Vindication, Treatise

Vindication · Treatise

p. 1I May ſay as Auſtin did, though a good Conſcience be ſufficient for my ſelf, yet a good name is neceſſary for others; a good name is as precious oyntment, yet there will not be wanting many flying reports to corrupt it; many are the obloquies and reproaches which by the Sonnes of ſlander are caſt upon me, they would faine have my name to be buried and rot above ground, before my friends can bury my body under it, yet herein is my comfort, there will be a reſurrection of names as well as of bodies at the laſt day; I am aſſured that God will not only wipe off all tears from mine eyes, but all reproaches from my name alſo; I am, as ſaith the Apoſtle, counted a Deceiver, yet True; as an Apoſtate, yet firm to my firſt principles.

There are two things at which offence is taken, firſt my Petitioning for my life to the Parliament (ſo called;) ſecondly, my giving in a Narrative of the whole matter; to both which I ſhall give full ſatisfaction. About my Petitioning, a double offence is taken, firſt at the titles of my Petitions; ſecondly at the matter of them. I ſhall ſpeak briefly to both, to take away any ſtumbling block out of the way of any. Touching the Titles of my four Petitions they run in this forme.

To the Supreme Authority, the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England.

Although I am far from going about to juſtifie their right to this Title to whom I give it, yet I ſhall juſtifie the lawfulneſſe of my practice in giving them this Title which they aſſume to themſelves, eſpecially in a caſe of life as mine is: for in triviall matters I had rather loſe my own right which belongs to me, than give them this Title which belongs not to them.

The reaſons which ſway with me why I gave them this Title (though I am not ſatisfied they have a right to it) are theſe.

1. They would not receive my Petitions without giving them their aſſumed Titles; yea to my knowledge they have rejected Petitions which have not had theſe Titles.

2. I am upon ſure and clear grounds perſwaded, that giving to men Titles they aſſume to themſelves, is not a reall owning that they have a right to thoſe Titles. Titular and reall are uſually diſtinguiſhed; by giving them the Title of Supreme Authority, and Parliament, I do acknowledge them a Titular Authority, and a Titular Parliament, but by ingaging to them (which I have never done, and I hope ſhall never do) I do acknowledge them a reall Authority, and a reall Parliament: that I may further evince the truth of this ſecond reaſon, viz. that giving of Titles to men they aſſume to themſelves, is not a reall owning that they have a reall right to thoſe Titles, I ſhall give ſundry inſtances in Scripture to make it good;2 Sam. 16. & 16▪2 Sam 16 Huſhai did call Abſalom, that notorious Uſurper, King, ſaying, God ſave the King, God ſave the Ki…g, (an expreſſion the People gave him) yet Huſhai knew that David only was (even then) the Lawfull King of Iſrael ſet over him by God, and Abſalom only an intruder, and made King by the tumults of the People, yea David himſelf did bid Huſhai call Abſalom (that Uſurper) King. 2 Sam. 15. 34. Say to Abſalom, I will be thy ſervant O King. Yea further David himſelf did call Abſalom King, 2 Sam. 15. 19. David ſaid to Huſhai, returne to p. 2thy place, and abide with the King (that is with Abſalom) yet he knew himſelfe to be the lawfull King, and did not acknowledge that his Sonne Abſalom had any right to the Kingdom, though he did give him the Title of a King. So Athaliahs Uſurping is called by the Spirit of God reigning, yet the ſpirit of God ownes not her right to reigne, but approved of the killing of her, and the ſetting up Ieh…aſh the true and lawfull heire in her room.2. Kings … per to…u…. Yea Chriſt himſelf called the Devill the Prince of this World, Iohn 12. 13. and 16. and 11. yet is it imaginable that Chriſt thought this Title of right belonged to the Divell? certainely no, Muſculus on Iohn 12. 31. well obſerves, non eſt i…le (viz. Satan) Princeps mundi legitimus, ſed per rapinam. Paul called the Devills Principalities and power, Eph. 6. 12. yet none will be ſo ſhameleſſe as to ſay, that Paul thought this their Rule, Dominion, and power, of right belonged to them, but is meerly uſurped and intruded into. See Annot. on the Bible on Epheſ. 6. 12.

3. Titles are not alwaies approbative, but diſtinctive; my meaning is, that giving of Titles to perſons or things argues not ones approving of a juſt right to thoſe Titles, but ſeems meerly to diſtinguiſh thoſe perſons or things from others that are called by other names or Titles; as I call them at Whitehall a Councell of State, to diſtinguiſh them from a Councell of Warre, I call thoſe at Weſtminſter the Parliament of the Common-wealth, to diſtinguiſh them from the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament.

4. Titles are giving to things or perſons ſometimes meerly by alluſion, not approbation, as in Scripture phraſe ſin is ſaid to reigne, and the Devils are ſaid to rule, not that either the one or the other hath an approved right to rule over man, as a lawfull Prince hath to rule over his Subjects, but they are ſaid to reign or rule by way of alluſion to the reign of Princes in their Dominions.

