pulpits throughout the nation, to ring with the divine abſolute, indefeaſible right of kings; with the praiſes of Charles and his reign; and with the damnable ſin of reſiſting the Lord's anointed, let him do what he would. So that not Chriſt, but Charles, was commonly preached to the people.—In plain engliſh, there ſeems to have been an impious bargain ſtruck up betwixt the ſcepter and the ſurplice, for enſlaving both the bodies and ſouls of men. The king appeared to be willing that the clergy ſhould do what they would,—ſet up a monſtrous hierarchy like that of Rome—a monſtrous inquiſition like that of Spain or Portugal,—or any thing elſe which their own pride, and the devil's malice, could prompt them to: Provided always, that the clergy would be tools to the crown; that they would make the people believe, that kings had God's authority for breaking God's law; that they had a commiſſion from heaven to ſeize the eſtates and lives of their ſubjects at pleaſure; and that it was a damnable ſin to reſiſt them, even when they did ſuch things as deſerved more than damnation.—This appears to be the true key for explaining the myſterious doctrine of king Charles's ſaintſhip and martyrdom. He was a ſaint, not becauſe he was in his life, a good man, but a good churchman; not becauſe he was a lover of holineſs, but the hierarchy; not becauſe he was a friend to Chriſt, but the Craft. And he was a martyr in his death, not becauſe he bravely ſuffered death in the cauſe of truth and righteouſneſs, but becauſe he died an enemy to liberty and the rights of conſcience; i.e. not becauſe he died an enemy to ſin, but diſſenters. For theſe rea-ſons
