superior, or the multitude their Rulers, and this the Libeler might have found in the same book where the people charge Moses, and Aron with killing the people of the Lord, and Moses says, they were ready to stone him. And the Libeler may with his anabaptistical brethren upon better grounds abolish Magistracy, then make every man a Magistrate, as by this reason he would. Though the law appointed no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, yet we find David pardoned the murder of his son Absolom, and Civil punishments are not of immutable law, and it had been murder to take away his life, whom the king had pardoned, and we find, that though Jacob cursed 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 unrighteousness, if the people do not punish their Rulers, as the Rulers them. And such a law is contrary to those Rules of righteousness God hath prescribed, and is the destruction of mankind, not any law at tall, and this man fears not to charge God with unrighteousness, that forbids evil speaking of their Rulers though wicked, and unjust, and scoffs at his ordinance calling anointing a Charm. Can any man of Common reason imagine, that a people willbe obedient unto any, whom they have power to punish, or that subjection can consist with such a condition?  
The anointing of Abiathar to be a Priest did not exempt him from the power of the King. And can any reasonable man think, that any, but the King could have used that power upon 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 own cause feared to lift up his hand against the Lords anointed, but this Cannot forbid the law, nor disarm justice from having legal power against any King. This showeth, that divine law forbadd all men to take the Arms of justice without, or against the King, who is referred to God's justice, and justice hath no Arms, but his power. What David feared, he judged all others had cause to fear, who can touch the Lords anointed, and be innocent? If David were a private man, being anointed King, who was a public man? But what David feared, these wretches despise, and Count this forbearance of David a ceremony, which he might have forborn. If David feared in his own cause to lift up his hand against the Lords anointed, the Libeler is his own judge, and must be his tormenter, that makes an impious defence of those, that lifted up their hand against the Lords anointed in their own cause, and were by his own confession but private men, and he would have their exorbitance, and disobedience to law unblameable. Was David a more private man, than they? All supreme Counsels in other forms of Government, that have not a Monarch, claim this privilege of exemption from their subject's Judicature, b●…t those graceless Rebels hold nothing sacred, the place of God's vicegerent they will have to be an enormous privilege, and blow away Religion, & justice like Chaff with the blast of their fancy, though they pretend the strength of it above that of Kings.  
He hath done with Scripture, he descends now to saint Ambrose excommunicating Theodosius, & he will allow the Bishop to be a saint for this fact, though his calling were Prelatical, and unlawful in his judgement. But what is spiritual excommunication to the putting of a King to death? This fact of saint Ambrose is no Rule. Though Christian bishops refused to give the holy mysteries to Princes in cases of sins, they did not presume to make a Civil separation between them, and their people, and will the Libeler allow the bishops to be more public persons, than Christ, and his Apostles, and to do what they would not? He, that makes such outcries against Popery here takes up the most scandalous doctrine, that any of them maintain, and which the most sober disclaim, and takes up those Arguments, which the Jesuits use for the Clergies, and Pope's power over Princes, & yet the man would be accounted a zealous Protestant. The examples of excommunication by the british bishops, saint German Oudeceus, & the clergy of Morcant might be all true, but nothing to the purpose, nor are their excommunications Rules for Christian practice, neither can there be any inference of deposing, or murdering Kings from such Actions.  
But sor the greater Credit he says the facts of these British bishops were before we had Communion with the Church of Rome. And may not he look on himself, and his crew with horror for vilysying, and reproaching the calling of bishops, as Papell, and Antichristian, and yet confess it to be before we had any Communion with the Church of Rome?  
What power of deposing Kings, and consequently of putting them to death was assumed, and practised by the Canon law, he says, he omitts, as a thing generally known. Why would he not tell, by whom it was practised, would that discredit the Authority? What power the Popes practised in deposing Kings is generally known, and detested by all good men being Actions contrary to all laws, but of their own 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 Tyranny, and usurpation 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 suitable to the cause.  
