king seated behind curtain, with figure with a puppet behind him  
The Curtain's drawn, all may perceive the plot:  
And easily see what you( my friend) have got.  
Presumptuous coxcomb th'art, that thus wouldst fain,  
Murder the issue of the Kings own brain.  
If in the essence and the name of King,  
Their is Divinity: know then, you bring.  
That which conduceth to the Kings own praise,  
As much, as Crown's of Gold, or wreath's of bays.  
Though as a King 〈◇〉 actions he did shine,  
Yet in his writings he may he Divine.  
Do not then say one skips into his throne;  
The doctor and the King may both be one.   

ΕΙΚΩΝ Ἡ ΠΙΣΤΗ. OR, The faithful portraiture of a loyal Subject, in Vindication OF ΕΙΚῺΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΉ.  
Otherwise entitled, THE portraiture Of His SACRED majesty, IN HIS SOLITUDES& SUFFERINGS. In Answer to an insolent Book, entitled ΕΙΚΩΝ ΑΛΗΘΙΝΗ: whereby occasion is taken, to handle all the controverted points relating to these times.  
Talluntur in altum;  
Ut lapsu graviore ruunt.  Eccles. 4. 1, 2. 
So I considered all the oppressions that are done under the Sun, and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter: and on the side of their oppressors there was power: but they had no comforter.  
Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead, more then the living which are yet alive.  Eccles. 5. 8. 
If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent pervertine of judgement and justice in a Province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher then the highest, regardeth, and there be higher then they.  
Printed in the Year, M. DC. XLIX.   

To all that love and honour the memory of CHARLES the First.  
loyal Sir,  
I Know thy heart beats an alarm to all the parts of thy little world, to see the enemy charge the Dead King, within the trenches of His grave, and to give no quarter to his Genius; twice butted is too much: His Body in the Grave, and His Honour in the Dust: is it not enongh that so rare a temple should be destroyed, but that all his thoughts must perish? but I undervalue the Sun too much, to think it can be prejudiced by such a fog; and should think myself guilty of the same fault, in proving the sun-shine, by the light of my candle; but that my boldness takes a princes clothes( thrown into the dust) need to be brushed as well as other mens: Envies battery thrown up with spades and shovels, may be so provided with the loaden, and wide mouthed artillery of detraction, that in time,( though we can perceive( for the present) nothing but flashes, smoke, and noise) it may level the high built, and stately palaces of famed, which were erected by the trowell and the line, if there be no sallies made, and no relief. Princes shrines, though never so precious, may have rusty bars to stave off bold, and forward hands, from sullying such a portraiture: if these my lines, may serve for such an use, to this {αβγδ}: I ask no more.  
Farewell,   

The Author to the Confuter, upon his {αβγδ}.  
POor spir'ted man, doth thy name seek out holes,  
When thy cause Preached stands on both the poles?  
Thou silly Gosse-hauke: dost thou( hooded) prey  
On Jupiter's dead bide? thou shouldst obey  
And reverence, each feather of his wing,  
And not have peck'd the bide, that was thy King.  
Are thy great Patrons grown so mighty things,  
And all thy Senators so many Kings?  
Are all your officers( who did us beat)  
Hectors, and Caesars, Allexander● Great?  
Is your great Army both( as you do vaunt)  
The Church ●●iumphant, and the Militant?  
And darest not ownethy name? what hast thou done?  
Shot at the mani'th' Moon, and hit the Sun?  
What dost thou mean to stand behind the noon  
And pluck bright honour from the pale faced Moon?  
Either thou fearest that all the Birds i'th' skies  
Will fly upon thee, and pluck out thine eyes:  
Or else thou fearest no credit's to be had,  
By such a subject: and thy cause is bad.  
Why didst not tell his name? say, here's the man,  
Lo there he is, deny him if you can:  
'tis Doc●or such a one: and lives hard by;  
Oh, such a one night say, it is not I:  
Wherefore to save yourself from all that blame,  
The Doctor, and yourself, must have no name.   


{αβγδ}.  
monsieur du Moulin( that great pillar of the Reformed Church of France) in his Reply to monsieur du Balsack, in one of his Letters, which taxeth the Protestants there, with disloyalty towards their sovereign; in detestation of so high a crime, and disavowment of the guilt, breaks out into this language: Let him who refuseth to obey his sovereign, and to and regulated by his authority, be with me in the same execration with the violators of Tombs; not only hereby accounting Rebellion the worst of evils, but also the violation of M●numents, a thing most execrable.  
What would he have said if he should have seen the Monuments of so many Kings and Princes, fathers and founders of the same Churches, wherein their several tombs were erected, broken and cast down, their graves searched, their ashes sifted, their bones lye scattered upon the graves, whill● covetous hands search for treasure in the tombs of the Dead, would he not say that these were execrable villainies?  
What would he say, if he should behold men so malicious to the dead, as to pick, and wash and scrape away the balm, out of the embalmed, that the bodies might stink and rot the sooner( envying their preservation above ground) would he not stand amazed at such deeds as those, and unparalleled insolence?  
What if he should see the pious works of Princes( which were left behind them, as embalments of their memorles) blasted with the breath of envy and detraction? what if he should see such monuments as these cast down, and on their ruins, fires made to burn all the scutcheons, Penons and royal ensigns, which the heralds of famed( as a just merit and deuce belonging to them) have placed directly over them; would he not be to seek for names suitable to villainies of so high a nature? no name but his who is guilty of all this can be bad enough.  
Had he been a disputant, and had intended to have gone about the confutation of this Book its being the Kings, he would have known it to be agreeable to the rules of reason, either to have produced the Author of it, to have taken the proof upon himself; or else he would have denied it to have been the Kings Book, and so put the proof upon some other; when a hundred and three Books are not able to prove one negative, he labours to disprove apositive, by a negative, of a hundred and three pages. But ● perceive he means to wave all the old ways of arguing, and rules of logic, as so many antiquated cobwebs, made by a company of venomous spiders, to catch flies; and to betake himself to a new way of ordering mens minds, according to the new cut of the Turkish Alcharon, for Ma●omet and he agrees both in the same maxim, In nomine Domini in●pit omne malum, so Ma●omet begins his A●charon in the name of the merciful and wise God, so the confuter brings at the beginning of all his Book, the great God to witness his Innocency.  
Who can after this believe otherwise, but that he( good man) intends not to trample upon the dead, or to dishonour his dust, or to reproach the l●te King: but he doth it to vindicate Him from those foul aspersions which others have cast upon him, and wipe away the dirt that others have thrown upon His grave; Readers, I pray remember this when you come to the ninth Chapter, where you shall find how apparent it is that his love to the Dead King, is no otherwise, then the love wherewith the Ravens show their affections to the slain, when they pick out their eyes after death.  
The confuter had not entred four lines into this Book, but he tells us, that it was well done: So Mahomet in the beginning of his Alcharon, tells us; That there is no error in all that B●ok, though all the book be nothing but an error. My masters these be new faculties of persuasion, and ways of argument.  
If you will pardon the plainness, I will present you with a story.  
There was a plain honest man and a good Gamester, who happened to fall into the hands of some notorious cheaters, in playing at Tables: the honest man being over watched having much the better of the set, fell asleep, which the cheat that played with him, taking advantage of, turned the Tables, and calling to some of his B●lbo blades, wished them to stand by him and justify what he had done, and thereupon called upon sleeping honesty to play his game, honesty awakes, and looks about him, and cries out the black men are none of his; all with open mouths, drawn swords, and furious countenances tell him, that the black men are his, and that the white-men are the others, whereat the honest man looking about him,& seeing those who went about to rectify the business, and take his part killed and beaten,  told them they might take his money and life, as they had done the lives of others, who were his friends: but he would not play out the game, because the men were false, and not rightly placed, whereupon they took an occasion to quarrel with him, because he would not play out his game and slay him, whom they had determined to murder. I will not mistrust the Readers wisdom so much, as to make an Application hereof, otherwise then as far as it concerns the Author of this confutation of the Kings Book: he means to get the victory by turning the two Tables, viz. by calling good evil, and evil good; that the Author hath done so already I need no greater argument then this, at the entrance of his book, he says, that what he hath written therein is well done, and those who speak evil against it are wicked men: thus the black men are become white, and the white black.  
The next thing we meet with in the entry of this book, is, with a very strong engagement of his pen, and that was necessity, not any the least malice or ill will, which the Author bare to the Dead King: truly, there is no better way, herein to confute this man, then to believe him; he was necessitated thereunto. I do believe he wished the King no hurt, and had no ill opinion of Him, no more then those, who thought His Majesty wise, valiant, patient, chast, temperate, meek, naturally good, and sweetly disposed, and yet were necessiated to cut off His Head: necessity hath no law, why should they think themselves bound with any green withes or new ropes? what should they do but break their bonds, and cast away their cords from them? Salus populi Suprema lex, there is a necessity that the people should be preserved, they think it necessary to preserve the people after such a manner( of which necessity they are judges themselves) viz. not onely like the Philistines in cutting off the hair, but also the head of him, in whom was reposed our chiefest strength, in putting out the light of Israel( as the Philistines the eyes of samson) in sending for our samson out of the Prison( to make their Lordships sport at the Treaty house) placing Him so between the two pillars( of the Presbyterian and Independent faction) which bare up the House of Parliament, so that when bowing himself in death, he so shook these pillars, that the House fel upon the Lords, and upon all the people, Judges 16. 30.  
These things they were necessitated unto, the Philistines must not suffer Sampsons hair to grow, they must cut it off, there was a necessity in it, so there was a necessity in the Author, of scratching out these Meditations out of the Kings head, through the holes of his eyes, for it is impossible but that the King was admirably good, if we red him in that Book, therefore there is a necessity that the Book should be none of his, and ubi aliud swadit necessitas ibi cessant humanae leges num nothetae, there is no talk where there is a necessity, otherwise the Author might have informed himself of divers, who have seen the Original Copy, Manuscrib'd by the King himself, he might have seen it himself for asking, he might have heard thousands who would have taken their oaths upon it, and thousands who would have justify it with their lives, he might have observed as much as all the world observed, that it was the Kings own by the sovereign style; style; which was unimmitable, which was as easy to be known from other stiles, as was his face from other mens, it being impossible that either face or style, could counterfeit the Majesty of either; but necessity must be obeied, and the people( if possible) must not believe that that was the Kings work, lest they too well love his memory, and superstitiously adore his relics.  
You say there is a forger of the Kings Book, I ask you where is he? where is his Forge? where is his anvil? if you cannot tell me, you are all three.  
You say some one discharges at you, you interpose a shield, the shot glancing kills a t●i ●d person, you are no homicides, are His Majesties Meditations in His Soli udes and Su●erings discharges made at you? what need you hold up a shield? or how can a shot glance upon it, and kill a third person, when the muzzle of the piece is directed( in its going off) towards the bosom of the presenter? you do disputare ex non concessis, you do supponere quod non est suppo●endum. I do not allow that a Doctor made the Kings Book, you are to prove it; why did you not? why did not the hand that drew the curtain lay hold on him? I take it to be the Kings Book, I am sure of it; I knew his hand; I have seen the Manuscript; I have heard him own it; the world believes it; what do you say? There was a man within a mile of an ●ake, I name no body that made the Book, thats all; is this a sufficient ground for a living dog to trample upon a dead Lion? was there ever such a business made, as this fellow makes upon the Title? here he makes the King Sac●ed, there a Sufferer, here he kisses, there he betrays, here he embraces, there he stabs; It Sacred and Suffering could not stand together, Christ had ne're been Crucified, enough for that.  
We are much beholding to you for your good opinion of the late Kings modesty, and ●or your freeing of him from vanity and and arrogancy in in●ituling himself Sacred, of which you believe he would not be guilty. Thus you would take away the whole Chapter, by supposing the Contents to be none of the Authors; but to the Answer of.   

1. Upon His Majesties calling this last Parliament.  
THe late King was overcome by importunity, seduced by evil council, or perhaps, &c. would not keep faith with the Scots, &c. proclaims a second War with them, a man of no conscience: So that the Parliament of England could have no assurance in him. The late King had no cause to prise the safety of such Cou●cellers before the welfare of three kingdoms: The Parliament had just cause to endeavour to bring such men to just punishment, &c. The Parliament had just ground not to trust the King, whereupon the Scots enter England, the English Army would not fight, which should have made the late King refl●ct up●n himself, &c. which discovers the base degeneratenesse of some, &c. evidences our so●●tish esse by nature, &c. The late King c●uld neither force the Scots, nor pay his own Army, fell to pilling and polling his Subjects, that he leaves it to the world to judge, whether t●e necessity of the Kings affairs, or his own choice and in●lination call a parliament: Ergo, ex his concessis, The Book was not the Kings but a Doctors; a very pretty argument.  
First, because it makes the King act contrary to his knowledge.  
Secondly, because it renders the King a false hypocri●e.  
Thirdly, because none can be so sottish as to believe that the King would venture his reputation in so rotten a vessel as was sure to suffer shipwreck, &c To which I shall only answer you in answering his character by giving you a account of the man.  
First, He is a malicious Knave, in making the world a Judge whether it was the necessity of the Kings affairs, or his own inclination, which caused the late King to call the Parliament, when the Book saith, that both moved the King thereunto. In conjugatis non ●ufficit alterutrum, It sufficeth not that in copulatives we take one and leave the other, much less to set the one against the other; it is not impossible but that the King may be very well inclined to make choice of that which was agreeable to the constitutions of his affairs.  
Secondly, he is a notorious fool to seek for consequences out of such non sequitur's.  
Viz. That such a one as he would make the late King in this very Chapter, ( A Man seduced by evil counsel, a breaker of his royal word, unstable in his Actions, a Man of no Conscience, blemished in his reputation, not to be believed by any, a Man whom no tie would hold, a Man whose royal word given in the sight of God and man, was no engagement) should be villainously dishonoured by having fathered upon him a Book of so Pious Meditations, and Heavenly Prayers.  
Viz. In taking it for granted, that a King that had done all this, could not act contrary to his own knowledge; and thereupon concludes, it must needs be the Book of some Doctor of Divinity, because a man with all these faults could not have so little conscience.  
Viz. In denying, First, the probability of such a one his being a Hypocrite: Secondly, a possibility that a King( so wicked as he would have Him to be) should act diametrically opposite to virtues pattern, or own apparent falshoods: Ergo, it was some Doctor of Divinity, or other, that took away the very basis of the late Kings Credit, by his knavery and folly. Are not these fine claws for Children to scratch their grandam out of her Grave? Was there ever heard of such a notorious fool, as to tell us the story of Tiberius the pernicious Tyrant,( who could speak so well in the Senate, when he intended the murder of some of the Senators, who could say well and do wickedly) and afterwards to make King charles as bad as he, a Tyrant, a Murderer, and a Dissembler; and then to conclude this Book to be none of the Kings, because it was so godly: Why might not charles, as well as Tiberius, sail against the wind of his words? Why might he not say well and do wickedly? After that you have made him such a one, can none but a Doctor of Divinity be so bad? Oportet mendacem esse memorem.  
Was there ever known such a venomous creature, to suck poison out of the same flowers that all the Bees resort for honey? In making the brave style which he saith is in the Kings Book, an argument that it is none of his, because it would be a disgrace unto him? as rendering him a man rather studing how to writ, then h●w to act, a very dangerous man, able to deceive: Are Prayers and Meditations such dangerous things, that men may not be trusted who use them?  
Lastly, He tells us, that the Kings style was elaborate, elegant, licked into form, adorned, rhetorical, smooth, flowing, they were not bubblines of d●votion, abrupt ejaculations, broken with Jobs, and therfore not the Kings, but a shane to him that they should be fathered upon him: Are not these fine fasting-days to pick the brains out of a dead mans skull? Was it not enough to take away his Life, Crown and Dignity, sell his Houses, Lands and Goods, undo his Wife, Children and Friends, tear down his Effigies, Arms and Statues, but you must throw dirt upon his Grave, Blots upon his Writings, blast his famed, poison his Memory that is so precious with all good men, by such poor practices as these denying him to be the Author of his own work? which will be as impossible for you to make the world believe any such thing( as that a Doctor, I know not who, should make a Book, I know not when, and leave it, I know not where, and thereupon to suppress the Kings right to the Book) as it is possible for you to suppress the Sun: The Book stands in the midst of a firmament of loyal hearts, above your reach; contrary winds may blow, but they cannot divert the beams of this Suns reflection from beating upon the hearts of the people. Now to the next Chapter.   

2. Upon the Earl of Strafford's death.  
FOr your language bestowed upon the Earl of Strafford his sentence justifiablenesse, you should have done well to have pleaded against him at his trial, for there you would have got a great deal more credit then you are likely to get by this Book of yours, there you should have purchased immortal honour in doing more then all the Lawyers and best Orators in England could do; they could not condemn him by any Law, but such a Law as was subsequent to the act: And whereas you object unto this Earl, his leaping over ●●e●ed●es ●f the Law, I must tell you Sir, that had not the Parliament to E●gland lea●'d the ●edges of the Laws of England at this ti●e, Strafford had easily leaped over the Parliament Bar you talk of. For your impudence in telling us, that no Malefactor ever died less lamented then Strafford, and that three whole Kingdoms were his accusers: To the first, I must call the tears to witness, that were sh●d at his execution by those who did not go to Tower Hill with an intent to p●rform any such Obs●quies as funeral tears. And for the three Kingdoms you speak of, that were his accusers, I believe you mean they were so his accusers, as this Kingdom was the accuser of the late King; that is to say, some there was that said so, and that was enough.  
The justice or injustice of Straffords death were as impertinent for me to dispute by way of answer, as it was in you by way of argument: for what if he deserved never so highly to die? what is that to the Kings Conscience, if he did not think so? The King might very well lament a concession to any thing that was contrary to his own Conscience, yet is not bound to be sensible of those things which are in your judgement greater faults( if it were granted he were guilty of those things you take for granted) You shall never persuade any man to lay a plaster to his arm, who is sensible of the wound its being in his head: If the Kings Conscience was wounded concerning the business of Strafford, he must apply the plaster to that wound, and not be judged by your sense, for no man feels a wound but he that hath it: If that be a Block to him, that seems a Straw to y●u, or contra; a third man must be Judge whose eyes are in fault.  
That the King should( notwithstanding his assent to Straffords death) scruple some things, as you say, of lower consequence, as the signing some bills, which to you may seem no more then punciilios: Yet it is no wonder that the Kings Conscience( before) wounded with his concession to Straffords death, be so tender as not to endure a second touch, Except you wonder that the King was not, as many are, given over to a reprobate sense, ●ver shoes, over boots: and for your Verses at the latter end of your Chapter, take these. 
Hel's but the lower Court you say, and well:  
Is yours the upper then? the higher hell?  
You do out devil all the Devils there,  
The upper House of Devils you appear.  
Yet no intelligence can thence be known,  
Unlesse you sand a Member of your own.  
He'll bring you word, no Canterburie's there,  
No loyal Roalist, no Cavalier.  
Hels Commons I believe vote one and all,  
The upper House of Hell( that's you) must fall;  
And every Member of your House must sit  
In Plut●'s Parliament, and Vote with it:  
Your upper House received its fall from you  
From Hell( your lower House) your fal's as due.    

3. Upon His Majesties going to the House of Commons.  
BY this walk all wise men conjectured the King intended to March( you never knew an Army March at the rate the Kings walked) and perceived that He would either how or break the Parliament: and why? because he came thither with his ordinary Guard, to demand such men in person( to be answerable by Law) as he could not obtain by his Herald at arms?( being that all men know the Law allows no Parliament-man privileges of exemption from the charge of Treason) because when he could not have them, he went quietly away without them? or because when he might have done a great deal of mischief he did no hurt? Lex terrae will tell you that this House of Commons( into which the King thus came) was no part of the Parliament, and therefore there could be no infringements of any Parliamentary privileges; if so, I see no reason why the King might not go into the House of Commons in what posture he pleases, as well as to any common house whatsoever. Quid peccavi aut commerai in ea re mi pater, here is a great deal of cry but little wool; much blame but little reason: It raised a flamme indeed; the King endeavoured to quench it, it would not do, who can help it? what of all this?  
Now he comes to show how the forger wrongs the late King( alas good man how tender he is of the Kings suffering the least wrong) and how is that?  
T●e late King missed but a little to have produced some writings, by which the unlawful c●rrespondencies of some Members would have been discovered. This you ●ay makes it appear that the Book was none of the Kings, for he being a wise man, would have specified his grounds and motives, knowing the distrust upon him to be so great, that they would not believe his bare saying; what if the King thought no such matter? what if he did not believe they did distrust him? what if he thought they would take the word of a King for a sufficient assurance? is it impossible for a man to have such a good opinion of himself? you must not be opponent, respondent moderator, and all; the King might produce no other testimony, and yet be Author of the Book: if this be an exception it is to the Book, it cannot be to the Books being the Kings: for the King might writ as well as other men, things to which exceptions may be taken: no man believes that the holy Ghost guided his pen, so that he could not writ a miss, what is it that you would have then? would you have it to be a foolish Book? a proud, vainglorious, lying, false and scandalous Pamphlet? howsoever let it be the Kings, and I will trust the Book in any mans hands in the whole world but yours; let the Moon have never so many spots, yet let it be the Moon: it may be those that you think spots in the Moon, may be another world for ought you know.  
You will not believe the number of his( then) followers to be short of his ordinary Guard: bold and false is either His majesty or Doctor Faustus, and why? because May saith so in his History; if there be no difference between May and majesty then so you shall have it, I pray take it, tis all your own.  
He will not have it for the Kings honour, this saying in the Kings Book, viz. The●e men were looked upon by the affrighted vulgar, as greater protectors of their Laws and Liberties, then the late King, and so worthier their protection: hereupon he infers it was the Kings fault, his evil government, and that they did not fright the vulgar;( except with Danes, or Horses under grund, or Lunsford eating up their children) but what made my confutor to leave out the word then, surely he was afraid that if he put in the word then; it might be answered with the word now, and that if a body should ask him how do you now Sir? he should have but little to say; do you think they have not been worse frighted since? not only the vulgar, but the Lords, not only the Lords, but the Commons, not only some of the Commons, but the House itself: not only with a fit of an Ague, but with any act of dissolution for ever, like the evil which God brought upon Jeroboam( who Rebelled against his Lord and Master) in cutting them off, as God cut off from Jeroboam, him that pisseth against the wall, as well him that is shut up, as him that is left, and will sweep away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweepeth away dung, until it be all gon, 1 Kings 14. 10.  
Then the people looked upon them as their greater protectors of their Laws and Liberties: but what do they do now? now is now and then was then.  
The confuter offers to prove that it was the King that frighted the vulgar by his own confession, viz. It filled indifferent men with jealousies and fears, yea, and many of the late Kings friends, resented it as a motion rising rather from passion then reason: What did do this? was it not the Kings going to the House of Commons? what is this to the Kings going to the House of Commons so guarded for fear of the before frighted vulgar, that he durst not go without a Guard? besides, the King in his confession doth not say that what he did had reason to fill their mind with jealousies: but that it did so, or that many of his friends resented it was a motion rising from passion rather then reason: but he doth not tell you that they had cause to think so; if I complain of my friends too aptness to take offences at some of my actions, I do no● thereby confess myself to be guilty, but that friends were offended; but what if this were a real confession of his fault, must it not therefore be the Kings Book? because none can imagine the King would have been so sottish? If it were true that the King had made confession of this fault, were not the greatest Saints of God the re●orders of their own sins, and their own shane? how easily would this man have made King Davids Psalms none of his.  
Suppose the King had mis-governed His kingdom never so much, he sees his fault, calls a Parliament, was willing to mend what was a miss: granted more then all the Kings of England ever granted: more then any man in England ever thought he would: so much, that thousands would heretofore have thought it well, if he had but granted half so much: and confirms it; first, with a triennial, and then a perpetual Parliament, left every man to the justice of the Law, for any Delinquents whatsoever; what would you have more? O but he gave Windebanke and Finch, &c. their Passes to go beyond Sea; would you have him do otherwise? did he grant them any Passes after the time that any were questioned? my servant comes to me, and tells me he is in danger of his life, bids him for Gods sake to let him go, will you have me shut the door upon him? or detain him until his vowed enemies lay hands upon him? if the King stood not between them and justice, the King was as good as his word, although he hindered them not from making their escape; he is your King and not your Sergeant, their very running away justifies the King, that he intended not to prot●ct them, for otherwise they would have stayed.  
For the many jeers and affronts put upon the King and Queen, with your mere being the better Hor●e, and many other indignities which I now pass over: I shall only remember you of a place of Scripture, Thou shalt not revile the ●ods, nor speak evil of the Rulers of the people: The high Priests causing Saint Paul to be smitten on the check, contrary to the Law, was no warrant for Saint Paul, to call( though but) the high Priest, painted wall, for notwithstanding that, he eat his words, and so may you.   

