as OSSORIANVM, OR A BONE FOR A BISHOP TO PICK: Being a VINDICATION of some passages in a Treatise lately published, called ANTI-CAVALIERISME, from the impertinent and importune exceptions of GR: WILLIAMS, the Author of the Grand Rebellion: Calling himself by the name of the L. Bishop of OSSORY. Wherein Likewise, The malignity of several passages in the said Grand Rebellion against the Parliament, is discovered; and that Question further cleared; How and in what sense Kingly Government may be said to be the Ordinance of GOD: So that it may indifferently serve for an Answer to that whole Discourse. By the Author of the said TREATISE of ANTI-CAVALIERISME.  HOSEA, 7. 3. They make the King glad with their wickedness, and the Princes with their lies. Non Praelati, said Pilati. Bern. 
London, Printed for Henry Overton, 1643.   

A BONE FOR A BISHOP TO PICK.  

THe Country proverb is, that Good Ale never wants a friend on the Bench: Nor doth any notable design of the devil, against Reformation, or the power of Religion, ever want a friend, or two( for fail) upon the episcopal chair. The Author of the Grand Rebellion( a title fit for Gr: Williams L. Bishop of Ossory, be it a man with a Vizard or without, and of his own procuring) ingenuously confesseth, pag. 4. of his discourse, that we scarce red of any Rebellion, but some base Priests, the chaplains of the devil, have begot it Habemus confitentem reum: out of his own mouth, or from his own pen, we may judge him. For the truth is, that there is no base Priests, then base Bishops, as there is no base dross then that which flies highest and lies uppermost upon the mettall: nor is there any rank of men under Heaven, which furnish the devil with chaplains more to his mind, better instructed for the Kingdom of darkness, readier either to sing or say mass at his elbow in state, then these. And very true it is, as this Grand Rebellionist affirmeth, that we scarce red of any Rebellion, but some of these base Priests have begot it. He that desires particular information hereof, at least as far as concerns the Rebellions begotten in this Land and kingdom, is desired to repair to Mr. Prynn's late Collections, entitled, The antipathy of the English Lordly prelacy, both to regal Monarchy, and civill unity: where he shall find many Rebellions and mischievous plots against Kings, and all of them calling Bishops by that Name and title they so much affect, I mean, FATHERS.  
And whether the present distempers, distractions, calamities and confusions, which shake the very foundations of this kingdom and State at this day, amongst which notwithstanding our hierarchical Seer finds his Grand Rebellion, do not relate unto his own order, as the principal founders and fomenters of them; I refer to the mature and impartial consideration of all knowing men amongst us, that have not drunk away their Christian wits, or drowned their principles of ingenuity, in the intoxicating cup of the Romish whore. That dangerous arrow of contention which was lately shot between the two Sister Nations, England and Scotland, do not the world know that it was shot out of an episcopal Bow? And who are those that have sown the seeds of that most unnatural and deplorable strife, now broken out into a devouring flamme between his Majesty and his people, but statizing Prelates, who by the waters of their base flattery falling down so abundantly from the mountaines of their pride, into the channel of Prerogative, have made it swell like jordan in the time of Harvest when he overfloweth his banks? If men should set themselves to power contempt upon Princes, and to undermine the Thrones, yea or the lives themselves, of Kings: there is no method or practise of a more conexive importance, of a more precipitate tendency hereunto, then by exposing and rendering them obnoxious to the jealousy of God, by making them his compeer's, in Omniscience, Omnipresence, omnipotency, &c. Which one of the hierarchical Classis( Dr. Corbet by Name,) late Bishop of Norwich) did in a public Sermon at Pauls cross, not very many yeares since, investing Kings with all the Royalties of Heaven and with all the incommunicable properties and excellencies of God. Men of this kind of address unto Kings and Princes, and that through importune flatteries and Idolatrous admiration and adoration of regal power, bereave them of all memory and thought of their being but men, compelling them to own and claim to themselves Prerogatives above the Moon, such as parallel, if not transcend, the Prerogatives of God himself: These are the men that cannot with justice count it any injury at all to them, to be looked upon as the Grand Authors and procurers of far the greatest part of all the troubles, miseries and mischiefs whatsoever, whereby either the Honour, Crownes, or Lives of Princes are endangered. The maker of the Idol, is said to be the spark that kindles the fire wherewith it is burnt and consumed, Esa. 2. 31. And he certainly is the greatest endammager, if not destroyer of Kings, that 
See more of this Anti-caval. p. 14. 15.  placeth their Thrones too near the Throne of God, and that tamper with the hearts and consciences of men to adore I know not what an unknown Deity in them.  
The World needs not my information, nor any mans besides, that Prelates, especially of later times, have been the Grand Corrupters of the loyalty of Kings unto God: and consequently by weakening their interests in Heaven, have withal weakened and shaken their interests likewise on earth, I mean in the hearts and affections of men.  
And whether this Gr: Williams hath not been hard at work upon the same occupation with his prelatical fraternity, I appeal to the sweat of his brows, and the complaint of his eye-lids for want of sleep, whilst his Master-piece of Grand Rebellion was in hammering.  
It is no part of my intent to garble the bulk of his Pamphleticall discourse, or to sift out all the dross and soil therof, there being little said, but what hath( in effect) been answered plus millies. I shall onely pass two or three brief Observations, upon the general carriage of the discourse; and then consider with what dexterity or success, he hath stormed the Anti-Cavalier, in those particulars of his Discourse, which a man would think troubled him, and stood in his way more then all their fellowes, because of his furious assault made upon them in particular. But the man( I suspect) was herein more cunning then passionate: he made choice of those passages to give answer unto not which most opposed him in his way, but which he conceived would best take the colour of an answer& were likeliest to suffer an Eclipse of their light, by an interposition of some misty lines between the understandings of men and them; that so his Readers, and Party, apprehending some things answered in the Discourse, might by the figure synecdoche, and out of their abundant charity, presume the whole Treatise to be sufficiently answered. It may bee this Philo-Cavalier is of the house and lineage of that Ancient soldier in Plautus called Thraso who represents his providence and prudence in War, thus: quà illi pugnabant maximè, ego fugiebam maxim:  
Where Men were fiercest in the fight,  
I made away by swiftest flight.  
certain I am that where the Anti-Cavalier is strongest and nearest the heart of his business, there this Philo-Cavalier comes not near him by 40. foot.   

CAP. I. OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING The Discourse mentioned, called the Grand Rebellion in the general.  
FIrst, whereas the Author of this Discourse, pretends his Calculation onely for the Meridian of Ireland, and the Parliament sitting in his episcopal See( as he calls it) at Kellkenny, pag 66. acknowledging with a counterfeit and graceless modesty, the Parliament of England to be above his sphere, p. 63. yet evident it is, by the spirit that rules in the air of the whole discourse; that the Parliament at Kellkenny was but the shadow; and the Parliament of England the body, that he would have sacrificed upon the service of his episcopal See; and that they are not the Rebells indeed, the Popish Rebells in Ireland that this Gr. mainly brands with the odious imputation of Rebellion; but the best and loyallest Subjects of England, who favour the proceedings of the Parliament here, as just and equal,( being by solemn Protestation unto God lately made; deeply bound hereunto) The malignity of his intentions ●n this kind are so virulent and strong of the poison, that it eats through the vail and covering of Kellkenny, and Rebellion in Ireland which he casts over it in several passages of his discourse: and plainly discovers it's bent against the Parliament of England. See whether these lines be calculated for the Rebellion in Ireland, or Parliament and Parliament friends in England. Nemo repentè fit pessimus: But the wicked grow worse and worse: First you must lend, then you must give, if not, we will take: or if you deny your goods, we will have your bodies. So at first, whatsoever we do, it is for the King, &c. p. 97. So again p. 68. it is well known to all the world, that whatsoever this good King hath Suffered at the hands of his Subiects, it is for the preservation of the true Protestant Religion, of the established laws of this kingdom, of those Reverend Bishops, Grave Doctors, and all the rest of the learned and Religious clergy, that have ever maintained and will to the spilling of the last drop of their blood, defend this Truth against all Papists, and other anabaptistical Brownists and Sectaries whatsoever. In these and many other passages of His Pamphlet, quasi so ex suo indicio perit.  
Much like a Rat, before he is ware.  
He squeak's himself into a trapping snare.  
By this observation it is evident, that though the man bee but a Diocesan Bishop, yet he is an Arch-dissembler, and metropolitical Politician. He shelter's himself behind Kelkenny and the parliament there, as his Bullwarke: and let's fly at the Parliament of England, hoping, that though God should prosper his own Cause in their hand, yet Kelkenny and the Rebells in Ireland, will protect him from the sword of their Justice.  
Secondly, that is considerable in the general Carriage of his Discourse, that the bent of his fierceness all along is only( or chiefly) against his own Fancy or shadow, and that he either purely mistakes or willingly dissembles the state of the question between him and his adversaries. For all that he beats himself, and wearies his Reader to prove in his Grand Rebellion, as appears from the very Title page., is this, That it is no ways lawful for any private man, or any sort or degree of men whatsoever in the kingdom, for any cause, or upon any pre-text, to rebel, take arms, and resist the authority of their lawful King: Which is a position, wherein he hath neminem contradicentem( to my knowledge) certain I am, that neither the Anti-Cavalier, nor the seditious Pamphleter( falsely so called by him, p. 97.) against whom notwithstanding he tyrannizeth with his pen as if he had borrowed it of the great turk for the service have any thing in their writings, repugnant thereunto. If the man had had a mind to have done any thing worthy of his chair upon this occasion, or to have convinced his adversaries of error, he should have grappled with this conclusion,& laid it flat on its back; that its lawful for Subiects to defend themselves to the uttermost, against lawless Thieves and Murderers; or( which is the same) against those who without any lawful Authority or warrant either from God or man, attempt by force to take from them either their goods, liberties, lives, freedom of Religion, or the like. But this conclusion, feels not so much as the weight of his little finger. Or at least, he should have tried the dexterity and strength of his learning to make good this position; that it is not lawful for a state, in tenderness and truth of respects to the honour and safety of their King, and for the safety of the kingdom to remove the wicked from about his Throne, especially being notorious Malefactors and Delinquents against the Laws: and further by their desperate Counsels and practices, apparently endanger both King and kingdom. It is true, the proof of this assertion, had it been never so substantially made, would not have reached home, would not have concluded the unlawfullnesse of taking up arms against those professed Sons of Abaddon those Cavaliers, that lawlessly and causelessly make spoil and havoc daily of the lives, liberties and goods, of the Subjects of this kingdom: yet, would it have come ten degrees nearer the main Question in hand between him and those that are contrarie-minded to him, and vindicated the sufficiency and learning of the man at another manner of rate, then by a long, tedious, and tempestuous discourse only to prove that the Sun is up at noon day, that lawful Authority cannot lawfully be resisted.  
But I perceive the man is full of Bishop-Craft: he saw that as well the impugning of the former, as the making good of the latter Conclusion were pieces too hot for him to handle, and therefore very wisely leaves them for others to burn their fingers with, if they please. But intending chiefly( as it seems) to abuse the judgements and Consciences of the weaker and less considering sort of men, and to weaken their hand in their way, he blusters and thunders, and arms himself with hell fire, to maintain and prove such a conclusion, which such men may easily think concludes them both, and yet in dead and in truth doth nothing less then conclude either. For to prove that thieves and Murderers, or the destroyers of a Land, may not lawfully be resisted, because the Authority of a lawful King may not be resisted, is as if I should go about to prove, the earth to be a lightsome body, because the Sun is such, or that Gr. Williams is a Papist, because the Pope of Rome is such.  
Thirdly, he that shall attentively read the discourse mentioned, and narrowly compare place with place, shall find the author ever and anon prevaricating with his cause, turning head upon himself, full of inconsistences and fierce contradictions, reeling and staggering, playing up and down, driven to and again, 

Nunc hûc nunc illûc, exemplo nubis aquosae.   i. e. 