Whole Counsels have decreed, that a Counsel is above the Pope, though by them not denied the vicar of Christ, and we may be ashamed in our clearer light not to discern further, that a Parliament is above a King. It were a shame to us, if we should not discern the difference between the independent power of Kings, and the usurped power of the Pope, and this breaker wants shame, that pretends clearer light, and opposition to Rome, and yet beg Examples from it. Such, as preferred the authority of Counsels above the Pope, had their warrant from the ancient Counsels, which knew not the vicarshipp of the Pope different from his brethren; And had these Counsels thought him Christ's vicar, and infallible, as the Romanists now maintain, their conclusion of the Counsels superiority could not consist with their premises, being much alike this Authors ordinary Arguments. But what resemblance has a Counsel of the whole Church to the Parliament, or Counsel of a particular kingdom? By the laws of some kingdoms there are no Parliaments at all, and in Counsels they are not subjects, but brethren to to the Pope, as they anciently styled 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 quality of subjection.  
He comes now to humane laws, and by them he will prove a divine truth. The judgement given against Orestes, either at Athens, whose king he was not, or in any other Country, where he was but a Titular, proves nothing, though the story were Authentic, and the proceedings legal, but popular furies, though occasioned by their Governors Crymes are not Examples of imitation. Solon's laws belonged not to kingly Government, neither were the kings of Sparta Monarches, nor Lycurgus a King indeed, though he had a Title, the constitution of that State being a Republic, and their King no other, than a Consul of Rome, or a Duke of venice.  
The Decree in Rome is far wide from the matter, and what the Senate did against Nero, was in vindication of their ancient power, not acknowledging the Justice of his sovereignty. Though Theodosius decreed the law to be above the Emperor, yet he decreed not any person to have power over the Emperor. The law was above him in regard it was his Rule, but could not make any person, or society above him. The law is the directive power to Kings, but subject them not to any, and it is a senseless deduction from the superiority of the Rule to imagine an inferiority of the Rulers to the people, or a community in power by the Rule.  
That Bracton, or Cleta say the King is inferior to the Court of Parliament, is a manifest untruth, and Bracton says expressly, the King hath not a superior on earth to punish him, and that only God is the avenger of his Actions, so far were these men from affirming, that he stands as liable to receive justice, as the meanest of his subjects. But this man thinks, that some of his Readers will believe, that the name of an Author is sufficient Authority, though he speak contrary to what he alleadges.  
It is said in an ancient book, the King ought to be subject to the law by his oath. Though the King be bound to perform 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 do Justice, therefore did they give other men power over them?  
That the king permitted questions of his right to ordinary judicature is an use of Counsel, not subjection, all Courts being his Counsels, for decision of controversies, but it's a sorry inference, that Counselors in his affairs should have power over his person. As the Parliaments right is circumscribed by laws in regard of the subject, so it cannot be imagined absolute over the king. By what the Libeler hath said, he might well conclude, that kings are obliged to do justice, but that the people, or particular persons may judge their king by any law divine, or humane, he hath not offered a colour, so barren is he in an Argument, which he calls over copious.  
Who should better understand their own laws, and when they are transgressed, than they, who are governed by them, and whose consent at first made them. Certainly he might very well have answered himself, that they, which governed by such laws, and whose consent at first made them better understand them, and when they are transgressed, than they, that are governed, and it is a course very agreeable to these men's confusion, that the suitor should teach the judge.  
The Libeler asks, who have more right to take knowledge of things done within a free nation, than they within themselves. And surely they will not be free long from destroying one another, where that's the liberty, for there willbe as many Transgressors, and as many laws, as there are opinions.  
He goes about to answer the taking the oath of Allegiance, and supreamacy. And to this his answer is very ready, that these oaths were to his person invested with his Authority, and his Authority was by the people given him conditionally under law, and oath. And if his Authority had been conditional, their oaths could not be absolute, as they are. This gift, and condition they imagine were engraven in Seths Pillars, and they have been long inquiring for a Cabballisticke Rabbyn to find out the Characters. How the kings hereditary succession is become a conditional gift, must have better evidence than Aphorisms of confusion, never law contained either the gift, or condition, nor was there ever such impudence before these Traitors, that avowed, because they swore faith to their king's person invested with his Authority, they might take away his Authority, and not break their oath, And it were a profane oath, aswell, as vain, that should be void at the will of the taker. The king's oath added nothing to his right, being only an obligation of his conscience, no condition annexed to his right, and if he never took the oath, his subject's obedience is no whit diminished, and a king by inheritance needs not admittance, the death of his predecessor puts him in possession, & this is the known law of England. The Couquerour took on oath at his Crowninge, and other times, that made no condition to his Government. There is not only reason, but absolute necessity for the avoiding of confusion, & ruin of mankind, that the subject be bound to the king, though the king fail in his duty, for the destruction of Government is more sinful, and inconvenient to humane society, than any evil, that can come by a king's misgovernment.  