4. Upon the Insolency of the Tumults.  
THe things which he calls Tumults, were but companies of Petitioners, which the Parliament could not have forbid, without apparent breach of the people freed●me: Very good, very good, very good I pray what were the things which came from Essex, and Surry? were they Petitioners or Tumults? If they were Petitioners, why did you beat them, cut them, kill them? that would be an apparent breach of the peoples freedom: if they were Tumults, so were these: and the one no less intolerable then the other.  
The Confuter will not allow, that it was an ominous presage of following mischief, he cannot discern it; now Sir, I will lend you a pair of Spectacles: those Tumults against the King were ominous to those ( things which I am sure you then called) Tumults against the Parliament were omnio●s, to those Tumults within the City; those Tumults within the City were ominous, to the coming up of the Army: the coming up of the Army was so ominouus to the Parliament, as to make it purge: that purging is so ominous to the body politic,( purging out its own entrails) that there is little hope of life, I hope you are satisfied.  
The Confuter quarrels at the Book for saying, that these Tumults like an Earthquake shook the foundations of all. If the Church afterwards fell: the Throne broke: the House of Lords came down: if it shook whole families out of their houses: the mayor of London out of his place: Aldermen into the Tower: the Commoncouncell-men out of their wits: the money out of their purses: and the chains off their posts: and if all you were asleep, and and did not perceive it: will you not believe when you see all this, that there was an Earthquake that shook all? what is there left unshaken? are your gabs whole? is your cash heaped? are your privileges entire? is your freedom safe? have you any property? is any thing your own? is not the public saith itself come down? is it not brought from a noble to nine pence? and was not these things called Tumults ominous?  
The Confuter boggles at it, that the Book should say, The confluence, and clamours of the vulgar, passed all boundaries of Laws, and reverence to Authority: and the reason is, because he takes the bounds of the Law to be White-Hall, and the Kings will, the only Authority. I do not conceive how White-Hall was the bounds of the Law in the Kings time, but I am sure it bounds it now, and he may talk what he please, of the Kings will: but I am sure we lived better under King Will, then we do under King Tom.  
Here he comes off a little, and tells us, that in such a number, it is no wonder if some were uncivil: but then he takes it off again, with the King and his followers unruly deportment in the House of Commons and so quits scores: calling the King the Head of that Tumult; as if a King( within his own Dominions) could be the Head of a Tumult, which is as good sense, as if he should say, a man was a monster, because he had a head upon his shoulders.  
For your calling the King a Pisistratus, a Tyrant, swaying all thin●s by his own a●solute will. I will only confute you with the peoples tears,  shed in a sufficient abundance, to drown all his enemies; there was never any King( much less a Tyrant) that was so lamented as he, God forgive you; you have most need to ask it your self, for those tears are bottle● up, and will one day be poured out upon the heads of those, who had not wa●●r in their eyes, when such a Prince was put to death, who deserved so much to live and be beloved.  
Next, the Confuter wonders the Book should bring in the King complaining, There could never any order be obtained impartially to examine, cen●ure and punish the known Boutefeus, and impudent Incendiaries: And this he thinks to make good, by turning these complants upon the King and his Party, Who should have been wiser( he says) and so he brings in the King Commending their courage( of his Courtiers) zeal and industry, which to sober men could seem no better then that of the Devil, who goes about seeking whom he may devour. Which puts me in mind of a pretty conceit I once heard of a plain Country woman, who had a son whom she conceived to be somewhat simplo, who falling upon his head, there was cause enough for the chirurgeon to tell her, that her sons brains were turned; at which she seemed not a little to be overjoyed, saying, it may be it will do him a great deal of good, for my son was very simple before, now his brains be turned, I hope he may prove a wise man: So your falling upon your Head( the King) makes you think the world turns round, when it is only your brain that is turned with the fall from your obedience: for the world( if you take it for the mayor part of men) stands still in their wonted posture of obedience, and loyal respects: though you think otherwise: the chime clinketh, and the bell tincketh, as the fool thinketh.  
And for your so reverend observation of the Justice of God, that the Kings blood should be spilled in the same place where the Courtiers slashed the roundheads from Whitehall, you show yourself a very audacious Bithshemite, in prying so narrowly into the Ark of Gods secret judgments; you should not come nearer to the high Mount of his secrets, then to the limits of his prefiction, and you climb the Mountains top, and are higher then ever Moses was; and come up so near, that you will search the bosom of the Almighty. Can any man but blushy for you, that you should thus judge, when you know the King neither did any such thing, nor was there, and for ought you know, knew not of any such thing, until it was done? and if he had done it himself, with his own Sword, in his own Hand, were it not a bold judgement given, that the Kings Life-Bloud should be let out out of all the parts of his Body, as a just judgement, for a few drops drawn from a Prickear or two?  
For your dis-allowing the Kings Reasons for his departure, because no Declarations could be heard, and your undervaluing the justness of the Bishops Protestation, I must tell you, the Bishops had as much right to sit there, as any Subject had to enjoy his own, or any Parliament men their privileges: but when these Bishops were thrown into the Thames, had Brick-bracks thrown upon their heads, were shouldered up and down the Hall, and their heads knocked against the wall, I believe no unbiased men but will say, they had reason to protest as they did: and if it was found to be treason, I wonder how they found so much favour to be freed out of the Tower, and nothing said to them: little did the Lords temporal think, when the Bishops were expelled the House, that they did but usher their Lordships down the stairs.  
For your shameless assertion, that no attempt was ever made, nor any affront offered by these Tumultuaries, whereby there was no such prostitution of the Majestis of the late Kings Place or Person, of the safety of his Wife and Children, to be imagined: I know not what grounds you have to be so confident; but I can answer you in your own words, that this I can truly and confidently aver, that I heard them say, a little before they were slashed from the Court Gate, That if the King would not do as he ought to do, they would take the Crown from off his Head, and put it upon the head of him that should.  
For your next exception, viz. That if the Parliament had sate free and full, the late King was resolved to hear reason in all things, and to consent to it so far as he could comprehend it: Concerning which objection, as you refer me to precedent Evidences, so I refer you to precedent Answers, only take my opinion by the way, I am confident there is not an Englishman( that hath not a Sword in his hand, a bishopric in his pocket, or a Dean and Chapter in his eye, or otherwise interested in the Cause) that is not of that opinion.  
For your cavil at the Kings proneness sometimes to think, that had he called the last Parliament to some other place, the sad consequences in all likelihood, with Gods blessing, might have been prevented; and especially at the word, sometimes, which troubles you so much; methinks the Man in the Moon hath helped you to a good reason: for as the overtures of your lunatic loyalty seemed to be in the Full or Wain of the Moon, according to the ebbings and flowings of the hopes you still gave unto His late majesty, and took away again in your Addresses and Non-Addresses, so he sometimes thought( and s●metimes was out of conceit) that the Parliament had been better called to any other place then to Westminster.  
As t● your taking notice of the Kings calling the( thing called a) Parliament at Oxford, a sorrel Parliament, I believe he might very well 〈◇〉 so, and so might you yours at Westminster; for had those at Oxford been all true to the King, or had you at Westminster been all true amongst yourselves, the War had not lasted one year to an end: but there were some about the King, who feared nothing more, then that the King should come in by conquest; and there were some in Westminster, who feared nothing more, then that they should be conquerors; whose fears after events have as much justified, as consequences have condemned the others folly: However I prefer a mongrel before a Changeling; that which is but half right, before that which is altogether none of mine; I had rather have a Child which my Wife should bring me, though by another man, then to have a Changeling brought me by a company of Fai●ies, Elfs and Goblins: yet there is a remedy to be used against this latter mischief, it is but using this Changeling ill, and making it cry, and we shall have our own Child again: so much for your mongrel.  
Now for your last exception to the Kings saying, That a Parliament would be welcome in any place, or rather concession; for you tell us, That it was sure enough, because in all places the people wanted one so much, and that is sure enough: And I will tell you what is sure enough besides, the people murmured for a Parliament too much, and they had one too soon, a Parliament with a vengeance; the Israelites murmured after a King, and God gave them a King in his anger; and we murmured for a Parliament, that shows us sufficiently that God was no less displeased.  
You ●ell us, how much you made of it at Westminster; your fondness was not little indeed, no less then that wherewith the Apes show their affections to their young ones, when hug them to death; Thus it could never have received better entertainment; you are welcome Gentlemen, is all paid in the Kings Head?  
Lastly, His observation in the close of all the Chapter, is worth all the rest, for he saith, That by the forecited Letter( wherein the King calls the Oxford Parliament a mongrel Parliament) we may easily see that the late King could not endure a Parliament, which is as good sense, as if a man should conclude, that because I call such a one my base son, therefore I cannot endure any of my children lawfuly begotten: now for the sting in the tail, like a true Orator: Therefore in all probability the King was not the Author of this Book; the Answer to which words, I refer to the beginning of the next Chapter.   

5. Upon His Majesties passing the Bill for the triennial Parliaments, and after settling this during the pleasure of the two Houses.  
HEre you say, That the Author intended this Chapter for his masterpiece: I hope you do not intend this for yours? for no man but you, would have run your discretion upon such a hazard, as you have done, in the beginning of this chapter; for you gave the King the lye, you call him knave and juggler, besides: is this fitting? O but you say you do not call the King so but the Doctor; take heed, you do not know how the Doctor laughs in his sleeve at this; did you not say in the latter end of the last Chapter, that in all probability this Book may be none of the Kings, and do you call a man a knave, and juggler, before you are certain whether it were the Kings or no? especially when so many tell you it is the Kings; especially when so many owns him to be the King; especially when we have nothing but probability and may be's to gain-say it: that which may be, may not be: Hadst thou but done with his Book, as the Regicides did with his Body, brought it to the bar of Reason, and there arrign'd it of high nonsense, as charles Srewart King of England his Book; though thou hadst as little to say to it, as they to him, and wert as much afraid of his reasons as they of his; yet thou hadst d●ne bravely But to sneak behind a Doctor, and through his sides to wound a King( already Dead) through the heart of his good name: I neither can speak what I imagine, nor imagine what I should speak; but leave the world to be thy judge, and thine own conscience thine accuser.  
I perceive you mean to undervalue the goodness of His Majesties Concessions, by the forcement of his necessity; who is that that was so necessitated? the King? why not the kingdom as well as He? He was but one man, and His Wife and Children but so many: He was never so necessitated, but that He could maintain Himself and Them; what if He had not wherewithal to maintain a royal navy at Sea, a● He always did? what if He had not wherewithal to maintain his Garrisons upon the Sea cost? so that the kingdoms enemies were masters of the Narrow Seas and three Lands: who would have the greatest less, the King of those three kingdoms, or the kingdoms, that had but one King over them, to bear his share in all that loss? what if the King had let the Scots advance as far as the English would have suffered them, and stayed until the English had been weary of their company( which would have been soon enough) and permitted them to have broken down some of His park pales, and to kill His dear, or done Him some such spoil; what had that been to their devouring the fat of the soil? this Army that now sits so heavy, not only upon the skirts of England, but also upon its full body, pressing it to death; is the very same Scotch Army that then was, only the property altered; therefore it is the greatest nonsense in the world, to talk of the Kings necessities, and serving His own turn, when God knows He serves but theirs, when He serves His own; This puts me in mind of a Fable, between the Belly and the Members of the Body; the discontented Members rise in Rebellion, and their discontents were these, and thus they spake them; the eyes complained that they were fain to look out here and there, this way and that way, for this, and for that, and all went to the Belly; the ears complained that they were fain to harken out for provision, and all for the Belly; the nose found fault, I am sure I am fain to try whether it be good or no, and I get nothing for my pains; the feet complained that they were fain to trudge about till they were weary, and all must go to the lazy Belly; the hands they made a most specious complaint, that they were fain to work and labour hard for a competency, and all was put into the Belly; at last, the Belly called a Parliament of the several Members, and commanded his uppermost friend the mouth, and Prolocutor, to give them Reason, which whilst the tongue was doing, the teeth in the head fell at variance amongst themselves, so that some of them fell out of their jaws, some of them were loose in their heads, and the rest gnash'd one against another; at the last the Belly spake himself unto them, and asked them what they would have, they said, they would not have such a useless, unprofitable, and chargeable officer as he was, to reap the benefit of their labours, they would every man enjoy and keep what they could get to themselves; the Belly with much willingness grants their request; they accept it, and put it in execution; the Belly lets them alone while, at last for want of the Bellies wonted returns, the eye begin to look dim, the feet weak, the hands feeble, the ears deaf, &c. then there was as great a complaint on the other side; whereupon they all make their addresses to the Belly, and are contented that he should have his former allowance, which whilst they were about to do, the mouth of the stomach was so closed up that the man died: would you have any more?  
What madness is it then to talk of the Kings necessity? what necessity can He be in? but to sand it, and disperse it about to the use of the Common-wealth, He being no way given to any the least 'vice: That which He spends, English-men purse? and that which He gives, His Subjects have: and the kingdom still enjoys; and therefore for any necessity which was upon Him more then themselves: there is no such necessity of necessities wresting any such Concessions, otherwise then as lead thereunto by His Princely goodness, and peaceable inclination.  
But now to the business, behold at the first drawing of the curtain how the scene is altered: I have shew'd you that in my Frontispiece. First, you fall upon the late Kings actions, and you talk of a violent purge which the late King intended for the Parliament; but what say you to the violent purge the Army did give the Parliament? it may be the Kings would have been but gentle physic to that potion.  
For your charging the late Kings tempting the Scots, endeavouring to bring up the Army, attempting to seize upon the Tower; freeing Strafford, who was to bring over the Irish Army, and to put Jermin into Portsmouth, is not this argument against the hair my masters, to have the Kings Name and famed wounded thus with temptings, attemptings, endeavourings, with was to be's, and about to put's, where there is nothing proved, nothing positive? and if it were, it may be justifiable; and if you allow of may be's, why not either the Scots or the English be as much at the Kings command as any's? why may not the King sand for an Army of Irish, as well as the Parliament for an Army of Scots? why may not the King put Jermin into Portsmouth, as well as the Parliament Hotham into Hull? those objections of yours, are like those Ships which carry more sail then balase, more wind then weight, more vanity then discretion, and can be in no greater danger, then what may be expected from its own levity.  
You might very well be of the Authors mind, that the late King did not imagaine thereby some men would have occasioned more work then they found to do, viz. A new Heaven, and a new Earth, a new Church, a new State, new Lords and new Laws; he thought you only meant to rectify, not multiply errors: reduce the water breaks into their proper channels, not cut so goodly a River, into so many rivulets; to mend the hedge,& dress,& not destroy Christs vineyard; to rectify the abuses that were in( not pluck down) Courts, and set up new ones; little did the Lords think, that the barrels of Powder which they so carefully provided against the Cavaliers, should blow up their own House.  
Alexander the Great was coming into the Allabroges Country with an Army of 60000 men, at his entenance, there met him one of that Country, who was renowned for wisdom, who asked the King wherefore he came thither? the King answered him, to subdue it, and make it my dominion; the wise man ached him what right he had thereto when he purchased it? who left it him? by what will? and what he had to show for it? Alexander shewed him his sword; whereupon the wise man asked him, if he did see justice well executed in his own Country? Alexander  told him, that no Country was like unto his for administration of justice; the wise man asked him again, whether or no it was the custom of his Country to hang up men for Robbing upon the high-way? Alexander  told it was, then said the wise man, I see O Alexander, that thou art but a fool, thou hang'st up poor and petty fellows because they are but a few, and thinkest them worthy of death, and dost thou think thyself not guilty of the same crime, because thou commandest 60000 men? I say unto thee thou art but a great Thief, and they are little ones. So do we think the Gunpunder Treason so heinous a business, that would have blown up Rem, Regem, Regimen, Regionē, Religionē, because this was done but by a few inconsiderable men, and in a clandestine way: and do we think it no Gunpowder Treasons when all this is done before our faces because it is done by an Army of 60000 men.  
These were the works that the King did not imagine some men would have found out more then they had to do, rather then any works which you shamelessly brand the King with cutting out more and more every day, mutato nomine fabula de te.  
You cannot agree to it, that this was an act of the highest confidence, whereby, &c. and why so? because it was an act of the lowest necessity:( I never heard of a low necessity before) but because the King was high in His confidence, you would be low with His necessity; was that it? why should an act of the highest or lowest necessity be an act of less confidence, if I put myself into any bodies hands when I need not, I am a fool: if I am necessitated to repose confidence in some body or other, it is an act of confidence to him in whom I have confided, and it is either higher or lower according as the thing is of consequence that is entrusted; and it is confidence, or no confidence, according as it is in the confiders dispose, or otherwise: as the King could not be necessitated more then they were themselves: so His necessity could not make it an act of no high confidence: If I am pursued by an enemy, I put myself into your hands, shelter myself in you house, pray you to help me with a little money, and I trust into your hands, Jewels of inestimable value; doth this act of necessity make this an act of no confidence? necessity made him to confided, but necessity did not make him confided in you, not so highly; He confided into you hands three kingdoms, Crowns, Thrones and sceptres, Houses, Lands, Goods, Wife and Children, and was not this an act of high confidence because He wanted money.  
Neither will you allow, that it was an act unparalleled by any of the late King's Predecessors; and why so? because some of the former Kings had passed Acts for a Parliament once a year; is the man out of his wits? doth the man know what he saith? the King saith He hath performed to His Parliament an Act of unparalleled confidence, His meaning must have reference then to that Act which was not paralleled, and not to that which was; though the Bill for triennial Parliaments was paralleled by former Kings, yet the Bill for settling this during the pleasure of the two Houses was never paralleled by any. I pray Sir will you take your blushes back again, we have no need of them. I pray will you take away your jeer too, for you see the King old d●nie Himself in a high point I Prerogative, but such than●s m●● u●ua●●y meet withall, when counteries meet with ingratitude. The King denied Himself all power( as they themselves confess He did, in se●ling the Parliament: and yet this fellow saith, it was s●●e denial in the Parliament t● accept it; and why? because they accepted a triennial, when they might have had an annual Parliament: I do not see how any confidence was reposed in the Parliament, by either of these, whilst neither was settled; the King might sooner have wearied the Subject by calling many Parliaments, then impaired His Prerogative, had He not settled any; Henry 8. wearied a Parliament into a concession of money, by swearing( Mother of God) they should sit there, until their Arses stuck to the benches, till they had given Him money: when it lies in the Kings power to break it up when He pleases, they can do Him no hurt; therefore it is not parling, but granting, must do the Subject good; and in granting this to be so established as it was by the late King, he performed an act of highest confidence, and they in abusing it, an act of highest ingratitude.  
You cry, let all the world be judge by the whole course of the late King's reign, whether He thought a CONTINUAL PARLIAMENT, &c. what's this to the purpose? what hath the continual course of His reign to do with His( then) thoughts at the passing of that Bill? it may be He thought otherwise before; is it not likely that a man may have second thoughts? or that those may be best? the King was at a stand it is likely at the passing of the Bill; He considers with Himself; what if I grant them this? they can aim at nothing else but the preservation of the Laws, in their due execution and vigour, that is but tuning the Common-wealth, no putting me out of tune, for my interest lies therein as much as any mans: therefore I will grant them their request; what a great piece of business is here of of pealing to all the world, whether this be agreeable to the whole course of this late King's reign, it need not; nor you to have made any such out-cry.  
The King says it did not soon repent Him of the settling that Act: you say it did; who knows best? the King demanded the key, and the staff, of the Earls of Essix and Holland: Ergo, the King repented that He had past the Bill for settling the Parliament: I do meet with many consequences now and then; but his reason is, because the Earls choose to obey His Writ before His private commands: whether they did so or no, or what His commands were, I cannot tell, but I think I may take away My key, or My staff out of any of My servants hands, without repenting Me of any Acts of Parliament. And for His sending for His servants, where should they be but with their Master? is there any Act of Parliament against it?  
Wherefore( thou bad Genius) It was not more Princely, then friendly contributions, which the late King granted towards the perpetuating of our happiness. And for your slandering the good King with His going about some design or other, at the very time of those grants, which( you say) if they had taken effect, would not only have deprived us of the fruit of those bills, but would have reduced us to a worse condition of confusion, then that wherein the Parliament found us: if a man should ask you what design or other that was, I believe you would be much to seek for an answer that should be satisfactory, you should have done well to have let us known; I never knew a face that deserved never so much to be spit upon, but the man that owned the face, would wipe off the spittle, though he had never a handkerchief in his pocket.  
But now for his making those following arguments( which proves that the late King did not repined at the establishment, and to endeavour by force and open hostility, to undo what by His royal assent he had done) so frivolous.  
He will not admit by any means that it would have argued folly in the King to have granted them such power, if He had intended to have forced them asunder: and why will he not admit this? v. z. because all wise men knew, that the late King knowing that He could not( if they would) have dissolved them, but with apparent danger to Himself, and therefore He did but seem to yield, to make them the more secure, and the people less jealous, &c. why, what would they have done to Him, if He had kept the power in His own hands, to have dissolved the Parliament at His pleasure? they could not have set up a High Court of Justice to cut off His Head: the danger( you see) was in doing as He did: there had been none, or not so much, if He had not done so; feed a bide and he'l shit upon your hand.  
But the Confuter tells us, that the Author confesseth, that the King knew He could not dissolve the Parliament without apparent danger, because he saith, I knew them so well fortified in the love of the the meaner sort, that He could not have given greater advantage against Himself: but will you see some juggling? he leaves out the words both going before, and following alter, that would have disadvantag'd him so much, they being so well fortified with the love of the people; the words going before; viz. He was in no capacity to go to War. the words going behind; viz. then by so un-Princely inconstancy, to have a●●akhed them with arms, thereby to scatter them whom but lately I had solemnly settled by an Act of Parliament; what is this to His legal dissolving the Parliament before it was established by that Act? for your English, Irish and French Armies, you fall short: you have not men enough in your tables, you left out the Danes.  
Behold then, by these plots, the impudence, and impiety of our forger in this assertion: take your words to yourself, they are your own, no body shall have them from you, but what is it that you would say if you could speak? the Author of the Book is an impudent and impious forger, why? he says, God knows the late King longed for nothing more, then that Himself and His Subjects might quietly enjoy the fruits of His many condescendings; truly I believe the late King did so: I do believe they were the Kings own words, I do not think the King was so impudent or impious as you would have us believe; nor that He was a fool, in saying, that in passing that great Bill, He might seem a less pollititian to men: I do not think it was the part of a fool to say either that He was, or seemed to men less politic: All quando bonus dormitat homerus. No man is a fool for confessing his error, but he's a fool that justifies his faults.  
Now for the childs best bit at last, if it were( saith he) a course full of sin as well as of hazard and dishonour for the late King, to go about the cutting up of that by the sword, which He had so lately planted, so much to his Subjects content, and His own too: why hide the late King( he asks) run on in such a course as long as He was able? nay, and justify it to His last breath? to which I answer you, in putting this case unto you; If I hold it a course so full of sin as well as of hazard and dishonour for myself, to go about to cut off such a friend, by my sword, which I had so lately raised to his no small content, and my own too; and this friend abuses my love, robs me, and dishonours me; is there ever a man of honour in the world that would ask me why I would fight him, as long as I was able? and( though worsted) yet justify to to my last breath? he had not the reasons then, which he had afterward: the Remonstrance was not come out: the Militia was not demanded: the Commission to kill and slay was not granted: surely this sentence no way shows that the late King was not the Author of this Book.  
For the last break in your Chapter, where you both agree, you need not differ: but I could wish you by the way to be sparing of diving into mens wils, if the party please, none can tell that but God:& whilst you judge of His charitableness so severely, you condemn your own: but in that which you dare, and may truly add: I am truly for you, and what's that? viz. the King did repent Him of His bargain: truly I dare say so too; but never until He had a just cause given Him; and I dare add that Lex terrae shall tell you, that it was more then the King could do, to make any such grant, and that it was no Parliament ipso facto, and therefore He might very well promise the Queen, that He would put a period to it as soon as He could, He might very well call them, thems of Westminster, the Rebels, and the pretended Houses: Now for the sting again in the tail, his last words concludes thus, viz.  
He seems to repent Him of this act, and so He cannot be Author of a Book that hath such contrary assertion: he would, and he would not, or no contraries if you distinguish the time; the King would have broken the act when He had reason so to do. He would not whilst He had no just cause; I dare say if God had been no more but his King, this man would have proved that God had never been his creator by the same argument that he proves that the King never made His Book. He would have found out that God had repented himself that ever he had made man, and so would have denied him to be his creator.   