5. Titles may be given without ſin to perſons or things, though of right they belong not to them, where they are generally received or mentioned by ſuch titles by the people where I live. About names and titles much indulgence is to be given to the common uſages and cuſtomes of the people; I may call things or perſons by ſuch names or titles as I know belongs not of right unto them, becauſe they are ordinarily knowne, and generally received by ſuch names and titles. I could give manifold inſtances out of Scripture to prove this; David called Abſ…lom King, not that he thought him ſo of right, but becauſe he was commonly known and generally received by that title among the people. So Herod was called by the Evangeliſt King of the Jews, ſo did the Jews generally call him by that title, yet none but that ſect or ſort of people called the Herodians did owne it as Herods right to be the King of the Iews, who were ſo called becauſe they pleaded for Herod to be the lawfull King of the Iews, which the Phariſes and others withſtood, becauſe he was not one of the Iewiſh Nation, as he ought to be. Deut 17. 15. Yet all the Iews called Herod King, though they did not acknowledge him to be their lawfull King; tis manifeſt giving of titles are but titular acknowledgments and no more.

6. If names may without ſin be given to places and things (which belong not to them) I ſee no reaſon why they may not be given to perſons. There are names and titles given to many places both upon ſuperſtitious and idolatrous grounds, yet may without ſin be uſed (I ſpeak not of the firſt impoſers) when thoſe places are ſo called and commonly knowne by ſuch names. Luke that writ the Acts of the Apoſtles, calls a place in Athens, Mars-hill (as it was commonly p. 3called) and this he might do without ſin, though this name was originally impoſed on that place in honour of Mars, yet he calls the place as it was commonly called, though called ſo upon an Idolatrous ground. Acts 17. 22. So for T…ings alſo we may without ſin call them by thoſe names which others give them, though they may deal ſuperſtitiouſly or ſinfully in the firſt impoſition of ſuch names. Thus Paul mentions a ſhip of Alexandria whoſe ſigne was Caſt…r and Pollux, names originally impoſed by the Gentiles, upon an idolatrous ground, yet being generally received, Paul calls the ſhip after this name.

7. It was a matter of abſolute neceſſity (as to my life) for me to Petition them, I being condemned to dye; tis true for a trivial, or ordinary occaſion I ſhould never Petition them, but in an extraordinary caſe I might lawfully do it; David in a caſe of extreme neceſſity did eat the Shew-bread, which in an ordinary caſe he might not do. Tis true indeed, Cato would not Petition Caeſar for his life, he had rather dye than Petition, but that I conceive was rather out of ſome animoſity or height of Spirit, or petty diſcontent, than out of a rectified judgment; for my part I am fully ſatisfied that I have not ſinned in giving them their aſſumed Titles; Names and Titles do not determine rights, conveniunt rebus nemina ſaepe ſuis, it is true ſometimes, but not alwayes:

8. Titles men aſſume to themſelves, or are generally given by others, may be given them by me without ſin, or without owning a right to thoſe titles; this I may make appear by ſundry late inſtances; Henry the eighth had this title given him, Defender of the faith, yet he had no right to this title; for he defended only the Popiſh Religion; he oppoſed the Faith rather than defended the Faith, and the true reaſon why the Pope gave him this title Defender of the Faith, was becauſe he oppoſed the Doctrine of Luther, and wrote againſt him; yet none ſcrupled to call him and the ſucceeding Kings of England the Defenders of the Faith. So the King of Spaine is called the Catholick King, yet he hath no true right to this title, for he is not a Catholick or univerſall Monarch, yet our new State have lately ſent to the King of Spaine under this title, The Catholick King; ſo the King of France is call'd the moſt Chriſtian King; ſo the Duke of Bavaria having by arms ejected the Palſgrave writes himſelfe Prince Elector Palatine of the Rhine, ſo the King of Poland takes this title to himſelfe King of Sweden, yet hath no right to that Kingdom; yet none that ever I heard of ſcrupled to give theſe titles to them, conſidering that titles do not determine rights, and conſidering alſo, that no addreſſes to them will be received by them, unleſſe the titles they aſſume to themſelves be given them by thoſe who make applications to them.

Having thus ſpoken to juſtifie the lawfulneſſe of the titles of my Petitions, I come now to juſtifie the matter of my Petitions. Before I ſpeak to the matter of my Petitions poſitively, I ſhall in a word declare negatively what was not the matter of my Petitions, as,

1. I did not promiſe to act any thing for the promoting and maintaining this preſent Government, that had been equivalent to taking the engagement.

2. I did not promiſe to joyne with the preſent power to oppoſe the Scotiſh Army though I was often ſollicited to it.

3. I did not declare that for which I was condemned was a ſin againſt God, I am of the ſam… mind I was when at the High Court after I had my ſentence, I ſaid, Though they Condemned me, yet God and my owne Conſcience did not Condemne me, they Condemned me for Treaſon, yet my Conſcience p. 4did not tell me that it was a ſinne againſt God which they counted Treaſon.

I confeſſed it was a tranſgreſſion of their Lawes, but no tranſgreſſion of any command of God. In my firſt Petition I have theſe words, That I lay my mouth in the duſt, that there may be hope that the Lord will pardon his manifold iniquities, and that your Honours will paſſe by his offences contrary to your Lawes. In my ſecond Petition I have theſe words, through unadviſedneſſe and weakneſſe he is fallen under your ſad and heavy diſpleaſure, and hath offended againſt the Lawes of this Commonwealth. In my third there is no mention of ſinne at all. In my fourth Petition there is this paſſage, The conſideration whereof melteth the heart of your Petitioner, and makes him (after a more narrow ſearch of his heart and wayes) more deeply ſenſible than ever of his ſinne againſt God, and more ſorrowfull for his crimes and offences againſt the Parliament in his late and great miſcarriages. In all which paſſages I have not renounced the righteouſneſſe of the cauſe for which I ſuffer, nor acknowledged the thing it ſelfe to be ſinfull, which I ſtill maintaine as juſtifiable, and can ſay with the Apoſtle, Happy is he that condemneth not himſelfe in the thing which he alloweth.