He proceeds to answer objections touching the Covenant, wherein we shall not much insist, but to detect the shifts of Malefactors to elude the evidence of truth. They were accused by the King, and his party to pretend liberty, and reformation, but to have no other end, then to make themselves great, and to destroy his person, and Authority, for which reason says the Libeler, they added the third Article to preserve the King's person, and Authority in defence of Religion, privilege of Parliament, and liberties of the Kingdom. And to show with what ingenuity he dealt, in seeking to avoid that just accusation, the Libeler tells us, that they added that cause for a show only, and they intended not to preserve the King's person further, than it might consist with their opinions touching Reformation, extirpatinge of Prelacy, preservinge liberties of Parliament, and Kingdom, and in this very clause they called the world to be witness with their consciences of their loyalty, and yet made the preservation of their King's person, and Authority, arbitrary by their own opinions, and while this Libeler would have their Rebellion a defensive war, he forbears not to tell the world, that they resolved the King's destruction to attain their ends.  
The sixth Article gives as much preservation, and defence to all, that enter into the league, as to him. And it seems more, for they have dealt with none of them, as with him, and he says, if the Covenant were made absolute without respect to these superior things, it was an unlawful vow, and not to be kept. It is agreed, that unlawful vows are not to be made, nor kept, but it is an unlawful vow to destroy the King in order to his supposed ends, yet they fear not to vow the destruction of any, that oppose them, though the honour, and innocence of the persons were without the reach of laws, and they will exempt neither callings, nor integrity from their lawless Injustice, and that appeared by his gloss upon the fourth Article of the Covenant to bring persons offending to trial, and condign punishment, all that should be found guilty of such Crymes, and delinquencies, whereof the King by his letters, and proofs afterward was found guil●… in what they thought him at the taking of the Covenant, to be over ruled only by evil Counselors. And had not he avowed all, that ever his letters contained in his former declarations, and hath the Libeler forgotten, that the imputation of Crymes to evil Counselors was but a Ceremony, and are not his foregoinge words, that their ends, reformation, and extirpatinge Prelacy were to be preferred before the preservation of the King's personand authority. This last age hath produced a generation, that pretend they do God service, when they scorn all his laws, and Religion, and hold forth their execrable villainies to the world, as grateful, and well pleasing sacrifices to God, and make ostentations of their perjuries, and Blaspheamies, as services to him. The nullities, and usurpation of those Monster judges, that made themselves cutthroats of the King, needed not the King's exceptions to avoid their illegallitie being so apparent, & what the King did, or said to of them will remain to his honour, and the Libelers infamy, that glories in the misfortunes of Princes, saying it was learned from his grandmother.  
