The things which will cheifly be layd to his charge are these. 1: that he chargethe Kinge James with a solemne publick lye. 2: that he chargethe 147bothe Kinges and others with blasphemy for calling Europe Christendom, or the Christian world etc. 3: for personall application of 3 places in Rev:2 to our present Kinge Charles. 4: for concluding vs all heere to lye vnder a sinne of vniust vsurpation vpon others possessions: and all these to be maintayned and published by a private person etc:

For the first: it was no lye of Kinge James, but the Trueth: for his people were the first, that discovered these parts: but admitt he had been mistaken: was it ever knowne, that a true Christian did give his naturall Prince the lye? was he not the Lords anointed?

For the 2: that it should be Blasphemye to saye Christendom or the Christian worlde: and for a subiecte heervpon to charge his Prince with Blasphemye is too great presumption: are not things often named from the better parte, as the Electe are called the worlde in 8 places at least: as God loued the worlde, reconciled the world etc.? Again all Israelites (good and badd) were called the Circumcision and the people of God etc: to distinguish them from the Heathen: so may all baptized ones be called Christians to distinguishe them from the Turks etc: in which respecte to be baptized and Christned were all one: because Baptisme was the first publick badge whereby a Christian was distinguished from a Pagan: and so in the dayes of Constantine and Jovinian and other godly emperors, the Arians, manichees and other Heretiks were called Christians and that without Offence to the most orthodoxe: who tooke it in no other sence than as baptized ones, to distinguishe them onely from the Pagans, who were the Common opposites to them all: therefore I am perswaded it is no Blasphemy (when I would distinguish a nation, that professeth the Faith of Jesus Christ (be it in trueth or not) from other nations which professe him not) to saye they are Christians: neither is it any more Contradiction (as he would make it) to saye a Christian worlde, or a heavenly earthe, than to saye an heauen vpon earthe or a worldly sanctuarye: Heb: 9: 2. for if he allowe not allegoryes, he must condemn his owne writings and speeches, seeinge no man vseth them more than him selfe: and this verye treatice of his, exceeds all that ever I haue read (of so serious an Argument) in figures and flourishes. For the 3: the first place which he applies to our Kinge is Rev: 16: 14 the spiritts of Deuills going forth to the kinges of the earth, which is all one, as if he had sayde, that the Deuill had 148seduced him to take vp armes with Antechrist against the Lord Jesus: Christ. the next is Rev: 17: 12, where settinge downe onely the first words of the 10 Kinges who should giue their power and strengthe to the beast, to make warre with the Lambe (not addinge any more nor so muche as we doe) he makes our Kinge a friend of the Beast and an enemye of Jesus Christ. the 3 is Rev: 18:19, by which he makes our Kinge one of those, who have comitted Fornication with the whore, and shall bewayle her destruction. now for him to give this sentence of his sovereigne, who professeth and maintaines the Faith of Jesus Christ, and dothe not professedly holde any Communion with the whore of Rome or publikly maintaine the Religion of Ante-christ or the power of the beast, if it be not treason, yet I dare saye, it is strange boldnesse, and beyond the Limitts of his callinge: For I would gladly knowe, to what good ende, and for what Vse of Edification, he should publish these things in this lande (if they were as he supposethe them) dothe he see any pronenesse in this people, to ioyne with the beast or the whore? or dothe he feare least our Kinge beinge vpon such a designe, would sende for our Assistance? It should seeme the Apostle Paule wanted Courage, when he shunnes to name the Emperour, otherwise then by several implications, he which withholdeth etc. must be taken away. mr. williams would have spoken downeright, the Romane empire must be taken awaye, but if he had loued the peace of these Churches as Paul did those, he would not (for smale or no occasion) have provoked our Kinge against vs, and putt a sworde into his hande to destroye vs.

Now for the 4th viz: our title to what we possesse: it is not Religious (as he supposethe) neither dothe our Kinge challenge any right heer by his Christianyty: for admitt the grande Patent runne as he alledgethe (for my parte I never sawe it, and I doubt whither he did or not) yet dothe not any suche conclusion necessaryly followe. for what if Kinge James had sayd that he was the first of all the Princes of Europe etc: would it therefore have followed that he had claymed it as belonginge to the Princes of Europe? and for the other Clause provided it be not actually possessed by the subiect of any other Christian Prince: this is onely to shewe that he would not contende with any suche of his neighbours: and it plainly proves, that he accounted possession the better title: But to clere all this, it is well knowne, that these Patents are not drawne by any direction from the Kinge or State, but by some Counsellor at Lawe whom the Patentee imployes, and allowed by the Attorneye general. yet let the case be as stronge on his parte as he pretends, the example of the Jewes takinge the benefit of Kinge Cirus proclamation, notwithstandinge that proude and false grounde which he lays for it: viz: that God 149had given him all the kingdomes of the earth etc: wilbe sufficient to confute his error. But if our title be not good, neither by Patent, nor possession of these parts as vacuum domicilium, nor by good likinge of the natiues: I mervayle by what title mr. Williams him selfe holdes. and if God were not pleased with our inheriting these parts, why did he drive out the natiues before vs? and why dothe he still make roome for vs, by deminishinge them as we increace? why hathe he planted his Churches heere? why dothe he declare his favourable presence amonge vs by makinge his Ordinances effectuall to the savinge of many soules? If we had no right to this lande, yet our God hathe right to it, and if he be pleased to give it us (takinge it from a people who had so longe vsurped vpon him, and abused his Creatures) who shall controll him or his termes? But this point will require a particular Treatice.

In le Mary and John of London Robart Scoyer master versus new england.

John Wenthorpe and comp. iiij firkins of ij C wht castle soape j barr: iij firkins windowe glasse cost vli, j hhd vinegar of lvj gallons ij cases of vj gallons stronge waters iiij hhds pease v barrells of v C wht gunpowder ij chests of xxx muskets vj C wht fryinge pans j tonne yron j firkin of iij C wht birdinge shott Fother lead in barr iiij millstones and Certain things for a mill j chest bookes ij cases j Rundlett Juice of Leomans xx Chalders Sea coales London measure Free per lic. Regis.