4. I did not in my Petition juſtifie the acts upon which I was condemned to be righteous; nor the Court to be legall: I do publickly proteſt againſt the former to be moſt unrighteous, unmercifull, and ſevere Lawes, as Draco's written in blood; and have before the High Court proteſted againſt the latter, that they were not a leagall Court of judicature to judge me for my life, therefore I did earneſtly plead it was my birthright to have a jury, my duty to demand it, though their pleaſure to deny it.

5. I did not abſolutely juſtifie the ſentence of the High Court, I had rather patiently undergoe the ſentence than abſolutely to juſtifie it; I muſt confeſſe through advice of Lawyers, and earneſt ſolicitatious of friends, I did in my laſt Petition, after a ſort, and in ſome ſence ſay the Sentence was juſt (in what ſence I ſhall by and by ſhew) My words are theſe, He humbly acknowledgeth he hath ſo highly violated the Lawes of the Commonwealth, as that thereby he hath rendred himſelfe guilty of the ſentence of death, juſtly paſt upon him by the high Court of Iustice. In which words, firſt, I do not juſtifie their Lawes, nor, ſecondly, the Legality of the Court, thirdly, nor the ſufficiency of the teſtimony of the Witneſſes; There did not any two Witneſſes evidence any one fact againſt me that was treaſon by their new Acts, and that ſome Members of the High Court have confeſt unto me.

Having ſpoken Negatively what was not the matter of my Petitions, I now come to ſpeake poſitively what was the matter of my Petitions, wherein I have ſaid or done nothing contrary to Conſcience, or my former principles.

The matter of my Petitions containes three parts, firſt, the Narratory part, ſecondly, the Promiſſory part, thirdly the Petitionary part; At the laſt none can be offended, (unleſſe ſuch as thirſted after my blood) in that I did but begge a grant of my life, that I might bee reſcued from going downe into the Grave. None can juſtly blame mee for begging my life from any who have my life in the power of their hands; I neede not ſpeak to that.

But the two former parts of my Petitions (viz. the narratory and promiſſory p. 5parts) require more to be ſpoken concerning them.

As touching the Narratory part, I ſhall begin with the firſt Petition, the narratory part runs thus. Most humbly ſheweth, Your Petitioner having received the ſentence of Death by the High Court of Juſtice, is preparing himſelf in all humility, and ſerious ſubmiſſion to drink that bitter cup, the terrour whereof, though much abated through the pardoning mercies of God, in the blood of ſprinkling, yet your Petitioner, being brought down to the duſt of Death, deſires to ſee the righteous Lord in this Sentence; acknowledging it to be juſt with the the moſt High to cut him off, both in the midſt of his dayes, and the midſt of his Miniſtry; but deſires to be deeply humbled under the mighty hand of God, lying low before the Lord and you, putting his mouth in the duſt, that there may be hope that the Lord will pardon his manifold Iniquities, and that your Honours would paſſe by his offences, done contrary to your Laws, which as he formerly did, ſo ſtill doth confeſſe renders him faulty, for which he is unfeignedly ſorry; your Petitioner goeth not about to plead excuſe, but with an humble ſubmiſſion proſtrates himſelf at your feet, acknowledging he hath offended againſt the acts of this Commonwealth, and thereby is fallen under your ſore diſpleaſure, of which he is very deeply ſenſible and ſorrowfull alſo.

This is all the narratory part, which I hope offends no ſober minde, nor Chriſtian ear, it offends ſome I have ſaid no more, it offends none (I hope) that I have ſaid ſo much. I deſire to give you a few things to obſerve out of theſe words in my firſt Petition. 1. I ſaid, I deſire to ſee the righteous Lord in this Sentence. I doe acknowledge God to be righteous (what ever men are) in all that is brought upon me, he is righteous ſhould a worſe Sentence than Death paſſe upon me.

2. I do acknowledge it to be juſt with the moſt High to cut me off, both in the midſt of my dayes, and in the midſt of my Miniſtery. I doe not ſay it is juſt with men, they ſhall anſwer for what they have done; but it is juſt with God, he is juſt in mens injuſtice, and righteous in mens unrighteouſneſſe.