6. Upon His Majesties retirement from Westminer.  
HE will not hear of an unwillingness in the King to this; and his reason is, because he said, I will have my Tractors at Guild-Hall: Ergo, He willingly went to York to fetch them; this he will do if I were dead. He believes that few conceive, that the late King was Supreme in ecclesiastical causes: few indeed, who do not believe the Law, nor conceive it to be given him there; fewer that He is accountable to none but G●d in Civill affairs. I never could hear of any scourges on this side Hell to lash Princes: but the bundle of Rods that were carried before these Tribunes of the people.  
But now for a bundle of follies, incongruities, and contradictions in this piece of forgery, folly come forth and appear: Imprimis, Our Author affirms, the late King was driven away for shane, more then fear; you say it might very well be, because the late King could not in reason, justice or piety deny to grant their petitions: clamours you should have said, for justice upon Strafford, which was no otherwise then that he should draw down innocent blood upon his own head( as the late King confessed it to be no otherwise at His Death) as it could be no otherwise, being there was no Law to put him to death, as there was not, because they were fain to make a Law, subsequent to the act; threatenings you should have said: that if they had not justice( as they called it) as many as there were of them at Westminster-Hall then: they would be twice as many at White-Hall the next day, and if the King would not do as He ought to do, they would take the Crown off his Head, and put it upon the head of him that should; bawlings, you should have said, of swearing Lords, who came to the King, swearing, God-dam-me if he did not give the people satisfaction, they would pull him out of his house; do you call these Petitions? and those that were Petitions, what Petitions were they? Petitions for the Lords spiritual to be expulsed from their undoubted rights and privileges of Voting in the House of Peers; Petitions for making themselves perpetual dictators; call you these freedoms? legal and just rights? might not the King in such a case in ingenuity withdraw? I believe out confuter hardly conceived any thought of rendering the late King so ingenious: I believe he will now brush himself to see that the King would not be content to be made a slave: but may very well be ashamed to behold their barbarous rudeness, who resolved they would take the boldness to demand— what? their freedoms, legal and just rights? no, you are deceived, those are none of the Kings words; the words that follow this question of yours out of the Kings Book, are these: any thing, and not leave either myself or the Members of Parliament the liberty of our reason and conscience to deny them any thing.  
And for your cavil at the Kings comparing himself unto one driven by a storm to Sea, unprovided of tackling and victual: and for his affirming that he went away to redeem his Person from violence, likening himself to a man shunning an inundation: and for your appeal to the worlds being judge, whether the sons of reason fly the Seas breaches out of fear of drowning, or shane to see the water so bold: I answer, for shane to see the water so bold; if the waters were His Subjects and had reason; wherefore his similitude in this Chapter holds good as well as with his Declaration, viz. that force and terror was used as two beasts to drive and compel him to assent.  
Behold then the folly and false-hood of our Confuter, contradicting himself so near together, and see whether a Fox fur would not be better then Sables for his worship, truly I rather judge this the sign of the Kings Head, for all the craft of the Fox or the simplicity of the Goose, and would give him good council to rub up his memory in his next legend, for he may be pleased to call to mind the old proveth, oportet mendacem esse memorem.  
The manner of your Petitioning, and the insolence of your Petitioners, left neither liberty of reason, or conscience: it was no intolerable oppression for the Lrods and Commons to be over-voted in the mayor part of their Houses; but you must take all the Kings words with you, viz. when they had used each their own freedom, and they must rest themselves so contented; for as you desire to know what use was there of a Parliament, if the people may neither make known their grievance, nor the mayor part redress them: so I would know if upon the peoples making known their grievance, the mayor part of the Parliament might redress these people of themselves, what use were there of a King? none at all but to receive Subsidies: but I shall be questioned by him for quaerisme, and therefore I will positively declare, that no sober man, or moderate mind, can think the late King passing so many bills, was enough to secure and satisfy all, when the most in Parliament( so many being driven away) desired more, because their unsatisfiednesse was more then the barren womb, the grave, or hell itself: thus all men saw how the royal bounty was degenerated into necessity, and how barbarousts the public acts were opposed, and obstructed by divers plots, and treacherous designs.  
Behold our Confutors face in his fountain: see how he will have all power spring from servile people of the royalty, the channel only wherein their power ran: for your so far, and so forth, for your thoughts and your cannots, your ifs and your hows, your what and your whence, in your 11th and 12th breaks of your non-sens call Queries, putcases and expostulations; I will only hoist up my sail before your wind, and you shall drive me before you to the next argument, only I shall give some answer to the demand, wherein I find some reason, and may happily give some satisfaction: you ask, how can tyranny be kerbed by a Parliament, if it should rest in the power and will of an unadvised King, to choose whether he would be curbed or no? I answer you to this, the King is to be curbed by reason, which reason is struck out of the parley that is between the King and his Parliament-men; but you will say, what if the King will not hear reason? then you must hold your hands and give him nothing for his pains, this is all the curbs that I know of, by the Laws of either God or man; but it may be, new Lords may have new Laws, I can say nothing to that, it may be they may find axes andhammers, fire and sword, to curbs their Princes with, neither did their former Parliaments ever practise any other kerbing, it being the common custom of all Parliaments, to desire the easement of some greivement or other, and they would give the King so many Subsidies, as a compensation of his so much partend with prerogative; if the King would not, here's your dish again, and God thank you was all. William the Conqerour had three Sons, to the one, he left the kingdom of England; to another, he left the dukedom of Normandy; and to the third, he left all his money; this third and youngest Son with his money, wrought both his elder Brothers out of their kingdom and dukedom; England had three States, King, Lords and Commons; to her King, she gave her land: to to her Lords, her countries: and to her Commons, the disposal of her money: this third and youngest Son of England, with two hundred thousand pounds, wrought his two elder Brothers out of their kingdoms, and their Lordships: and now I long for some of your own words again, don't be troubled at my borrowing of them so oft, for I will only do with them, as the man did with his neighbours Oranges; I'll only squeeze them, and give them you again, you shall see if I don't; but the very practise of our tyrannicall tetrarches, may convince us, that there is in some, more then ordinary power in Parliament; or else why should they be joshie, as not to suffer the rest to assemble?  
For your many things, which you say Kings were excluded from, in their prerogative: I answer you with telling you, that I never thought they were( or ought to be) omnipotent: and I ask you, what is this to le Roy savisera? which is their undoubted prerogative, and from which Kings never were excluded, I mean their Negative Voice: from which if you exclude them, you exclude them from the Throne, and deprive them of their judgements, for in matters of Law, your Judges they determine, and as you say( and quote your Authors for it) deprive the King from reversing judgements of inferior Courts in all the series of your recited, instances, in your 15 and 16 breaks: In matters of fact, the Jury deprive him from having any thing to do, now if you will not let him have his own judgement, to judge what Laws the King thinks most convenient for his Subjects good, where is his Throne? how is he King? then he is no more indeed but what Presbyterian Knox and Buchanon would permit their Scotland Kings to be, viz. Proxies and attorneys of the people, See Buch. de jure Regns apud Scotos.  
For your observations upon Magna Charta, I pray you will you take mine along with you; that ancient and fundamental Law( confirmed in at least 60 Parliaments and now torn in pieces by this) was defended in as many battailes by the late King, as ever it was fought against by all his predecessors: but let us come to the particulars, Chap. 19. we shall deny, we shall defer to no man justice or right, but you are not to paraphrase upon this Text, they must be such as are learned in the Law, what say you to Judge Jenkins? you do not like him, well then let us hear what your own Lawyers say to the business, viz. Bracton, Foriescus, Gooke.  
To administer equally and speedily common justice and right, and to assent to all good Laws for protection, ease and benefit of his subjects, is the duty and office of a King; all this we know already, without any quotations of Lawyers, but if the King do not do his duty, nor perform his office, how will you make him do it? where is your Law for that? where can you find amongst all your Lawyers, that the two Houses I, is of more authority then the Kings no? it is not your divining, nor your denying, nor your granting, that makes it one or other, but what can you positively prove to be Law. Who shall be judge what Laws are good, protecting, easy, and beneficial to the Subjects? the people are the Kings Subjects, not their own carvers: the Parliament is the Kings great council, not his great Judge; as in the body natural, so in the politic, naturale judicatorium dicitur esse ex vertex, saith Aquinas, the highest region serveth only for the use of intellectual power, the lower only for the use of the bodily nutrition, the King is the head of the people, and we must only look for judgement thence: he is pater patriae, a child must not rule his father.  
For your clause in the Coronation Oath, Quas vulgus elegerit: you must not reduce us from the Laws of the Crown, to the ceremony of Coronation, and tie us to a ceremony, whilst we dispute about the substance, for he is King before( and without) that Oath: We are not, nor ought to be accounted no Christians because we do keep the Oath which we swear in baptism; nor to be the less man and wife, because we perform not to one another all that we then promised, yet we are the better husbands, and the better Christians if we can do so, sois he the better King: but where is the clause in the Coronation Oath, that if he do break his Coronation Oath, he shall be no longer King? I wonder that you that are so zealous for the vulgar people, could not extend your zeal a little to the clergy, for he was bound by his Oath to confirm the Laws, customs and franchises granted to the clergy; but as the zeal of the Lords House had even eaten up the Prophet David, so these mens zeal have eaten up the Lords House; little thinking that there hangs a collop stolen from the Altar, that will soon fire the nest and all its young ones.  
You say, The King can have no prerogative which is derogative to the execution of right and justice, as in 7 Hen. 4. Rot. Parl. no more he cannot, for his prerogative is given him to that purpose, without which he could not perform that duty; but all that you call derogative, may be just and right prerogative: you quote Bracton for a maxim in the Law, that a King can do no wrong; why did you cut his Head off then as a malefactor?  
What a stir this man keeps about a word of good breeding? because the Kings of England did not tell the people, bluntly be would not, but Le Roy soit a visera, therefore the King had not a negative Force.  
All that the Author saith is but vox and nihil, and echoes and sounds, and why so fast? because what derogative and divesting the late King, could it be of his just power to take away his negative Voice, his Militia, his Supremacy, in not letting him have the exercise of his conscience in Church-government, to the maintaining of which he had taken his Oath, in taking away his Crown, in not suffering nor admitting those to be Noble, on whom he had conferred honour without them, though he himself was acknowledged by all Law, the fountain; in taking away his children, his servants, his friends, his houses, his land, his goods, his life? what did all this derogate? when himself shall be denied a capacity to do wrong, shall mortal Princes stand upon their terms? God is denied that capacity as suitable to his Divine nature, not in consideration of any restraining or coercive power that is above him, as you deny the King to have: the King of kings, and Lord of all, who created all things for his own glory, cannot deny any just or necessary svit, Prayer or Petition that his poor servants jointly or severally put up unto him; but is God necessitated to grant his servants all those things, which his servants think just and necessary for them, doth he not often times deny them for their good? did not Christ deny his Disciples many things? have not Gods servants been often times non-suited with you know not what you ask? do not they sometime ask amiss and loose their pains? but you will say, God knows all things and is omnipotent, therefore he may do what he please; and mortal deities must go according to the knowledge that they have, and do as well as they may. I wonder at the man that can tell us how the people invested the King with their authority, when Gods word tells him, that by me Kings reign? I have said you are gods, your power is given you from above, and you, by us, we have said you are Gods, you have no power but what is given you from the people, and the fag end of all your nonsense, you tell us that the King was but a servant to the kingdom, because he was defender of the faith, I thought he had been Gods servant in that work at the least, and not yours.  
Now you say the King wanted reason, because he said, it argued men conscious of their defects of reason, and convincing arguments to call in the assistance of mere force, to carry on the weakness of their councils and proposals; and then he asketh, why did the late King begin a War? why do you say he did? did not you first keep him from, and out of his own at Hull, and then say you took it with a why not? did not you raise the first Army? did not you give the first Commission, and shoot the first piece? and if he had begun the War, and if he had, you could not say he came against you, by the assistance of mere force, for he had reason on his side, which was more then was on yours; which made you take up arms, and let the Laws go down, denying reason to be your second.  
Here he will by no means admit that the late King would profess that he might in truth and uprightness of heart profess before God and men, that he never wifully opposed or denied any thing that was in a faire way, after full and free debate propounded, &c. and why not? because he dissolved the Parliament for questioning the Duke of Buckingham for poisoning his Father: there were other reasons then thats why that Parliament was dissolved, therefore that cannot be said to be the reason: secondly, there is difference between dissolving the Parliament that questioned the Duke of Buckingham, and dissolving the Parliament for questioning the Duke of Buckingham: thirdly, it is very likely the King did not believe any such thing, it may be he had reasons for his belief: but you will say, he was bound by all ties of justice and nature to have suffered him to come to his trial: it may be he was afraid they would have fallen upon him so violently because he was his favourite, as they did afterwards upon Strafford,& would have condemned him right or wrong, by a new-found Law, in a new-found-Land, it is better to judge thus charitably, then to revile the gods upon trust.  
Let all the world judge then, if this Confuter and all that are of the gang, deserve not to be lashed with briars, for pleating such a Crown of thorns upon their sovereigns Head, and for so adoring the late King with a Crown upon his Head, that they did not leave him a Head upon his shoulders: and instead of reason and candour, obtruding falsehood and dissimulation, as making for the interest of his corrupt party, and flowing from the particularity of his depraved will and passion.   

7. Upon the queens departure, and absence out of England.  
THe King knew his Wife to be guilty, he was afflicted by reason of the scandal of that necessity which driven her away, because he was not one of a more then human temper, one like David, preferring his God before his Michal, like Codrus, offering himself a sacrifice for his Athenians; like Masanissa, who lost a gallant woman( to his wife) because he would alloy the jealousy of the Romans; like Mahomet the great, who beheaded the beautiful Irene, that his people might see he did not dote upon her; what then? why then saith he, let all he judge, who knew the Queen and her actions, whether justice commanded the King to study her seourity, who hath endangered three kingdoms so much; you do not tell us how much: you tell us the King knew her to be guilty; but you do not tell us guilty of what; but if you appeal( only) to all that know her, and her actions: I wonder if one that knew you, and all your actions, could judge you innocent? but for your unanswerable dilemma: Sir, you say whether the King were guilty or not, yet it was the late Kings duty to have brought her to a trial, to satisfy justice, or complete her innocency; ho brave Arthur of Bradly: did you not say even now, at the very beginning of this Chapter, that the Queen was but near being brought to an impeachment: what will you have the King bring her to trial before shee was impeached? would you make such hast with your wife, to satisfy justice? and would you have the Queen to complete her Innocence before her accusation was framed? are these your dilemmas, good-man-two shoes? but what of all this? what if all the world should judge one way, or other? what is this to the Kings Book, as to make it none of his? cannot a man make a book, except he arraignes his wife? what other scope the man can have in this discourse I cannot tell; let us follow him a little furtherr.  
The Confuter cannot conceive, how such motions might occasion a further altenation of the Queens mind, from the Protestant Religion, because he thinks it impossible, and so makes him to contradict morality in his passions, as well as in his actions: as if obedience and submission unto Princes( things commended in the Gospel) might not make men more in charity with the professors: and the contrary, drive them further off. I see no contradiction in this no plus ultra but that a man may go further off, come nearer up, according to the several encouragements which are for, and against, the reasons of my persuasion.  
He hopes the late King and she differed a little in honesty as well as Religion: what an if they did? what if one of them were honester then the other? must not the King own His Book because their honesties were not both alike?  
He seems somewhat troubled, that the King should say in His Book, that this war, was the first example of any Protestant that ever look up arms against their King; and wi●hes the Author of the Book had remembered the Protestants in France: and I wish that he had remembered to have brought one proof either out of Gods Law, or mans Law, that would have proved it to be well done: for Rebellion was ever since the world began.  
He tells us( also of the Hollanders, whom together with the nest, the late King openly professed to aid; if he did so, I am sure he drank deeply of the same cup, which he held out to others.  
The confuter wonders that the Book stiles the late King a Protestant: he says, he will not swear it; because the King endeavoured to introduce popery and Tyranny: in rendering it unlawful for Protestants to defend their Religion and liberty. To which I answer, that,  
I will swear the King was a Protestant, lived and dyed so; and I will bring you thousands that shall swear so; and I defy you to bring one that shall swear that he was a Papist: I will take my oath that I have heard the Roman catholics in England say, they never had hopes of him that way. I will take my oath upon it, that I have heard the Romans themselves say, that there was not a more perverse heretic in the world then the late King was. I will take my oath that I have heard them say, that Canterbury was the greatest enemy that ever they had; and that he gave them the greatest blow that ever was given them; and that he was going about the most destructive piece of work to them, that ever any man went about, viz. the reducing of all his Majesties Dominions into one uniformity of Church Discipline; the want of which, they said, they had only to object against us. I will swear that they said, we did them the greatest courtesy to cut off his head, that ever they had done them in their lives. And I durst be sworn, that as soon as ever they heard, that the Protestant Parliament of England, had cut off the Pro●estant King of England's head; there was a jubilee in Rome one year before its time. And I never heard in my life( before) that not holding of it lawful fo● Protestants, in any case whatsoever, be it for religion or liberty, not to bear arms against their sovereign( for that is the mans meaning, by the word defend, or else he means nothing for we will allow him the old weapons of the Church, prayers and ●●rs) was a point of popery; if it be lawful, I pray by what law of God or man, was it ever lawful? If you cannot show it me, why do you call it either popery or tyranny?  
In the next break, the confuter is much troubled at the definition which the Book gives of a true English Protestant, viz. one who continues firm to their settled principles and laws; and thus he confutes them, by asking these questions, what shall we account those bowers to Altars?( not to, but towards the Altars) And that is no popery; if it were popery, to worship towards any thing, then King David was a Papist, when he said, In thy fear will I worship towards thy holy Temple. Then Daniel was a papist, who prayed three times a day, opening his window towards Jerusalem: or any of you, if when you come to Church( or any where else) you worship or fall down or kneel before the Lord your Maker: something must be before you the Altar, as well as the bel-ropes; or the Communion table as well as the door: but it is fit we should worship God with our corporal worship one way, because we have one God; and that way, because there on are placed the highest symbols of our salvation and communion with Christ.  
And name of Jesus; is this popery, Mr. confuter? I will ask you but one question, It is written that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Lord; then thus: is every man bound or not( by the duty of this text or otherwise) to confess with his tongue that Jesus is the Lord? without any tropes or figures, or quidlibets or quodlibets; if he be bound to confess with his tongue, then the other is bound( by the same rule) to bend with his knee, for In Conjugatis non suffic●t alterutrum, where we find them both coupled together, we cannot take one of them in one sense, and another in another; one literal, and another metaforical. And for your alleging this to be brought into the Church; I never knew it out of the Church, until the Church began to be out of its self, and the people to be out of their wits. For your Crucifixes, Incense pots and tapers, &c. I can say no more, but this; if there had been no more unreasonable matters demanded of the King, then the putting of all those things down, there would never have been any war, to bring the King to any solitudes or sufferings; nor you and I to these contestations.  
But to what purpose was all this ado? could not the King be the author of his Book, because Protestants stand to their principles; or because there were Crutiflxes, Incense-pots, and tap●●? Seriously, Reader, I do believe that these were his reasons, as weak as they are: because in the next break, he gives me a reason as weak as it. For he tells me that it cannot be the Kings Book, because he cannot imagine that this late King could profess that the Queens only fault was, that shee was his wife: fie upon you, what will you neither let him be truly well opinionated of his Wife, nor a courtier neither? his reason is because She was impeached; what again? how often have I  told you so that? did you not tell me before; She was but near such a business? this is as good a reason as the rest: the Book had too good opinion of the Queen; therefore it could not be the Kings. As for your jeering of the distressed Queen, with your Merits and Tyburn, I leave that until the time that your Merits and Tyburn may both meet together.  
In the next break, the confuter fights with his own shadow; erects a man of straw, and then cries here I can have you, and there I can have you: He brings in the Book, affirming that the Kings Subjects, could not so much as pretend to lay faster hold on their Religion, but by shaking hands with their allegiance: whereas the Kings Book says only, that it cannot be safe for a King to tarry amongst them, who are shaking hands with their allegiance, under pretence of laying faster hold on their Religion: Here's a great deal of difference; is it not enough for you to cut off the Books head, but you must joint the bones? As for your inf●rences and observations hereupon, they are your own; tis Mothers white boy; he shall have a butter-cake for his pains.  
The next break tells you, that this Book cannot be the Kings, because it saith, the Queen hath a peaceful soul, and his reasons are, because the King gives his Wife an account( in his Letters) of the transaction of his affairs, as appears in the Letters which were found in his Cabinet after Nazeby Fight, to which, as to the next break which gives us as good a reason why this Book cannot be the Kings, viz. because it saith, that  
His Wife was eminent for love, and his reason is, because he saith it appears 〈◇〉 by the Kings instructions to his ambassador, of some intimations of unkindness between them; as if such passages as these, may not I appear between the dearest couple, and yet love may still be eminent in the main, and ought to be believed with joy, where there is such expressions of it; but now I will appeal to all the world, whether a man may not with less offence and mislike, so writ unto his Wife, then men so shamelessly divulge Letters between man and wife? especially between so great a King and His royal Consort, to all the world in Print? especially when there was more incivility then necessity in the dead? certainly there is not a man so mean, but would have thought himself very uncivilly dealt withall, had he been so served. And  
For her Loyalty as a Subject, which the Book saith was in the Queen, so that the King could not be Author of the Book; he gives his reasons, because shee entertained the Popes Nuntio, who acted contrary to the Law, practised the life of the late King, as appears in a Book entitled, ROMES MASTER-PIECE: but if thee entertained a Nuntio from the devil, he could not have acted so contrary to the Law, or practised such things against the life of our late King, as may be seen in a Book, that may very well be entitled, ENGLANDS MASTER-PIECE: The last is the prettiest argument of all: why this could not be the Kings Book, viz. because the Book charges the Parliament with driving the Queen out of the kingdom, as necessary for their designs: what designs? if you will neither believe the designs, which the King saith they had, nor tell us what other designs you mean, we cannot imagine any other design, except you should think that the Queen did all: and so shee being out of the kingdom, the King could never compile so rare a Book without her assistance: was there ever such non-sequiturs twisted together in ropes, to hall down nonsense, on so faire a piece? I can compare it to nothing, but the Souldiers spittle upon the Kings face.   