It's a sad fate to have his Enemies both accusers, parties, and judges. The Libeler says, what malefactor might not plead the like, if his Crymes have made all men his Enemies. But there were hardly ever such malefactors, unless, they, who took upon them to judge the King. He, that is an Enemy before judgement, cannot be a judge of the Crime, and he, that is an Enemy to a Malefactor uncondemned is not fit to condemn him, and such, as are Enemies to Government, and are common destroyers cannot be judges,  
That they of the powder plot might have pleaded the same, when their judges knew not their persons, nor their guilt till trial, and conviction is a suppo●…ition like himself, but the powder plot is outdone by these miscreants, that have destroyed king, and Parliament, and that, which the powder plotters were ashamed to own, these villains recount to their honour, like these Giants represented by Poets, that made war against heaven, and thence this Libeler dares scoff at the accusation of their Injustice with this lewd Blasphemy, that at the resurrection, it may be as well pleaded, that the saints, when they shall judge the world are both Enemies, judges, parties, and accusers. Such are the thoughts of those wicked Atheists touching God, and his saints, and it is not at all strange, that such profane persons exercise their cursed speaking against Kings, and all in Authority, that spare not God himself, and it is a small thing with them to vilify those, whom God hath anointed, & because God by his prophets complained against the evils of some Kings, these men take on them to destroy all by that Authority, and say the earth hath long groaned under burdens of their disorder, Injustice, and irreligion. God gives Testimonies to Kings in Scripture, that they were his Servants, that he would by them restore, and preserve his Church, declared it the greatest earthly favour to set such, as he loved on the kingly Throne, bestowed his own Titles on them, and yet this Libeler refers his readers to Scripture for proof of Rebellion against kings, and would persuade the reformed Churches, he is their Advocate in saying. To bind their Kings in Chains, and their nobles in links of Iron is an honour belonging to the saints. Such blasphemous expositors of Scripture are these Reformers. God gave that honour to the Israelites to bind the kings of the Amorites, their Enemies in Chains, and their nobles in links of Iron. These darlings of the Devil willbe the only saints, & make it their honour to destroy the powers, that God hath ordained and there must be neither kings, nor Nobles, but these evil spirits, whom no Irons, nor Chains will restrain, and perjury, robbery, murder, and Rebellion are the honour of these saints.  
The building of Babel was not Nimrods' work, (whom by asserted untruth he calls the first king) that work was a popular undertakinge, because the people would erect a Republic of confusion, & not trust God to protest them, and the Libeler could not have fallen upon an instance more like his present madness, for as those bvilder's feigned confusion in pretending to prevent it, so there Rebels pretend to preserve the Kingdom by turning it into popular confusion, and therefore those saints must destroy Babel, especially that spiritual Babel, and first overcome those European Kings, which receive their power not from God, but from the Beast. Doth he mean the Beast with many heads? It is his principal Argument, that Kings receive their power from the people, and if so, then are they this beast. What Kings of Europe receive their Kingdoms from his Beast? But there Sectaries are drunken with their own profanes, & pride, and have a strong delusion to believe the lies of their own invention.  
Those Kings are counted no better, than his ten horns. No better, but by what proof, are they the same by such frenetique dreams, as he produces? They shall hate the whore, and yet the saints must destroy them, and shall burn her with sire, and yet be overcome first themselves. But they shall at last join their Armies with the Beast after they have destroyed the whore. And this is the Babilonish Creed, a bundle of contradictions to carry their Giddy followers into attempts as wicked, as their conceits are irrational. We see the grounds of their cause, an hellish impulsion against Government, and hatred of Kings, there having not been impostors of equal impudence since Mahomett, that profess a Religion to destroy all Kings, and those Blasphemies, that were abhorred in former Sectaries, and Entheusiasts are the Creed of those miscreants.  
'tis true, there be a sort of moody, hit brained, and always unedified consciences apt to engage their leaders past retirement, and then upon a sudden qualm, and swiming of their conscience to betray them basely in the midst of what was chiefly undertaken for their sakes. Seducers cannot think to be undiscovered forever, but such, as are not resolute villains have a moody conscience in this man's judgement, the tender conscience is become moody, and hit brained, and certainly such were many in this Rebellion, or it could never have proceeded so far. Let such men never meet with any faithful Parliament to hazard for them. And let never Parliament think to be better rewarded, that follow a faction to betray their King, then to be subject to those base multitudes, whom they suborned to attempts against their loyalty, and become slaves.  
He finds others, in whose consciences gain hath sprung a sudden leak, and these are they, that cry out of the Covenant broken. Thus the builders of Babel are scattered, while they make conscience, and Religion their property, and in the mean time, nothing is more the subject of their scorn. And if God were mocked in pretending the Covenant in Scotland, and Ulster, he was much more in England by crying out the King, Religion, laws, and liberty, and the Libeler might have found such men, whose prosperity was sin, that Triumphed in the afflictions of him, whom they persecuted, and said tush God hath forsaken him, let us smite him, that he rise no more. The sin of Ahas, that transgressed more in the time of his affliction hath no resemblance to a virtuous Prince afflicted by Traitors, whose cruelty increased, while they oppressed him, and exceeded the inhumanity of the cursed Moabites, that burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime.  