3. I ſay in my Petition, That I deſire to be deeply humbled under the mighty hand of God, lying low before the Lord and you, putting his mouth in the duſt, if there may be hope that God will pardon his manifold Iniquities, and your Honours paſſe by his offence done contrary to your Laws, which as formerly did, ſo I doe ſtill confeſſe renders me faulty, for which I am unfeignedly ſorry. In which words I deſire the Reader to obſerve I doe onelyonly in the generall beg pardon for my manifold Iniquities, without reſtraining it to this particular fact for which I am condemned. I am aſſured that what they count Sin is Duty, and what they judge Treaſon is Loyalty. Secondly, when I beg their Honours to paſſe by my offences done contrary to their Laws, I do not intend it as if my offending againſt their Laws made me a tranſgreſſor againſt Gods Lawes; no they are tranſgreſſors againſt Gods Law for making ſuch Laws, not I for breaking them. Thirdly, I uſed this paſſage [againſt your Lawes] on purpoſe to diſtinguiſh their new Lawes from the Ancient and Fundamentall Lawes of this Nation. Fourthly, when I ſay I am by their Laws rendered faulty, I doe not, nor never did intend it as to God, but if I reſpect their laws ſingly I am faulty by them, for I confeſſe I have broken them; yet as to God they are faulty in making them, not I in breaking them. Fifthly, when I ſay I am unfeignedly ſorry that I have done it contrary to their Laws, My meaning is, becauſe of the penalty their Lawes inflict, viz. Impriſonment and Death, for this I am ſorry; As for Gods Law I deſire to grieve more for the offence than the Puniſhment, p. 6but as for their Laws I am not bound to doe ſo.

Fourthly, when I ſay I proſtrate my ſelfe at your feet, acknowledging I have offended againſt the Acts of this Commonwealth, and thereby am fallen under your ſore diſpleaſure, of which I am very deeply ſenſible and ſorrowfull alſo, I deſire the Reader to obſerve, 1. I call their Laws the Acts of this Common-wealth, to diſtinguiſh them from Acts of Parliament. 2. By theſe words you may underſtand my intent in the foregoing Clauſe, where I ſaid I was ſorry for my offences done contrary to their Laws, theſe words explain thoſe, that my ſorrow is that I have fallen under their ſore diſpleaſure (which I feel by Impriſonment and ſentence of death) rather than tranſgreſſing their Acts; I have more cauſe of grief that their Laws are not aboliſhed, than that they are broken.

This is all I have to ſay about the narratory part of the firſt Petition, the narratory of my ſecond Petition is as followeth:

Moſt humbly ſheweth, That your Petitioner doth with all thankefulneſſe acknowledge it a ſingular Providence of God, and ſpeciall favour of the Parliament, that a dore of hope is yet open, and opportunity once more offered to proſtrate himſelf at your feet for a grant of his life, which if you vouchſafe, he ſhall accept as an Act of great grace and mercy. It is no little grief of heart to your Petitioner, that through unadviſedneſſe and weakneſſe he is fallen under your ſad and heavy diſpleaſure, and hath offended againſt the Lawes of this Commonwealth, for which he is unfeignedly ſorrowfull; And now by the ſentence of the High Court (to which he ſubmits with all Chriſtian meekneſſe and humble acknowledgement of Gods …and therein) is in inevitable and ſuddon danger to loſe his life, without your mercifull interpoſition. And whereas there is ſurmiſe of a plot continued againſt the peace and welfare of this Commonwealth, he doth proteſt in the preſence of GOD, the ſearcher of all hearts, that he knoweth of no plot or deſigne againſt the preſent Government, nor it privy in the leaſt to any preparations or intendments towards any inteſtine Inſurrections, or forreign Invaſions, or to any Correſpondency now held with any in, or of the Scotiſh Nation, or any other whatſoever. He is not ignorant how much Malignants will triumph at his death, nor is he without naturall affections to his dear Wife and Children, nor without real… deſires of life to doe GOD and his Countrey ſervice, which are powerfull perſwaſives to him to doe what ever he can, without wounding his Conſcience. In which words I deſire the Reader to take notice, 1. That by uſing the word Parliament, I doe not own them as a reall, but as a titular Parliament. 2. When I mention unadviſedneſſe and weakneſſe, I underſtand it in the manner of management of ſuch a buſineſſe, that is, was without that caution and care that became a buſineſſe of ſuch a nature. It was my unadviſedneſſe and weakneſſe, I confeſſe, that I ever met with ſuch perſons who were ſome of them ſo falſe, others ſo fearfull, moſt of them ſo undiſcreeet, yea it was my unadviſedneſſe to meet with ſo many of them. 3. When I ſay I am unfeignedly ſorrowfull, it is not ſingly for offending againſt their Laws, but conjunctly, becauſe I am fallen under their ſad and heavy diſpleaſure, and offended againſt their Lawes. This explains a like clauſe in my firſt Petition, it implies I am ſorrowfull for the penalty their Lawes inflict (viz. Impriſonment and Death) for therein I finde the ſad effect of their heavy diſpleaſure, ſo that my ſorrow is rather that I am a ſufferer by their cruell Laws, than that I am a breaker of them; indeed as to the Laws of God, and the unqueſtionable Lawes of this Nation, a man ought to be more ſenſible that he is a tranſgreſſor, than that he is a ſufferer: But a man is not bound to be ſo for tranſgreſſing their treaſonable Lawes. 4. Take notice, p. 7I call their new Lawes the Lawes of this Commonwealth, to diſtinguiſh them from the old Lawes of this Kingdome, which I will keep, not only for Fear, but for Conſcience ſake, but as for their Laws a man may forbear to break them, out of Fear, or in Prudence, but not for Conſcience ſake. 5. When I ſpeak to the ſentence of the Court, take notice I onelyonly ſay, That I ſubmit to the Sentence of the high Court with all Chriſtian meekneſſe, and humble acknowledgment of Gods hand therein. Take notice I doe here ſubmit to the ſentence, not juſtifie it; and I doe acknowledge therein God to be righteous; for he is righteous in the unrighteouſneſs of men. I doe acknowledge Gods hand in this Sentence to be juſt, though mans hand to be cruell. As for other paſſages in the narratory part there is nothing queſtionable, therefore I ſhall ſpeak no more to it.