8. Upon His Majesties repulse at Hull, and the fate of the Hothams.  
THe Confuter sees little reason, why this should be an act of so rude disloyalty in the Hothams, because they were the peoples trustees, and they are the peoples forts, arms and ammunition, the King intended War, the seizure of Hull and the Magazine.  
I pray you whose town was it? was it not the Kings-towne upon Hull? so both by name and right? how could he seize upon any thing, who had all? were not all the Forts and Garrisons properly the Kings,, and at his sole disposing by the Laws of the Land? were not all the arms and Ammunition there properly the Kings? not only as he was a King, but as he was a private man, having bought them with his own money, before the Parliament was called? who made the Hothams trustees for the people? did not God and the Laws of the Land formerly make the King so? the Parliament was the Kings great council, not his controller: shall the maze control the Crown, and the shoulders be above the Head? if you will admit of monsters, so you may.  
The man will not have the Parliament the beginner of the War by their securing Hull; but that the King attempted to seize it, anso the War began on his part.  
Can a man be said to seize his own? he would have gon to his own, and his own received him not, if this be to be the Author of any evil, the Saviour of the world hath attempted it.  
As for your plain similitude of that agreement between England and Scotland concerning Barwick, England and Scotland were at odds, so were not the King& Parliament before this falling out: Secondly, there was no such agreement between the King and his Parliament, concerning Hull, as there was between England and Scotland, concerning Barwick: English and Scots were I●onii ad capitulandum, there was no Idoniety between the King and the Subject, before the beginning of this War, which is the thing we speak of; therefore I see no plainness in that similitude, except the plainness of a pickstaffe.  
For the business in your next break, concerning the mayor of Hull, and my Lord of Newcastle, you think it unjust, that the mayor who was elected by the townsmen, should yield up the government to my Lord of Newcastle, who was nominated by the King: Majoralty was a peaceable office, the Governourship was a Military: if the King gave them leave to choose a mayor, as all Corporations have by Charter from the King: He did not give them leave to withstand him from choosing himself a governor, especially in such a Garrison Town as that was; the maze and the Sword might have been born by several men. I can see no reason why the Kings appointment of my Lord of Newcastle( being that Garrisons and strong holds were before the falling out, acknowledged to be properly at the Kings disposing, by the Laws of the Land) to be governor of Hull, should be any occasion of quarrel on his part, but on theirs who invaded the others right.  
Now saith the Confuter, by the Law of nature, reason, Nations, this Nation,( not so fast) the Ports, Forts, Navy, Magazine, are the peoples right and interest; had you said they had been the Kings by right and the peoples by interest, you had said well, and honestly, and both those might have stood together; but if you take away all from the King, the Laws are at a stand, to determine whether your impudence, or your ignorance be the greater: you say these things were transferred upon the late King by the Parliament and the people, not in point of propriety, but conditionally upon trust; why do not you produce the transference? why do not you show the conditions? you say they are evident in all statutes; where custom, Tonnage, Poundage &c. is granted for their maintenance: and I must tell you, that it is evident in the Divine statutes, that for this cause pay you tribute, because he is the Minister of God: applying himself to that purpose, Rom. 13. 6. not because he is your servant, your proxy, your attorney, your trustee, your accountant: if there be any mentions made in any statutes, for what such customs were paid, it may argue the grounds of their arise, and good directions for their disposal, but no Statute shows any such conditions as you infer, viz. that if the King did not employ the Custome-money as he should, you may take the Navy from him; or his Subsidies as he ought, you may possess yourselves of the Garrisons; or do as he ought to do, you may take what course you please with him; I am sure no statute saith this, Gods word saith to the contrary, and Nero and Caligula were a great deal worse( then the late Kings) to whom the Apostles commanded such obedience. O but there was a foreign force, cry you mercy: the Danes were upon the sea, Horses were under ground at Ragland: Jealousies and Fears had beat their Drums, and foresight had given them an alarm, one loyal Vots in Parliament had puffed all these away; like some new taker off Cloaks, and Hats, and purses, who have not as yet lost their modesties altother, are a little ashamed of using such apparent violence; and therefore they pretend a quarrel, in which quarrel they will seem to be the first sufferers, that they may go through their villainies with defensive arguments: or like some unhappy boy, who hath fallen upon his Masters son, and dangerously hurt him; wounds and disfugures himself to justify his mi●demeanour: So these men will have Lions in their way, because they will have fire in their hands.  
For your avoiding the Hothams not falling into that just judgement for their offence, out of your observation of Manlius and Sejanus, I must tell you, that Manlius never defended the capital against the Supreme Authority of Rome; neither did Sejanus pull down an old hou●● upon his own and his sovereigns head, but preserved the Emperour from a fall of stones that would have fallen upon his head and afterwards was hanged for aspiring the Empire therefore though it be a solecism to say, that the way to kill a Pigeon, is to shoot at a Crow, yet it is no solecism in me, to say, if I see such a one Rob a house, and kill the servant, and now he is come to the gallows, he is right enough served.  
Had he kept his first station, which was upon the grounds of his loyalty to his Prince, he might have died, but never unlamented, and unpi●ied, of either partend.  
La●●ly, here are no such p●ophane mockings of God, and abu●e of holy Scripture, nor stretching any of the sense of sacred Scripture to his own length; so tha● it may not be the Kings Book, or a Book for Kings, or the King of Book●; excepting only his, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.   

9. Upon the Listing and raising Armies against the King.  
THe Title is false, the Chapter is untrue, why so? because the King ●●m●●lf confessed the War to be defensive on the Parliaments part, its sen●e●esse to conceive the King made the Book, because he would not be so fal●e, show himself such a ju●gler: say, and unsay, for ●is a●va●tage; and yet this same man, makes the same King, in the very same Chapter, base and negligent, a connsver at his Fathers mu●●er, a pillar and poller of his Subjects, an obstructer of justice, p●●fidious, a b●inger in of Popery, a profaner of the Sabbatn, a puller down of Preac●ing, a murderer at Cales, and a traitor at the Isle of Ree; yet this black mouth can fasten upon his sovereign with his white teeth, and so that he may perish his famed, he is contented he should be good, and destroys again that goodness, with marks of infamy.  
Well, what if the King did confess the War to be defensive on their part? will you not allow a Crown, a sceptre, a Throne, a Life, a Liberty, a Wife and Children, on the one side ●● death, and p●ysons, and prisons, and Swords, and Axes, on the other; to work a little upon the stoutelt mindes, for the obtainment of all these, as well as for the avoiding of the other? and which was most pre●●ing of all, the bleeding condition of his three King ●oms: what if he was contented to take their sins upon himself? what if with Saint Paul he was contented to be an A●athema, so that his people might be preserved? what if he cared not what all his kingdoms thought of him, if by such an acknowledgement, he might preserve all his kingdoms? his sin was not the more his in the sight of God by taking it upon him, nor the less theirs, by casing themselves of the burden, in the sight of men.  
again, I do not think the King the Author of the War, though he should draw the first Sword: Is the thief upon the high-way, that cries, stand, or the honest man( if he should draw his Sword first) the occasion of the quarrel?( if there should be any sighting) truly I am persuaded the King was bid stand, when the Militia was demanded from him, of which the sceptre was the en bleme: I think he which bids the King to deliver the sceptre out of his hand, bids a greater matter to be delivered, then the purse out of a mans pocket, the robber useth no violence except you refuse; and they  told the King, that if he refused, they should be forced to take the course which God should direct them, which is to the same in effect; but if I might be judge, I should think that they which gave the first Commission to kill, and slay, began the War, who ever gave the first blow; it is not he that first strikes, but he that first draws makes the quarrel: and I am sure the Parliaments Commission bare date before the Kings, both weeks and daies.  
But now for the manifestation and clear proof of this Books not being the Kings, viz. No wise man can conceive that the late King would so trumpet out his own praise as to profess his reign, just, peaceable, plentiful, Religious, and was it not so, in respect of the times fince? was ever any Princes reign so( absolute) in every respect? and for the many objections which you make against him in your ninth break; I do not intend to wrestle with reports, nor fight a duell with v●x populi( though I could say much, and not so much as might be said neither, for the clearing of His majesty in those particulars; I shall only desire you to lay your hand upon your heart, and consider, if a man could search into all the actions of your life, and lay your faults in order before your face; how ugly would the most upright mans catalogue be to their own eyes, and others? how ugly would thine accusers seem to thee and others? but after death, to publish that which all the living could never justify, is not to undeceive, but offend any reader, except you red your own book.  
The King never writ this Book, because he would not be such a Thraso, as to boast his own commerdations. Sir I must tell you that in some kind, nothing becomes a man so much as boasting, viz. when he i● wrongfully accused, when he can make good his boast; and when he doth it out of a noble defiance to envie's objections: such were the Kings. I wonder you do not find fault with Saint Paul for boasting so much in one of his Epistles.  
For your Jack-daw his strutting with his stolen feathers, I have answered you already in the Frontispiece of my book, with a fools cap: you may strut in those feathers, and whether the doctor wants his Casseck or no, you shall not want a fools Coat, the next time I have to do with you.  
For your objection to that saying in the book, that the King Reigned 17 years in such a mea●●re of justice, Peace, Plenty, Religion, as all Nations about, either admired, or envied: which was such a wrong to truth, that the late King could not own it, and therefore it could not be the Kings Book; you mistake the King, the Doctor, the Book, and all, the Book doth not say that these 17 years Reigns were so peaceable, so just, &c. that you, or any of your gang, either envied, or admired them, or th●t this Nation did so, but all other Nations, and so they did.  
For all those other charges against the late King, which you enumerate, with so much confidence, and little charity, as judgements against the late King: as his being driven from his own house, because there were some who voluntarily forsook their own houses, and fled to New-England: his wanting Armies and Navies, for his losing R●chell, his being Prisoner for imprisoning Pryn, Burton and Bastwick, his being condemned by a Parliament, as a judgement for imprisoning Mr. John Eliot. I can but blushy to see him wound the reputation of a Dead King, through the sides of a supposed Doctor.  
You so far disallow the King to have reason to say, that all those who fled, and are charged by you of high Treason, in your three following breaks, feared partiality in their trial; that you will not allow the ●sse●tion to be his, and so the Book some Doctors; as if Doctors were the only men who could be impudent forgers: O poor shift you cry: indeed the earl of Strafford did not fear any partiality in his trial, but he found a sufficient deal: all the fairness of his trial consi●●ing only, in that they gave him chain enough; but there was a great deal of Partiality shown, viz. when all the dogges could not pull him down, they should knock down the bear, with a club-law; there was as much said against Strafford, but they could not prove it, until they made a Law to make him so, I believe it had been better for him to have shifted with the rest, as poor a shift as it was: were there no factious Tumults, over-bearing the freedom and honour of the Houses? what were the thousands, and and ten thousands that daily came to the Houses, clamouring for justice? was that freedom and honour? why did the Bishops protest to the same purpose? how came Parliament-mens names to be proscribed& posted? themselves stoned& thrown into the Thames? is it not a poor shift in you, after that you have granted it to be thus, in part to tell us, it is most likely that it was done by the contrary part? it is most certain that these things were done,& it is most certain that no order was taken for preventing such misdemeanours, until they had first new modeled the houses: secondly, the Army, and at last the kingdom; it is a poor shift in you to tell us that no dissenters in Straffords business, were called to the Bar, when they were called to the Tumults, and by the Tumults, enemies to their Country, and Traytors to the Common-wealth: I had rather my hand should be up at the Bar of justice, then that my name should be up upon a post, as a mark for the fury of the enraged multitude to take its level.  
You will not have it, That the Bishops( contrary to all order and custom) were thrown out of the House: you cry, O impudence, but you say nothing to the Kings home charge he puts unto you, viz. that after five repulses, contrary to all order and cust●me, it was by tumultuary instigations obtruded again, and by a few carried, when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves, likewise for the Bill for root and branch, yet this was neither contrary to order nor custom: yet you will have the impudence to consist in this, viz. Did the late King know this, and yet consent unto it? O sin of sins; the late King may know this, and know it to be disorderly, yet be so necessitated thereunto, as that it may be no sin; the Queen was then little better then in hold; and to use the Kings own words, his kingdoms and himself in danger; again, the King was satisfied of the Bishops willingness to suffer diminution for his sake, which consent took away all error.  
To your question, will nothing come in the Bishops but Civill authority, temporal Lordships? I would fain have you point at the time since there was a Creature, called man( whilst the Civil and ecclesiastical States were not opposite to one another, I mean, the Church, under Tyrants) wherever it was thought, a thing incompatible, for the Clergy to be invested with temporal authority. In the beginning of the world, the Prince of every family was Priest in his own house. In Deut: you shall red, Go thou unto the Elders, and unto the Priests, that are in those does, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement: there they were Judges: Eli was a Priest, and judged all Israel: Zadock and abiathar were chief counsellors to David: Christ was King and Priest: the Apostles were under persecution: yet the Christians sold all that they had, and came and laid it at the Apostles feet, and they distributed to every man according to their necessities: Surely then they meddled with temporal authority; they passed the sentence of death upon Ananias and Sap●yra, for their unrighteous dealing: And as soon as ever the first Christian Emperour was, which was Constantine, he made them his chief counsellors; conferring temporal honours, places and estates upon them: Which continued so in all places, and at all times, until such rebellious and disorderly attempts here, as in other places, deprived them of their right, That( to use the Kings own words) the Revenues of the Church might be made a sacrifice to the fury of their covetousness and revenge.  
I must confess it no whit displeased me to see him jeer their tame and temporal Lordships, following their Reverend Fathers down the stairs: a just judgement upon them; that they, who would not let the Lords spiritual sit amongst them, had afterwards this affront put upon their own door by Commons Spiritu●ll, viz. THIS HOUSE IS TO BE LET: The Lords spiritual departing the House with a far better grace then did the other Lords; the Bishops did, per Aeneae dextram cadere, and they were thrust out of the House by Noble hands, and they were blown out with the breath of their Peers: but common and ignoble hands were laid upon their Lordships, for to pull them down; they h●ld the Snuff●rs over them, making them believe, they would but top them, and snuff'd them out: Good night to your Lordships, can you find the way down stairs?  
For your making the strong tie for maintenance of Episcopacy, which the King bad upon His conscience, viz: His indispensible Oath, besides His judgement, to interferre with His so often reiterated desire of a national Synod to dispute the point, and clear it to His judgement; professing, that could it be made out to be dissonant to the Gospel Government, He would most willingly agree to its abolition: This, you say, was a mere pretence to delude the world, because( say you) if the Oath were indispensible, what good could the Divines do by convincing His judgement?  
Yes: if they could have convinced His judgement, that Episcopacy was dissonant to Gospel Government, the indispensability of His Oath would soon have fallen to the ground: God forbid that he should keep such an Oath as was( any way) against the Gospel.  
You are very much offended at the Authors making the Parliaments meaning contrary to their saying; viz. while they invited the late King to come, yet they could not but be pleased with His absence. It is possible that a man may grope for that which he would be loathe to find— if they esteem no better of Him.  
What arguments are here? viz. If the late King had no hopes of an Army, I pary, why was the Queen and the Crown-jewels sent into Holland? To which an answer is easily made, the Queen was in Holland, because She could not be here; and the Crown-jewels were with the Queen, because the King trusted His Wife with them. If you tell me of the Laws of the Land I must tell you, there was no Law then, but the Club; and there is no avoiding that, but by voiding it.  
You are not only injurious, but very troublesone in your arguments: for you do but trouble us to take up that, which we see you th●●w down: would any man make such an argument as this? viz. If there was n●thing of consequence offered to the late King, or demanded of Him, as any original difference, &c. What should we( say you) account the denial of His Negative voice, or the disposing of the Militia by Parliament? When the Kings own words confine you to the time, viz. When they declared by their Propositions; you make the Dog believe there is a Duck, whilst you throw into the water nothing but a sinking ston, which causeth the Dog to flounce in after it; but when he comes there, he finds he hath nothing else to do, but to turn himself about, withing the round circles which the deceiving Jacture hath made upon the weak element of water.  
But now to the conclusion of the Chapter, and your observation upon the phrase, viz. God knows, the late King was as far from meditating a War, as He was in the eye of the world for having preparation for one: This you confute, by making it appear to the world, that He bad preparations for a War: How so? The King gathered a guard to Him at York, before the raising or listing the Parliament Army. When was He without a guard at White-hall? Which guard having left Him, He gathered another at York: I never heard, that a Kings guard was any preparation for War before. Indeed, if you could have proved, that the Kings guard had rid upon the Papists Horse that were fetched from under ground, at Ragland, you had proved something that might have been offensive to the Protestant Religion; otherwise you have proved nothing.   