Much like a waterish Cloud, which sometimes hither  
Is driven with the wind, and sometimes thither.   so that his Reader may much better, and more easily judge what his main drift is by his bishopric, then by his Book. And the truth is, that they that have a mind to be his through Adversaries, need no other grounds to justify the Parliament of England and their Friends, and the arms they have taken up, then those that are positively laid down by himself. Nay that which is yet more, he affirms and grants many things, which, if themselves were justifiable, would justify far harder proceedings against Kings by their Subjects, then any he so much as chargeth the Parliament or their assistants with, against the King. He affirmeth p. 67. that He that is entrusted, cannot do more then all they that do entrust him. Doth it not follow clearly from hence, that the King, being the great Fiduciarie of the kingdom, and entrusted by the people, can no more oppose them, then they him? Besides, how agreeth this assertion but as harp and harrow with that other, p. 64. viz. that the King is mayor universis, greater then all his People taken together? doubtless he that is greater( in power and Authority) then all, may lawfully do more then all.  
again, p. 69. we have this fairly affrmed, that it is lawful to recall a power given, when it is abused. Doth not the man( think you) hold the Deposition of Kings lawful in case of abused power? especially granting,( as he doth, p. 65. that the power wherewith the King is invested, was, the Peoples, till they yielded it up unto him Whether the man be of this judgement or no, I am sure his words are.  
again, p. 55. we have( all in effect, and almost in terminis) fairly granted, which either the Anti-Cavalier, or the Seditious Pamphleter( before mentioned) contend for, in these words. But for private robbers, God hath not placed them over us, nor commanded us to obey them, neither have they any right by any law, but the law of strength, to exact any thing of us: and therfore we are obliged by no law to yield obedience unto them, neither are we hindered by any necessity either of rule or subjection, but that we may lawfully repel all the injuries they offer unto us. I suppose the man hath so much ingenuity( though it be not episcopal commodity) as to abhor to say, that God hath placed that viperous brood of Cavaliers in the Kings Army over us: neither hath he commanded us to obey them: therfore by his own clear and full assertion, we are not hindered by any necessity either of rule or subjection, but that we may lawfully repel all the injuries they offer unto us. And this( I dare say) is the summa totalis of all the particulars in the Tract of Anti-Cavalierisme, if they were truly cast up.  
again, when he saith pag. 103. That people have no better remedy, when Kings are evil, then to pray unto God, that as he hath sent them in his fury, so he would take away in his mercy; doth he not prefer the praying down, the praying dead of Kings, before the praying of them righteous, gracious, or accepted with God? doubtless there is not the least touch of any so bloody a strain against Kings, in any of the writings so severely censured by him. Besides, he that recommends it as the best remedy that people have, when Kings are evil, to pray to God to take them away: doth he not hereby justify the lawfulness of using other means also to effect it? There are very few things, if any at all, that may lawfully be prayed for before God, but that other means likewise may lawfully, yea and for the most part ought to be used, for the obtaining therof. Woe be to Kings it this mans Doctrine should be received and practised home in the world. That insinuation of his p. 104. that a great part,( if not the greatest) of the Laws of this land, were obtained little better then by force and violence, compelling Kings to consent unto them, being rightly interpnted, doth not so much reflect upon Parliaments( which yet was the good will and intent of the Insinuator) as upon Kings themselves, who( it seems) could not be persuaded or drawn to yield to the establishing of good laws for their people, without little less then compulsion thereunto.  
I shall present you but with on thread more of this spinning,( for the present) which I draw out from p. 14. of his worthy piece: And in such( that is in a sinful] manner of assuming Government, there is just cause of resisting; and a faire colour of Rebelling against them, if you call it Rebellion, when men discharge their duties in defence of justice to oppose usurpation. Here is a blast of Doctrine that were it put in practise, is enough to shake the foundations of the Thrones and safeties of Most Kings now in possession; yea and to infringe and infeeble the right of their Posterities to their Crowns for ever. For how few Kings are there at this day sitting upon Thrones, some of whose Predecessors, from whom they derive their rights and Titles, have not assumed their government in a sinful manner? If such a manner of assuming their Governments did evacuate their Titles, and made them unlawful Kings, and gave the subjects of that kingdom just cause of resisting and de-throning them; Certainly they who succeed them in their Thrones, can have no better or more justifiable Title, then their Predecessors, from whom they derive their Title-hood; and therfore affirm their Governments in a sinful manner also: and consequently there is just cause of resisting them, and men did but discharge their duties in opposing such usurpation.  
Certainly if the Fathers or Grandfathers right for never so many descents, was no better then an usurpation, and they, as usurpers, might lawfully have been resisted; the right of the Son, being none other then what descends upon him from these, can be no better then an usurpation neither; and consequently there is the same justice to resist and depose him; which was to have resisted his usurping progenitors One of your sinful manners of assuming Governments, is when the assumer murders his predecessor; another, when he deposeth him, &c. Did not WILLIAM Duke of Normandy,( surnamed the conqueror) murder King Harold, his predecessor in his Throne? except you will justify one Prince in pulling out the throat of another and make all Wars between King and King lawful. Now then by your divinity, William of Normandy, after he had taken possession of his crown, might lawfully have been resisted by the people, and they had but done their duties in defence of justice that had resisted him. You that have thus poisoned the fountain, let the world judge how little the streams are beholding to you, you will never thrive by hogs, if you bring them to no fairer Market then this.   

CAP. II. The first Encounter of the Author of the Grand Rebellion against the Anti-cavalier, about that Scripture passage, 1 Pet 2. 13. Examined.  
THe Philo-Cavalier takes no knowledge of his Antagonist, for the first 47 pages of his Pamphlet, and upwards, but at the last line of page. 48. he lays on with his Crosiers staff after this manner.  
And therefore though I do not wonder that ignorant fellowes should be so impudent, as to affirm the King or Kingly Government to be the Ordinance or Creation, or Creature of man, and to say that the Apostle supposeth the same, because he saith, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King, &c. Yet I do admire that Buchanan, or any other man of learning, &c.  
1. You may please to take notice, that the man was marvellous well in breath and long-winded( half to a miracle) when he came here to grapple with his adversary; for he makes a period or sentence lasting two whole pages, and part of a third, between the rise of his sentence in his Quanvis, and the fall in his amen answering to it there are five dozen of lines( at least) full stuffed, partly with sense, partly with nonsense; as we shall see presently. This sentence( it seems) was built by him with like difficulty and badness of success, as the City jericho of old was built by Hiel, who laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his first born, and set up the gates ehereof in his youngest Son Segub. 1 King. 16. 34.  
2. As Peter and John had neither silver nor gold, but gave the poor Cripple such as they had: So this man it seems hath neither learning nor modesty, but such as he hath, he gives his poor Brother Ignorance and Impudence.  
But Sir, how ignorant I pray you, is the Anti-cavalier?  
1. He is not so ignorant as contrary to all rules of Grammar, and principles of rhetoric, and the common and known Laws of speaking and discourse, to place several whole periods of speech, between a Quamvis and a tamen, relating each to other, as in the same sentence.  
Nor yet 2. is he so Ignorant as to say, that the King is invested with the power of the people; and yet in the very same place to affirm, that the King is the fountain of all power. This is your ignorance, pag. 65. of your discourse) not his. Surely if the power, wherewith the King is invested, was first in the people, the King is not the fountain of all power.  
Nor 3. Is he so Ignorant as to say, that the people freed Jonathan out of the hand of Saul, non armis said precibus, that is, not by force, but by prayers. This is a feather of your Goose, p. 55. not of his. And the people said unto Saul, shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God for bid! as the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground. 1 Sam. 14. 45. This surely is no Common Prayer, to swear or protest before a King that that shall be done which a man hath a mind to have done. I see Bishops have little skill in Prayers but onely in those that are Common; which certainly these of the peoples to Saul were not.  
Nor yet 4o is he so ignorant, as to say, that the ivy so entwisteth itself about the oak, that the one cannot happily subsist without the other. This you say, pag. 10. of your Discourse: I cannot but wonder how you came to the knowledge of this profound secret in nature, that the oak cannot subsist, without the ivy twisting itself about it. I do not remember it in Aristotles Problems, nor in Theophrastus {αβγδ}. But the comparison( I confess) is very apt to represent the terms of relation between the two subjects you speak of, The Church you mean( which in your known Dialect, is the Praelaticall clergy) and the Common wealth, have been hitherto, and yet in part are so linked together, that as the ivy intwisteth itself about the oak, viz. to the sore detriment and impaireing and with peril to the life of it; so hath your Church circumvented and compassed about the estate and Commonwealth, to the extreme misery and sorrow thereof and to the imminent danger of the very subsistence and being of it.  
Nor yet 5o. is the man you wot of so ignorant, as to affirm that an unjust malicious Magistrate, hath this ordinary power from God, to lay punishment unjustly upon us, which yet your ignorance enableth you to affirm, p. 26. what you mean by an ordinary power in this case, I confess I know not: but certain I am, that to say that any Magistrate at all, whether just or unjust, whether gracious or malicious, hath any power at all from God, whether ordinary or extraordinary, to lay punishment unjustly vpon any man is as like the sound of an empty tub as may be. And how much more to affirm, that our Saviour should say this unto Pilate? From which affirmation notwithstanding all your learning( it seems) was not able to deliver you.  
Nor 6o. is he so ignorant, as to say, that he that fighteth against the Kings army, warreth against the King, yet this you say, p. 97. which is, as if a man should say, that a physician that fighteth against the distemper or disease of his patient fighteth against his Patient himself: Or that he that seeketh to rend and tear the ivy from about the oak, endeavoureth to annoy and hurt the oak also. Neither will your parallel instance relieve you at all against the imputation of this absurdity except you can first prove by as sufficient testimony, that the Parliament is as much misused& lead aside to its own ruin and ruin of the Kingdom by the earl of Essex as it hath been proved, that the King is misused by his Army and Persons about him.  
Nor 7o. is he so ignorant as to deny, that either Joseph in swearing by the life of Pharaoh, or the Midwives in lying unto the King, sinned. But whether your ignorance teacheth you not to deny both, let the 56. p. Of your book be asked the question.  
Nor 8o. is he so ignorant, as to prove, that Kings are acknowledged by God himself to be of divine Institution, because he calleth nabuchadnezzar his servant, and Cyrus his anointed. This is your demonstration, p. 48. If every thing that God useth or disposeth of for the fullfilling of his pleasure and purposes in any kind, should presently bee of divine institution the rage and malice and murderous spirit of the Jews against Christ, should be of Divine institution too: For these were made use of and disposed by him, to bring to pass a counsel and purpose of his of far greater consequence both for his own glory, and for the benefit of his Church, then any thing that either Cyrus or nabuchadnezzar did see Act. 4. 7, 28. Kings may bee his Servants, and Monarchs his anointed ones though the institution of the kinds and forms of their governments, were from men. There is no man( I think) that ever thought or said, that those men, who whilst they were yet Subjects: were the servants and anointed of God, must necessary forfeit these privileges by being taken up into a Throne.  
Nor 9o.( and lastly) is he so ignorant, as to say, that the rights and Prerogatives which are afforded the King by the laws of his own Land come far short of and are scrase the moiety of those Prerogatives, which the spirit of God hath in the Old Testament, warranted upon the Jewish Kings; and what the universal law of nature hath established upon all supreme Governors. Your Pen blotted your paper with these lines, in p. 104. of your Discourse. I wonder what, or how many Prerogatives those should be, which the Spirit of God hath warranted unto the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament. It seems they are like unto the stars in the Firmament of Heaven: the man can neither number them, nor call them by their Names. But why doth he neither number nor Name, so much as any one of them? It may be he was afraid of an end of an old Saw.  

Pauperis est numerare pecus—   

'tis poor Mans guise his cattle' ere to number.   
He conceives that he makes the better provision, to make them to bee had in reverence by men, both for their multitude and their glory, by wraping both up in that mysterious silence which he hath done. The Inhabitants of terra incognita, are the goodliest men in the World. I do not think that the man, notwithstanding his Censorian Rod laid on with so much severity upon the back of ignorance, knows any other Prerogatives warranted by the spirit of God unto the Jewish Kings in the Old Testament, but onely these and the like. 1o. That they should not multiply horses. 2o. That they should not cause the people to return unto Egypt. 3o. That they should not multiply Wives to themselves, that their heart turn not away. 4o. That they should not multiply to themselves silver and Gold. 5o. That they 
Deut. 17 16 17, 18, 19, 20.  should red the book of the law of God all the dayes of their life. 6o. That they should learn to fear the Lord their God, to keep all the words of his law to do them. 7o. That their heart should not bee lifted up above their Brethren. 8o.( and Lastly) that in case they turned not aside from the commandement either to the right hand or to the left, they should prolong their dayes in his kingdom; they and their Children in the midst of Israel. If you will call these Prerogatives, I do not know but the laws of the Land afford them all unto his majesty in as ample manner, as you can desire them. As for other Prerogatives besides these, warranted by the spirit of God in the Old Testament to the Jewish Kings, I must be a debtor to your informations, to attain the knowledge of any: when you shall have fully informed me, what, and how many they are, I shall bee the better able to give you an account, whether the laws of the land do afford them unto his majesty, or no; and whether those, which these laws do afford him, bee not the mortie of them. In the meanetime I must, though at the peril of your displeasure, believe, that the laws of the Land do afford unto him, and that in good measure, heaped up and running over all Prerogatives whatsoever warranted by the spirit of God to the Jewish Kings, and which the universal Law of nature hath established upon all supreme Governors. But  
By all these particulars, and many more like to them, that might be added it fully appears, that the Anti-Cavalier hath not so monopoliz'd the commodity of ignorance, but that the Philo-Cavalier hath much of it lying upon his hand also. And the truth is, that notwithstanding by his severe exclamation against ignorance, he insinuats himself a choice vessel of learning and knowledge: yet there are more then a few in the world, who know that far the greatest part of a Bishops estate in learning, is ordinarily put into two bags; the treasure of the on being a heap of sayings and sentences gathered by the hand of an Index, out of authors, for the flattering of Princes: the treasure of the other, a like collection for the reparation and maintenance of the episcopal chair. Take them out of these two Theames, they are( for the most part) like pisces in arido, quiter out of their Element.  
And that this Bishop by name, makes treasure and very precious substance of such collections as we speak of is evident from hence; because he lays them up with that extraordinary carefulness and intensnesse of mind, wherewith covetous old men are wont to lay up their gold. himself confesseth in his Epistle to the Reader, that when he composed his Grand Rebellion, he had not his books about him: which plainly shows, that those allegations and sentences from Authors, which are( almost) without end;( I am sure to no good end) heaped up in his Discourse, kept his heart company very nearly, and had double and triple care and cost bestowed upon them in their laying up. Otherwise, it is little less then an incredibility, that a man should carry such vast multitudes of other mens sayings verbatim in his head, except his heart were deep in the confederacy also. I do not believe that he remembers, or is able to say by root, as much more; out of all the Authors or books that ever he red. Therefore though he had not his books about him; yet he had the best part of his estate in learning about him, his conned sentences for the undoeing of Kings.  
But 2o. he is so advanced in choler against the Anti-Cavalier, that he is not satisfied with powring out the contempt of Ignorance upon him, but further to grinned his name and reputation to powder; he arraignes him at the bar of his consistory for the foul sin of Impudence also. I see it's ill halting before a Cripple:( however;) the common saying is, set a thief to take a thief. The man it seems is so extremely well experienced in the point of impudence; that he is able to discern it where it is not, yea where there is not the least colour nor appearance of it. For all that he chargeth him with to make good his sore inditement, is that he affirms, The King or Kingly government, to be the ordinance, credtion, or creature of man: and, that the Apostle supposeth the same, because be saith submit, &c. All which amounts to no more, then to what himself granteth, and affirmeth immediately, saying, that he( the Anti-Cavalier) might well understand( which I presume he very well doth) that the same act; is often ascribed as well to the mediate, as immediate agent. &c. So then suppose man to be but the mediate agent in, or about; the Creation of Kingly Government( which himself here supposeth) and God the immediate, ( cujus contrarium verum est) yet may this creation, by his own rule be as well ascribed to man, the mediate, as to God the immediate Agent, So that the height of his evidence; to make good both those heinous crimes, of ignorance and impudence, against the Anti Cavalier amounts to no more then this, that the Anti-Cavalier, hath no more learning or ingenuity in him, then to be of a Bishops judgement.  
But Sir, give me leave to tell you that if a man would be so ill minded towards you, as to charge you with impudence, your Grand Rebellion would in many passages of it justify the accusation to your face. For,  
1o do you not p. 68. foam out your own shane in these words? It is well known to all the World, that whatsoever this good King hath suffered( speaking of His majesty) at the hands of his Subjects, it is for preserving the true Protestant Religion, of the established laws of this kingdom, &c. Surely you have a very lax, wide, and Cathedrall conscience, or else such a prodigious and shameless monster of untruth could never have been conceived there. If you had onely said, that it had been suspected, or partly believed in the World, that the King hath suffered for those reasons you mention, it had been a pretty strain of impudence, except you equivocate, and by the World, mean the World Malignant only. For in all the World besides, I know not the least touch of any suspicion this way, but discover a full satisfaction to the contrary, on every hand. Nay in the Malignant World itself, I verily believe, that it is rather said and pretended then believed. But that which is not so much as thought, or suspected in the World, you strain courtesy both with your conscience and your forehead at once, to affirm, that it is known, and that not simply to the World, but, to All the World; Nay, as if you were up upon your tiptoe's to be aut Caesar, aut nullus, in point of impudence, you advance yet higher and say, that it is WELL known to all the World. A man would think by such a deportment of your Conscience and Pen as this is, that you had taken your solemn leave of modesty, shamefastness and truth, and never meant to see their faces, or to have to do with them more. And to make your Conscience leave muttering and lingering after them you seal up your resolution in this kind, with another egg of the same bide, p. 105. towards the end of your Discourse, where you give one tumble more in the same mire, affirming that the King suffereth all for the protection of Gods service, as it was established in the purest time of Reformation, and for the preservation of our laws from any corrupt interpretation, or arbitrary invasion upon them, &c. The man( questionless) hath very lately( as if he had quiter forgotten his devotions to the Virgin Mary) Sacrificed to the Goddesse {αβγδ} and is now,  