The narratory part of my third Petition is as followeth. Most humbly ſheweth, That whereas there are but a few hours between your Petitioner and Death, he is humbly bold, before he breath out his Soul to God, to breath out his request to the Parliament, by making his laſt addreſſe to you, humbly acknowledging he hath incurred your high diſpleaſure, of which he is deeply ſenſible, and violated the Lawes of this Commonwealth, for which he is unfeignedly ſorrowfull, and now alſo ſubmits to the ſentence of the High-Court. I deſire the Reader to obſerve, that this third Petition for the narratory part of it, is but a repetition of what was in the two former Petitions, therefore what I have ſaid to the former, will ſuffice for this alſo.

The naratory part of my fourth Petition is as followeth. Sheweth, That your Petitioner doth humbly adore the wonderfull goodneſſe of God, & moſt thankfully acknowledge the great mercy of the Parliament, for ſo ſeaſonable and acceptable an Act of Grace, to ſuch an offending Suppliant, that when there was but a ſtep between him and death, the number of his dayes being accompliſhed, and he almoſt cut off from the Land of the living, then you mercifully interpoſed, and gave him his life for a monethmonth longer, which was to him as a Reſurrection from the dead; the Conſideration whereof, melteth the heart of your Petitioner, and makes him, after a more narrow ſearch into his heart and wayes, more deeply ſenſible than ever of his ſinne againſt God, and more ſorrowfull for his high crimes and offences againſt the Parliament, in his late and great miſcarriages. He humbly acknowledgeth he hath ſo highly violated the Laws of this Commonwealth, as that thereby he hath rendred himſelf guilty of the ſentence of death, juſtly paſt upon him by the High Court of Juſtice. He doth alſo herewith humbly offer to your Honours a free and full Narrative under his hand of the whole deſigne to the beſt of his remembrance, which he leaveth to your grave wiſdomes and favourable interpretations. This would require a more large vindication than the former. Wherefore I ſhall deſire the Reader to take notice of theſe following particulars.

1. I doe in the ſame ſence call them a Parliament in this Petition as I did in the former; I know that the giving them the name Parliament (without engaging to them) is but a titular, not a reall acknowledgement, yea in the titles of my Petitions I call them the Parliament of the Commonwealth, I do not call them (nor doe I beleeve them to be) the Kingdomes Parliament. I have obſerved the name Parliament hath bin three different wayes applied: The Juncto of Oxford was called a Parliament, but that was only the Kings Parliament: The Members now ſitting at Weſtminſter are called a Parliament alſo, but they are the Parliament of that Faction, who ſtand for the Government of a Commonwealth, in oppoſition to the Kingdomes Government: The Lords and Commons aſſembled at Weſtminſter p. 8were called a Parliament, and they only were and are the Kingdomes Parliament, to preſerve whoſe Privileges the people of this Nation are under ſo many Oaths and Covenants. I call them the Parliament of the Commonwealth, to diſtinguiſh them from the Kingdomes Parliament.

2. In ſaying I am an offending Suppliant, my meaning is only that I have offended them whoſe new Laws I confeſſe I have broken.

3. In ſaying, the Conſideration whereof (that is, that my life is given me for a monethmonth longer, which is as a Reſurrection from the dead) melteth my heart I doe confeſſe, ſence of their kindneſſe doth more gaine upon me than the feare of death; what I writ to Mr. Scot, I ſtill affirm, Their diſpleaſure might have broken my bo…es, but their mercy hath broken my heart. I confeſſe it hath done ſo: This favour hath much won my heart towards them in love and thankfulneſs, as they are Gentlemen (who had my life in their hands) but not ſo as to comply with them in a State-intereſt, to promote and maintain their preſent Government.

4. In ſaying I am more deeply ſenſible, than ever, of my ſin againſt God, I bleſſe God I am ſo, my Impriſonment, and the ſentence of Death paſt upon me, hath made me to ſearch more narrowly into my heart and wayes, and cauſed me to ſee my ſinfulneſſe, unſerviceableneſſe, and unprofitableneſſe in the Lords vineyard, for which he may juſtly cut me off as a withered branch, and lay me aſide as a uſeleſſe veſſell, wherein he will take no pleaſure. It would be a ſottiſh ſtupidity in me, ſhould not all theſe ſharp and bitter afflictions make me more ſenſible of my ſin againſt God; nor dare I excuſe my ſelf to be withont ſin in my late actings, that is, in the manner of management thereof, being too open and indiſcreet, and too credulous of men; theſe, and other infirmities did cleave to theſe actings, as there doth failings cleave to the works of my calling, and to all my duties, yet I have never thought the facts I have done in their own nature to be ſinfull, but lawfull. I cannot conceive it to be a ſin againſt God, to deſire in my prayers to God as a private man, that there might be an Agreement between the King and the Scots, upon the intereſt of Religion, and terms of the Covenant, or to be preſent when Letters were read, which were either ſent from or to the honeſt Covenanting party in Scotland; nor can I believe it to be a ſin to move for money for the relief of Major Generall Maſſey, (who had been ſo uſefull for, and inſtrumentall in the good of this Nation) and that not for a military uſe (that was diſclaimed by me) but namely for a ſupply of his perſonall neceſſities. I know no ſin in this, yet this is all that was proved againſt me, for which I am condemned to dye.

