‘BE not Deceived, GOD is not Mocked: for whatsoever a man Soweth that shall he also Reap.’ Consider these words of the Apostle, and be Assur'd that all those, who had an Hand in Shedding the Bloud of our Gra­cious Soveraign, and all those, who being then Unborn, do Now involve themselves in the Guilt of that Innocent Bloud, by concur­ring with the REGICIDES in the Approbation of their Diobolical Fact, Be Assur'd, I say, that one day they shall all Feel (if they do not truly Repent) what it is to [Page 2] Fall into the hands of the Living GOD. This Impenitent REGI­CIDE Pretending a great Love for Old England (as he speaks; ‘My Love, says he, to Old Eng­land is such as can never be shaken!’) endeavours with all his might to Seduce the People of England to their Eternal De­struction, by making them to Partake of His Guilt in the most Horrid Murther that was ever Committed since the Crucifixion of the LORD of Glory. He would fain impose upon the minds of his Readers, the Belief of a thing so Incredible, that the bare men­tion of it is sufficient to Enflame any one of common Ingenuity with an Everlasting Indignation against so Impudent an Attempt, viz. to Perswade us to believe that King CHARLES the First [Page 3] was Guilty of the Death of his Father, and that by Poysoning; ‘That King CHARLES the Se­cond, says he, Letter p. 5. went off by poyson'd Chocolate to make way for his Brother, when matters were well prepar'd to set up the Romish Idolatry, is a thing generally believ'd, and so it was that King JAMES the First was so dispatcht. — Well, right, or wrong, King CHARLES a­scended the Throne upon the Twenty-seventh of Mar. 1625, and at the first gave the World a Prospect what was to be ex­pected from him; for he instant­ly took the Duke of Buckingham, and Laud (the Bishop of Bath and Wells) into admir'd Inti­macy, and Dearness, and made them the chief Conductors of all Affairs in State, and Church: [Page 4] and that aspiring Prelate had the Guidance of his Conscience.’

Answ. Since that Admirable Learned Prelate had the Gui­dance of His Conscience, tis ma­nifest the Duke had no Influence upon Him, so as to Pervert Him to any course of Irreligion. ‘This Man (says he) after the Death of the Duke of B. was the Sole Favourite, and was prefer'd to the Bishoprick of London in his way to Canterbury.’

What blessed Effects there were of the same Inclinations, which Mov'd this Incomparable Know­ing and Virtuous Prince, to Ad­mit this most Learned Prelate to such an Intimacy, and Partici­pation of his deepest Counsels, will be seen by the Learned and Pious, throughout All Genera­tions, in the Writings of this Ad­mirable [Page 5] Exemplar of Royal For­titude, and Christian Patience, who so Gloriously lay'd down his Life for the Preservation of a Pure Conscience from the Polu­tion of Perjury, in Violating his Oath to maintain the Laws of this Kingdom, particularly those, that Concern the Church, the Matter of those Laws being most Agreeable to His Judgment, so that He Knew it would have been His Duty to have Desir'd that such Laws should have been Made in his Time, if they had not been Made before He came to the Throne: So Unreasonable, so Un­conscionable, so Trayterous, so Diabolical was it for LUDLOW, and his Companions to Urge Him to the Abrogation of those Laws, and at length to Murther Him for Adhering to the Dictates of [Page 6] so Pure a Conscience. Oh, My Dear Brethren, hearken I beseech you, to these words of Our Persecuted, Our MURTHER'D SOVERAIGN, whose Bloud will most certainly Cry for Vengeance against this whole Nation, if the Approbation of the Shedding of it (which God Forbid) should ever become a National Sin, through the Instiga­tion of the DEVIL, By such In­struments as LUDLOW. Thus speaks this Mirroir of Royal Vir­tue in his Discourse concerning ‘The Differences between the King, and the Two Houses in point of Church-Government. As to My particular engagement above other men, by an Oath a­greeable to My Judgment, I am solemnly oblig'd to preserve that Government, and the Rights of the Church.’