The King's Charatie in forgivinge his Enemies, will find a right construction with all true Christians, but malice, and detraction of all Acts of pity cannot meet, with less, than detestation in all men any way qualified with Religion, or reason.  
Hypocrites Alms, are not more odious, than hypocrites censures, the cruelty of Hypocrites will receive a greater condemnation, than their Alms.  
Prayers for God's Compassion, are not to share victory with God's Compassion. But such, as strive to slander men's prayers to God are as malicious to God's victory, as the devotions of those, that pray unto him. Such as read this impudent Libel may rightly call it the Rebel's Image, containing precepts, and positions of violence against Government, confusion of States, doctrines of falsehood, and hypocrisy, praises of insolence, and cruelty, profaning of God's name, and word, scoffs at things sacred, dissolution of all bonds moral, Civil, and Religious, of all orders, and degrees among men. And it must be hatred to God, and a Diabolical impulsion, that drives on such persons to fill up the measure of their wickedness.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 25. Line 6. Read not after needed. Pag. 25. L. 27. Sollecisme for Sollesisme. Pag. 25. L. 30. that for then. Pag. 31. L. 19 for instead of from. Pag. 33. L. 10. in before their. Pag. 34. L. 1. Basilice for Aclastos. Pag. 40. L. 11. from after lawful. Pag. 44. L. 12. Conventions for contentions. Pag. 58. L. 3. supercilious for supersilious. Pag. 63. L. 8. uses be before used. Pag. 67. L. 25. notions for motions. Pag. 67. L. 26. administered for administrated. Pag. 69. L. 43. by for the. Pag. 72. L. 30. is for in. Pag. 81. L. 17. and 19 Psalmistry for Psalmastry. Pag. 83. L. 23. is for in. Pag. 84. L. 25. jingle for Inigly. Pag. 87. L. 25. it is for is it. Pag. 88 L. 18. few for fer. Pag. 90. L. 8. aspersion of the before most. Pag. 91. L. 2. occasion for reason. Pag. 94. L. 9 connatural for unnatural. Pag. 94. L. 13. refrained for restrained. Pag. 94. L. 20. vigour for rigour. Pag. 95. L. 43. Cheats for States. Pag. 111. L. 21. like for the. Pag. 111. L. 22. vapours for reigns. Pag. 123. L. 9 prevent for present. Pag. 137. L. 19 he for we. Pag. 147. L. 31. cause before had. Pag. 149. L. 35. Stafford for Strafford. Pag. 150. L. 15. no before part. Pag. 153. L. 11. we for he. Pag. 156. L. 37. screeching for stretching. Pag. 156. L. 37. Bats for Cats. Pag. 156. L. 39 we for who. Pag. 159. L. 12. possession for oppression. Pag. 160. L. 10. not before strange. Pag. 164. L. 5. place for peace. Pag. 172. L. 38. long for strong. Pag. 173. L. 38. if for is. Pag. 179. L. 25. peace for place. Pag. 182. L. 2. principij for principy. Pag. 184. L. 36. Saviour for Saviour's. Pag. 184. L. 37. no for one. Pag. 185. L. 25. date for dale. Pag. 186. L. 8. incestuous. Pag. 194. L. 38. while they for whether. Pag. 197. L. 36. a junto. Pag. 208. L. 28. miseries for mysteries. Pag. 208. L. 30. now for not. Pag. 213. L. 26. quilting for questing. Pag. 214. L. 9 infirm sore assured. Pag. 220. L. 28. preach for reproach. Pag. 220. L. 44. subordination sore subordinate. Pag. 221. L. 24. after poisoned read Silvester & the whole Church. Pag. 224. L. 19 deal him. Pag. 228. L. 32. crumb for crim. Pag. 229. L. 34. convictions for convertions. Pag. 230. L. 15. is for a King, instead of, by Parliament. Pag. 236. L. 14. expect for except. Pag. 262. L. 15. Fleta for Cleta.