5. When I ſay I am ſorrowfull for my high crimes and offences againſt the Parliament in my late and great miſcarriages. I deſire three things may be taken notice of, 1. The reaſon why I call my late actings high Crimes and offences againſt the Parliament, becauſe they were the very words of my Charge. I was charged with High Treaſon, and other high Crimes and offences. To the firſt I ſtill pleaded Not Guilty, the ſecond I confeſt before the High-Court, that I was guilty of thoſe things which their Laws counted high Crimes and offences, in concealing what my accuſers had done. Secondly, I doe in theſe words mention the object of theſe high Crimes and offences, not againſt God, but againſt the Parliament (ſo called for diſtinctions ſake) Thirdly, I call my late actings great miſcarriages (not ſins) becauſe I did miſcarry as to the manner of managemement, and as to the deſired iſſue and event, that there might be a healing of breaches, and compoſing of differences among the godly in both the Nations.

p. 96. In ſaying I have highly violated the Lawes of this Common-wealth, I call them thus to diſtinguiſh them from the old and fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdom…, which I have not broken in any thing that I have done.

7. In ſaying I have by the high violation of their Lawes rendred my ſelfe guilty of the ſentence of Death juſtly paſt upon me by the high Court of Iuſtice, I would be rightly underſtood in theſe words, that they might not be wreſted beyond, or contrary, to my intendment; that you may fully apprehend what I ayme at in this expreſſion, I deſire you would take notice of a few particulars. 1. I do not ſay I am proved to be guilty of the ſentence of death, but I have rendred my ſelfe guilty, &c. that is, though they have not proved, yet I confeſſe it, I have done thoſe things (contrary to their late Acts) which are puniſhable with death by their cruell Lawes; ſo that if the Reader marke my words, I do not place my guiltineſſe of the ſentence of death upon the things proved againſt me, but upon the things done by me. And when I ſay The ſentence of death is juſtly paſt upon me by the High Court of Iuſtice, I do not place the juſtice of the ſentence on the clearneſſe or ſufficiency of the proof, (for there was no treaſonable fact (as they call it) proved againſt me by two Witneſſes) but upon my violation of their Lawes; that is, I had done thoſe things which are puniſhable (by their bloody Lawes) with death; I did violate their Lawes, and upon my violation of their Lawes, not upon the clearneſſe of the evidence, do I acknowledge the ſentence of death to be juſtly paſt upon, by their bloody and tyrannicall Lawe;: for although eight Witneſſes came in againſt me, yet they were very deficient in their evidence, ſometimes they contradicted one another, they did not agree among themſelves; ſometimes a Witneſſe contradicted himſelfe; none of the Witneſſes proved, that ever I received Letter, that ever I writ Letter, that ever I collected, gave or lent one peny of money, yet I am condemned to dye; I confeſſe I did write two Letters, and did give a ſmall ſumme of money, (not upon any Military accompt) both which facts are adjudged Treaſon by their new Acts, in which regard I do acknowledge the ſentence of death is juſtly paſt upon me, that this was the ſence that I intended, many friends who were with me in the Tower can beare Witneſſe.

Thirdly, In a ſence (though a rigid and forced ſence) I muſt confeſſe, the ſentence may be ſaid to be juſt, for although there was no ſingle perſonall fact proved againſt me which made me guilty of Treaſon; yet my facts being (they ſay) of a continued time, and complicated nature, I cannot deny, but upon the whole matter, they have by rigid collections, and ſtrained conſequences, hookt me within the generall clauſe of the Act of Auguſt the ſecond 1650. To abett, countenance, or incourage the Scotiſh Nation, or the Forces adhering to them, which is declared to be Treaſon. There was no Act but this could reach me, and no particular clauſe in this Act but theſe generall words of abetting, countenancing, or incouraging the Scotiſh Nation, or the Forces adhering to them, for which I was condemned. I do not deny but I might in a ſort be brought under ſome of theſe generall words, if the Members of the High Court would put a harſh and rigid interpretation (as they have done) upon what was proved againſt me; they might have put a more candid and faire interpretation upon what was proved againſt me; if they had not been led more by Intereſt than by Conſcience, they might have ſaved their Oathes and my life too; I believe ſome of them ſaid in their Conſciences at leaſt, we find no cauſe of death in this p. 10man, but others mighty ſay, as the Iewes to Pilate, you are no friends to Caeſar, you are no friends to the State, if you condemne not this man to dye. Others of them haply may through blindneſſe and partiality be ſo bound up in their Conſciences, as Herod was, that he muſt cut off Iohn Baptist's head for his Oath ſake; ſo, forſooth, becauſe they had ſworne to execute juſtice upon all that came before them, according to thoſe Acts, they by forced inferences, and tortured collections, bringing me under one clauſe of the Act of Auguſt 2. 1650. thought they were bound by their Oathes to condemn me, ſo to avoid the appearance of perjury they commit murther, as Herod did in cutting off Iohn Baptiſt's head, pretending that he ſhould break his Oath if Iohn Baptiſt did not loſe his head.