10. Upon the seizing the Kings Magazines, Forts, navy and Militia.  
FOr your railing accusations, judas 9. which stream through the channels of every line of this Chapter, I shall answer you no otherwise, but as Michael the Archangel, when contending with the Devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, answered( those certain men, crept in unawares, who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, vers. 4. Despisers of Dominion, and speakers evil of dignities, verse 8. Who speak evil of those things which they know not, but what they know naturally, as bruit Beasts, wherein they corrupt themselves, vers. 10. Goers in the way of Cain, and 'greed, runners after the error of Balaam for reward, and perishers in the gainsaying of Core, vers. 11. To those raging waves of the Sea, foaming out their own shane; wandring stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, vers. 13. To those murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts, whose mouths do speak great swelling words, having mens persons in admiration, because of advantage, vers. 16. separatists, semuall( and, though never so great pretenders to it, yet) having not the spirit, vers. 19.) The Lord rebuk thee. But to what I shall find as positive and rational, I shall return an answer.  
You say, the Magazines, Forts, Navy and Militia are the Kingdoms; all these are comprehended under the emblem of a sceptre, a Sword, a Ball: for the sceptre, the Scripture tells us in Fx●l: That it is G●ds rod that is in their hands, not the Kingdoms. For the Sword, Saint Paul tells us, He b●areth the Sword, not they. And for the B●ll, which signifieth universal rule and dominion, Da●el tells u, that those Kingdoms, or Dominions, are Gods, which he hath put into His( as his Vicegerenta) hands.  
Neither is it thus( there) placed as an undoubted right, per legem Dei: but also, per legem terrae: If you will red the learned Father of, and Martyr for, the Laws of England, his Book, called, LEX TERRAE, and all the famous Lawyers that ever writ ( excepting the learned works of Mr Pryn) cited by the Confuter, you shall find it so.  
But yet, saith the Confuter, if we should admit, that by Law the late King was entrusted with the Militia, we must not go according to the Letter: Who shall be Judge of the letter of the Law, but the Lawyers? And the Lawyers all, except before excepted, say it is the Kings right: If it were not His, why did the Parliament ask it of Him?  
You say, Th●y entrusted Him with it, supposing that He would preserve the Common-wealth from invasion and rebellion: First, I deny that ever the Parliament, or any Parliaments, ever entrusted these Regalia into any Kings hands: for Kings had all these Regalia( as ju-ra) before ever there was a Parliament: And therfore, whatsoever any Parliament did in that behalf, it was but a confirmation of their former right: And if it were, as you say, how can the King defend the Common-wealth from invasion, if invasion( by His own people) were permitted to wrest the Sword out of His Hand? Or, against rebellions, if His people will be Rebels? And those Rebels will be the means to destroy the end for which it was ordained.  
But now to your clear simile, viz: A general is entrusted with the Militia of an Army, and he will turn the mouths of his Cannons against his own Souldiers: would not his commanding such a thing( against the nature of his trust and place) ipso facto, estate the Army in a right of disobedience? It may be not; it may be the Souldiers may be mutinous, and were falling upon their general, like so many mad dogs; in such a case, such an attempt would not be against the nature of His trust and place; and though to the Souldiers themselves( who were the Mutineers) it might estate them in a right of disobedience: yet it would not, in the opinion of any indifferent man. And if you take it for granted, that all this was done, contrary to the nature of His trust, that is pitiful begging the question; we have not granted you that, neither have you proved it.  
You have beholded ancient Rome without a King, and yet not brainless; and have discerned more of perfection in the demonstrates, giving Laws to Nations, and dictates to Kings, then in Nero fiddling upon a stage, or Domitia killing flies; there were Kings and Emperours of Rome besides Domitian, which killed other kind of creatures then flies;& besides Ne●o, who acted on the wide theatre of the world, better parts then a fiddlers; and yet to this fiddler did Saint Peter command all chriuians to be obedient: yet now adays the world is well altered, for fiddlers and tinkers, and cobblers, give laws to Nations, and dictates to Kings; you forget for all your brains, the answer which Perrbus his ambassador made to their King, when they returned from the Senate of Rome concerning the senators, ●o● reges vidimus.  
But if the Commons be the Moon, you wonder what light the King was: The light of your Israel, you should have taken he●d how you had put it out, all the lustre he had was not derived from the people, who are not yielded by all, to be the fountain, from whence all power● springs, God is the original of all the light, which shined in the regal authority, DIEUET MON DROIT; you forget that ever CAROLUS writ DEIGRATIA.  
Neither can I see any reason, how the Kings profession( in the end of the last Parliament) in the word of a King, and as he was a Gentleman, that he would redrese the grievances of the people, as well out of the Parliament as in it: Was any way violated, by searching the studies, chambers and pockets, of the Nobility and Commons?( some Noblemen and Commons you mean; for certainly all the No●ility and Commons were not searched) if he did not take away their money, or any thing else out of their Studies or chambers, when he could not find that which behoved him to look for, nor that the commitment of Mr: Bellafi●, Sir John Hotham, or Mr. Crew, could make a breach of this royal promise, for the Parliament use to commit too.  
Your last cavil at the Kings saying, He doth not thin●e that he could want any thing which providential necessity should be pleased to take away from him in order to the people● tranquillity, and Gods glory; his meaning is, not to grant( according to your wresting) that it was providential necessity; but if it were no more( for you forget what the King called the takers away of that which was taken away from him, viz. Chaldeans, Sabeans, and Devils) you have brought your hogs to a fair market.   

II. Upon the 19 Propositions sert to the King, and more afterwards.  
MAny men have burnt and melted oar, to see what gold he could extract; but never any man melted gold( purposely) to see what dross he could find before, this man hath caught us a new kind of chemistry; this man winnowes this Book that he may turn his hogs to the corn, and gather up the chaff; though corn shall as soon grow without chaff, as any human work shall be free from imperfections; yet I verily believe, this wheat, and gold of charles the First, hath as little chaff, or dross in it, as any that ever endured the winds breath, or the fires trial, though this Confuter is pleased to call it, d●ubed dirt, whilst their own ruff casts, stuck with broken glass, and shells, must appear before the Sun, in the eye of the world, for the heavenly Jerusalem, whose walls are stuck with Diamonds and precious stones: I do wish no greater punishment to this man, but only that his head might ache, until his brains should make but a solid and orderly Conrutation, to any one of all the Chapters throughout all the Kings Book, that should be judged to be so, but by one man in a hundred, throughout the Land, and I am satisfied: he laps as he goes along, like the doggs by the River Nilus; as if the Kings Reason, were a crocodile in every River of his lines, ready to devour him, if he should stay in a place; here is a Chapter I will defy the world to give a satisfactory answer, to any rational and indifferent men; and here are answers, I will defy the world, to give me a parallel of the like nonsense.  
This( saith he) cannot he the late Kings writing, it will appear evidently, if we compare his answer to the Propositions with this Chapter.  
For the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19. which you drown, I wave, but as to the eighth, which he saith is the main, viz. other propositions, but as waste paper to wrap it up, and the ninth, to present them more handsomely.  
In this he saith, the Doctor begins to appear; the square cap to peep out from under the assumed crown; the Reformation of the Church is it that troubles our Author most, how so? it wrings his private interest, in what? as most against his profit; how was that main Proposition against the Doctors profit? or how did it concern his Mammon? he tells you, the the Doctor perceived how the Doctrine of the gospel did spoil the trade of the Coppersmith, and raised a Tumult: Ergo, now the Doctor appears, because the King doth not think it a thing essential to Reformation, to give leave to cov●tousnesse, to invade the right of the Church, or that his conscience will not give him leave to swallow down such camels( as others did) sacrilege.  
As if the King might not hesitate hereat, rather then a Doctor; being obliged thereunto by his Oath; and bound by his place, not to see his foster child, deprived of his allowance, being a nursing Father of the Church.  
again, what doth this concern a Doctor ( qua Doctor) he may be a Doctor, and yet have no interest in Bishops Lands, Deans and Chapters; it may be not so much, as in the title of a poor Parsonage, or Vicarage; he should have done better( for his own purpose) to have put this forgery upon a Bishop.  
For the Proposition containing nothing contrary to the Kings own desire, by his willingness to call a Synod of Divines, you have obtruded that hereto fore, I have answered it formerly.  
You add, that there was no material point in those Propositions, which the King hath not offered to grant, both before and after his going to the Isle of Wight, as an improper method for Peace, which would make War against his soul. The forgeries therefore is not so apparent in this Chapter: I think it will be but lost la●our( for you) to descend to particulars, which indeed are as sottish, false, and impudent, as the general; but since you will, I am bound to attend your motion.  
You cavil at these words of his late majesty, viz. This honour they do me, to ●ut me on the giving part, which is more Princely and Divine; whence you infer, if to give be so, then to deny( as he did) must be quiter contrary.  
But the late King did not tell you, it was a Princely and Divine part, to give away the incommunicable jewel of his Conscience: whose loss, nothing could repair; you forget to put in these words.  
But you have a mind to deny this apothegm, and you think the Doctor cannot contradict you, I'll see what I can do; you say, God creat●d man, and put him on the giving part: Son give me thy heart: is man therefore, say you, more Divine? yes, man is more Divine, if he gives his heart to God, then if he should refuse it him: the comparison doth not hold, between God and man; but between the giver and the refuser, for so you might make the King, the more he gives, the greater Prince: and the Parliament, the more they put him upon the giving part, the less Divine: sure you were afraid, the late King was about to creep into absolute Monarchy, at this backdoor.  
As to your next cavil in your particulars. I grant, that he would have granted you all things he could, wi●h peace of conscience, according to his own words, They could not have asked more then I would have given them, might I reserve to myself to incommuni●●ble jewel of mine own Conscience: but if you ask me, why did he not consent to the 19 Propositions, but give his conscience leave to swallow such camels as he did since? and to strain at such gnats as these? I must answer you, those things which you call ●nats, may be camels to him: his Conscience is not to be regulated by your opinion, but by her dictates; a collop from the Altar, with a live coal at the end of it, is a pretty Gnat for the royal Eagle to swallow down, though you( like the Ourich) can swallow and digest Iron, Gold, Silver, Bishops palaces, Lands, Deans and Chapt●rs, and make no more bones thereof, then is in a Gnat; yet good Sir, give others leave to think these camels, who have not so good stomacks, and are not so quick of digestion; every one knows that best himself.  
Your next cavil is at these words of the Kings, viz. something which a King might approve, yet in honour and policy are at sometimes to be denied; presently you bob him in the mouth, with Irelands bleeding at that time, he did not do enough to stop the blood, in granting you so many acts of grace as he did? he did not do enough to offer you the venturing of his life to stop that blond, but you must have him venture his soul, by sacrilege, and perjury, in delivering up the Churches Revenues into such Harpies claws, as yours: again, the King spake these words in general, as a maxim in policy, as not having any reference to time or place, but only to show you, that a King may deny sometimes that which he approves best, he seems not to dare to deny any thing; and in reference to that, general and implicit consent, to what ever they should have desired him, for the future; in which they would have involved him: unfit for any who was either free, or man, much less a King.  
For your concluding this to be a Doctors Book, because it cannot have patience to think the Church may be reformed to presbytery: I think the King might be more impatient of any such Reformation, then any else, and that a Doctor hath no cause at all; for a Doctor may come to be a Presbyter, and so control and catechize, conven● and excommunicate the King, as they did, and threatened to do, unto the late Kings Father: they may drive him out of the Land, as they did his Grand-mother: they may hold it lawful for three Earls to seize upon the King, at any time; See Cambd: in ●● Elizabethae: they may account of him no more then of the peoples attorney; See Buch: de jure Regni apud Scotos: And therfore I believe you have no great reason to forge this Book upon the Doctor; for the King had very good reasons to be averse enough from any such Reformation.   

12. Upon the Rebellion and Troubles in Ireland.  
IN this Chapter you offer to make it appear, That the Parliaments conceiving Jealousies of the late Kings commanding, or countenancing, or contriving the Rebellion in Ireland, was not out of malice.  
Surely their duty did not bind them to brand their sovereign with such a crime, upon no other grounds but Jealousies, they should have been sure of it first: but I will observe your charge against him, In the manner of his carriage, in order to the suppression of those Rebels.  
Though that Rebellion broke out the 23 of October, the Parlianent could obtain no Proclamation against is until January.  
The King offered to go against them in Person, upon the first hearing of their breaking out, which was more then a Proclamation; but you durst not trust him: if you had, it could not have been worse there nor here; it may be better in both Kingdoms.  
As to your cavil at the Kings words, viz. Next to the sin of those who began that Rebellion, theirs must needs be, who either ●indred the speedy suppressing of it by domestic dissensions, or diverted aids: For your asking the question, viz. What shall we judge of the late King? I answer you, by asking the question, What shall we judge of the present Parliament? who converted the moneys which were raised for the war in Ireland, to perpetrate a needless and groundless war in England? who diverted the Forces which were raised for Ireland, and perverted their hands into one anothers bowels? whilst the Rebels in Ireland daily gained upon the English Forces there, until they were( almost) all starved for want of all relief. Who exasperated the Rebels to desperation, by that Un-Evangelicall resolution to destroy that Nation root and branch.  
So that all that you can charge the King with in this particular, is no more but what he can say to you in a higher nature: the whole result of these accusations of either side, will light upon, or slide of that party, which is either guilty or not guilty of the first breaking out into these domestic dissensions before mentioned: For when there is a strife between Nature, and a Disease that is crept into a man; no parts of the body, from head to feet, can fungifie their proper offices; as to the taking a care of any outward affairs: therefore all the particulars that can be said to this particular, must be resolved in this, Quis ●ulerit gracchoes? which hath before been controverted at large.   

13. Upon the calling in of the Scots.  
FOr your vain flourish in the beginning of this Chapter, I shall only return you your own words,  
Viz: Your discourse is made up of affirmations, rath●r then proofs, of what you say; it will be but folly to spend time, ink and paper in answering them: I shall therfore only hint at some of your redoubted cavils to some of the Kings words,  
Viz: Wise and learned men think, that nothing bath more marks of Schism and Sectarism then this Presbyterian way, both as to the ancient and still most universal way of Church Government: Here the Confuter insults upon the Doctor's making Universality and Infallibility the marks: but he doth not tell you of what: For if he had said of the Church, he thought then he should have been catched, because the King speaks only of Church Government; as if the Universality of Church Government may not be insisted upon, without running ourselves upon the Universality and Infallibility of— I know not what: As if our Church Government may not be more universal then another: Ha well done Pocher, thy Round ●e●d may chance to get a Fools Cap for this.  
To the second, viz. That Christ and his Apostles ever commanded to set such a parity of Presbyters, and in such a way, as those Scots endeavour, I think is not very disputable.  
You are certain it is so disputable, that all the brains and stairs on the Doctor's party, even to the very apex of a Bishop, cannot disprove it: It may be they are not so well at proving of Negatives, as you are: they can prove Episcopacy in our Saviour, in the Apostles, in Timothy and Titus, they can prove the practise of it all along, do you show the Hiatus; do you, that are so good at Negatives, prove when it was not; show us the gap; who made it; when and where it lies and upon what occasion; if you had done this, you had done something; otherwise you bring but chaff to the mill, instead of corn.  
Are not you a fine man to ground your opinion of this Books not being the late Kings, upon so weak disproofs or feigned proofs of folly and passions therein contained? whereby you would prove it to be none of so wise and patient a Prince his Book; and upon so slender an occasion, to hazard your reputation, in calling a King Fool? Ei à Barde, ei à fatue.  
To your other, viz. Surely in matters of Religion those truths gain most on mens judgments and consciences, which are least urged by secular violence, which weakens truth with prejudices: If this be true, say you, why did your Metropolitan so set the late King to war against the Scots, for denying Episc pacy, and a Popish Liturgy?  
It was not for denying Episcopacy, but for rising up in arms to pull down Episcopacy, and to resist the Li●urgy, contrary to the Laws of the Land, and the duty of good Subjects, which caused the King, or( if any did advice the King) to wage war against the Scots; Episcopacy was not set up with an Army, neither was the Liturgy so brought into England, or sent to Scotland, as both were expulsed in both Kingdoms: Neither can I see how in ju●ice and reverence to the memory of the first Reformers( the composers of it) you can call that liturgy Popish, which was both composed, and confirmed with the blood of Protestant Martyrs; I believe your directory will not find so constant Friends: And if all this were true that you say, it may blame them who did so, but neve● prejudice the Kings saying: but that for truth it might have been King Salomon's, as well as charles the First's.  
To the lie that you give in the last break of this Chapter, saving one, if you have no other proofs but, Fie on thee, art thou the son of Aaron? All may red it as they run: You give the lye upon every little occasion; certainly you were never used to Gentlemens company.  
And for the last lie you give His majesty in the close of this Chapter, if it be a lie to say, that the Parliament, when the Scots came into England, were more then competently furnished with Arms and Ammunition, with his navy by Sea, Forts, Castles, Cities ( London and all, as much as all the Land besides) by Land, be a lie, then I know not what is truth.   

14. Upon the Covenant.  
THe Author doth not think Episcop●cy so deeply and firmly sounded, that all engines should be brought to batter or rase it: indeed some, he saith, but not all: I have heard of a figure that was called, Par●s pro toto; but I never heard that all, for some, was a figure before: it may be it was a mistake; so may all the rest be: howsoever, the Authors word was proper enough; for a house may be taken down by its own Master, and by skilful and proper hands, and all for its own good, that it may be repaired and reedified: put an engine presupposeth violence and enmity: Such were the engines which were brought to rase down Episcopacy; Pride comes in humble manner, with a Pe●ition in his hand, and a Dagger at his back; with a fair Vizard, but a soul Face: such were the religious and fair pretences brought to batter down Episcopacy.  
You are very much mistaken, that the Author calls Episcopacy an evil spirit; for, he saith, you make it so. Is it not enough that you wrong the meaning, but you must wrong the letter too? Not only the living sense, but the dead letter must be persecuted: but you seem to be offended, that the Author makes Episcopacy to pled prescription of above a thousand years.  
You might have been pleased to have let the Devil and his Oracles, the heathenish High Priests, and Romes Arch-flam●ne, and the Jews alone: as nothing to the purpose now in hand, concerning Episcopacy, for the controversy is not between Episcopacy and Doctrine, but between Episcopacy and presbytery; two governments, which is nothing to the Devil and his Oracles: besides, the holy writ itself will not allow the prince of Devils to have any Rebels in his kingdom, lest it be divided within itself and fall. The heathens by the light of nature, knew more then you( pretenders to the light of grac) that the greatness of their God, was in part set forth by the honour and highnesse of their Priests.  
But we do not red they were forced to any plea of prescription, by reason of any competitors: had Rome's Arch-Flamin no more to be said against him, but pleading prescription for his See's antiquity, he might be blameless.  
I● the Jews had contended with our Saviour only about the high Priest-ho●d, or the antiquity of Moses chair, Christ might have answered them, that he was their high Priest, or that before either Moses or Abraham was, he was; and that he was that Prophet whom the Lord should raise up unto them like unto Moses,& that they were to hear him: but the dispute between our Saviour& the Jews, was, concerning Doctrine, which is nothing to the business we have in hand, concerning Government: you must not go out of the line of communication, to shake hands with arguments that are against you.  
You say, we ought only in such points as these, to pled things which are authentic, according to the Apostles times, rules, and actions, then we should have no Churches, or congregations, but in woods, groves, or private houses; we should have no B●sons, or Fonts, to baptize our children in, but lakes, pools, and rivers; we should have no aspersion or sprinkling of water upon the face, but immersion of the baptized, over head and ears: then we should go and sell all that we had, and come lay the price at the feet of the Ministers of the gospel, and a thousand of such wild inferences would arise, if this were to be obtruded upon us as a duty.  
Because our Doctor dare not deny, but that the mystery of iniquity which began in Pauls time, was in six hundred years grown to a damnable height, Ergo, we must draw our discipline from them, as well as our Dostrine: no reason at all, except we can prove that the Discipline is altered, as well as the Doctrine: hold you to the rules of the government of the gospel, and you will find no such government as presbytery, or Lay Elders.  
If so, saith the Confuter, why may not the Parliament of England,& c? where do you find that in the Gospel? where do you find in the Gospel, any but the Apostles themselves, or Bishops constituted by them, to have the ordering or government of the Church?  
You will not have it as the Author saith, viz. that the Parliament will rob the Church of her maintenance, and so consecrate the meanest of the people.  
How will you not have it so?  
Viz. Because the Doctor can hardly prove, that Jeroboam allowed not as large a stipend to his Priests, as Reboboam did to the other: that is, because you think he is not as good at proving a negative as yourself, but you prove the affirmative very handsomely, viz. Jeroboam se● up a golden calf, Ergo, he allowed the Priests liberally; what were they the better for the gold, that the calf was made of? It is possible that men may be good at bestowing gold upon calves, and yet let a poor Priest want a piece of bread; but is it probable, that Jeroboam who made a false Religion to defend his Treason,& Priests of the meanest of the people, to defend that Religion; would bestow stipends of the largest, to maintain those mean Priests?  
To your last cavil at Pharoah's Divinity, and Josephs piety, as to such errors as should render the Author neither pio●●, nor divine, and things you never heard of, in the Doctors royal●ie.  
Did you never hear of Divine Plato? Plato was divine in his way,& so was Phara●h: the Author meant no otherwise; but take it as you will, pharaoh was more Divine in sparing the portions of the ministers to his false god: then your Parliament had divinity, in devouring the portions of the Ministers of the true God: And for Joseph's countenancing of Idolatry, in sparing the Priests gods: I cannot see how robbery, or cruelty, can be an inducement to reformation: or piety consist, in taking away another mans estate, or in letting alone.  
These are poor things to catch at; you do not argue like a rational man, but like a bloody fighting cock; you lay hold on a feather, that you may strike at the heart.  
Say you, if it were piety so to do, how impious was Josiah? who not only took away the Places, Groves and Revenues, and Sacrificed the Priests upon the Altar.  
Is such juggling as this, and abusing the people, tolerable? who were the high Priests of the same Religion, that Josiah and all his councillors were of? again, did any sort of people do this, without Josiah, and against his consent, saying, we have discovered ourselves to be nursing fathers, w●it inferior to any Kings of the true Church, by this rooting out— the Priests of our Religion, and sacrificing them to poverty, and indigence, for their high palaces, and Revenues sake?  
What can this be to the Parliaments taking away the Church maintenance, and razing Episcopacy? When King, Parliament, and Bishops were all Protestants: if to slay the nurse and the nurseries: if to take bread out of the childs hand, and give him a ston; if the child calls for a fish, to give him a scorpion, be to be a nursing Father of the Church; therethe Parliament have discovered themselves to be fathers of the Church: for no man else would have taken them to be so, in the habit they are in; for the foul language which you use at the latter end of this Chapter, it is but the drivell, that always belong to a fool●s mouth; I know you cannot help it.   