— Functus queen sacris, et potus, et exlex   

Full of his holy Sacrifice.  
High drunken and of lawless guise.   
I wonder what Crotchet hath fallen in conjunction with the Rochet to inspire the man with any such notion or conceit, that the King should suffer for the protection of Gods Service, or for the preservation of our laws from any corrupt interpretation, &c. Doth he not make himself greater then the Parliament itself, in taking upon him to know the reasons and motives upon which they have advanced the forces now on foot, better then themselves? Or have they ever declared any such ground of those proceedings of theirs, which( it seems by this counselor of state) are troublesone unto the King or as he suggesteth. Surely he hath ploughed with some malicious or mad Heifer, to make such an interpretation of so easy a riddle. If the retinue of Jim and Ojim about his Majesties person, those hairy Apostates from humanity itself, be in the Bishops judgement, the service of God; well may he say, that the King suffers for the protection of the service of God. Or if the ruin and destruction of the Land by those walking sacks of blood, the Cavaliers, be the preservation of our laws from corrupt interpretation, it is somewhat a tolerable conjecture, to think the King may suffer for it. But if by the service of God he means either the truth of Religion, purity of his worship, or the like; and by preservation of the laws from corrupt interpretations, any such thing as the known signification of the words import; he might with far less disparagement to himself in point of reason, wit, and honesty, have affirmed, that the King suffers for not making the Sun to shine, or the Winds to blow when the Parliament would have him.  
2o. If that saying of yours, p. 29. viz. That a King hath power& Authority to do what he pleaseth, were presented to the Lady modesty, I believe shee would blushy at it, and not own it. Nor would any man that hath not his forehead fenced with Iron and brass, ever have adventured his reputation abroad in the world, in such a rotten bottom. Who ever gave a King power and authority to do what he pleaseth, God, or Man, except it be those enemies both of God and Man, I mean the Lords of the chair? Quod libet, licet, was an abhorring and hissing even amongst the Heathen.  
3o. What fellowship, or communion, either with modeyst or truth, hath that saying of yours, p. 101. that both the Parliament forces in England, and the Rebells in Ireland, make little difference. between Papist and Protestant, the well affencted and disaffected: and that the estates of both, is the thing that they thirst after?  
And yet as if you had not been shameless enough in your affirmation, you seal it up, with this triumphant Epiphonema; Haud ignota canon. I see how ever the World goes, yet Bishops will be merry and sing.  
I confess the Parliament Forces, in the judgement of many, make too little difference in one respect, between Papist and Protestant; the well affencted and disaffected; they show more of the favour and forbearance, which they express towards the well affencted, to Papists and disaffected, then their share comes to. But to thirst after the estates either of the one or of the other, is the disease that reigneth amongst your Legions: if there bee a sprinkling of it amongst the Parliament forces, I fear so much the more a party of yours amongst them. But( I see) it doth the man good at the heart, to make the Parliament forces in England; and Rebells in Ireland to draw in the same yoke of obloquy and reproach together.  
4o. Let Charity herself Judge, whether that be not impudence in the highest, for a man that is himself a Bishop to call any proceedings in an assembly, especially in a Parlimentary assembly, against Bishops by the name of a Rebellion. And let the Reader judge, whether you be not the man that speak at this rate, making yourself, and all of your Order, Kings and Princes( at least) in these words of yours, p. 13. And therfore if any assembly hath( like Corah) rebelled against Aaron, and cast their Bishops and preachers out of doors: I would advice them to follow the council of S t Ambrose in the like case. Quod inconsulto fecerunt, consultius revocetur; what they have inconsiderately done to throw them out, let them more advisedly revoke, and call them in again. It is an easy matter to discern for what meridian this Calculation is made; and what assembly it is, that is complained on for rebelling against Aaron, that is, for casting their Bishops and preachers out of doors. I tell you Sir, that all the water in the Sea will never wash you clean from the guilt of impudence, who being but a single and simplo man; shall tell such an assembly as the Parliament of England: they have done any thing discretely. Might not the malefactor when he is cast by the Judge at the bar, with as much modesty, tell the Judge that he knew the law better then he, and that he had given an unjust sentence? But to call that act of this great assembly, whereby they cast their Bishops( for Preachers I believe they cast out none) out of doors, Rebellion, smell's so rank of the chair, that it is enough to fill the whole kingdom with the stench and ill savour of it; and to move every man to tread and trample upon the chair as a snuff.  
In the mean time, these ejaculations from the Philo-Cavalier, with many more like unto them that bear them company in his book, are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man, that the Anti-Cavalier, is neither so ignorant, nor so impudent, but that he hath his peers, yea and superiors too in both, and that amongst those Cherubims and Seraphims themselves, who would so fain recover their lost Heaven in PARLIAMENT.  
How slight the ailement of the man is, to make these hideous outcries of ignorance and impudence against the Anti-Cavalier, was formerly touched: His grievement onely is, that he affirms the King or Kingly Government to be the ordinance or creation of man, and that the Apostle supposeth the same. The man surely is besides himself, to fall so heavy upon another, for saying onely that which himself saith. In this expression of himself, the Anti-Cavalier determineth nothing either for or against any particular sense or consideration, in which the King or Kingly Government, may be called the creation of Man. And himself expressly, grants( not many lines after) that there is a sense, which he calls secondary or demonstrative, wherein the power and authority of Kings, is as S t. Peter calleth it, the ordinance of man. he that affirmeth Gregory, or Griffith Williams,( or whatever the name of the Hobgoblin, Gr. bee) to be an Irish Bishop, doth not deny him his bishopric of Ossory. Nor doth he that saith, he is worthy to bee punished for his Grand Rebellion, deny but that he is worthy to lose his Priest-hood for it. general and indefinite sayings, do not at all contradict particulars that are subordinate to them.  
Well, but though the Anti-Cavalier say nothing in this passage contrary to him, yet he doth not speak out, as he would have him; he is jealous of him that he means contrary to him; and that when he affirms Kingly Government to be the creation of man, his intent is, to exclude it from being the ordinance of God, at least from being the ordinance of God in the sense Paramount which hath been consecrated by the order of Bishops. But,  
Might he not as well fall foul upon St Peter for speaking no otherwise then the Anti-Cavalier doth, as upon the Anti-Cavalier for speaking as St Peter doth? St, Peter plainly supposeth the King to be the creature or ordinance of man; but whether he means primarily or secondarily, he expresseth himself no more then the other. But the man( its like) is more inclinable to have a good opinion of St Peter, and to befriend him in his thoughts, for the See of Romes sake, which claim's special interest in this Apostle, then he is of the Anti-Cavalier, whose loyalty to that chair( I perceive) he much suspects.  
But however it be somewhat an hard measure to be attainted as an ignorant and impudent fellow, onely upon suspicion that a man will not conform his judgement and conscience to a Bishops distinction; yet let the matter of fact bee confessed and acknowledged, and the Justice of it argued a little, and insisted upon.  
The difference then between the two combatants, as touching the point in hand, consists in these two particulars.  
1o. The Bishop affirms, that God was unto David and Saul, and is to all other Kings, the immediate giver of their kingdoms unto them. This the Anti-Cavalier deny's.  
2o. The Bishop affirms, the power and authority of Kings to be originally and primarily the ordinance of God. This his Antagonist craves leave to explain( as he hath done, p. 5.& 6. Of his Anti Cavalierisme) or else to deny.  
For the former; me thinks that a very few words should serve to bring forth the truth into a clear and perfect light between them. If God was the immediate giver of their Kingdoms, unto Saul and David, and the people the mediate, then the people were before God in the donation of them unto them, and God onely intervened to second, ratify and accomplish the donation of the people.  
Every freshman knows, that the immediate agent or cause of any thing, is the last and lowest in the subordination; and that which produceth the effect without the intervention of any other: and that all the rest, that have precedency therein, are mediate or remote. Therefore if God was the immediate giver of Sauls or Davids kingdom, and the people the mediate, the people made use of God and not God of the people, actually to invest and inthrone them.  
Besides, evident it is, that Gods election, nomination, or recomendation of them to the people, for their Kings, did not make them Kings, I mean actual, formal and complete Kings; no, nor yet his inclining their hearts to a willingness to accept of them for their Kings, and to invest them with their power, but their actual acceptation or receiving of them, for their Kings. Saul was not a King, that is, had no right or authority to exercise any regal power by virtue of Gods election or nomination of him to the kingdom, till Samuel had presented him unto all the people, as nominated by God to be their King, and the people gave their consent and approbation of him accordingly, in that acclamation, God save the King, 1 Sam. 10. 24. The people in this their acceptation of him for their King, were the immediate givers of the kingdom unto him, because this being done, he had a lawful power to exercise regal authority over the people immediately, and without the intervening of any further act of God. Nor had David, though nominated and designed long before by God himself to the kingdom; any right to exercise regal power by virtue of that designation, until the men of Judah came, and anointed him King in Hebron, 2 Sam. 2. 4. Nor had he any right by virtue of his anointing, to exercise any regal power over any other of the Tribes, save onely that Tribe which anointed him, and thereby declared their acceptation of him for their King. he was not King over all Israel, till all the Tribes came to him, and by their Elders anointed him King over Israell, thereby declaring their consents and approbations to have him their King also. And now David was invested with regal power and authority. So that the Sun in his might shines not clearer, then this truth, that God was not the immediate but onely the mediate giver of their Kingdoms, both unto Saul and David. And though it had been sinful in the People to have refused either of them for their King, being by Name, and by the ministry of a great Prophet recommended unto them by God yet had such a refusal been made of them by the people, there is no reason to think that they had ever been Kings. And therefore God himself divides between himself and his people the constitution of a King amongst them, after this manner; that he will have the choice or nomination of him, but they shall have the investiture, or the actual and immediate making of him a King. When thou art come into the Land which the Lord God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say; I will set a King over me, like as all the Nations that are about me: thou shalt in any wise set( or make, as the former translation reads it) him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: thou mayst not set a stranger over thee, &c Deut. 17. 14. 15. Therefore God was onely the mediate or remote cause of their King, themselves the immediate: because election or nomination to an office, always preced's, actual collation of it.  
Hence likewise it fully appears, how left handed the Bishop is in his understanding of Scriptures. To prove that God was the immediate giver of their kingdoms to the two Kings mentioned, he cites such passages as these. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel( viz. to David) I anointed thee King over Israell, 2 Sam. 12. 7. and that of Solomon. 1 King. 2. 24. Where he acknolwedgeth that the Lord had established him, and set him on the Throne of David his father; and that of Abijah to Jereboam, 1 Kin. 11. 35. I will take the kingdom out of his sons hand, and will give it unto thee. All which places onely prove, that all these Kings were beholding to God for their kingdoms, and that he by his providence, working and inclining the hearts of the people to accept of them from his hand for their Kings, brought them unto their Thrones. Here is neither proof, nor show nor colour of proof, of Gods being the immediate giver of their kingdoms. When God saith, Ezek. 20. 25. that he gave them( the people) Statutes that were not good, and judgements wherein they should not live: doth it follow from hence, that God was the immediate giver of them? He was no otherwise the giver of them, then by suffering their Idolatrous Kings and false Prophets to make and to teach Idolatrous Statutes and Doctrines amongst them. These were the immediate givers of these Statutes that were not good, Gene. 19. 29. God is said to have destroyed the Cities of the plain: doth it follow from hence, that God was the immediate destroyer of them and did not use the ministery or mediation of fire and brimstone to do it? The Bishop is every whit as weak in his Theologicalls, as in his logicalls, if he knows not that any event in providence may be attributed unto, or assumed by God, whatsoever and how many-soever the intermediate or immediate productive causes thereof be, because he rules and orders and disposeth them all towards the production thereof.  
The latter difference between them touching the point in hand, is, whether the power and authority of Kings be originally and primarily the ordinance of God. This the Bishop affirms without any caution, or explication at all. The Anti-Cavalier must distinguish and explain, or else deny. If the Bishops meaning be, either first, that God is the primary and supreme disposer of thrones and kingdoms, and that there is no man invested with regal power and authority, but that he is more indebted unto God, then unto any man, or men whatsoever, for it: or Secondly, if his meaning be, that God is the original and prime mover of the hearts of a people, to set a King over them whensoever they do it, being otherwise at liberty to erect what form of Government amongst themselves they please. or Thirdly, if his meaning be, that God gives men the light of Reason, judgement and understanding, whereby they are able to contrive and shape out such a form or tenor of regal power or authority, that the use and administration of it may be commodious and beneficial unto them, in all these three sences, the Anti Cavalier can shake hands with the Bishop, in his opinion, that the power and authority of Kings is originally and primarily from God. But if his meaning be( as the whole tenor of his Discourse gives it to be) that God at first, immediately and by himself, without the intervention of the reasons and wills of men, drew a particular platform or model of regal government, power, or authority, which he hath imposed upon the World as an Ordinance, for all Nations, or for any Nation, to set up amongst them; in this sense the Anti-Cavalier bids defiance to the Bishops opinion, maintaining the power and authority of Kings to be originally and primarily the Ordinance of God.  
His Reasons are these.  