Fourthly, Though I ſhould grant the ſentence to be juſt according to their rigid inferences, and ſtrained and forced collections, yet I do not by ſuch (no nor yet by any) acknowledgment of mine, abſolutely juſtifie the ſentence. To clear this in a few words, take notice, a ſentence may be ſaid to be juſt in a two-fold ſence, or conſideration. Firſt, In an abſolute ſence. Secondly, In a reſpective or relative ſence and Conſideration. F…rſt, A ſentence is then ſaid to be juſt in an abſolute ſence in the generall, when for the ſubſtance of it, it is ſuch that no injuſtice can be charged upon, that is, when it hath all thoſe requiſites, and ingredients, that are required to, and are neceſſary for, the making up ſuch a ſentence, and they are chiefly theſe three. Firſt, That the Law or Lawes which are proceeded by, be for the matter and ſubſtance of them conſonant and agreeable, at leaſt unto generall rules of Scripture. Secondly, That the Miniſters of thoſe Lawes be ſuch who are Lawfully deſigned and deputed to the management and exerciſe of them. And thirdly, That in their ſentence they walke by, and proceed according to the ſubſtantiall rules and directions given them in thoſe lawes; and where theſe three things concurre to a ſentence, it may be ſaid to be juſt in an abſolute conſideration, and when it miſſeth it in any of theſe, it cannot truly and rightly bear the domination of ſuch a ſentence; now that the ſentence paſt upon me, was a juſt ſentence in this abſolute conſideration, I have not, and I hope never ſhall, acknowledge.

But then ſecondly, A Sentence may be ſaid to be juſt in a reſpective or relative conſideration; that is, as it hath reference to, and reſpects thoſe Lawes which are the riſe and foundation of it: Now, though a Sentence ſhould miſſe it in the two firſt reſpects of a Sentence abſolutely juſt, that is, though the Lawes proceeded by ſhould be vitious for the matter of them, and the Miniſters of them Vſurpers, that have no right nor title to the exerciſe, either of thoſe, or any other Laws, yet if their proceedings be ſuch, as that the Sentence being laid to the line, and weighed in the ballance of thoſe Lawes, ſhall be found in any ſence (yea, though a ſtrained and forced ſence) to be a ſentence according to, and that holds proportion with thoſe Laws, or any other Clauſe or Clauſes of them, in this ſence, and ſo far, the Sentence may be ſaid to be juſt, juſt not ſimply and abſolutely, but only in reference and relation to thoſe Lawes.

And when I acknowledge the Sentence to be juſt, I underſtand it in this ſence, viz. according to their rigid and forced inferences from their unjuſt and cruell Lawes.

Object. If it be demanded, what was the reaſon that I refuſed formerly to mention a word about the juſtice of the Sentence in any ſence, yet afterwards do it?

p. 11Sol. I ſhall give you a brief and (I hope) ſatisfactory account to both parts of this Queſtion; I ſhall firſt give you the reaſons why I formerly refuſed to ſpeake a word about the juſtice of the ſentence, then give you reaſons why I did ſpeak ſomething to it in my laſt Petition.

The reaſons why I formerly refuſed to mention a word (in my three firſt Petitions) about the juſtice of the Sentence, are theſe.

1. Leſt I ſhould harden the hearts of my unjuſt Judges; they themſelves confeſt mine was as intricate and dubitable, a Caſe as ever came before them, to finde by what Act, and by what Clauſe in that Act I was found guilty, therefore they ſpent more time about my tryall, than about any Mans ſince their High-Court was eſtabliſhed. I refuſed therefore to ſay that was Juſtice, which God will ſay is Murder in the great day of their account, and which themſelves could hardly ſay was juſt, untill by the ſubtill inſinuations, and rigid inferences and Collections of the Lawyers (of that Court) they hook't me within the compaſſe of thoſe generall words, To abett, countenance, or encourage.

2. Leſt I ſhould injure my Godly Brethren who ſhould be afterwards tryed. The moſt they proved againſt me by two Witneſſes, was prefence at the hearing of Letters read: Now I thought with my ſelfe, ſhould I confeſſe the Sentence juſt, I ſhould pre-judge my Brethren, and in effect, ſay the Sentence would be juſt againſt them, as well as againſt me; upon this ground I refuſed to ſay the Sentence was juſt; but this reaſon is of no force now, for all my Brethren in the Tower, who were engaged in the ſame buſineſſe, they have either confeſt, or intend to confeſſe againſt themſelves.

3. I could not be informed (upon diſcourſe with divers of the Members of the High-Court) what perſonall fact of mine (proved againſt me) made me guilty of Treaſon by any publique Act of theirs, nor could I underſtand by any of them, if they did proceed Secundum allegata, & probata, how they found me guilty of Treaſon; all the refuge they had to run to, was this, That I was an abetter, countenancer or encourager of the Scotiſh Nation, and forces adhering to them; and upon that Clauſe they ſentenced me. Now, when I ſaw ſome of my Judges could give me no more ſatisfactory reaſons of their Sentence, it made me the more to doubt of the juſtice of the Sentence, even according to their own Lawes; upon theſe grounds I forbore to ſpeak of the juſtice of the Sentence: in mentioning the juſtice of the Sentence, I did not uſe lightneſſe, or ſhew fickleneſſe, but what I did it was upon ſolemn and ſerious advice and conſideration.

The reaſons why I did ſay the Sentence of Death was juſtly paſt upon me, are theſe.