[Page 7] ‘I have oft wonder'd how men pretending to tenderness of Conscience, and Reformation, can at once tell Me that My Co­ronation Oath binds Me to Con­sent to whatsoever they shall propound to Me (which they urge with such violence) tho contrary to all that Rational, and Religious freedome which every man ought to preserve; and of which they seem so ten­der in their own Votes; yet at the same time these men will needs perswade Me, That I must and ought to dispence with, and roundly break that part of My Oath, which binds Me (agree­able to the best light of Reason and Religion I have) to main­tain the Government, and Legal Rights of the Church. Yet up­on this Rack chiefly have I been [Page 8] held so long, by some mens am­bitious Covetousness, and Sacri­legious Cruelty; torturing (with Me) both Church and State, in Civil dissentions; till I shall be forced to consent, and declare that I do approve, what (God knows) I utterly dislike, and in My Soul abhor, as many ways highly against Reason, Justice, and Religion.’

I shall not undertake to med­dle with History in this Paper farther than what concerns A. B. LAUD, and B. MOUNTAGUE. By the Notoriety of the Falsehood of LUDLOW'S Reflections upon Them, any man may Judge what Credit is to be given to him in o­ther Matters. How Prodigiously False his Charge against Moun­tague is, I have shown in My Pa­per Entitled, A Vindication of [Page 9] the Honour of King Charles the First. It is certainly to the Praise and not to the Dishonour of A. B. Laud what this Regicide Truly Reports of Him p. 9. ‘ Laud sol­licited the King to shelter Mountague from the Prosecu­tion of the Commons, and upon the occasion of that Prosecution said, I seem to see a Cloud arising, and threatning the Church of England, God for his Mercy dissi­pate it.’ The words following, tho He design'd by them to Re­proach the King, do most cer­tainly tend to his Eternal Praise in that He saw the Resplendent Merit of that wonderful Learn­ed Man, tho Overcast with the Mists of so much Obloquy and and Publick Reproach. ‘The King appear'd incensed at the Prosecution, and sent a Message [Page 10] to the Commons, that Mountague was his Chaplain, and he had taken the business into his own hands: he afterwards granted him a Pardon of all Offences, and made him Bishop of Chichester.’ Well, S ^r and what then? Most cer­tainly for fo doing this Blessed Prince, throughout all Generati­ons, shall have the Praise of all Learned Men that read the La­tine Writings of this excellent Prelate, and are themselves as he was, stedfast, and Judicious Adver­saries of the grossest Errors of the Church of Rome. I do not under­take to Vindicate all his opinions, but I can prove that the Errors of his most Confident Adversaries were far worse than the worst of His. p. 15. This State-Sophister falls again upon A. B. Laud, ‘Bi­shop Laud, says he, took Sib­thorp [Page 11] into his Bosome, and that he might undermine Good Old Abbot, whose Bishoprick he Co­veted, he put it into the Kings head to require the Arch-Bishop to Licence Sibthorp's Sermon — The good Old Man persisted in his Refusal.’

Whose Bishoprick He Coveted! This he can never prove to be True, unless he can Prove himself to have a Faculty of searching the hearts of Men. I can hardly think that LUDLOW himself could believe that so Wise a Man as B. Laud could be so Silly in any thing, as to conceit that A. B. Ab­bot should have been put to Death or depriv'd of his Arch-Bisho­prick (that it might be confer'd on him) for refusing to Licence a Sermon. I never read or heard that Arch-Bishop Abbot was e­ver [Page 12] Formally Suspended: if he were, most certainly it was not for refusing to Licence Sib­thorp's Sermon, but for that ca­sual Homicide, which he was guilty of, concerning which, in the late History of Oxford Wri­ters we find these words. ‘At length he being found guilty of casual homicide, Retir'd for a time to Guilford in Surrey, the place of his Nativity, where he had erected an Hospital for Men and Women.’ Here you see the Occasion that the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction was committed to Five Bishops as Ludlow reports p. 16. ‘The King instantly sus­pended the Arch-Bishop, and al­so Confin'd him, and commit­ted the Archiepiscopal Jurisdi­ction to Five Bishops, all of the New Church of England, and [Page 13] Sibthorp's Patrons, viz. London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and honest Laud of Bath and Wells.’

Let any man judge, whether honest Laud were for Novelties or a New Church, that reads his Book: And whether it be not the height of Impudence for Lud­low to endeavour thus to Impose upon the World a conceit that King Charles the First, and his Bi­shops (of which Bishop ANDREWS, BELLARMINE'S Victorious Anta­gonist, was one) Design'd to bring in Popery p. 26. He Charges the King [ Horresia referens] as an ‘ Ac­cessory to the Horrid MURDERS of those many Thousands of Mi­serable Protestants who fell in Ireland.’ Oh, my Dear Coun­trymen, can you believe that such words could proceed from any o­ther Principle than the Instigati­on [Page 14] of the Father of Lyes! Hear­ken, I beseech you, to these words of Our Gracious Soveraign speak­ing in his own Defence against this Hellish Calumny. ‘Indeed that Sea of Bloud, which hath there been cruelly and barba­rously shed, is enough to drown any man in eternal both infamy and misery, whom God shall find the malicious Author, or Instigator of its effusion.’