15. Upon the many Jealousies raised, and Scandals cast upon the King, to stir up the people against him.  
THe King charges the Parliament with many Jealousies, and Scandals: whic● they cast upon him, to stir up the people against him: to all which he objects nothing, but endeavours to make good their scandal raised upon His majesty; viz. That he was not a friend to the Protestant Religion, by reason of a Letter he sent to the Pope, when he was a Suitor to the Infanta of spain.  
Is it not a poor come off, that when the Prince was urged by the King of Spain to forsake his Religion, that he might render himself worthy of his Daughter, should answer, that he would not forsake his Religion for the greatest match in Europe, did forsake her, and was driven to make his escape from them upon those terms, lived a professed Protestant, died professing the same, in the face of the world, should notwithstanding be aspersed after his death, with being a Papist, or inclining to that Religion, and all upon a complemental Letter which he should writ to the Pope? Which Letter he should have done well to have produced, and afterwards proved; for the Letter may be a scandal, as well as the rest; one scandal doth not prove another.  
But let us answer him to the things, he says, was in the Letter, that was, viz. He professes, That nothing could affect him so much, as the all●ance with a Prince, that had the same apprehensions of the true Religion with himself: It may be, for ought that you have set down, that those apprehensions wherein they both agreed, were good and laudable: for I know nothing you have expressed in the Letter, but only an endeavour to unite the Christian Churches, which I think were a good work, but whether by their coming to us, or ours to them, he doth not mention in the Letter.  
For his calling Popery, the Roman catholic Religion, I know not who calls it otherwise.  
In a word, if the suffering Popery to be tolerated, and no proceedings to be used against Priests, be a sign of no good Protestants, I think the Parliament are the worst Protestants that ever were.  
Lasily, To urge the compliments of Courtship, against the reality of life and death, is some what hard. You say, the Author conf●●●eth, that the King employed Papists in his Army, and you ask the Doctor, if this can be a slander, and true too? yes, it may be both; it may be a truth, as it was so; and it may be a scandal to say, that it was so intended, to set up Popery; For the King may make use of any of his Subjects to help him, as he tells you; and that he did it with much exprobration of Protestants, that should enforce him to such necessity: he might very well: for if all the Protestants had helped him, he needed not one Papist to take his part: if I am sinking under water, I care not whether it be nettles or briars I lay hold on, to keep me above water.  
For your exception at the noise of evil councillors; though it may be his late majesty could not say, he was altogether without evil councillors, yet it may be he would have been without the noise, especially as you had set up the cry.  
Another thing wherein you would fain confute this great Doctor, is, because some of his own party curse Rupert, Hopton, Culpepper and hid: Do you hear the King, or the Doctor, curse them? If not, what is this to either of them? let the Book be whose it will? do you think that all the knaves and fools were on your side? let us have some.  
You wonder, how the pretence of liberty, which the King saith was a practise to draw away the peoples affections from him.  
You would fain know, whether this were a scandal, or a jealousy, how it could be reduced under the contents, how it came in, as Episcopacy( you say) many times; that is to say, by the head and shoulders.  
I will tell you, Pretence of liberty, may be one, or other, or both, and yet it may be neither: it may be a scandal, as it is a liberty, which is scandalous to all Religions whatsoever: it may be a jealousy, in that it is a pretence to draw away the peoples affections from his majesty, it may be both, because it may be either; and it may be neither, in your sense.  
Your next exception is this, The main argument whereby the late King intended to enslave you all ●ly War, was his confidence of having so many Lords and Gentlemen assisting him, who were not so prodigal of their liberties, as with their lives and fortunes, to help on the enslaving of themselves and their posterities: This, you say, may pass well enough among fo●ls or fond Idolaters, who so wisely adore the supposed Author, that they dare not question the work: yet among the heirs of reason, who measure every thing by the right standard, it will be found otherwise.  
You leave it undetermined all this while, which is the right standard, the Kings or theirs; but good Sir let us have your reason? many of them have travelled into France, indeed that must needs make them very pretty Gentlemen, being heires of reason before they went over, but what might they learn?  
Viz. That to set up one grand, they became petty Tyrants; and trampled upon the rights and liberties of the middle sort of people.  
What is this to the Kings confidence of his Lords and Gentlemens not willingness to enslave themselves to their fellow Subjects? but rather choosing to live under the government of a King, under whose protection the middle sort of people lived in this Nation, more plentifully, freely and peaceably, then in any Nation, if they had known their own happiness? And find themselves more trampled upon now, then the greatest of their fears, or the highest of their fancies could ever have imagined.  
And for your allegation of some expressions, viz, That 20 l. per annum, was enough for any ordinary man; and what were Citizens and Trades-men created for, but to trust them, and be glad they could have the savour to undo themselves to serve their roitous expenses?  
I ask you, whose expressions were these? were they the Kings? did the Lords of the council ever conclude of such a business? what if some deboched and drunken sot( over his cups) should say such things? will you take the foam of a mad dog, and put it into your pot of pottage, to poison half the family, that you may have the more roast meat to yourselves?  
I appeal to the world, if many an able man, who heretofore( I mean no Cavaliers neither) was able to spend one hundred, per annum, would not be glad of 20 l. a year, at this time: nay, whether there be not many a man of a 100 l. per annum now, that cannot make 20. l. per annum, of his estate, by reason of the miseries of these times: and whether or no the Citizens and Trades-men of London are not in a condition, as if they were created for no other end, but to trust some, whom they would willingly mistrust, if they did know how: but now they must be glad of the favour to be undone, to serve the riotous expenses of several Armies. And what remedy?   

16. Upon the Ordinance against the Common-Prayer Book.  
YOu have brought the late King low enough, from the Throne of judgement, to the Doctor's Chair, and now into the Cobler's shop. Ne suitor ultra—  
You needed not to have  told us, that the Doctor was in his own element, for that element was no mans more then the Kings; no Doctor in England ever used the Book of Common-Prayer more then did King charles, who writ these Meditations upon the Ordinance that was against that Book. Neither needed you to have  told us, that you were to expect more workmanship; for you did not find so much work about it, this Chapter being one of the least Chapters in all the King's Book.  
You say, he bungles and botches little less then before, and handles his pen unhandsomely.  
Sir, There was a Parliament man, one of the wisest amongst them, who began to be something weary of the House( because Reason had not been turned up trump a long time, and he thought there was so much juggling, that he feared it never would be) left it; some of his Friends asked him the reason, why he did not go unto the House, as formerly he was accustomend? He answered, because he did not find the Parliament like former Parliaments: O, said his Friend, you should not have left them for that, but have stayed there, and have given them reasons, and you might have rectified what was amiss: the Parliament man asked his Friend, whether or no he could play at ruff? his Friend  told him, that he could: then, saith he, I will put you the case; you play your ten of clubs, I take it with my King; I go to take up the trick, you bid me, hold: I ask you the reason; you say, because it is your trick: I tell you, it is my King; you deny it: I ask you, what it is then? you tell me, the nine of clubs: I think you are mad, I tell you so; I offer to be judged by all the standards by; you are contented; 'tis put to the vote, and they all judge it to be the nine of clubs, and not the King: Where are you then? So except this Confuter should get such a pack of resolved Knaves as these, he would not find a man, in the Kingdom, that would say, that this Book, either for phrase or matter therein contained, were either botch'd or bungled, or not his, or inferior to any that ever the press printed, or a pen did writ; except always to be excepted, his Masters, the King of Kings his Book: And as I think no man could have writ such a Book, but King charles; so I am confident, he could never have writ such a piece, had he not been in trouble: When I am in heaviness, saith David, I will complain: 'tis a sad heart that we are beholding to, for most of David's Psalms, and charles his Meditations.  
For your converting the Kings words to another meaning, viz. that for the matter contained in the Book; sober and learned men have sufficiently proved it offensive, as we see at large in a book In●i●uled, The Anatomy of the liturgy.  
But the King saith, sober and wise men have vindicated it from all Popery and Superstition, viz. Cranmer, Philpot, Ridly, Latime●, Martyis, Compilers, and Recommenders of it, to their wives and friends, as the comfortablest thing in the world, next the Scriptures: Infinite are the sober and wise men, who have both approved, and vindicated it by writings and otherwise; where are your sober and learned men that have proved it Popery? ha? Anatomy liturgy? what Gentleman is that? what Country-man is he? come let's hear what he says? I know you have taken notes at the Lecture of this Anatomy.  
Imprimis, It is full of tautologies; that there are ta●tologies in the Book of Common-Prayer, cannot be denied: but that they are nought, Popish, or offensive, cannot be proved; and that they are good, and Godly, I shall justify, Christ prayed the same words over three times, in the same 'bout, in the same place, the Psalms of David are full of them, in some of his thanksgiving Psalms you shall have 3, 4, 6. and in one Psalm 27 times, for his mercy endureth for ever.  
The mistake, is the making no difference between tautology and vain repetition; for the often reiterating of the same words, may be an argument of the vehemency of the Spitit; as we are use to do when we persuade a man to what we have an earnest desire he should grant; but repetitions are termed vain, because foolish and superstitious people think to be heard for their much babbling.  
Item, It was taken out of the mass Book, and almost the same with it.  
Do we measure how near we are to truth, by remoteness from Romes liturgy, or by our nearness to Gods word? the Doctrine of the Church of England is confessed by all reformed Churches, to be most sound and orthodox; this Book of Common-Prayer( as the King observes) was exactly conformed to that Doctrine; if the mass-book be almost the same( by the profession of all reformed Churches) it should rather render the mass-book less blamable, then ours any way culpable.  
In Edward the sixth dayes, it was put to the Vote, whether or no, they should utterly renounce the old Liturgle, because some superstitions were in it, and make a new, or else retain the old, expunging the errors, that should be found to be in it.  
They all cried a new, a new one, away with the old one, Archbishop Cranmer stood up and  told them, it would more declare their innocency, and carry with it a less show of any schismatical intentions, if they should raze out all its errors, that Rome herself might see, that we did not for sake her, but her errors; and hereupon their mindes were altered, and the Book continued rectified as now it is, and the only absolute liturgy in the world.  
Item, That Popish relic of the cross in baptism remaines.  
In the ecclesiastical Histories you shall find that the Christian enemies used to scoff at the Christians, for being worshippers of a God that was hanged, whereupon the Primitive Christians wore crosses, crossed themselves, their children, their me●t, &c. to show that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified:( as the Book of Common-Prayer gives you the same reason for the using of it) it is nothing the more Popery because Papists use it, for we may use many things which they use, and yet say, that in all these things Job sinned not.  
Item, It is a scandal to Religion, to be beholding to the mass for a form of Prayer.  
The mass-book cannot hear you if you do give never so many thankes: but if you do mean it to be scandalous to be beholding to the Church of Rome for your liturgy, why should the Church of England make it more scandalous, then to be beholding to the Church of Rome for her conversion and succession, which she must be beholding to her whether she will or no? It is a sign the children are not hungry, when they wrangle so about the dishes and neglect the meat.  
Item, Pope pus Quintus offered to confirm the Book of Common-Pr●yer, if Queen Elizabeth would but aclowledge his Supremacy: Ergo, saith he, it was Popery.  
It had been Popery for the Queen to have given him her Supremacy, but it was no Popery in him to allow what was commendable, or to confirm that which he could not confute.  
Item, Should the matter of it( you say) be without exception, ●et the form could not be excused: your reason: set forms being no way allowable by the word of God, but rather repugnant to the holy rule.  
If set forms be repugnant to the word, why did Christ bid us, that when we prayed, we should say, Our Father,& c?  
For your holy boldness that is put upon your spirits, Heb. 10. 19. I looked for some extraordinary and peculiar revelation you had newly found out, applicatory to yourselves alone, that should enable you to go through with such things, as never any of the sons of reason, or heirs of knowledge, had been partakers of before: And looking upon the place, I find it to be no otherwise, then a fulfulling of the prophecy of the Prophet Jeremiah, to all who were under the light of the Gospel, viz. To have boldness to enter into the Holiest, by the blood of Jesus, Heb. 10. 10. which was promised, Omnibus in Christo fidelibus. But what is this against set forms of Prayer? or the Common-Prayer-Book? This boldness consists in the interest which we have in the blood of Jesus; not in our entrance into the Holiest with unprepared and extemporary volubility of our tongues, there is public and private Prayer: public in the Church, private in the closet; when you are in private, use the gift that God hath given you, power out your spirit; a common prayer cannot fit a private devotion; neither can any mans private spirit supplicate for all the people; as I would not have you bring your clos●t with you into the Church, so I would not have you bring a whole congregation with you into the closet of your own breast.  
For the wonderful spirit of Prayer which is powred out, especially upon young men; I will not deny, but praise God for it: but that the putting down of the Book of Common-Prayer, was the occasion of it, I will not believe, because one no way hindered the other; but it I should tell you what I have heard, and heard of, the blasphemies, nonsense, vain repetitions, and ridiculous stuff, it would fill a Book: it is enough that it hath filled many ears and memories, with dis●fections, and loathings of such vain babblings, and bold expostulations; so that the pious King might very well cry out, the●e are the mischiefs which the dis-use of public liturgy hath already produced.  
But now for the mischiefs which the use of the Book of Common-Prayer hath brought forth; truths illustrations, close positions, prodiatis obsecro; where are ye?  
First, every illiterate, scandalous profane fellow that could but red, might perform this work of a Minister, to be the mouth of the congregation to God; O me; what are you for learning, and men of worth? I thought learning had not been requisite for those on whom the spirit is poured forth, I thought it had been like the wind, came and went, and no man knows from whence it comes, or whither it goes; I thought that this capacity for illiterate mens ministering the Gospel, would have made for your Tinkers and cobblers, Broome-men and Foot-men Coach-men and Car-men, for these can red; I did not think that you would have stood upon latin or Greek, School-men or Fathers, logic or Philosophy as things fitting for a man, to whom it is given him what he shall say; if you hold learning requisite, why do you destroy the Universities? and take away the encouragements of learning? and why may not a man that can only red( as you say) be as far either from scandal or profaneness, as he that hath all the arts and tongues?  
This set form occasioned much idleness, and occasioned many to ●ury their talents in the sheets of the liturgy, &c.  
Not at all; for they had occasion enough to exercise their talents of prayer, both before and after Sermons( if they were Ministers) if Lay-men, they might exercise their talents in their private devotions, there being no necessity( as the most excellent King saith) why private and single abilities, should quiter justle out, and deprive the Church of the joint abilities, and concurrent gifts of many learned and Godly men, such as were the compilers of the Service-Book.  
For the foolish story you tell us of the Bul● horns: thanksgiving for del●vera●ces from such accidents as those; was never the order nor the practise of the Church of England; and therefore both the Bull and the horns came out of your own head; a goodly beast.  
But when the King came to that admirable and un-answerable objection, viz. as if the spirit needed help from the Directorie's invention, and not from the Liturgie's expression, as if matter prescribed, did not as much stint and obstruct the spirit, as if it were clothed in, and confined to fit words; it would make one burst with laughter, to see how he fumbles at the untying of this knot, using his teeth and nailes, and cannot undo it, viz. The Directory doth not command one to pray this, but directs those that desire instructions; its only set as a compass, to teach them to ste●r, if they are at a loss, not a mast, which they are necessitated to have, or cannot sail.  
The Church indeed is compared to a ship, tossed upon the waves, and persecuted by the winds; but we must note, that as the Confuter compares the liturgy to a compass which teacheth them to steer, so the liturgy to a Mast, to which we are necessitated: why will he then deprive the Ship, the Church, from a thing so necessary for her good, as a Mast is for a Ship?  
But in the next break, rather then the Doctor shall have his will, the Ship shall have neither Mast nor compass; liturgy nor Directors; are these your truths illustrations? close positions?  
Upon what ground the King said, viz. that one of the greatest faults some men found with the Common-Prayer Book, was this, that it taught men to pray so oft for him: the sequel hath sufficiently declared.  
One argument of yours I had almost over-slipt, but it makes no matter, if I go back again to take it up, viz. the example which you say you have from our Saviour, against any set form of Prayer, precepted or enjoined, out of these words, Math. 6. 9. When you pray, pray after this manner.  
This I take to be an absolute injunction and precept of a set form of prayer; for when I bid you say after this manner, it is more commonly taken according to the idioms of our language, as a command for us to say the very same words, then words to that effect: And if we compare one place of Scripture with another, you will find it to be so: For Luke the 11. and the 2. you will neither find the word thus, or manner, neither after nor before: But, when you pray, say, Our Father, &c.  
Lastly, Although there were some prayers for Bishops, though not so many as for his majesty; yet the same prayers were for you, if you were either a Pastor or a Curate: but there were none for Doctors; the saddle did not wring the Doctor there: this may be the King's Book for all this.   

17. Of the difference between the King and the two Houses in point of Church Government.  
THis controversy hath been so learnedly and largely opened to the world, that none but Sots and wilful Bayards can be convinced, that the r●oting out of Episcopacy is either necessary or lawful.  
You say, His forlorn hope is commanded by policy: you are out in the very beginning; for Episcopacy is no forlorn hope, yet it may happen to be Chaplain to the Regiment: you will not allow the King his reason, where he saith, Reason of State induced the late King to approve that Government above the other: Here you are out again, for inducement is no Commander. You say, this is false; and why? because you find the late King saying, It was impossible for a Prince to preserve the State in quiet, except he have such an influence upon Church-men, and they such dependence upon him: This is a great deal of truth, and very good policy.  
You turn the Kings reason into your, sic volo; for you only say, the King cannot preserve the State in quiet, except he do alter the Government: But, de exclusione verbum nullum; not a word concerning the shutting out, and shutting in of peace and loyalty, with the prevailing Oratory of those, who with the keys of heaven, can so far open or shut the peoples hearts to one or other, that there is a necessity of restraining the seditious exorbitances which may be in the Ministers tongues, if they be not bounded by Episcopacy, and not boundless by the Presbyterian Discipline.  
Now for the reason why this cannot be the late Kings, which is so evident; for he often and openly professed and protested, that it was conscience, not policy, that would not suffer him to consent to alter that Government. And in the fourth break, in the 80, and same page., you tax the Doctor's memory in the Kings words, which say, That it was not any policy of State that fixed him: whereupon you take an occasion to tell him, That he w●ites as little like a true Divine, as like a Prince: And I shall take an occasion to tell you, that you writ as little like a wise man, as an honest man; and prove it when I have done; which is more then you have done to any thing you have said, as to the purpose you have in hand.  
The King shows his reason for Episcopacy, out of Scripture, for its practise, in the Apostles times &c. for its continuance and uninterrupted Government in most places in the Christian world; Upon these grounds, saith the King, viz. Scripture, Canons, Ecclesiast. call examples, is my judgement, for Episcopacy, stated: Then he tells you, It was not any policy of State, either to the men, or their Function, which fixed him: Then because at the beginning of this Chapter, he saith, That reason of State induced him so far to approve that Government above any other: Hereupon you cry out, the Doctor contradicts himself, and de●ies what he affi●med before, had need of a better memory: Will you have patience a little, good Mr Confuter? Is there no difference between these words, induce and approve? And the words, stated and fixed? Is there no difference between the words, so far and altogether? May not the late King be induced by policy, to what he may be fixed by Scripture arguments, and the Churches universal practise? May he not approve of that Government in policy, which upon the fair grounds of Scripture, his judgement for episcopal Government was stated? Will you not permit his reason of State to go only so far, as he would have it himself( that is, for quietness sake) and no ●urther: but you must tie it( neck and heels together) with his judgement, grounded on the highest motives, the Scriptures, whereby he thinks himself obliged in conscience?  
In a word, the King was stated and fixed for episcopal Government, upon these grounds, the Scriptures, his Conscience; he was induced to approve of the same Government, out of reason of State and policy. Now whether these two may both stand together, without justling one another down, there's the question: As also, whether the King writes more like a Prince and a Divine, or he more like a knave and a fool.  
His next cavil is at the Kings saying, His judgement was fully satisfied, that had of all other the fullest Scripture ground: Hereupon he asketh us, Were it as the D●ctor saith, why then did the late King desire a Synod to satisfy him, when it was done before so fully?  
He desired a Synod, to satisfy those who would not be satisfied with his being so satisfied.  
He desired a Synod, to show you, that in a matter of that consequence, and high insistance, he would not rely upon his own judgement, though it were abundantly satisfied.  
He desired a Synod, to show you, how a Synod would be of his opinion; of which he was confident.  
He desired a Synod, because it was not fit that either he, or you, should alter the Government of the Church without: he may rather ask you, why you would deny him one?  
Your next cavil is, at the Kings assertion, viz. Since the first age, for 1500 years, not one example can be produced of any settled Church which had not Bishops. The King puts you to the proof, you should have proved it otherwise then with ifs and ands: By the first age, you say, is meant the time of the Apostles: You got nothing by that, for they were they who were the greatest Bishops, in effect, Arch-Bishops; and in their time there were Bishops, Timothy and Ti●us; the names, Apostles, Evangelists, Arch-Bishops, Bishops or Presbyters, is nothing to our purpose; we dispute not about the name, but the thing: Saint Paul was over Timothy and Titus; they both were over many Ministers in Crete and Ephesus; Episcopacy being nothing else but one Minister over many Ministers, and Episcopacy is nothing else.  
For your cavil at the Kings producing Timothy and Titus, it is but a vain objection for you to avoid his reason out of the etymology of the word; for the word, Apostle, doth not signify so much as a Bishop; the word, Bishop, signifying Overseer; and the word, Apostle, but a Messenger. And for your granting, that if they were Overseers of other Ministers( which you cannot deny, being the Scriptures are so plain) yet it was as they were Apostles or Evangelists, that is vain; for I never heard before, that ever Timothy or Titus were Apostles: And for Evangelists, though Saint Paul bids one of them to do the work of an Evangelist: The meaning of that word is only a Preacher of the Gospel; Saint Paul calls himself a Minister of the Gospel: This doth not prove him no Apostle; no more doth Saint Paul's bidding him do the work of a Evangelist, prove him no Bishop; all these terms are reciprocal, and may be taken for one another: but if we can prove in the Apostles time, that one Minister of the Gospel exercised jurisdiction over other Ministers of the Gospel; we have proved enough for Episcopacy in the first age and purest times.  
For your confuting the Kings argument of reason, you must bring reason to confute it; you are not, ipse dixit, that we must take your word so often with out reason, or so much as common sense; railing for reason is a quick, but no good ●●turn. For your denial of reformed Churches to have that voydance of faction and confusion, which the turbulent Traitors and aspiring Prelates of England have had; I refer you to the reformed Churches of Germany, whose tur●ulent factions have brought them to such confusion, that for hundreds of miles together, there is not a man left to preach or to hear the Gospel: I refer you to the reformed Church of the Netherlands, where there are as many Churches of several religions, as there are( almost) Churches; and to Amsterdam, where there are as many religions as are in the world.  
Neither doth it prove the late King to be of any other Religion, then what he professed himself; because he is loathe to give a scandal to Papists, that doth not suppose him to be willing to give the least scandal to Protestants.  
Neither is it any wonder, why the late King should call the Protestants, especially only those Protestants which were against Episcopacy, but a handful; for in comparison they were no more.  
Neither is there any reason for your cavilling at the late Kings giving those who were disciplined by Episcopacy, the Christian world; for he included his own Dominions: Or, if otherwise, though you may say something to their Doctrine, yet they may be Christian in their Discipline: but I see you would fain find a knot in a bulrush, and cannot.  
As to your denial of a l●te general approbation and submission to the government by Bishops, by the Clergy as well as the levy, is a thing so gross, that persuadebit album esse nigrum if not grosser, is the kingdom did not submit, where were their protestations against it? where were their Manifest'os, their Remonstrances, their Petitions to the contrary? are a few silent, and silenced Ministers, a few voluntary exiles, sufficient to avoid so general a submission, which was performed with a nem ne contradicente? why did they not then speak when it was time? Indeed at the coming in of King James there were a thousand Ministers and others, which put their hands to a Petition, which desired an alteration of Church Government, King James wished them that they would choose out amongst them six of the ablest of them, and he would pitch upon six Bishops, and he will hear the disputation himself, and would do them right: he did hear them impartially, where before his then Majesty and all the Lords, they were so confounded, that they confessed their error, Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Knewstubs not only acknowledging to have received satisfaction from His Majesty and the Bishops, but they promised to desin for the future, all further endeavours of alienation of Church Government, as also to satisfy their brethren; the further particulars hereof I refer you to the Discourse at Hampton Court, written by Dr. Barlow, Dean of Wels, which was never contradicted: and such satisfaction might have been given, if a Synod might have been obtained.  
For your objection between Scotland and England, concerning Episcopacy, being as firmly rooted there as here: I answer you, it was: but I must tell you that nothing is so firmly rooted, but Rebellion will pluck it up: and it was twice plucked up by the roots by that same hand. But the Kings of Scotland were not so strictly hound to continue it there, as the Kings of England here, because they had no Magna Charta there, whereby their Kings were sworn to keep it up, as they were here.  
For your hope in God concerning your particulars in the close of this Chapter; I must tell you, I fear you do not think there is a God to hope in, or else you would never run counter to the reason, I know and believe, you must have in you; run on: but let me tell you, you are in the way of Cain, and I know why you run so greedly after the error of Balaam: 'tis for reward. I pray God you perish not in the gainsaying of Core: that's all I say.   