1o. Neither do the Scriptures, nor any other Author, so much as mention any such draft or platform of regal Authority, composs'd immediately by God himself; much less do they mention any imposition by God of any such platform upon the World to be observed. Therefore it is either pure ignorance or impudence in the Bishop, to father any such opinion: As for his discovery of all the parts of regal power synecdochically set down, by God. when immediately after the stood he ordained the revenging sword of blood  shed and the slavish servitude of paternal derision,( p. 47.) it is a discovery of the same Calculation with his, who lately found a Sea and Land and woods and Rivers, and( upon the matter) another world in the moon. certainly it is as lawful, and as agreeable to this Ordinance of God, that blood-shed should be avenged by the sword of any other form of government, as in that which is regal, and by inferior Magistrates, in case their Authority will extend unto it, as the authority of Judges do, as by the King himself. If the man can acquit himself no better in stating the episcopal function from the Scriptures, then here he doth the regal;( and I suspect his insufficiency parallel in both) he will leave me under a strong jealousy that he is a plant which Christs Heavenly Father never planted, and consequently must ere long be plucked up.  
2o. If regal power and authority bee originally the Ordinance of God( in the sense episcopal) then every form of regal power, which swerves or varies from that pattern or platform, which is the ordinance of God, must needs bee a corruption of an Ordinance of God, and consequently sinful and unlawful. The sequel of this Proposition is undeniable. Every ordinance of God hath a certain, limited and determinat nature, whereby it is distinguished, and may be known from all other things; and the substituting of any other thing in the name or place of an ordinance of God, is a sin, and that of a high nature.  
Therefore I assume.  
But every form of regal power, which swerves or varies from that pattern which is supposed to be the ordinance of God is not sinful, or unlawful. Ergo;  
For the explication of this latter Proposition, it is to bee considered, that there are scarce any two forms of regal government in exercise at this day in the world, but differ, and that in matters of such consequence, that if the one bee the Ordinance of God, the other is a corruption of this Ordinance, and so unlawful. I suppose there is no such Government or power in any Nation, but is somewaies limited and bounded either by laws, or customs, or covenants, or persons, or the like: and very hard it is, nay( doubtless) unpossible to find two regal Governments in all the world, whose frame and fashion, whose bars and limitations are altogether the same. Whence it must needs follow, that if there bee any such form of Government, whether regal or whatsoever, that is an ordinance of God,( in the sense now argued) there can be but one, if there be any at all, lawful government in the world. For all governments differing from that, which is agreeable to the Ordinance of God are corruptions thereof, and so unlawful. So then, till the Bishop can find out that regal government in the world, which is the Ordinance of God, by his divinity all governments by Kings must bee questionable; and when that one is found out. all the rest besides, are evicted thereby to be unlawful. And thus we see the truth of that saying, Prov. 27. 14. fulfiled in this mans importune standing up to make Kings greater then God hath made them; he that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him. His opinion of Kingly power and authority, being originally and primarily the ordinance of God, being interpnted is enough to make the Crownes of all the Kings upon earth, to droop and languish, and sit loose upon their heads.  
It is like, that he will lay hold of this shield and buckler, to save the life of his opinion, if it may be, Kings were originally ordained and appointed by God to rule: and this is sufficient to prove Kingly rule or Government to be originally and primarily the Ordinance of GOD.  
To this I Answer, first, It can never bee proved that Kings were originally ordained by God to rule. The first we red of, that assumed regal power, was Nimrod, Gen, 10. 8. of whom it is said, that he began to bee a mighty one in the Earth; and his kingdom is spoken of, vers. 10. There is not the least mention made, nor intimation given, that God had any thing to do with the advancement of him to his kingdom, by any ordinance or command of his; either to himself to rule as a King, or to the people overwhom he Reigned, to receive him, or subject themselves unto him, as a King. Nor is their any colour to think, that either he should have sinned against any ordinance of God, in case he had not made himself a King, or, that the people should have sinned any such sin, in case they had not received him. It is true, God in a way of a general and permissive providence, so disposeth of the pride and ambition of Nimrod's heart on the one hand, and of the weakness and ignorance of the people one the other, that between them both, Nimrod became a King. But had Kingly rule or government been an ordinance of God, doubtless he would never have laid the foundation of it in such a Tyrant and oppressor as he was. He should never have hansel'd such a solemn and sacred Ordinance of GOD as this is pretended to be. The next King heard of in the Scriptures, is Pharaoh King of Egypt, Gen. 12. 15. and afterward Chap. 14. we hear of Kings by heaps, four making war against five, and five against four: but that any of these were put into their kingdoms by God( otherwise then in a way of permissive and disposive providence, as was said) or by any ordinance of his, is as clear as the heavens are to us in the darkest night. But  
Secondly, suppose it could be never so substantially proved, that men were at first ordained and appointed by God( in the sense episcopal) to take Kingly rule upon them, yet except it can be as substantially proved, what the nature, purport, extent, and limits of that rule or power which they exercised by virtue or warrant of that ordinance of God, were, there is nothing gotten by this, to justify any regal power now in exercise in the world. Though we could prove never so sufficiently, that Christ or his Apostles ordained Pastors and Teachers in the Church to preach the gospel, yet except we both knew what this gospel was which they were ordained to preach, and what this preaching itself was, the proof of that Ordination by Christ and his Apostles, would not prove the Pastors and Teachers amongst us ever to have been ordained by them. Communion in Name between a present practise, and a practise ordained by God, is a ridiculous foundation in reason, to prove the present practise to have been ordained by God. Therfore the Bishops opinion, that the Kingly Government which is now administrd in the world, is originally the ordinance of God, will starve, notwithstanding this relief.  
Thirdly, That Government or power which God never imposed upon any people under heaven to erect or set up amongst them, is not like to be the ordinance of God, command of observation to persons whom it concerns, being an essential adjunct of an ordinance of God. But God never imposed the government of Kings upon any Nation, but hath left all Nations free to erect amongst themselves what government they please, whether aristocratical, democratical, and however mixed, so it be just and lawful, as well as regal. Therfore government regal( in the sense Cathedrall) is not the ordinance of God. The latter Proposition, viz. That God hath left all Nations free to set what Government themselves please; over them, and consequently hath not imposed upon them that which is regal, is evident from his own grounds, who p. 48 affirmeth God to be the allower and confirmer of aristocratical and all other forms of Government. From whence I thus reason: If God bee the Allower and confirmer of all other forms of government, as well as of regal, then were all Nations at liberty to set up any other form of government, as well as it; for a man is at liberty to do any thing, which God will allow and confirm when he hath done it: yea it is no whit less then blasphemy, to make God the Allower of what is sinful or unlawful to be done.  
4o If Government regal be no otherwise from God, or no otherwise an ordinance of God, then inferior Magistracy and power is, then is it not originally and primarily from God. said verum prius; Ergo et posterius. The sequel in the Proposition is strong, as well, quoadrem as quoad hominem: quoadrem, because inferior Magistracy, is both conferred and given, and likewise limited and specified by men, either by the sovereign power of the King himself as in such Officers and Magistrates, as his lawful Prerogative gives him right and power to create: or else by the people, as in those Magistrates whose nomination and investiture either by law or privilege of lawful custom, belongs unto them: Quoad hominem; because he holds, that all inferior Magistracy or power, is of a far inferior descent and origination, in comparison of that which is regal. And that it is wholly dependant upon this page. 47, 65, 66. The truth of the assumption or antecedent, viz: that government regal is no otherwise from God, then inferior Magistracy or government is, is evident.  
1o. Because this is said to be from Heaven, and to be ordained of God, as well as that: The Scripture makes no difference or distinction, between the descent of the one and of the other, in this respect. himself taketh notice ( p. 47.) that Christ doth positively affirm that the power of Pilate was given him from Heaven; Which is indeed expressly so affirmed by him, Joh. 19. 11. excepting only that the Bishop paraphraseth our Saviours from above, with his, from Heaven: For which though I cannot commend him, yet shall it bee no part of my contention with him at this time. Now Pilate all men know, had no sovereign or regal power, but was a subordinate magistrate, deputed to his place of government and rule by the roman Emperour, and might at pleasure have been removed by him. So again, Rom. 13. 1. it is said of all powers( viz. in rule and government) without any distinction, that they are ordained of God: and that there is no power( that is, no lawful power whatsoever) but is of God: For there is no power but of God, the powers that bee( whether sovereign, or subordinate) are ordained of God. again,  
2o. There is the same subjection, or subjection upon the same terms, charged upon the consciences of men, to the one authority, which is unto the other. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it bee to the King as supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him, &c. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Therefore there is no ground in Scripture, to conceive any other manner or kind of the issuing or descent of the regal power from God, then is of the subordinate. All the difference which reason can demonstrate in this kind, is onely this; that the disposal of the hearts of people, and of other circumstances therewith concurring, to bring a King to a Throne, or sovereignty of rule and power, is ordinarily a far greater and more considerable act of divine providence; either for the benefit or bane of a people, then the moving of the heart of the King, or the disposing of other interveniences, for the bringing of a man to an inferior place of Magistracy or power. But this is rather a difference in degree, then in kind  
5o. If regal government be the ordinance of God, according to the Ossorian gloss and interpretation, then cannot the desire or request of a Nation or people to have this government over them be called a rejecting of God from reigning or ruling over them. But this desire or request made by the nation of the Jews is by God himself interpnted, a rejecting or casting of him away, that he should not reign over them, 1 Sam. 8. 67. Therefore certainly the Bishop of OSSORY is Clericus absque libro, nec valet ova dvo; in his notion of regal government being the ordinance of God. The assumption comes from the mouth of God, almost, and as good as, interminis, let the Bishop deny it at his peril. And for the Proposition, the very sound of it is such and so distinct in the ear of reason, that a reasonable man cannot lightly but prepare his assent unto it immediately. For can any thing lightly be supposed more unreasonable, then that God should challenge and charge a people with a rejection of him, and his rule over them, onely because they desire such a rule or form of government amongst them, which is an ordinance of his after a more special and excellent manner, then any other?  
6. That rule of Government, the non-exercise or non-use whereof throughout the whole World, would not have rendered any man sinful or displeasing unto God, is not such a divine and supertranscendent ordiance of God above all other forms of Rule and government, as the Ossorian Oracle reports it to be. I remember I have to do with men so unreasanoble, that if such a saying as this that twice two make four; should make against them they are ready to cry out of the ignorance and impudence of him that should affirm it: otherwise the Proposition laid down, hath a consistence with reason and truth, manifest enough. But now, to bind the tongue of perverseness to her good behaviour, take this String or Cord, that it no ways suits with the glory of the wisdom of God; to set his seal of special excellency upon any ordinance of his and then to leave all the World at liberty, whether they will use it, or obey it or no. Therefore let me now assume.  
But the non-exercise, or non-use of Kingly government, had the world generally ag●●●d never to have used or imbra●●● 〈…〉 not 〈…〉 the World, nor any member 〈…〉 God Ergo.  
T●● 〈…〉 ●●●●ent from what hath been already argued 〈…〉 no Nation but might lawfully have 〈…〉 government, as well as this( which 〈…〉) evident it is, tha● their refusing of this government had been no ways sinful. If the Observation or use of the regal government had been necessary in point of duty, or had the government itself been such a choice and divine Ordinance above all other governments, doubtless God would have imposed it upon his own people, the Nation of the Jews, though he had left others to their liberty. But that he no ways so much as recommended it unto them, but left them purely to themselves, whether they would set up a King over them or no; is every whit as much as fully evident, Deut. 17. 14. When thou art come to the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, &c. God doth not here say, that when they came into their Land, he would set a King over them or have them to set a King over them; but onely that in case they should say that they would set up a King over them; that is should freely and voluntarily desire or resolve upon such a government, that then for the person of him that should bee their King, he would have the election or nomination of him.  
Wee know that God himself had settled them under an other government, viz: by Judges, wherein he had blessed and prospered them many yeers: and though it was not simply unlawful for them to desire a King to beset over them( as appears from the place in deuteronomy last cited) yet this desire of theirs proceeding out of a dislike or discontentment at that government which God himself had set over them, or out of a superstitious conceit of some divine excellency or perfection in the government they desired, above that which already they enjoyed, was on high breach between him and them.  
If it bee lawful to speak the truth withall simplicity and ingenuity, I profess I never yet met with any solid, or convincing argument, either from Scripture or otherwise, to prove that regal government or power is in any other sense or consideration the ordinance of God, then in those three formerly expressed.  
As for those Scriptures, by me Kings reign, &c. Prov. 8. 15. and again, There is no power, but of God: the powers that bee, are ordained of God, Rom. 13. 1. with others of like consideration, they determine nothing in way of any special modification, as how, or in what sense whether originally and primarily, or secondarily, or demonstratively, onely whether mediately or immedily, either Kingly power, or any other be ordained by GOD: much less do they conclude any thing by way of Prerogative for the manner of the issuing of Kingly power from God above any other All that they prove is that Kingly government and power, as well as any other, are simply from God, and are ordained, or rather ordered( {αβγδ}) by God; which is a conclusion, wherewith the Anti-Cavalier is ready to fill the Bishops bosom with both his hands. As for those episcopal modifications and explications of this conclusion which have been argued, we have seen nothing liker the chaff before the wind, then they.   