‘It fell out, as a most unhappy advantage of some mens malice against me; that when they had impudence enough to lay any thing to my charge, this blou­dy opportunity, should be offen'd them, with which I must be as­persed. Although there was no­thing which could be more ab­horred to me, being so full of Sin against God, Disloyalty to [Page 15] my self, and destructive to my Subjects.’

‘God knows, as I can with Truth wash my hands in Inno­cency, as to any guilt in that Rebellion; so I might wash them in my Tears, as to the sad apprehensions I had, to see it spread so far, and make such waste. And this in a time when distractions and jealousies here in England, made most men ra­ther intent to their own safety, or designs they were driving, than to the relief of those, who were every day inhumanely Butchered in Ireland: Whose tears, and bloud might, if no­thing else, have quenched, or at least for a time repressed, and smothered those sparks of Civil dissentions, and Jealousies which in England some men [Page 16] most industriously scattered.’ See, Reader, and Admire the Charity of this Blessed Prince Exprest in the Prayer he makes upon this Occasion. ‘Let the scan­dalous, and unjust Reproaches cast upon Mc, be as a breath more to kindle my compassion; Give me grace to heap charita­ble coals of Fire upon their heads to melt them, whose ma­lice, or cruel zeal hath kindled, or hindred the quenching of those flames, which have so much wasted my three King­domes.’

‘O rescue, and assist those poor Protestants in Ireland, whom thou hast hitherto preserved.’

‘And lead those in the ways of thy saving Truths, whose ignorance, or errours have filled them with rebellious, and de­structive Principles’

[Page 17] I have lately seen in Print a Device to make people believe that the King was not the Au­thor of [...]. who then? why, Bishop Gauden. At this I should Laugh heartily; but that I consider that the Wickedness of the Lye is as Notorious, as the Absurdity of the Fiction, that the Author of this Malicious In­vention discovers himself to be a person Near to Hell, and Far from any understanding of the Difference of the Genius and Style of Writers. Bishop Gau­den's Way of Thinking and Ex­pression was as Different from what we find in this Admirable Book, as the Glittering of Ice from the Shining of Diamonds; or any thing that is most Loose, and full of Air from that which is most Solid, and Compact. I at­tribute [Page 18] so much to the Wit, and Scholarly Education of LUDLOW, as to think He could not but Laugh in his Sleeve (as the Vul­gar Phrase is) at the Absurdity of such a Fiction: neither can I con­ceive but that if He would most seriously peruse all that has been Written by Our Gracious Sove­raign on this Subject, The Rebel­lion, and Troubles in Ireland, Defending his Innocency with that Strength of Reason, and Perspicuity of Expression; I say I cannot conceive but that if LUDLOW would but Read what the King has written in His own Defence, he would Condemn him­self, if not for his Wickedness, yet at least for his Shameful In­advertency in venturing upon so Notorious a piece of SATANISM, as this Hellish Calumny. Now, [Page 19] Reader, let us consider the words of the Challenge of this bold Champion of Malice and False­hood, p. 27. ‘In whatsoever I have said, I have had a Due, and Faithful Regard to Truth, and do Challenge even Pelling him­self (who ought for his own Vindication to do it, if he can) to Convict me of Falsehood in any one Particular charg'd upon his INCOMPARABLE PRINCE.’

I am as much Concern'd in the Challenge as Mr. Pelling, having in Many Sermons, Preacht on the Thirtieth of January, set forth the Praise of this Incom­parable Prince, (tho not with so much Eloquence) with as much Zeal, and Ardency of Love to His Blessed Memory, as any Preacher in the Kingdom: And by the Help of God I shall be e­ver [Page 20] ready to Contend with Any Man, or Any Number of Men, who shall Endeavour to Stain the Honour of so Gracious a Prince, so Sincere a Christian, a Person so Wonderfuly Adorn'd with All the Excellencies of Wit, Learn­ing, and Virtue. Whether I have Convicted LUDLOW of any False­hood, I leave to the Judgment of any Impartial Reader: And in Confidence that I have done so, I shall Conclude with these words of the Psalmist: ‘What shall be done unto thee, thou False Tongue!’