18. Upon Uxbridge Treaty, and other offers made by the KING.  
ALL that he hath to say against those Princely, Christian, peaceful, ravishing, and most satisfactory expressions, concerning the Treaty at Uxbridge( as fraught with mixtures of Majesty and innocence, a style to which all others aclowledge a sovereignty) is: I am sure, I am confident; of what? viz. that the late King and His evil councillors frustrated it, and if and had yielded then to what he had yielded to since, the War had then ended: having thus learnedly confuted those royal truths, he vaunts of his knocking the nail on the head, with so it is apparent— what that is, is only the same that was before, nothing.  
The King saith, that the very name of Peace was odious and suspected amongst them: he saith it was odious and suspected by His Majesty and His evil Councellors, that is all that he can say to it; this is all that I can say to him; the world must believe whom they have a mind to.  
Here is another of his arguments which he thinks will counterpoise all the golden sentences in this Chapter, viz. He hath a mind to return to the matter( from royal airte reasons own brood) all which matter is, I say: what is it? all the world may judge of the impossibility of any good, by this and other Treaties; and this is all he has in his budget, besides what he found in the Kings Cabinet: which was, that the King should affirm the calling did no way aclowledge them to be a Parliament: hereupon he insults grievously, and cries, O intricate argument! O paradox beyond parallel! had the late council triels of such legerdemain? hereupon he says, the Doctor might very well complain of the un-successfulnesse of any Treaty, by some mens unwillingness to Treat; for hereby, saith he, if the King might have had his will, be never would have acknowledged the Parliament a Parliament: why did he call one then? you will say he was necessitated thereunto; so he was unto the acknowledgement of it, when it was called. But to the words themselves though he useth to quote words, and leave the sense of them out, either in the words before, or behind( or both) the words of his quotation; yet we will for this time take them as we find them: the King affirmed that the calling did no way aclowledge them to be a Parliament.  
I don't think it did: I should think that the calling did only give them a right to parley with His Majesty, and that his parling with them, made it a Parliament: I do not think it is a Parliament till after the Sestion; there is a case that I have red to that purpose, if I am not much deceived( I have no time to search books) stated in Queen Elizabeth her time; Shee called a Parliament, the Writs were issued out to meet at such a day; the day that was appointed for their meeting, the Queen fell sick, and came not to the House until the next day, or some days after; hereupon equestion rose, from what time the Parliament should bear its date, whether from the time that they were appointed by Writ, or from the time that the Queen sate in the House; it was put to the Lawyers,& they all resolved upon the question, that the Parliament ought to bear date from the time that the Queen sate in the House, for there could be no Parliament without a Session. Thus you see there is no such monstrosity in the King's saying, the calling did no ways aclowledge them to be a Parliament: It seems that the King was a better Lawyer, then you are a man of understanding; you pick holes before you know whether it be a coat or no: but I believe picking of thanks for this acceptable piece of work, was the original aim: for I do verily believe you think this is the Kings own Book, as much as I do, or any man else; there are some in the Army that knows it to be true enough; and some have been converted by it, before ever it was published, or the King had never had it again, after it was lost at the battle of Nazeby.   

19. Upon the various events of the War, victories and defeats.  
YOu begin very charitable, I wish you would hold on; but you dissent from the good Doctor in his opinion of the justness of the l●te Kings cause: a great piece of matter, whether you do or no: the word of God and the Laws of the Land, are still the same, whatsoever your opinion is.  
You say you believe that if we should go by the pole, the number of s●ber Christians would be found to give their voices for you; but then you must not be judges yourselves, who are sober Christians, and which is the greater number too, if you be not, there will be a hundred to one against you; that's my belief, so we are quit for that.  
You say you will not be thought so uncharitable as to deny, but that God through his mercy might crown some of that party with eternal life( here it holds good) whose lives were blessed in so bad a cause, there you fall off, whilst you use the Kings own words thus, you cannot choose but have some charity in you, though it be but by reflection: this man answers the Kings Book, just as an echo answers a voice, gives him some of his own words again, as senseless as it remains its self.  
Wherefore for what you must deny, and will affirm, and for your natures dimmer light, and sword and buckler, and things that might be known; and your seeming no reason; and making no question, in your 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and tenth breaks of this Chapter, as you begin so end: for I can make as little of them as you have done, which is just nothing. No more I am able to do of the next two.  
But now you are come to prove your assertion, that there was no breach of dury, or loyalty on the Parliaments part, there you say something: Now I am for you, how do you prove it? come let us see, I long to see, They owed the late King none at all, a very pretty argument, short and sweet, I hope you will prove it: Ye●, He having broken His oath with them, they were discharged of theirs to him: where do you find that? in that Law? Gods or mens? neither I am sure; where do you find, that the King and his subjects changed oaths? there is difference between taking oaths, and enterchanging oaths: the King is King without an oath, born so, appointed so by the Laws of God and Man, made so by divine providence; the people are born subjects; neither do they for the far greater number of them, ever take any oath at all; He is King before He is crowned, or whether he be crowned or no. Coronation is but a ceremony, and his oath is but at his Coronation; we make oaths at our baptism, and marriage, it is impossible to keep them, but every breach don't make them no Christians, or no husbands: the King swears to rule His Subjects according to the Laws of the Land, no King over did so.  
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife upon every occasion? no: Is it lawful for a woman to put a way her husband upon any occasion? not: If you argue upon oaths, then it were lawful for their people to alter their Kings, upon every occasion, here is his oath, but where is your Law? his oath is an assurance, not a condition; a tie between God and him, not between him and you; for then Rebellious minds would never want pretences: If we should frame arguments to ourselves for our obedience, or disobedience, from inferences ge●hered out of the ceremonies of Coron●tion, we should make a mad piece of work: suppose when little Donim●●k, the Kings Champion made this challenge, before all the people, viz. If any Christian, Heathen, turk, or Jew, dare but affirm, that charles is not true King, and will avouch his saying with the sword, I am the Champion will combat him: upon this when he had thrown down his gauntlet, another had taken it up, and offered to fight with him, do you think the Kings cause had been set upon the Dice of his hands, were he a giant? but thus far I believe he was bound by Law, honour and office, viz. to venture his own life, against any foreigner, but not that the Kings right should be any way shaken by his ill fortune or success; so although I think that the Kings oath is as solemnly binding as any oath whatsoever, if Kings do wilfully break it: yet I do not think he is to venture any thing but his own soul, not his Crown, his Kingdom, his office, his Wife, his Children, his friends, his fortunes, for in taking this oath he engageth only his soul, and that only to God, and therefore if he breaks it, he is at his mercy, not his peoples; it is not the peoples case, for they are obliged by Law, by nature, by Gods word, to be obedient unto the King, he not to them; there are rules set down for their punishment if they neglect their duty, there are none for him; principi leges nemo scripsit: again, we see it is not the practise of the Land, to take any subjects life or fortune away for breaking any oath, except the Law otherwise lays hold of him for perjury, which is the highest breach; the poorest subject can but loose his ears: and must the King loose his Head? if it were true that he did break his oath, that was only ceremonial and formal, for an oath is not of the effence of royalty, for he was King before; Judges, Majors, prentices, scholars, all take oaths, at their enterances into any offices or degrees in the Common-wealth, but none punished but as offending some Law or other, these oaths were invented as trials of their affections to those ways they undertake, not as traps and 'gins to catch their purses, lives or fortunes: In that nature I would gladly know who ever kept his oath in baptism, Marriage, who hath kept the Covenant? or exactly any oath that ever he took that was so general as is this Coronation oath: you can no more pled a nullity of the regal office, upon holes picked from the non-observance of this oath, as I may pled an unworthiness of your living upon earth, because I can prove you have not kept the commandments. For your instance of King James, that when a King turns tyrant, he ceases to be a King, that is true enough; but now you beg the question, we do not grant you that King charles was a tyrant; and for your relatum and corr●latum, we must not be ruled in this argument by logic, but by Law, but I shall easily vanquish your logic; for if the King and his people were relatives, it would follow by your own argument, being that the correlatum cannot subsist without its relatum, that now there is no King, there should be no people, as where there is no father there is no son, or no husband no wife, and therefore good Sir I pray you, will you put up your relatives and your coroellatives, they may serve for some other purpose, but not for this.   

20. Upon the Reformation of the times.  
YOu say, and so saying, gain say, what the King says, viz. no glory is more to be envied then that of due Reformation either of Church or State: your reason is, envy is a 'vice, but did you never hear of such a thing as emula virtus? you yield, that there is a holy emulation; but that you say is so improper that you will not believe it dropped from the late King, why? is it so improper, because invidia est vir●u●is comes? why will you have it that the Doctor should render his late majesty an envier of due Reformation, of Church and State? is it because he who you call Doctor in the following words saith, Althou●● God shoul● not honour me so far, as to make me an instrument of so good a work, yet I should and glad to see it done: this is a true cock of the game I warrant you, he looks blows, when he cannot rise.  
You partly gr●nt, Th●t the Assembly of Divines were employed in an unwonted way, but you would have the Doctor to have considered the cause, before he blamed the Parliament, and whats that? viz. The wickedness and superstition of the generality of the Clergy: who shall be judge what is superstition? you that are to be taught what it is? or they that can tell you? or shall exceptions make War against the general rule, and be absolute rules themselves? shall a part of any sort of people, without the consent of the whole body, or the head, judge the whole? and that part chosen by another part of the people, that is not of them; surely if fancy can reach to a higher piece of injustice and slavery then this, I have no understanding.  
As for your good Prelates, and good Doctor, and what Doctor, and his being in love with his threa-bare text, sic pueri crepundia gestant, but where you trace the Doctor step by step, I shall tread as softly as I can upon your heels: your first objection( but object nothing to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. objection concerning Reformation) viz. to the breaking Church windows, which time had sufficiently defaced, was an effect of Reformation: now Gentlemen, I will tell you how finely this man hath traced the Doctor step by step; he hath leaped over the dissolutions of all order and government in the Church, over novelties, sc●ismes, and corrupt opinions, over undecencies, and confusions in sacred administrations; over sacrilegious invasions upon the rights and revenues of the Church, over contempt and oppressions of the Clergy, over injurious diminu●ions and persecutions of His Majesty, up into a Church window; well now you are got up, what do you say? viz. If they ought to be defended, what fault is it? truly none at all; but how do you prove they ought to be defended? you say His Majesty implied as much in his latter words, viz. which served but to put posterity in mind to thank God for that clearer light wherein they live, and therefore you thought good to break down the windows, that you may come at that clearer light, indeed a through Reformation.  
Thus Moses( you say) grounded the golden calf to powder, he would not leave the least relics of the Idol, the least occasion of Idolatry to Israel. Who talks of calves or Idols? the King only speaks of windows, if there were any Idols, you should have done well to have pulled them down, and grounded them as small as you pleased, but you should have made them up again with other glass, and not have left the windows a shane to Christians, Moses did well to grinned the calf to powder, but Calfs did not do well to ground their Moses to du●t and ashes.  
Secondly, You will not allow the Kings complaint of their pulling down crosses which were but civill, not Religious marks, and why? because they were not placed in houses, but Churches, they were placed amongst the houses as well as in Churches, witness Cheapside and Charing cross; and yet I believe you did not see such frequent bowing, and cringing, with cap and knee, to either of them.  
For your asking the Doctor whether it were not as good reason to set up the statue of Judas, as the figure of the cross: I answer, you do not oppose them rightly: you should have opposed to the statue of Judas, the statue of Christ: and if you would have gon any further, you should have opposed to the cross of Christ, the figure of the gallows that Judas hung himself upon; and you should have left the cross to them that had a mind to it; and have taken the other to yourself; and so all parties had been well pleased.  
For your objection out of the old Law, I have formerly answered you, why the cross was so much accounted of amongst the Christians; only I shall add, as to the present purpose, that there is a great deal of difference, between that which is any way, instrumental to the least evil; and that was so much instrumental( as you call it) to so much good, as the salvation of all mankind.  
You tell us of Josiah his cutting down the groves and woods, wherein were placed their Idols, and their Altars; but I must tell you, that it is not yet concluded on by the mayor part of Christians, no nor Protestants neither, that glas-windows, or Crosses, or monuments, are such Idols as you make them: but if they were, none did, or could do this, but Josiah. Josiah cut down the Groves; but you have cut down your Josiah: and now I pray you give me leave to use some of your own words, I have not done it a long time; they lie in my way; viz. Behold then how Peters followers have swerved in practise from that blessed Apostle; and what a good sign of Protestantism this painter hath hung up at the late Kings own door. viz. his own head.  
As to your cavil at the Kings complaint at the defacing of the monuments and inscription of the dead; you have put in popish, before inscriptions; inscriptions before monuments: Or, between both, instead of And; to make his words the more ugly like the percecutors of the primitive Christians, who put Bears skins upon the Christians backs, that their dogs may fasten upon them. Inscriptions you put first, as thinking it to have the broader shoulders, and therefore able● to bear the burden of your calumny: Or you put instead of and; lest you should have little to say to monuments, which to deface, you know, would be accounted a barbarism that heathens were never guilty of: thus you are rather wilfully blind in your devotion, then thankful to God for your clearer light.  
Then( you say there) follows one thwack more, to make room for the Common-prayer book, and drive out the new catechism. You follow your business close indeed: he speaks not one word to any thing of all which the King objects: viz. The leaving of all Ministers to such liberty in their private devotions, that no Christian can tell to what he may say, Amen: speaks not a word to the objected errors, blasphemies, ridiculous undecencies, boldness, ignorance, in their prayers and peachings; not a word saith he to any of all this: but fals thwack upon the poor catechism, he means to make that pay for all; and that he doth to some purpose: for he tells you, it is not as the King says; but as he says; which is all the substance of that break.  
To that part of the Chapter which you say, you doubt nothing, I doubt as little; viz. that Christs kingdom might have been set up without pulling down the late Kings. But where you come with your excipe quod jus; viz. had not such Priests as himself, persuaded the late King not to suffer it &c. as whose self? as the Kings self? have you left the Doctor, and now have you brought the King to be a Priest? I fear me, you will find him a Prophet too, ere it be long.  
For your confidence, that Christs government would have confirmed the late Kings( if he had not done as the Doctor made him( you say) profess &c.) I shall only answer you in the Kings own words, Had some men truly intended Christs government, or knew what it meant in their hearts; they could never have been so ill governed in their words and actions, both against Me, and one another.  
Lastly, The King speaks as plainly as a man can speak; viz. Christs government will confirm mine; not overthrow it, since as I own mine from him, so, I desire to rule for his glory, and his Churches good. Yet will this Vafar be snarling at these words; with his wresting them otherwise then to his intended purpose; as if the King should mean hereby, his obedience to the Pope; because he stiles him Christs Vicar, Et si no aliqua nocuisset mortuus esset.   

21. Upon His Majesties Letters taken and divulged.  
Here you say The late Kings pen-men( with which he was fr●m the first t●roughly stored) did in all th●●r libellous pamphlets, endeavour insinuate jealousies, &c.  
You would not believe that all those rovall Declarations, and offers of grace, were of His penning, until God acted as if he would put Him, and all His Manuscrips, into your hands, that you might hear Him speak, and see his writings, and himself writ such things, as never man spake( excepting him whose favour it was to be the Son of man) which confounded, and amazed you with admiration and yet though you did, yet you would not, seem to believe;& that you did is most apparent, when the same reason which should have evidenced unto you, that those emanati●ns from his royal pen, were the sincere extracts of His clearest ●udgement, Yet ye conv●●●●● this ●●●uperious manifestation o● H●● abilities, into His own prejudice; declaring it ●o all the world, that heretofore, you thought how that all the evil had proceeded from His evil council; but now, you see that it proceeded from himself; converting your own convictions, into his accusations, and now do you come to tell us of the late Kings pen-men? and what did the●e libellious pamphlets in●eavour to insinu●te? viz. that many jealousies and scandals were cast upon the late King. God knows they were; and God will let you know one time or other, that you were too too guilty in so doing.  
Now( you say) God by his providence had bestowed so fair a candle, you were resolved not to put it under a buss●l, but in its proper place; the proper place for the Kings papers, was His Cabinet; and the proper place for his Cabinet was in his closet: you should have sent Him them again un-opened; and though there were nothing therein contained, to the Kings prejudice, as you suggest, yet in regard there might have been some secrets which the King would not have had discovered; there might have been such favourable constructions made thereof, that a few such civilities might have so wrought upon His princely disposition, that a readier way might have been found out, for the taking away all scribblings, which were between them; then all the harsh and spiteful usage where with you daily prosecuted Him. But let us see the worst you can say, or have seen in all those papers; show us the pith and marrow of the Malignity therein contained.  
See pag. 5, 11, 38. viz. Wherein might be discovered, under his own band, how the late King was not only lead, but bad engaged himself so to be by the Queens evil council: Who doubts of it, but that such a thing might have been discovered, if you had discovered any such thing; but you discovered nothing: Are these the discoveries of your new found candles? on, on, pag. 42. viz.  
That notwithstanding all Vows and Prot●stations, not an-attended with dreadful imprecations and execrations of the contrary, how he endeavoured to engage Irish, Dutch, Lorrainers, French and Danish, to an invasion of England, &c.  
If my only Children throw me into the Ditch, shall I be shie in seeking help of Strangers? If I be ready to sink under water, shall I question whether he be a Lorrainer, or a Dane, if I think he may help me? Why may not he sand to the Irish to assist him, as well as you sent for the Scots to come to your assistance? But you will say, he often protested against these things; that was, when you reported the Fleet of Danes to be upon the Seas: but when you actually brought in one foreign Nation, to your assistance, he may much more endeavour the bringing in as many as he can procure, notwithstanding all his Protestations, Imprecations and Execrations formerly made; on, on, I say, why don't ye go on?  
See pag. 5. What? How be juggled in his treaties and concessions, granting one thing publicly, and entering the contrary in the Councel-Bo●k, with much more; and nothing yet: See how you juggle in your writings, to promise us great matters, with your conjuring words, and you bring forth nothing: Juno Lucina ser opem obsecto; ●s if the Moon were to be Midwife to your big-bellied Mountain, and it bring forth nothing but a ridiculous Mouse.  
In the next break he makes the Kings words his own, with the same grace that a saddle becomes a sow, or a swine wears a jewel in her snout: for shane do not make thyself such a laughing stock to all the world.  
As to your second figure, viz. That Bees neither will nor can gather honey, where only poison is to be sucked: it is a very strange thing; the King saith, That in his Letters there is nothing but the honey of constancy, to his Wife, the Laws, and Religion: you say, there is nothing but poison, of bondage and tyranny: It seems by the story, that they are flowers, from whence may be gathered that which will supply both natures, Bees and Spiders: you love not the nature of the Bees, I perceive, nor their condition, because they have a King among●t them: but the nature of the Spider you much affect, and do resemble; whose property is( as the King says) to suck poison out of the same flowers that Bees suck honey; and to entangle harmless and silly flies within the webs which you have woven, almost in every house, that you may drag the innocent into your den, and there torment them, as you please: I should think the Apostles rule the best for a Christian to walk by, where two constructions are to be made, to judge the best; to judge favourably of all men, especially of him in whose favour we are commanded, that our hearts should not think amiss, Curse not a King, no not in thy heart, Eccles. 10. 20. Much less with lifting up our heel, our hand, or wagging of our tongues; but most of all, not in beating our brains to hammer out some accusations against him, after he is dead: Not only contrary to all Christian rules of charity, but to the practise of the Heathens, who had but the light of nature, De mortuis nile nisi been.  
And for the bondage, you say, you should have been in, except the Parliament, like a good Physician, had given an antidote: I shall only tell you thus much, th●t whilst the Lord of hosts shall permit their success, and whilst they have all the power, welath and preferments to confer reward such men as you, they shall never want those that will do as much as you do: but I believe the people of England think themselves under the greatest bondage that ever any men in the world were under, and when the successses and rewards shall begin to fail, you will begin to find it.  
For your figure of 3. as relating to foreign enemies, we had done with that before.  
To your figure of 4. viz. That the design here was like the Turkish tyranny; I would to God it were, for that is a great deal better: I hope a man may wish the lesser of the two evils, and desire neither.  
But when you come to Egypt and the Mammalucks, you talk as if you had never red the story; for the government of the Mammalucks was a government by an Army; such a one as ours is.  
As to your figure of 6. viz. That multitudes were convinced by those Letters, that the late King did both mind and act such things as ill became a Prince: You must carry a multitude( as Epaminondas carried an Army) in your own brain; for I do not think that those Letters did shane any more then the Divulgers; I have red them, and you have picked out the worst matter that you could find, and the worst was not so bad as to necessicate so high an incivility; there was a great deal of goodness and sweetness in them; I am sure if there were any thing of a contrary nature, we should set the hears head against the Goose g●ble●s, and not pick all the worst, and leave the rest behind.  
You deny the King to be the Father of Parliaments, you affirm them to be theirs and the peoples creatures( besides the sense which we shall come to by and by) did you ever hear such language? them, theirs, and the peoples creatures? What is it you say? speak out: he dares not, it would sound so scurvily if he should: For suppose he should have said in plain English, I do affirm, that the Parliament is the Kings Father; then should I have said unto him, I do affirm, that the fellow is stark mad, to tell us, that a Son can beget a Father, or that the Mother can come out of the Daughter: He would further have it, that the King is but the peoples servant: In some sense I must confess he is, as a Father and Mother are servants to their Children, and owe them duties, but not by way of comparison, not in degrees of excellency, authority, or power, or pre-eminence, for so the King is only Gods Minister or Servant, he is a Father of that Country to which they are Servants, who would be Masters: But when a body stands upon his head, it is right enough to say, the feet are uppermost.  
For your endeavour to wave the Kings instance, in Noahs sons practise, it is but a vain attempt; for it is not enough for you to say, it is apparent that they went backward and covered his shane; for he never went backward and covered his shane, who first discovered it: besides, that was not all his fault, but he went and made remonstrance of it to his brethren; so that no thanks to him, that they might not do so too, which they might have done, had they had as little grace as he; his duty had been to have covered him himself, and ne'er have  told his brethren of it: And for your jeering us with Servus servorum, Gregor. which is nothing at all, either to us, or to our purpose: but I will tell you what is to both, I am afraid that these cursed Chams, discoverers of their Fathers nakedness, Remonstrancers, &c. have brought such a curse upon the Nation, that we are all nothing else but Servi servorum, servants to servants indeed.  
Lastly, I am as confident as you, and do conclude, that present and after times will judge, that the Parliament hath lost the reputation of civility and humanity, and have got no honour by so faithless discharging their duty and trust against the safety of the people of England in general.   