CAP. III. Wherein the Bishops second encounter against the Anti-Cavalier, about the carriage of the Prophet Elisha, towards him that was sent to take away his head, 2 King. 6. 32 Is examined.  
WHen Herod had killed James the brother of John with the sword, the text saith, that because he saw that it pleased the people, he proceeded further to take Peter also, Act. 12. 2, 3. The Bishop( it seems) hath either so pleased himself or his friends, with confuting the Anti-Cavalier( over the shoulder) once, that he proceeds to a like confutation of him the second time. The Anti-Cavalier pleads the practise and example of the Prophet Elisha, who caused the door to be shut, and the Cavalier, that was sent to take away his head, to be roughly handled, for lawfulness of resistance, against unlawful executioners of unlawful commands. That quarter in this discourse, which the Philo-Cavalier falls upon, is this: surely he that went thus far( viz: as to cause the door to bee shut, and the messenger of blood to bee roughly handled without) for the safety of his life, when he was but in danger of being assaulted, would have gone further if occasion had been: and in case the Kings Butcher had got into him, before the door had been shut, if he had been able, and had had no other means to have saved his own head, but by taking away the others; there is little question to be made, but he would rather have taken, then given an head, in this case.  
Against this, the Bishop advanceth with this answer( such as it is) that who this GOODWIN is, he knows not: but he could wish, he were none of the Tribe of Levi, 2o. Because he finds him such an incendiary of war, &c. 2o because his objection is full of falsehoods, and false grounds, &c.  
If a man could answer objections, either with ignorance, or with a wish, I see there is no man like to a Bishop to cope with an adversary. For the forlorn hope or first advance of his answer, is, that he knows not who this Goodwin is, that set's the Prophet Elisha thus upon his back to vex him. But doth not the man deny himself deeply, thus ingenuously to confess his ignorance? No doubtless; it is very rare to find a Bishop under this Fig-tree. The design of this confession rather seems to bee to indigitate his adversary as a filius terrae, and contemptible and obscure person, and himself brother to the Sun and moon, a man of renown. However, the lamb had no great cause to be sorry if the wolf knew her not. Nor hath this Goodwin any cause to bee troubled, that these great overseers overlook him: he hath been known to some of them to his cost. But though this son of the morning knows not this Goodwin( that Ignorant and impudent fellow he spake of before) yet he knows Master Griffith to be a learned Divine, p. 94. and Mr Warmstry to be a learned preacher of Gods word, pag 32. both of them( I believe) men as much unknown to him, as this Goodwin, excepting onely the relation of co-Malignancy or con-temporizing between them.  
2o. In the next place comes on the Vanne of his Answer, which is a wish, yet of no great strength neither, but a kind of velleity: he could wish that this GOODWIN were none of the Tribe of Levi. It is no strange thing for a Bishop to wish evil unto men: they have both the will and the dead,( in this kind) given unto them. I believe he could wish not onely that this GOODWIN, but that all the Ministers within the three kingdoms, that are faithful and through-hearted in the work of the Gospel, were none of the Tribe of Levi; nor( I fear) of any other Tribe, but of that which is not.  
But it may bee the crookedness of his wish, may bee made strait by the reasons and grounds of it. Let these therfore stand forth, and pled for their master.  
The first is, because he finds him such an incendiary of war, and enemy unto peace. Such an incendtary? such an enemy? I pray as who? as yourself, and men of your Order? Or as St. Paul and the rest of his Order? If he be such an incendiary of war, or enemy to peace as you and yours, let him smart for it: he deserves it. I shall never open my mouth, nor stir my pen for him. For you animate and exhort, and egg on all that have no more conscience then to harken to you, to strengthen the hand of those that are risen up against that Honourable Assembly, the supreme judicatory or Court of Justice in the Land, and in them against the peace and safety of all his Majesties 3 kingdoms; you( I say) stir up all you can with both your hands to asiist and strengthen these men in their way, to the utmost of their power, by not sparing their goods, nor being niggards in their contributions: nay, you blow these coals yet hotter, and thrust them forward in this desperate service, even to the hazard and loss both of liberty and life,( pag. 105, 106. of your Discourse.) It is true, you bait your hook with the glossie pretence of His Majesties safety and protection, as if you called in all this help and assistance only for these: but your real intentions are so notorious, and so strong above ground, that you gain nothing by all your flourishes and pretences in this kind, but the deserved reproach of base hypocrasie and dissimulation on the one hand, and of being the generation of him that is called the accuser of the Brethren, one the other. For by your importune crying out for aid and assistance to be brought in, for the safety and protection of his Majesty, you plainly insinuate, that it is the Parliament and those faithful and loyal Subjects of his that stand by them for their defence and safety, that endanger his Majesty, and seek his life, Crown, and dignities: which is an accusation and charge of that desperate falsehood and malice, that the Accuser of the Brethren we speak of, seems to have given you his power and his Throne, as being more able to manage them for his advantage, then himself. This is to be an incendiary of war, and an enemy to peace, to seek to disturb, and to oppose the proceedings of Law and Justice throughout the Land, to endeavour to strengthen the hand of malefactors and delinquents, that they may be able to wage war against their lawful and righteous Judges, to incense the people against those Rulers and Magistrates of theirs, who with upright hearts and unwearied endeavours, seek the things of their peace and welfare, against those that have already more then begun to devour them and are upon terms of advantage enough to finish their work, and to make an utter end of them, if the people themselves will be persuaded to join with them, and to help them, as you would have them.  
In this sense therfore, evident it is, that the Philo-Cavalier, not the Anti-Cavalier, is the Incendiary of war, and enemy to peace. But in what sense, I pray will the accusation hold against the Anti-Cavalier? How is he an incendiary of war? He exhorts and persuades people all he can, to keep their late vow and Protestation made unto God( not disallowed that ever I heard by his Majesty himself) as viz. to maintain and defend, as far as lawfully they may, with their lives, power, and estates, the true Reformed Protestant Religion; his Majesties royal person, honour 〈◇〉 estate the power and privileges of Parliament; the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and every person that should make the same protestation in whatsoever he should do in the lawful pursuance of the same. And ●o their power, and as far as lawfully they may, to oppose, and 〈◇〉 good ways and means endeavour to bring to condig●● punishment, all such as shall either by force, practise, counsels, plots, conspiracy or otherwise, do any thing to the contrary of any thing in the said protestation contained: And neither for fear, hope, nor other respect, to relinquish this promise, vow and protestation. If the Anti-Cavalier hath moved little or much out of this his sphere let the Bishop bear testimony against him and upon due proof made, Satiet se sanguine, quem semper sitivit: let the Anti-Cavalier be sacrificed upon the service of his Anti-Christian and bloody spirit as an incendiary of war, and enemy to peace: but in the mean time( which I make no question will be long enough) let the saddle be set upon the right Horse, and he that cries out against the thief, be laid hold of for the thief himself.  
The second reason why he wishes this Goodwin out of his Tribe of Levi, is, because his objections is full of falshoods and false grounds.  
But good Sir, this is an hard case, to wish a man unpriested, because he makes an objection, with falsehoods and false grounds in it. If you ever have been at the university, or know any thing of the disputations there, you cannot but know, that Objections generally are falsholds, and built upon false grounds; yea and that, in case the respondent undertakes to defend the truth( which is presumed he always doth; at least as far as his judgement leadeth him) unpossible it is that any disputation should be maintained, but onely by objections and Arguments that are falshoods, it being unpossible to oppose truth with truth. But I can easily excuse the man, though he hath forgotten the use and signification of his terms in logic, calling that an objection which is an Argument: These were but the Nuts of his Boy-hood and youth. A great States-man, that hath his part and share of the burden of two or three great Kingdoms upon his shoulder, and all these in a grievous combustion, uproar, and confusion; is he at all to be blamed, if he neglects the punctill'os and formalities of his logic and hath no leisure to ask his wits the question, how Sophisters speak in the schools.  
In the head of his charge, he learnedly distinguisheth between falshoods and false ground; but in making good his charge by insisting upon particulars, he confounds them again, as he doth himself. Well, but what are the falshoods or false grounds ( call them what you will) wherewith the Anti-Cavaliers objection, or argument( call it what you will, Bishops are for liberty) is so full?  
Now to the heat and strength of the battle. His first charge is, that the Anti-Cavalier saith in his Objection, that Ahab sent to take Elisha's head, whereas Ahab was dead long before.  
I answer, 1o. that the Bishop( it seems) hath lighted upon a mis-printed Copy, wherein he met with the Father instead of the son. A man would think that it were his hard hap, to light upon Bibles much mis-printed also, his opinions in divinity, being so dissenting from all Hagiographie of a true impression.  
But 2o. Whereas he saith, that Ahab was dead long before; I demand of him, as he doth of the Anti-Cavalier a few lines after( in another case) what inspiration he hath from God to bee sure of this? The Scripture determineth nothing of the interim, between Ahabs death, and this fact of his son jehoram.  
But he goeth on and courteously granteth, that the Prophet, in his judgement, desiring the Elders to handle the messenger roughly; or hold him fast at the door, did herein a little more, then what God and nature alloweth every man to do, not to lay down his life, if he can lawfully preserve it, &c.  
Where is to be noted, that though he doth not cry out against the Prophet Elisha for shutting the door, as he doth against the Anti-Cavalier, nor against Christ, for giving leave, when we are persecuted in one City, to fly into another, yet in his judgement the doing of the one and of the other, was A LITTLE MORE then what God and nature allowed every man to do? It is no marvel if he makes himself so much wiser then his poor Brethren whom he looks upon as so many Ignaro's, and insults over their ignorance with his knowledge, when as Prophets themselves, yea and the Lord of Prophets himself being weighed in his balance, have much ado to( nay do not fully) hold out with his weights.  
But in all this which the Prophet did, he tells us, that he finds no violent resistance, What? and yet somewhat more then what God and nature, alloweth every man to do? Well, but yet he is here somewhat ingenuous and tender: he doth not absolutely deny, but that here might be some violent resistance; only he professeth that he finds none. jugglers can hid and find at pleasure. The man( I believe) hath learned his Terence: Si sapis, quod scis, nescis: and his Cato too, who teacheth him that principle of policy, which here he makes use of.  

Stultitiam simulare loco prudentia summa est,   i. e. 

'tis wisedom's highest strain, as time and place may be.  
Wiselesse to make thyself, and nothing for to see.   
If His majesty should come to demand entrance into any of the walled Cities of this kingdom and those within should shut the gates against him, and not suffer him to enter, and withall should handle him roughly at the Gates: I believe the mans eyes would now bee opened, and he would find violent resistance here. If by violent resistance he means, laying on dry blows with a weapon, or cleaving a mans head in sunder with a Skaine or battell-Axe: I confess that neither do I( in this sense) find any violent resistance. But if by violent resistance, he means a strong and forcible opposition, a withstanding an assailant to the utmost of a mans power, at least to the uttermost of what was necessary to prevent the mischief that was intended against him, doubtless a violent resistance is easy enough to bee found in the Prophets carriage in this place. Nor did the Anti-Cavalier ever intend a legitimation of any further resistance by way of violence or force, then onely to such a degree, which may in prudence be thought fully sufficient to stave off the violence and injustice of those, who without any lawful authority shall advance against them. His meaning never was, to make it lawful to draw a sword, when the shutting of a door may be a sufficient security.  
But the words of the Bishops greatest indignation, against the Anti-Cavalier in this passage, are these: Surely if the messenger had got in, Elisha had taken of his head, rather then given his own. Here he demands, what inspiration the Anti-Cavalier hath from God to be sure of this? Withall affirming, that he was sure that John Baptist would not do so, nor St. Paul, nor any other of Gods Saints that he had red of: but these men are sure of every thing, even of Gods secret counsel, and that is more then the thoughts of mens hearts, &c.  
I answer, 1o. I shall pardon the Bishops mangling and curtailing the Anti-Cavaliers words for his own advantage in this place, because he had done honestly in a just report of them before, whither the Reader may please to repair for a full view of them. But  
2o. Whereas he demands, by what inspiration from God, his Antagonist was sure of this? I answer, by a far better inspiration, then the Bishop had, either to affirm, that the Christians that were at jerusalem when James was martyred, were more in number, and greater in power, then were the persecutors of that Apostle, which yet he makes no bones to avouch, p. 21. or to say, p. 56. that neither Joseph in swearing by the life of pharaoh, nor the midwives in lying to the King, sinned: or then he had to say, p. 68. that whatsoever the King hath suffered, all the world knows it is for the preservation of the Protestant Religion, of the established laws of this kingdom, &c. I marvel, first; by what inspiration all the world should know it. And I marvel yet more, by what inspiration the Bishop should know that all the World knows it. And I would gladly know by what inspiration from God, he Prophesies and forsees, p. 68. that those Reverend Bishops, grave Doctors, and all the rest of the Learned and Religious clergy, for whose preservation( as he; like himself fableth) the King suffers, will to the spilling of the last drop of their blood, defend the truth( I think he means of Protestant Religion, or that the King suffers all for the preservation of this Religion, &c.) Against all Papists, and other anabaptistical Brownists and Sectaries whatsoever. Surely to determine and prophesy what himself would do in such a case as he here speaks of, requires no less then the knowledge of Gods secret counsel. For 1o. the man by his own strength, and without special assistance from God, is not able to defend any truth of God, to the spilling of the first, much less to the spilling of the last drop of his blood; as wee see in the example of Peter, another manner of man to defend the truth with his blood, then the Bishop is( no dispraise to him) And 2o. Whether God will assist any man, much more a colloguing Bishop, so far, when it comes to the trial, as to defend a truth to the last drop of his blood, is not revealed, and therfore must needs be the secret counsel of God. But to undertake, that others; I know not how many more, even all the learned and Religious clergy, shall do it, requires a greater inspiration in the kind, then ever Prophet Apostle, or Evangelist had. Yet let me advice a little better upon the Bishops expression, in that word, Religious: It may bee I may have cause to correct myself( in part) in what I have said. If his meaning be that all the Religious Bishops, Doctors and clergy, for whose preservation his majesty so suffers, will to the spilling of the last drop of their blood, defend the truth of Religion: I confess this may be very reasonably( as touching the truth of it) and in a way of good probability affirmed, without any extraordinary inspiration from God. For this is but a saying of like notion with this; that all the Fishes in the Sea, that are fowls in the air, are able to fly: or this, all the Lambs in the Fold, that are lions in the forest, will bee able enough to deal with the wolf, when he comes. Both these are truths manifest enough, though but simplo ones.  
In such a figure and Character of speech as this, all the Bishops, Doctors, and clergy( for whose preservation the King suffers) that are Religious, may well defend the truth of Religion, to the spilling of the last drop of their blood.  
But to give the Bishop an account, by what inspiration from God, the Anti Cavalier affirmeth, that the prophet in case he had had no other means to escape, and had been able, would rather have taken, then given, an head: he might very well, upon consideration of what the Prophet had done, speak this by the inspiration of reason, and( almost) of common-sence. For it is very reasonable to think and say, that he that goes one mile to save his life, will go two, if he bee able; and there be no other means whereby to save it, The Prophet( doubtless) did more, more I mean in a geometrical or rational proportion, in causing the Butcher to bee roughly handled, and the door to be shut against him, whilst he was yet at such a distance from doing him harm, then he should have done in taking away his head, in case he had got within him, and could by no other means have saved his own. That confidence he pretends that neither John the Baptist, nor Paul would do so, supposing all circumstances should have paralleled( for otherwise he speaks to little purpose) is but the inspiration of his chair, neither doth he so much as pled or pretend, any better ground for it.  
But the Bishop himself( it seems) makes no great treasure of this answer of his neither, but( in effect) grants, that it is very likely that the Prophet would have served the Cavalier neither better nor worse, then as the Anti-Cavalier conceiveth he would have done, had matters come to that exigent he proposeth; and therefore( in the third and last place) he casts out his sacred Anchor, betakes himself to his bottom answer, the best of all the strength he had to oppose, which is this; That Elisha was a great Prophet, and had the spirit of Elijah doubled upon him; and those actions that he did, or might have done, through the inspiration of Gods spirit; this man may not do, except he be sure of the like inspiration.  
I Answer, Elishas being a great Prophet, and having the spirit of Elijah doubled upon him, hindereth not at all, but that the Anti-Cavalier, yea and the Philo-Cavalier too, may do, yea and ought to do, hic et nunc, consenting, many things which he did, and might have done by the inspiration of Gods Spirit; yea many things, without asking the consent of hic et nunc themselves. I presume Elisha prayed unto God, loved God and men, by the inspiration of Gods spirit: and will not the Bishop allow either himself or others, to do these things, as well as he? I confess Bishops have been very chary and tender in granting this liberty; and where it hath been taken over-deepe, the High Commission hath made transgression and money of it.  
Yea but the Bishop means the extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit of God; and supposeth that the Prophet did what he did in the premises, by such an inspiration; and hereupon concludes his example to be no pattern or warrant for imitation.  
I Answer, if this be the meaning. then have at the Butcher with his own Hatchet; why doth he( a few lines before as we heard) say, that the Prophet in his judgement did, in what he did, but little more then what God and nature alloweth every man to do? And why doth he say a few lines after, that indeed the place is plain, that Elisha made no other resistance, but what every man may lawfully do, &c. Surely he that saith these things doth not think that Elisha did what he did, in the particulars so much insisted upon, by extraordinary inspiration of the spirit of God. The truth is, that there are no fewer then three notorious inconsistencies or contradictions, within the compass of this his answer. First, his judgement is, that the Prophet did a little more( though but a little more) then what God and nature alloweth every man to do, Secondly, his judgement( contrary to that) is, that the place is plain, that he made no other resistance, but what every man may lawfully do. Thirdly, his judgement( contrary to both) is, that what Elisha did in this case, he did it by the extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit of God. He that thus turns himself every way, and cuts and slasheth himself( like Baals Priests) for an answer, is it not a plain sign that he knows not which way to turn him for an answer to purpose? The common saying is, Nusquam est, qui ubique est. And yet notwithstanding as if he had quitted himself like a man and laid his adversary flat, he comes down from the theatre with this triumphant song in his mouth; yet this man would infer hence, that we may lawfully, with a strong hand, and open war, resist the authority of our lawful King. The truth is, that for any thing the other man hath answered or said, this man or any other man, may infer from the premises what they will. But he that gives power and authority to a King, to do what he pleaseth, p. 29. here takes the like power and authority to himself to speak what he pleaseth. A Reverend Bishop would bee ashamed to lay his mis-begotten child at an honest mans door. Verily you deserve to sit no more in Parliament, till you can show, where the Anti-Cavalier hath made such an inference as you charge him with, viz: that we may lawfully, with a strong hand and open war; resist the authority of a lawful King, and if you be kept out till then, your return will be ad Calendas Grecas, the very punctual precise time desired by all true lovers of the gospel, for your re-advancement thither. The Anti Cavalier never thought it never spake it, never delivered it by pen or otherwise, that it was lawful for us or any man to resist the authority of a lawful King. Therefore the Bishop goes out in a snuff here.  
Yet afterwards, p. 62. he would fain have something to say, but that he knows not well what, to those same almost two leaves, which the Anti-cavalier, spends in six several answers, that he makes to an objection against the examining of the equity or iniquity of the Kings commands. Against these almost two leaves he gives sentence pro tribunali, that they are spent to no purpose. If I thought so, my advice should be to have them bound with the Bishop of Ossoryes Grand Rebellion: for better one book troubled, then two.  
But is he as strong in his evidence as he is in his judgement? Not by as many degrees as the Sun went back in the dial of Ahaz, in Hezekiahs dayes. Make the computation and see. The indictment you have heard already, it is for the crime of impertinency; the evidence is, because we never deny, but that in some cases, though not in all( for there must bee Arcana Imperij, and there must be privy Counsellors; and every Peasant must not examine all the Edicts of his Prince) the commands of Kings may not onely be examined, but also disobeyed, &c.  
By the connexion of this reason with the accusation, which it is brought to prove, it seems the Bishops opinion is, that nothing is written to any purpose, but what is written in opposition to him, and men of his order. For the reason which he gives, why the almost two leaves are written or spent to no purpose, is fairly this, because he and his Copes-mates do not deny what is there proved. And for this opinion of his, I can very freely go thus far along with it, as to think, that as the condition and times of the gospel are for the present, there can nothing lightly be written to better purpose, then what is and may be written in opposition to him and his hierarchical com-rades. But if his opinion be( as his reason gives it) that nothing is written to any purpose at all, except it pulls some or other of his opinions by the throat, I profess ingenuously that I have not so bad an opinion of the man, as to set the foot of my judgement by his, in this. I believe he holds many Orthodox and savoury truths, which may bee handled and pleaded for to very good purpose.  
Nor Secondly, do I apprehended that reason of his to bee of sufficient strength, which he gives why we should make such a distinction or difference between a Kings commands as this, that some should be {αβγδ}, others {αβγδ}, that is, some liable to examination; others privileged and exempt. This reason is,( as hath been said) because there must be Arcana Imperij, and Privy Counsellors: why, may not a man eat Oysters, without disturbing the Bishop at his roast beef? I would fain know, how any examination of any of the Kings commands whatsoever, as far as concerns the lawfulness of them in point of execution( and other examination was never dreamt of by the Anti-Cavalier) should any ways prejudice or trench upon Arcana Imperij, or secrets of State, Kings& States may have their secrets, without any impairment either of their number or secrecy, and yet command nothing to be done or put in execution, but what may safely be so far considered, and thought of, by those to whom the execution is enjoined: as whether they be lawful to be done by them, or no: The intention of the King or State, in what they command, is not necessary to bee known or enquired into, by those that are commanded( especially when either in the judgement of reason or charity, it may be presumed to be good) because it is onely the nature and substance of the act enjoined, that concerns the inferior, or servant that is to perform it; But these he ought still so far to examine and inquire into till he discovers either lawfulness or unlawfullnesse in them, and accordingly, either to obey, or to refuse the command. And if there were any such secrets of Kings and States, which required subjection unto their edicts and commands; upon any such terms, that those that are to obey, must not so much as consider, whether it be lawful for them to obey or no; and to resolve either of obeying or not obeying accordingly; better were it a thousand times that all such secrets should bee profaned and cashiered, then maintained or regarded by either. Never let Kings or States think to prosper or thrive in greatness, by the Revenues or incomes of such Arcana, which cannot be managed but with sin and disobedince unto God.  
Thus still we see, that episcopal batteries and assaults are of no value to pierce or shake the fortifications and bulwarks which the Anti-Cavalier hath raised for the defence of the cause undertaken by him.   