22. Upon His Majesties leaving Oxford, and going to the Scots.  
SIR, it is no argument, that the King had rendered himself odious, either to God or man, or that be had need of any such repentance of any actions of his; or of deserting them; nor guilty of any inconstancy, tyranny or obstinacy, as you speak of; because he hath not left him, within his three Dominions, a place, where with honour and safety he might rest his head; for it was our Saviours case, The birds of the air have nests, and the foxes have holes, ●ut the Son of man hath not wherein to put his head: Will you judge the King a Sinner? a Friend to Publicans and Sinners? a ●a●ser of sedition? because he takes up his cross, and follows Christ? If you give him Christ's sorrows, will you not allow him his lamentations?  
You blame the Kings prudence in that act: but all the world blames their loyalty, for not acting according to their engagements.  
You say, it rendered the late King desirous of spinning out the web of trouble: others conceive it an act endeavouring his own safety.  
You ask, what example of safety could the Scotch Chronicles more afford, that he should choose rather to trust them then you? To which it might be answered, First, he was their native Prince; Secondly, they invited him, he had reason to take the first offer: And I will tell you an inducement beyond all this, to which all instances of Chronicles must give place, and that is, an old custom amongst them, observed never to be violated, which might put confidence in the late King, which was, the unviolable laws belonging to their deadly feud.  
Where this deadly feud is once begun, and entred into( by that sacramental receiving of their kinsmans blood, unto their own bodies, by draughts toasted with vows of revenge, upon the first occasion that shall present itself) it happens oft times, that some one or other hath this deadly feud between him, and perhaps two other distinct families: it is the Law of the feud, that if any one( between whom& any other there is this feud) chance to be overset and ruastred, that man may fly unto a third, between whom, and himself, there is also the same feud, and that third man shall think himself bound in honour to defend the persecuted, against the other, though there be the same mortal quarrl between him& his guess, as there was between his guess and him that persecutes him: and during the time that the man( who tl●us fled to his enemy for sanctuary) supposes his body to have any of the sustenance which he received by the others largess he thinks himself obliged to neglect all opportunities of revenge; and afterwards to remain in statu quo. Now the King was first at foud with the Scots●t Secondly, with the Parliament: the Parliament worsted him: he flies to a third, notwithstanding the feud between them, he conceived they were bound in honour to defend him from a third; and whatsoever were the reasons to the contrary, if they would have broken their old custom, neglected their wonted ceremonies, yet they should have put him in the same condition of freedom he was in before he came unto them, and then to have let him shift for himself; this they knew well enough, this at least the King expected from them, but alas: 
Quid non mortalia pectora cogit, auri Sacra fames?   
You say, it was a trick to set the two Nations together by the years; if Paul can set the Pharisees and the saducees and the saducees at variance amongst themselves, whereby he might work his own deliverance; I think it good policy, any thing for a queit life.  
For your conclusion of the badness of the end, by the unsuccesse fullness of the means. 
Careat successibus opoto quisquis ab eventu; that's no rule to walk by.   
Why doth the doctrine of this Sermon, preach the hardness of the Kings heart? is it because the Sermon hath this Doctrine in it? viz. In these extremities, I look not so much to man as to God, he will have it thus, that I may wholly cast myself, and my now distressed affairs, upon his m●rcy, who hath both the hearts and hands of all men in his dispose; call you this hardness of heart?  
The Kings disguising of himself in a clergy mans habit, no way argues, that and preferred the mitre before his crown: no man loves his vizard better then his face. This man hath in this Chapter, passed by, all the royal and Princely apothegms of piety, patience, resignation, constancy, devotion, and resolution: and hath not taken notice of any thing therein contained, neither by way of answer, or exception; but makes up his Chapter, altogether, upon a Priests coat, and a game at Tables; thus have I seen in the Hall at Westminster,( where so many Thrones of justice are erected, affording most notable, and concerning observations of the dooming laws, of lives and fortunes, from those learned and reverend sages of the Law, attracting all the eyes and ears of the judicious) Jack-and-Apes boyes playing at shettle-cock.   

23. Upon the Scots delivering the King to the English, and His Captivity at Holmeby.  
IF the Scots did sell the King, let them look to it, and so shall you for buying him; Judas was not only accursed, who sold him, but the Jews who bought him: and is not this answer like that of the Priests, and Elders to Judas?  
Viz. What is that to us? see thou to that, Mat. 27. 4. It was undoubtedly a small rate, 200000. l. is but a very small matter: but grant in comparison, &c. you say it was their arrears, but had they had those arrears, if they had not delivered up that commodity?  
You say, they durst not venture so desperate an invasion of Englands privileges, as to dispose of the late Kings Person upon English ground: It appeared afterward that they durst without His Person, much more with it; wherefore your confidence is already baffled.  
How can you have the face to say, that the Presbyterians and Independents abhor all such doings, whilst they did with the King, as Pilate, and the High Priests did unto Christ: and the Scots, as Judas?  
You would fain know what part of Christs story, will hold Analogy with the late Kings captivity at Holmeby: I tell you: To that part of Christs story where it is recorded in holy writ, where the Souldiers lead Christ away into the Hall cvlled Pretorium, a whole band was about him, mark 15. 16. their sending of the King the new clothes whilst he was in Prison, was their clothing of Him in purple: their thorny Messages, was His Crown of thorns, wherewith they pleated His Head: their Addresses unto Him, whilst He was there, was their salutations; and the title that they gave him was in effect, hail King of the Jews, their promised-came-to-nothing, was their smiting him on the Head with a reed; their serving him on the knee, whilst he was in this durance, was their bowing their knees and worshipping of him: their Treating with him, was but mocking of him; I, and their spitting in his face, was their spitting upon him: till at the last they took off this purple, and put on his own clothes, clothing him with his own name, Charles Stewart, and so lead him to be Crucified.  
The forty dayes tempting in the wilderness, which you speak of, was the forty dayes allotted for the Treaty, where he was sufficiently tempted; for your thinking that we can never prove that be cried, Get thee hence, to any that offered him the kingdoms of the world: yes, therein I shall be able to satisfy you, for the Parliament offered him three kingdoms, if he would fall down and worship them; but he would not, but answered them his ipsisstmis verbis, GENTLEMEN, IF I CAN MAKE MY PEACE WITH YOU UPON THESE terms, WELL AND GOOD, IF NOT I WILL MAKE MY PEACE WITH GOD, which is altogether to the same effect, with GET THEE HENCE: thus I have shown you to what part of Christs story the Anal●gie bolds.  
I do rather believe Sir, that you are some of mother Shiptons family, whose very actions prophesies the destruction of London, and the childs crying out( in admiration) Mother I have seen a man to day: The North shall rue it very sore, but the South should rue it for evermore.  
For your concluding with the honour which the Lord hath done, not only in delivering the Israelites, but also in the destruction of pharaoh: Sir, I must tell you, you are out of your text; for you do not find that pharaoh was destroyed; nor lice, nor flies, nor frogs, nor blains, nor botches, seized upon Pharoahs Person; his eldest son may suffer with the first born of Egypt, but pharaoh must not be touched; neither do you red that pharaoh suffered in the waters, you may find it hand over head if you will, but not in the texts of Scripture, 'tis as I tell you: our poor King was the first that ever suffered i● such a read Sea as he suffered.   

24. Upon their denying His Majesty the attendance of His chaplains.  
LIke a dog that cannot lye down, until he hath turned himself round about, so this man must have his frisk, before he can come to the business: and after a long p●●amble, wherewith he hath tired our patience with his fus●an: he tells us now briefly, and what now? thus he begins.  
Viz. They conceived, what? the Kings Chaplains to be frogs: and therefore they would keep them away from croaking in the Kings ears.  
I wonder why this fellow should fancy the Kings chaplains to be frogs? they never played at skip-frogge with their brethren, in leaping into benefice over other mens heads, as our pious orthodox Divines have done, they never entred so unwelcomely into the Kings Chamber, as the frogs of Egypt did into King Pharoahs presence, as a plague unto him; croaking, is to be understood, harsh and unpleasing sounds, such as the chaplains which you would have sent, did use to make in the Kings ears: might he have had his own chaplains, they would have made better music: therefore good Mr. Confuter, the frogs be yours, they are so like you, that it is pity to take them from you.  
You tell us that His Majesty might have had His eyes opened, had He accepted of those Ministers which were sent unto Him: this you illustrate by a similitude of Christ working a Miracle upon the ●lind; curing him with day, and spittle, a thing in itself no way probable: which similitude I approve of very well, for if ever these men open any mens eyes, it is a marvel indeed; for I am sure they use contrary means; things in themselves no way probable, or able to do any good; if the King had not thought that miracles had ceased long ago, it may be he would have admitted them.  
But you tell us, the King must be neither ingenious, nor charitable, nor Christian, if he interprets this denial amiss; they have such a care of his soul and body, that they will not let him have the liberty either of his body, or his mind.  
But now from generals to Particulars.  
1. The Doctor represents the late King grandly wicked: how so Sir? because be accounts good, honest, and religious company, worse then solitude. If you had let the King to have had his own Chaplains, it was those which he would have had; he wanted no companions, were they never so boon; it is no marvel if the King preferred solitude before such saucy company as he should have had of them; they were not to be all fellows at the ball he was to toss: and I would fain have you tell me, how many peals of oaths you have heard rung by the Kings Chaplains? Calumniare fortiter, aliquid adbaerebit: is that your plot? you shall have it.  
You appeal to all understanding mens judgements, whether heaven would not be more uncouth then a wilderness, to the late King; in preferring Solitude, before good, civill, honest and religious company: what if they were otherwise? what if a thousand to one throughout christendom thought otherwise? what if the King himself thought them not good? uncivil, impious knaves and hypocrites: will you not give a man leave to judge his own liquour by his own palate? nor his own meat by his own taste? we know that nothing is more ordinary then for heretics& schismatics, to cry up themselves, to be the only men in the right, and all the world besides themselves, to be in an error: as the Donatists, Nulla salus nist ex parte Donati: No salvation, but to believe as do the Donatists. These two, viz. Libertines, and the Donatists, would have been fitter companions a great deal then the King; and your Presbyterian Buchanonians.  
You will not have this denial seem a greater rigour and barbarity, then is ever used by Christians, to the meanest prisoners; because you say, the Spanish inquisition is worse; and so was the high Commission.  
First, had you traveled with the late King into Spain, you would have known that they never used to put any catholic Subject of the same Religion that the King was of, into any such prison at all, as you do put a Protestant King into an inquisition; who is of the same Religion with yourselves.  
Again, no prison in all Spain, ever shut out a prisoners ghostly Father, from the prisoner, being both Roman-catholikes: ●● you have done unto his majesty, being both of you Protestants. And for your pattern in the mount; you have exceeded all patterns of mounts or high Commissions in your high Court of Justice, higher then all the hills in Rome, were they set upon the top of one another; Peleon upon Ossa, would be but a mole-hill to it: Mount Atlas, if any thing, must come near it; who carries the heavens upon his shoulders, which he could soon bring down and incorporate with the lower Globe.  
What do you tell us of your Grandsire Bonner, and Queen Maries daies? here are Protestants hindered to come to Protestants; what is the other to our purpose? were they not Protestants who kept were out, by the Authority of a Papist Queen? But the King complains heer of a Protestant King, his being denied, by his Protestant Subjects, to have his Protestant Chaplains, to do their Protestant duty, according to the Protestant Church of England, can you bring me the like of this in all the world?  
For your calling his Majesties Chaplains, Arminians, Papists and superstitious: you are necessitated thereunto; for they who do things they are ashamed of, must tell a lie for shane; and must not think that their greatest shane consists in lying: thus have I seen people out-face others in a truth, with much pleasure to themselves, and high food to their choler, whilst others have dashed them out of countenance, with blushing for them: But I do think you will call so many honest and good men papists, as is enough to bring popery into request again.  
You say very well, that you little conceive any analogy between theirs and the Parliaments denial: The Kings request having only an eye to holy conversation; your denial squinting at the perverting of true Christians, and turning them aside into blind paths leading only to their own corrupt interest.  
So that the King had no reasan to conceive those, who had so great an influence, in occasioning those calamities, and inflicting those wounds upon him, to be his proper Physitians.  
In the next break, you compare the Parliament to the true Daniel, and servants of the most high God; the liturgy of the Church of England, to Bell; and Episcopacy to the Dragon: Now we will see who are likest Bell, and the Dragon, and so we shall come to the knowledge of the true Daniel.  
Was the very Book of Common-Prayer itself reported, to eat 12 great measures of fine flower, and 40 sheep, and 6 vessels of wine? Did the King worship and adore the Book of Common-Prayer? Was the Book made with ●ands, or with heads? Did the King think the Book of Common-Prayer a living God? Is it day within, and brass without? And for th●t Dragon, Episcopacy, you should have destroyed. Episcopacy, as Daniel destroyed it, viz. without sword or staff, and the King would have given you leave: but contrariwise, your Presbyteri● is the Dragon, whose mouth the Kings Daniels, with their arguments and reasons, so stopped, with pitch, fat and hair, that it burst in pieces: At which your Babylonians took such indignation, that they conspired against the King, saying, the King is become a Papist, and he hath destroyed Bell( our liturgy) and slain the Dragon( our presbytery) So that they came to the King, and said, deliver us up Episcopacy, or else we will destroy thee and thy house: The difference in the story being only this, viz. Cyrus being so sorely pressed, was constrained to deliver up his Daniel: but King charles being never so sorely threatened, would not deliver up his Bishops to be cast into their Dens.  
And here, by the way, I must tell the Confuter, That the overflowing of his gull had swelled so high above the banks, that had not truth had an ark, she had been in great danger of the deluge.  
For your Dragon's practise, Rev. 12. Who had changed his sables into galls, and decked himself in scarlet, and purple, died in blood, that he might appear as read as and: Though you are somewhat mystical, I could be clearer in my applications, but I think I need not.  
But when the earth shall help this woman that you talk of, truth, by all mens opening of their mouths, that are now stopped, you shall then hear heavier charges against you then, viz. That the Parliament enforced the late King to live many months without any Prayers, Sacraments and Sermons, unless be became his own Chaplain; which is a charge too heavy for any man to undergo, that ever thinks to come before a Judge.  
You and I will once in our lives conclude together in the Kings own words, viz. That the truth was, the King never needed more the service and assistance of men judiciously pious, and soberly devout, and went without them.   

25. penitential Meditations and Vows in the Kings solitude at Holmby.  
THese seraphic contemplations, and vows, distilled from the lymbeck of his princely soul, heated by those fiery trials, sends forth the purest spirits of his devotion, which he calls forgeries, because they do not agree with the late Kings actions: being never guilty of so specious resolves and pretended penitence.  
Which is an argument, as much evincing, as if I should say, such a one, were not a man, because he is a rational creature; for all that knew the King, both friends and others, confess him the most religious and heavenly man, that ever they conversed with in his way: And why should they not think his way good, when his conversation was so heavenly? Why were they fain to change his servants so often, for fear of being won by his accustomend pious behaviour? How came he to have so many converts? How came they to aclowledge the King had such a winning faculty, as was able to work upon any man that was about him, if they did not take heed? His actions are not without dispute, whether they were good or bad, or less good then otherwise, or whether the good did not exceed the bad; whereupon a favourable interpretation might be had, in regard we are all mortal, and so fallible: but it is without dispute, that his Meditations and Vows are heavenly: Why should we not( in charity) rather think the better of his actions, proceeding from a man of so pious resolves, rather then these pious resolutions none of his, because of his actions? of whose malignity we can no ways be thoroughly resolved.  
For Abab, take him to yourselves, whose upper roof is down already; we will not despair of David, though he be in all his troubles; whose House is not so soon down, though Absolom be on the top of it; it may be the Kings Book, and the Kings House, for all this.   

26. Upon the Armies surprisal of the King at Hol●by, and the ensuing distractions in the two Houses, the Army, and City.  
THis surprisal, you say, you are confident was an act of the highest prudence: And why are you so confident? if I may be so bold? Because it was done both without the Generals, or the Parliaments directions? Because it was done by way of preventing the Parliament from fetching of him up by Order? Because it was done by Cromwels private directions to a private Coronet? ( joice) Because, when the King  told cromwell, that the power of Parliament was the power by which they sought, and therfore they should steer their course accordingly; that he might tell the King, That they were not only Souldiers, but Commoners; Because they might, at their pleasure, stop the King by force, if the Parliament should sand for him; as they did intend to stop the King at Royston, in his way to I●●chmond, if they could not persuade the King not to go; that they might put what guards they pleased upon him, until they had wrought all their ends by him, and brought the Kingdom to this pass? That Ireton might say, when it was  told him, the King and Parliament were likely to agree, he hoped it would be such an agreement, as the Army might fight against them both? Is this it you call, nipping the design in the bud, which was likely to have proved pestilential fruit? Who is to judge what fruit is pestilential? you, or the Parliament?  
This you call, securing him from heading his own party: was it not securing your own party, that he should loose his own Head? and so render him unable to do more mischief.  
Thus indeed you say right, The Vizards could not so disguise you, but that a discerning ●ie might discover them by their voice and gesture, who were the principal Whifflers to bring the late King upon the Scaffold, to act the second part of Richard the second.  
A very merciful composure of the business indeed; the only way to turn the mischief upon your own heads, like Babels builders, falling from division into confusion: Thus have you hewed goodly wood, and brought pleasant water, to carry on the building of Jerusalem.  
I hope the hand of providence, in ordering these motions, which they thought would be so highly advantageous to their designs, to a quiter contrary station, making it prove so destructive to the Contrivers, that no man shall be so blind, as not to sae the hand of Divine Justice.  
Sir, I hope the Kings words are as much ours, as yours; and now   

27. To the Prince of WALES.  
THis Confuter will confute the Prince of Wales out of his hopes, as well as his Father out of his right to the Book, and both alike. He says, the King might very well spare his pains, because his Son is very unlikely ever to be in a capacity to take his advice.  
Truly I believe him, if the Divine power were in his disposing: but seeing it is in his hands, who giveth victory, not to the strong, but to whom he pleaseth, who is the Lord of hosts, mighty in battle, who hath the hearts of all men at his disposal, and can turn them which way and when he pleaseth. I see no such causes if despair.  
He saith, it argues strong faith in the King, and the like proportion in the Reader; it is not impossible that it should be in both; and we know, Faith can remove mountains, and leap over walls, much more march over the heads of such an Army to his Throne, his way being paved with the hearts of all his people; I believe it would argue a stronger faith to believe otherwise: Had Zimri Peace who slay his Master?  
But you say, you will not be such fools as to untruss; but your points may be cut, and so you may be soundly whipped, instead of gentle lashing.  

Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum,  Is a good rule; I hope the Prince will take it, and never undo himself by putting any confidence in you.  
How Religiously he would persuade him out of three Kingdoms, with arguments of piety: how finely he would persuade him to become Charles le bone, and le grand, by conquering himself:( as the highest victory) and how would he have him conqueror himself? but by sacrificing himself with Coriolanus, into the bands of the enraged Volscians: with Themistocles in making himself away by poison: Pretty introth, you would make a fine privy counsellor; but you have forgot that, 
Carolus de Carolo erit mayor Carolo Magno.   
We hope to see him take another course with you yet.  
You say, He can pled no title to the crown, why? The sword hath Conqueted Him: No, the sword was never drawn against him; the Parliament always gave Commissions to fight for Him, therefore it might kill His Father, but not Conquer Him; neither was He ever non-suited either by the Parliaments or the peoples elections, or confirmation; but the Parliament like unskilful Conjurers have raised a spirit, which they cannot alloy; which tears the House, and frightens all the inhabitants; but our comfort is, that though he rages never so much, yet he is but a chained captive, and cannot go one link further then his chain will give him leave: and what unskilful and unlawful means have brought to pass, may be rectified by his hand, who commands the Devil and all his angels, who stilleth the raging of the Sea, and the madness of the people.   

28. Meditations upon Death.  
THese you will not allow to be His neither, and your argument is, He who thus ●ad Meditated upon Death, durst never have perpetrated such crimes as these, viz. slander, forgery, treason, &c. Why could you not have once have been so charitable, as to have thought these no criminal perpetrations, because they proceeded from so pious a man; from a man that had these thoughts in him, thoughts of his Mortality, Eternity: Memento mortis tuae& non peccabis, as well as to have judged, He did not pen these Meditations, because He could have no such thought, by reason of His wickedness: but Mr Confuter, let me end with you in putting one question to you: you grant me that He who thus hath meditated upon death, durst never have perpetrated such crimes: Sir you must grant me, that if the King did not make this Book, some body else did: for here we see the Book; let it be the Doctor: then the Doctor must have these Meditations upon Death: why should it not be as likely that any Doctor should have such Christian thoughts within him, and yet a forger, a slanderer, a traitor, as well as an other man? therefore you and I had best agree in this, that it is the Kings Book, and that he who writ such a Book, could not be otherwise then a good man.  
Can men gather Grapes of thorns, or figs of th●stles? no more can such wine of Angels, be squeezed out of such a crabbed soul, as you would make either the Doctors or the Kings to be.  Ex ore tuo te judicabo.  
FINIS.