CAP. IV. Wherein the third assault made upon the Anti-Cavalier by the Cavaliering Bishop, is examined, and the Anti-Cavalier faire ly acquitted, either from throwing dirt in the Fathers faces, or dishonouring that noble Army of martyrs, which our Church confesseth, &c.  
THe Philo-Cavalier, in the beginning of his tenth Chap. p. 78. having risen early to commend himself and make a vaunt of what further learning he had yet in bank, for the maintenance of his cause, if need were, he presently easeth his foul stomach, by disgorging this vomit in the Anti-Cavaliers face.  
But the Anti-Cavalier, would persuade the World that all those learned Fathers, and those constant Martyrs, that spent their purest blood to preserve the purity of Religion unto us, did either bely their own strength or befool themselves with the undue desire of over valued martyrdom. But now they are instructed by a better spirit, they have clearer illuminations to inform them to resist( if they have strength) the best and most lawful authority, that shall either oppose, or not consent unto them. Thus they throw dirt in the Fathers face and dishonour that glorious company; and noble army of Martyrs, &c.  
I see men may rub their foreheads to what degree of hardness they please; and by applying stupefactives to their consciences, make them sleep to what depth of insensiblenesse they desire. Bishops surely are more afraid of scruples and qualms of conscience, then they are of Hell fire they provide so substantially against the one, by exposing themselves without fear or regard unto the other. A man would have thought, that what the Anti-Cavalier hath written touching the Fathers and Martyrs in the premises, being extant; and for every man that desires to look upon, should have been a bridle in the lips of th●s mans pen, to have kept ●t from breaking out in such notorious slanders and untruths. But, pacta ●●●a est: he hath adventured upon a bishopric, and 'tis now too late to think of uprightness. The best ground he could have to utter himself as he hath done here, was a hope, that they that loved the spirit of his discourse, and would red with gladness what he hath written, would never vouchsafe to bestow time or pains in reading or considering what the Anti-Cavalier hath said. And the truth is, that there needs none other Answer or confutation to those lines of slander lately recited, but onely the laying of those passages in the Anti-Cavalier by them, whereunto they relate.  
For 1o. Where doth the Anti-Cavalier go about to persuade the World, that all the learned Fathers and constant Martyrs, did either bely their own strength, or befool themselves with an undue desire of over valued martyrdom? The charge is so groundless, and the spirit of it so irrelative to any thing that the Anti-Cavalier hath written that it is hard to conceive, what passage it is, that should give the occasion of it. The Bishop indeed cites in his margin, Anti-Cavalier: p. 17. 18. &c. But in all this wood I can find none of the Serpents he speaks of. It is true the Anti-Cavalier lays it down p. 17, 18. as matter of probality, that in case the Christians under the heathen Emperors had been able enough to have defended themselves, and to have opposed the Emperour and his Party; yet that all christians scattered up and down the Empire, might not have this apprehension of their strength, or think themselves strong enough to resist their Adversaries. And some lines after; that it was no ways necessary that they should be all of the same mind and judgement, touching the sufficiency of their strength; and that upon: his ground it might bee, that nothing was attempted in way of resistance by them. This is the utmost line and pin of all that the Anti-Cavalier saith in the pages cited by the Bishop, or elsewhere, touching this particular. Now I would know of a man that had not made shipwreck of his forehead, whether there bee in all this, so much as an appearance of any such design, as to persuade the World, that all the fathers and Martyrs did bely their own strength? When as it is expressly granted and supposed, that a great part of the Christians then living, might have an apprehension of the sufficiency of their strength for resistance? Besides, that any one either of the fathers or of the Martyrs, should doubt or question their strength in this kind, is not so much as whispered or intimated in the lowest manner, in all that discourse. Therefore to charge the Anti-Cavalier, that he should go about to persuade the World, that all the Fathers and Martyrs should bely their own strength; when he imputeth no such thing to any one of them, is a slander worthy that order of men from whence it comes, whose tongues and pens notwithstanding( in the sense of our English proverb) are no slander.  
2o. That he should desire to persuade the World, that all the fore-named Fathers and Martyrs should befool themselves with the undue desire of overvalued martyrdom, is as far from all unreasonable construction that can be made of any thing affirmed by him, as the former charge was. The Anti-Cavalier supposeth it indeed ( page. 20, 21. of his Discourse) as a thing possible that God might conceal a particular truth in this kind, from the guides and teachers of his Church in those times, and gives such reasons for this his supposition, as the Philo Cavalier( I believe cannot take away. 2o. he further supposeth, that that spirit of courage, patience and constancy, which God powred out abundantly upon his Church and servants in those times, whereby they were so strengthened and encouraged to suffer that martyrdom, seemed a desirable thing unto them, might be an occasion to take them off from enquiring into their lawful liberty of declining it. And of this supposition also he gives such an account, as the Bishop hath no mind to examine 3o. He supposeth; that whilst there lay a confessed necessity of suffering upon Christians, 1. till the supposed strength of resistance came to them( which could not bee much less then. 200 yeers) martyrdom was so extolled and magnified by general acclamations, continual Panegericks and orations made in the praise thereof, that probable it was, that no man for a long time would have been ●n●ured, that should have taught any doctrine that might any ways seem to take men off from the desire thereof. This supposition I suppose the Bishop himself will not oppose. 4o.( and lasty) he supposeth that the frame and tenor of Gods after dispersations( viz: as touching Anti-Christs advancement into his Throne) did require, that such a liberty as he had spoken of, should be hide from his Church or at least that they should not make use of it, In case they had seen it, and had had opportunity, in respect of outward strength to have used it: as on the contrary the nature and purport of those dispensations, which God hath now in hard requires that this liberty should be manifested and made known unto Christians. This Supposition he further explaineth and proveth, p. 21, 22. of that Discourse. Now set malignity herself do her worst, and break all the rules of charity seven times over( if she please) only let her observe and keep to rules of Grammar; and let her say what there is in all these passages or suppositions, that carrieth any show or colour in it to prove that the Anti-Cavalier goes about to persuade the World that all the Fathers and Martyrs befoold themselves with an undue desire of overvalued martyrdom: or that he throws dirt in the face either of the one, or of the other. He doth not in all these particulars, so much as once positively affirm, that either the one or the other of them were either ignorant of that liberty he speaks of or over-valued martyrdom; onely he supposeth a possibilty of both.  
But suppose he had affirmed both positively, doth it follow, bat therefore he represents all the Fathers and Martyrs, as men that had befoold themselves? Indeed by the logic of him that is the inference-maker quidlibet, will follow ex quelibet. His best logic( it seems) consists in a Court of facculties kept in his own breast out of which he can dispense with spurious and illegitimate consequences when he pleaseth, and give them a capacity of being thought rational and clear.  
Doth every man, or any man, that hath not attained the knowledge of some particular conclusion or truth in Religion, therfore befool himself? I presume the Bishop is nescient( not to rub him with the course towel of Ignorance where with notwithstanding he bescrubs the poor Anti-Cavalier over and over) but nescient I say( doubtless) he is, of many truths lying within the compass of Divinity, and the Scriptures: will he therfore kindly accept of such a salutation as this from any man: Sir you befool yourself in I know not how many things? Or though his patience and humility be so profound as to take such an have kindly himself yet is it no ways consistent with either, for him to speak to others in so course a Dialect.  
It is no disparagement to any man that is yet within the verge of mortality to have the circled of his knowledge thought narrower and less, the vast circumference of things to bee known. Nor is it any blot upon the Name or memory of him that was sometimes mortal to say of him, that he knew not all things. Because this being interpnted, is no more then to say that he was mortal.  
But the Bishop being a Father himself, and thirsting as it seems) after the title of being thought a man omniscient, cannot endure to hear, that those that are known by the Name of Fathers, should be suspected to have been ignorant of any thing.  
But because in this encounter he quits his intellectuals and falls on with his patheticals onely railing and not reasoning at all: I will be at no farther expense of words upon him, for the present.   

CHAP. V. Wherein the Bishops fourth encounter with the Anti-Cavalier, in which he chargeth him with lies and slanders cast upon the King to make him odious to his Subjects, is examined.  
THE oil in his cruse being formerly spent, the Bishop here comes to his vinegar Bottle. Having run himself out of his small stock of learning before he was ware, with such lavish expense thereof as he made in opposing the Anti-Cavalier by way of argument and reason, in his two first encounters; he is enforced to manage his 3. latter with an inferior element, and to furnish his pen with the rankest slanders and lies he could rak off from the devils dunghill.  
For let himself say, whether he hath not irregularied both himself and his pen with these un-priestly lines, p. 95. of his Grand Rebellion?  
But as Absalon knew well enough, that to traduce his Fathers Government, was the readiest way to infinuate, and to wind himself into a good opinion with the people, and to make the King odious unto his Subjects: so these and all other Rebels will be sure to lay load enough of lies and slanders upon their governours, and so the nameless Author of the sovereign Antidote, GOOWDIN, Burroughes, and abundance more, such scandalous, impudent, lying libels, have not blushed( which a man would think the brazen face of satan could not choose but do) so maliciously and reproachfully, to lay to his Majesties charge the things which he never knew, and which all they that know the King, do know to be apparent lies, and most abominable slanders against the Lords Vicegerent, &c.  
The Bishop( it seems) is very ingenuous and charitable towards satan; he thinks that his brazen face cannot choose but blushy, so maliciously and reproachfully to lay to His Majesties charge the things which he never knew, as Goodwin, Burrowghs, and abundance more have done. It is somewhat strange, how the man should come so much as to make conjecture, what Sathans brazen face should do had he not borrowed it of him, and made an experiment of it himself in this kind. Except( haply) he hath gotten a face more brazen then his? which indeed must needs be, if there be that ingenuity in Sathans face, which this charity tempteth him to believe.  
For not to blushy so maliciously and reproachfully, to lay on such loads, not of apparent but of apparent LIES and most abominable slanders, upon Goodwin, and Burrowghs, as here he hath done; requires more brass in the forehead, I mean a far higher strain of impudence, then not to blushy at any thing which either Goodwin, or Burrowghs, hath charged the King withall. For these men are so far from laying loads of lies and slanders upon the King, in what they have written, especially the former,( and I conceive the latter every whit as capable of the same purgation) that they have endeavoured upon all occasions, as far as a good conscience would consent, to ease such passages, with the fairest interpretation they could put upon them, as in the general opinion of those amongst whom they live, reflected with some disadvantage upon His majesty. And therefore not to blushy, to charge such men with abominable lies and slanders against his Majesty, requires a face more brazen, then that which himself ascribes unto satan.  
I cannot bethink myself, what piece of Wood it should be in the whole tract of Anti-Cavalierisme, of which this artificer should make his mercury, or lying Statue. The common saying is, that Dolosut versatur in generalibus. They that mean to lye, or to deceive, you shall still find them in generals; because in such cases, the conviction or discovery is more difficulty made. They tell you they have a Needle of nine pence in a Bottle of Hay, disprove them if you can. The Bishop in his former encounter, somewhat honestly( as wee heard) cited the Anti-Cavalier, p. 17. 18 &c. in his margin, over against his charge: but here though his charge be seven times deeper, no less( as you have heard) then maliciously and reproachfully to lay such things to His Majesties charge, as are generally known by all those that know him, to bee apparent lies and abominable slanders, yet the bare credit and reputation of his honesty, is all the proof or testimony you have from him, of the truth thereof. he makes account( it seems) that the credit of his honesty is as authentic, and high prized in the world, as the Scribes and Pharisees, presumed theirs was with Pilate, to whom, being demanded what accusation they brought against Christ, being so eager in their prosecution of him they returned no other answer but this; If he were not an evil doer, wee would not have delivered him unto thee. So all the account 
〈◇〉. 13. 13.  or evidence you must look for from the accuser of his Brethren, of those heinous matters here laid to the charge of Goodwin and Borrowghs. and others by him, is onely this; that if they had done so and so he would not have laid it to their charge. But Sir, let me tell you one thing( which may bee worth many a two that are  told you otherwise) that if you would bee believed in your accusations and charges against godly men without proof.  

Quare peregrinum, vicinia rauca reclamat   i. 

This Nation tells you with a loud consent,  
That much might be if to another you went.   
For in this Nation your credit in this kind is broken in pieces like a potters vessel, whereof there remaines not so much as a sheared or piece, wherewith to take, either a little fire from the hearth; or a little water out of the pit. You and men of your order, have for so long a time, and so often, accursed godly men falsely, that now your accusations only turn to a Testimony unto them, without further proof.  
As for the Author of the sovereign Antidote. I know him not( at least by any relation to such a writing) but that he should be nameless, is one of the Bishops profound speculations. But because his meaning in the word( I suppose) is innocent and harmless, wee will not make him an offender for a little grammatical acyrologie in speaking.  
Mr. Burrowghs I well know; and verily believe his gleanings both in honesty and learning, to be better then the Prelates vintage in both. Nor hath his angry Lordship done any courtesy to speak of, to the Anti-Cavalier, in all his Discourse, except it be in joining him with Mr. Burroughs: but in this he hath accommodated him with the like honour, wherewith the blind man restored to sight by our Saviour, 10. 9. Was gratified by the Scribes and Pharisees, who excommunicated him, and cast him out of their society unto Christ and his Apostles. But were all the men he mentions, the nameless Author, Goodwin, Burrowghs, and as many more as you will, were they( I say) all Angells from Heaven, yet if they do but touch the mountain of episcopacy with the least finger of contempt they must be struck through with some episcopal dart or other, and their names( at least) stoned to death with the hardest& roughest accusations that the great accuser of the Brethren can furnish his executioners with, for the service But this angry piece of Episcopacy affects( as it seems) the glory of a true Achillean Cavalier, and then his impress must be.  

Quae libet in quemvis opprobria fingere soevus,   i. 

advanced in choler, fiercely to revile,  
Who' ere comes in his way, with lying style.   
I shall for( the present) onely desire this of the Ingenuous Reader, that the Anti-Cavalier may stand right and strait in his thoughts, until his Accuser hath made good that sore charge of his against him, I mean of laying such things to His Majesties charge which himself and all that know him, know to be apparent lies and abominable slanders. And when this Heaven falls he makes no question but he shall have Larks enough to feast the Bishop, and make him and himself perfect friends.   

CAP. VI. The Bishops last Encounter against the Anti-Cavalier, wherein he chargeth him, with little less then justifying any Rebellion against the King, and much admires that he with his fellowes is not apprehended and transferred to the Kings Bench bar, and there arraigned &c. Examined.  
THE Man by this time hath reasoned himself quiter out of all his learning, reason, and patience into a moody choleric and bloody passion. For sure if his wits or conscience had been within call, he would never have made press work of such rotten stuff, as he hath spread upon the face of his 97. page. the spinning whereof runs thus. Then we grow so impudent as to justify any rebellion against our King: as in England, Goodwin and that seditious Pamphleter in opening the glorious name of the Lord of Hosts, do but a little less: for which application of Gods glorious name, and abusing the holy Scriptures to such abominable transgression of Gods holy Precepts, to instigate the Subjects to war against their sovereign, and to involve a whole kingdom into a desperate distraction: I do much admire that they are not apprehended and transferred to the Kings Bench bar to be there arraigned, and condemned to be punished according to their deserts.  
I wonder a little, how the Bishop came by his simples for this Receipt. Surely he hath good correspondence with Pluto: for we have here beaten and stamped together, as the principal ingredients in the composition.  

Oris Cerberei spumas, et virus Echidnae,   i. 

The foamy froth of Cerberus triple chaps,  
mixed with the poison of a female asp.   
Onely this I must confess, that did he mean as he speaketh( but episcopacy seldom dasheth his foot against this ston) in the first clause, it were an hopeful strain of ingenuity in him; for here in words, he ingenuously rangeth himself, amongst those that are so impudent, as to justify any rebellion against the King. Then we are so impudent, &c. And yet again on the other hand, speaking this of the Parliament( which it's evident from the lines preceding that he doth) there is a strain of impudence even in this ingenuity. For what hath he to do to join himself with the Parliament, as one of them, when as his whole Order is spewed out from thence.  
Well, but the man is here in his Rhetoricalls, and wee do him some wrong to make him speak logic, that is, reason and truth, against his will. His meaning is plain enough, viz: to charge the Parliament of England with so much impudence, as to justify any Rebellion against the King. It was time for the kingdom to make the mountain of Samaria; the Lordly Prelacy I mean) to smoke, and to force them down, like lightning from the heaven of their power, when their spirits were so far overgrown with pride and insolency, as to challenge the Supreme Court of Justice in the Land, with the justifying of Rebellion, nay( which is a calumny whereunto no pen lightly but a Bishops, could have been tempted or suborned) with the justifying of any Rebellion against the King. Why, how many kinds or degrees are there of Rebellion against the King? is the Parliament, or Parliament friends, so impudent as to justify them ALL, the worst, the foulest, and most desperate of them ALL? He professeth admiration, that Goodwin and the seditious Pamphleter, are not apprehended and transferred to the Kings Bench to be there arraigned, and condemned to be punished according to their deserts( all which might bee done, and yet not an hair of their heads fall to the ground) but it is rather matter of double admiration, that such portentous revilers and blasphemers of the highest powers and authority that God hath placed over them, especially without the least occasion given, should not either be recompensed with vengeance revealed from Heaven, or be made examples of the deepest severity of the Justice of the Land, or otherwise bee dismembered and torn in pieces by the impatient rage and indignation of the people.  
But let us cool a little in this heat on both sides, and then to it again, with somewhat more moderation. You talk much in your discourse, of resisting authority, and rising up against the lawful authority of the King, of the heinousness of Rebellion, with the like. But all this while you transgress the old law or rule for arguing and discourse, which is this; Omnis disputatio debet à definitione proficisci: all disputations should begin with the definition of that, which is intended for the matter of dispute. Wee do not understand, by any thing wee find from the beginning of your discourse to the end, what you mean by the Authority of the King, or by Rebellion. It may be you are best in the dark; and the light is to you that which job saith it is to Thieves, as the shadow of death, Job. 24. 17. The Scripture speaketh oft of authority, and condemneth Rebellion as a grievous sin: but what authority, or rebellion is( to my best remembrance) it defineth not. We simplo and well meaning men, conceive that the laws of every state and those who are authorised by these laws, for their interpreters in doubtful cases, are rather to be advised with, about the nature of that authority which is lawful& lawfully settled in every State or Kingdom respectively, and so about the nature of Rebellion, then with Divines, especially those of the chair. The Scriptures command that justice be done on all hands and that no mans right be detained from him: but whether this house or inheritance that happily is in question between several pretenders, be the right of the one, or of the other, it determineth not at all: but leaveth this to be adjudged by the laws, or vice-Lawes( I mean the customs of the State) wherein the question falleth. In like manner, what the Authority or lawful power( for these I judge to be much the same) of the King of England is, and so what the lawful power of an English Parliament is, is not to be found by searching the Scriptures though never so narrowly: the English laws are the Oracles that must be consulted with for the knowledge and determination of these. And so likewise it is for matter of Rebellion. And in case there ariseth any question betweeene party and party concerning either, which the first letter of the Law( as I may call it) is not able to determine or reconcile; then the second letter of the Law, i. the persons nominated or authorised by the Law, or at least by such a custom as is authorised by the Law for her interpretation in such cases, is to determine it. In case there be a subordniation of such persons, and the resolution of the inferior be not yet satisfactory, recourse must be had to the supreme in whose award there lies a necessity upon both sides and parties to acquiesce and rest, there being no possiblity of any farther appeal, but unto God himself. And what the resolution of the Supreme judicatory appointed or countenanced by the Law, in such cases of difference or question shall be is to be looked upon& judged as the resolution of the law itself, yea of the known law of the Kingdom.  
If this chain will hold( and I believed that all the force and strength of all the episcopal learning in the land will not be able to break the weakest link of it) then look to yourself, least you and your fellow Cavaliers, be in due time drawn by it to the Kings Bench bar you speak of, to be there arraigned and condemned to be punished according to your deserts; Which( I fear would be found another manner of punishment, then what either the Anti-Cavalier, or Pamphleter you speak of have deserved. For there is no law of the Kingdom better known, then that the high Court of Parliament is the supreme Judicatory of all Questions and disputes in law, against, and from whom there lieth no appeal to any other Judge or Judicatory but onely to another of the same, I mean another Parliament. And therefore it is they, not you, that must determine and define, what lawful authority, and what Rebellion is in England. Therefore Sir, you are fallen into the praemunire of the old Proverb, suitor ultra crepidam having played the cobbler beyond your Last, to arraign and condemn at your pleasure, for resisting lawful Authority, and for Rebellion, which are crimes of another cognizance; and from which they, to whom the cognizance and Judicature of such matters properly belong have not only acquitted the persons by you arraigned and condemned, but have laid your waller upon your own neck, and have concluded, stop the thief, to be the thief himself.  
And whereas you hope to be relieved by the Kings absence from the Parliament, and think their resolutions and determinations without him to be invalid and insufficient, you must know that this is but to few fig leaves together to cover your nakedness. For,  
1o. This being a case and question in law, what if the Parliament itself should give sentence against you? Your fig leaves are gone.  
2o. Those that understand the Laws of the kingdom better then either you or I will tel you, that though the King may be personally absent from the Parliament,( 
See the Treatise entitled, the disloyalty and Treachery of Papists to their sovereigns, &c. p. 21.& p. 41. &c. ) yet legally he cannot. The King( say they) in judgement of law, is ever legally present, in, and with his Parliament when they sit, wherever his person is: and his royal legal will( of which alone the law takes notice) is ever presumed to concur with his greatest counsel the Parliament, &c. As in all other Courts of Iustice, all proceedings are entred coram Rege, though the King never yet sate personally in any of them, as he hath oft times done in this Parliament. So that you clearly see, that neither the Kings absence from the Parliament, nor yet his refusing to give his personal consent to their votes and determinations, will any ways acquit you, from being both a traitor and rebel, in case the Parliament shall adjudge you either.  
3o. And lastly, in case the authority of Parliament, still including( as we heard) the royal legal will, and consent of the King, bee found and proved, to be the supreme authority, or highest power in the Land, let Gr. Williams the Lord Bishop of Ossory, and all the Cavaliering Bishops and all co-operating Papists, and others who oppose the Parliament, know, that they, and none other but they are the men, who resist the higher powers,& consequently shall receive to themselves that damnation, which the Apostle threateneth, 
Rom. 13. 2.  except they repent.  
And if the said Gr: Williams would not have it thought or believed, that the authority of Parliament, is their highest authority and power in the Land, and consequently that himself and his Copes-mates are Rebells, and the men that have involved the whole Kingdom into a distraction, let him acquit himself like a man, and substantially answer, those fourteen Arguments, which are laid down and argued at large to prove it, by the Author of the Discourse formerly mentioned, entitled: The treachery and disloyalty of Papists to their sovereigns in Doctrine and practise, &c. from p. 17. of the said Discourse to the end.  
When the Bishop hath honestly, and with currant money amongst understanding men, paid this reckoning, it is like the Anti-Cavalier shall be willing to trade further with him upon a new score. But in the mean time, I profess ingenuously, that I know not how to help it, but that he and his, must be looked upon, as guilty of those heinous crimes, wherewith they so fiercely charge their innocent adversaries, I mean, Rebellion and resisting lawful authority.  
And whereas, in this encounter, he layeth it to the charge of the Anti-Cavalier, that: he abuseth the Scripture; I answer, that all his guilt in this kind lieth in his being accused. When his accuser shall permute his effeminate affirmations for Masculine argumentations, and his railings for reasonings, he shall bee willing to address himself, either to a faire and thorough purgation of himself, or to an humble acknowledgement of his misprissions in this kind. But howsoever,  

Quis tulerit gracchoes de seditious querentes.   

Who can endure to hear, without disdain,  
The Gracchi of sedition to complain.   
What? Bishops complain of men for abusing the Scriptures? When as( alas) the abuse of Scripture is the foundation of their thrones. It is not by the milk, but by the blood of the Scriptures that this order of men is nourished and kept alive in the World. And as for this Episcopal blade, which we have now in hand, it is hard to say, whether he hath cited, or abused, more Scriptures in his Grand Rebellion. certain I am that in the general, he hath abused, tot quot, as many as he hath cited: for he hath engaged them all against the Parliament, and Parliamentary proceedings, i. against the advancement of Gods glory in a peaceable and legal way of reformation. It were an endless task to grapple with him, about the sense and interpretation, of all the particular texts of Scripture, upon which he hath laid violent and abusive hands, in this discourse, There are six together cited, p. 49. of his discourse, all which we have already proved, to be merely abused and mistaken by him. How he hath abused that Scripture, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Let every soul bee subject to the higher power: and whosoever resisteth, resisteth the ordinance of God, by his consecration of it, for the chief Sanctuary of himself and his fellow Cavaliers, sufficiently appeareth by what hath been lately argued in this Chapter. In several places, he toucheth at, Psal. 105. 15. Touch not mine anointed, to prove all Kings the anointed of the Lord, and immediately invested with their power and authority from him. Whereas it's evident from the former verse, yea, and from the scope and carriage of the whole Psalm, that this was not spoken to any people concerning Kings, as if they were the Lords anointed, that might not be touched: but unto Kings themselves concerning a people( the people indeed of God) as being his anointed ones, whom it concerned even Kings themselves not to touch in any way of injustice or offence. For in the very immediately preceding, he had said: he suffered no man to them wrong: yea, he reproved Kings for their Sakes. Saying, Touch not mine anointed, &c.  
But this sense of this Scripture hath of late, been largely and substantially vindicated by a more learned pen. I shall( for the present) leave his wary Reader to his own observation, for more Scriptures abused by him.  
And for conclusion. I shall only desire my Reader, to take knowledge of the most bitter, envenomed, and bloody spirit of the man, who finds himself aggrieved( even to admiration) that others are not affencted with the same bloody passion with him) that the Anti-Cavalier, and the Seditious Pamphleter( seditiously so called) are not apprehended, and arraigned at the Kings Bench bar, for abusing the Scriptures to instigate Subjects to war against their sovereign, that is, for persuading men by the Scriptures, to perform both to King and kingdom such a service, as the wit of this mans malice know's not how to traduce under a more plausible Name, then of an instigating Subjects to war against their sovereign.  
Suppose it were certainly known, that a Roche, mitre, pall, and Tippet did much endanger the life or soul of the Bishop that wears them, though the Bishop himself conceited otherwise, and thought himself the braver man and so much the nearer Heaven for having such caparisons upon him; doth he that seeks to divest him of these dangerous accoutrements, though against his will, deserve to be called his enemy, or to be thought a man that either wished or sough't to do him harm? For my part in case a Bishop should be mistaken in any thing that relates unto me, and should conceive that to be evil and dangerous unto me, which yet in truth is not, and upon this supposition, should do his best to separate between me and the supposed evil; well might I judge him to be a man of no profound reach; but deem him an enemy, I think I should not, certain I am, that I should have no sufficient ground of such an expression of his towards me, so to do. I have formerly as far as by words I well know how to do, vindicated not the innocency and loyalty onely, but the affectionatenesse likewise of my intentions for good towards his Majesty: of this man will take Satans occupation out of his hand, and make me like himself, I mean malignant, whether I will, or no; his accusation will yet bear it's own charges, and what it takes from me( for the( present) before men, it will hereafter restore and add unto me double before God. And so fare-well Gr. Williams, L. Bishop of Ossory, or whoever thou art, that facest the world, and out-facest the truth, under this title.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 12. l. 12. for on, r. one. p. 12. l, 30. for affirm, r. assume, p. 15. l. 15. for Estate, r. State. p. 16. l. 26. for: r. ib. l. 31. for scrase, r. scarce. p. 27. l. 25: for his, r. their. p. 18. l. 17. for on, r, one. p. 21. l. ult. for modest, r. modesty. p. 21. l. 10. deal or. p. 22. l. 22. for dencein r, dense in, p. 24. l. 22. for aed, r. ed. l. 23. for man, r. a man. p. 25. l. 37, for his, r. this. p. 27. l. 12. for 2o. r. 1o. l. 24 for and, r. a. p. 38 l. 19. for animate, r. animate. l. ult. for one, r. on. p. 39. l. 15. for incense. r. incense. p. 41. l. 22, deal, a. p. 45. l. 25. deal,; p. 47. l, 1. for precise r. and precise. l. 16. for judgement, r. indictment. l. 33. for times, r. terms. p. 51. l. 26. deal un, p. 53 l. 19. for the, r. then the. p. 56. l. 16. for had; r. had not l. 30. for cursed, r. cused. p. 59 l 2 for his, r. her, l. 18. for,; r.) p. 62. l. 29. for their, r. the. p. 64 l. 6. for very, r. verse. l. 7. for to. r. to do.  
There are divers others mispointings with some mispellings. Wherein the Reader is desired to befriend the Corrector with his pains and pardon.