1. Becauſe I knew I had done thoſe things which their cruell Lawes puniſh with Death, as I did write a Letter to Maſſey, and gave a ſmall ſum of money to him, both which are puniſhed with death; yet they proved neither of theſe; ſo that I place the juſtice of the Sentence, not upon the ſufficiency of the proof, but upon my violation of their bloody Lawes.

2. I had not ſo much hopes, that ſaying in any ſence the Sentence was juſt would formerly ſo much advantage me as now I have, therefore would not give ſo likely an offence for ſo unlikely and uncertain an advantage.

3. I conſidered with my ſelf, that the Sentence of the Court (whether juſt or unjuſt as to my acknowledgment) was but a nice controverſie in Law, not a clear Caſe of Conſcience in Divinity. I did not refuſe to ſay the Sentence was in any p. 12ſence juſt, as if I thought it were a ſin in its own Nature to ſay that by their Laws the Sentence was juſt, I never loaded my Conſcience with that, but I forbore it out of Chriſtian prudence; I would not harden my Judges, nor inſnare my Brethren.

4. The laſt reaſon why I did ſay the Sentence was juſt, is this, becauſe my Judges did upon the evidence bring me under theſe generall and comprehenſive words, To abett, countenance, and encourage the Scotiſh Nation. Theſe words are of ſuch a latitude, that they might bring me under them by forced inferences, ſtrained conſequences, and rigid interpretations; ſo that in this ſence (this rigid ſence) the Sentence may be ſaid to be juſt. Yet for all this that hath been ſaid, my Judges have great cauſe to be troubled, as

1. For ſitting in ſo arbitrary, illegall, and tyrannicall a Court. 2. That they judged me upon ſuch incompetent, inſufficient, and uncertain evidence. 3. That they judged me to dye by ſuch an Act, they indeed are to be judged as Traytors who made the Act, not I who broke it. 4. For being ſuch vaſſalls to thoſe who Commiſſionate them, moſt of them having offices, or places of profit from the State, are in fee with the State, and for that very reaſon are not competent perſons to be judges of matters of Fact againſt any mans life; indeed the Iudges of the Land are onelyonly Judges of matters of Law, and may be in fee with the State, may receive a yearly revenue, but the Jury who judge of matters of Fact, ought not to be in fee with the State; therefore by Law the Priſoner at the Bar, may lawfully except againſt 35 if he ſee juſt cauſe, either in that, or any other regard. 5. They have great cauſe to be troubled, that when they could not prove one Treaſonable fact againſt me by their new Laws, either that I ever writ Letter, or received or ſent Letter, or gave one penny of money, when, I ſay, they could prove neither of theſe againſt me, that they judge me to dye upon ſuch a quirk in the Act, and by ſuch harſh interpretations force my actings to come under thoſe generall words, abetting, countenancing and encouraging, I am bold to ſay, that Treaſon was never made by ſuch generall words, as abetting, countenancing and encouraging, in any State or Kingdom in the world, but in ours by our Commonwealth-men; and ſome of my Iudges have confeſt, there was never ſuch generall words found in any Law to make a man guilty of Treaſon: Ignorant men talk of the Norman ſlavery, but there is no ſuch ſlavery in the world as this is, for a man to dye upon ſuch words as theſe; for ought I know ſpeaking well of a Scotch man may be judged abetting, and looking lovingly on a Scotch man may be judged conntenancing, and ſpeaking comfortably to a Scotch man may be judged encouraging; ſo that if a man ſpeak well of, or look lovingly on, or ſpeak comfortably to any of the Scotiſh Nation, he may, for ought I know, be brought under this unmercifull and cruell Act as well as I. Though I am not the firſt ſentenced to death by the flew Acts, yet I am the firſt Man in England ſentenced to dye by thoſe generall words of abetting, countenancing and encouraging, which are not found in any ancient Laws or Statutes, and which no Iury in England would have Condemned me upon, as Lawyers have informed me. What will after-ages ſay of theſe proceedings, but that this kind of juſtice is extremity of rigor, and that there is a talent of unrighteouſneſſe to one dram of juſtice found in this ſentence? I am very confident, that after my head is off my ſhoulders, ſome of my Iudges will have terrif…ed & troubled Conſciences, as Herod had after he had cut off John Baptist's head, he thought he had ſeen Johns Ghoſt, which was nothing elſe but meerly the reflections of his naturall Conſcience p. 13for his cruell murder of that innocent man: And I hope and beleeve I ſhall have more peace of Conſcience in undergoing the ſentence on a Block, than they will have for inflicting the ſentence when they come to lye upon their deathbeds. I pray God lay not my blood to their charge.

This is all I have to ſay touching the Narratory part of my 4 Petitions. I proceed now to juſtifie the ſecond part of my Petitions, which is the Promiſſory part; as I have declared nothing that is ſinfull in the former, ſo I have not promiſed any thing that is ſinfull in the latter. Before I ſhall undretake to juſtifie what I have promiſed, I ſhall premiſe a few particulars. 1. Had I been free, I ſhould have promiſed them nothing, becauſe I owe them nothing. 2. I promiſe them onelyonly Negatives, which I may lawfully make to a company of High-way robbers, if they will ſpare me life, when ſome of their ſociety would ſpill my blood. Now, that I might ſatisfie the world in what promiſes I have made, I ſhall lay them down in order, as they are in my Petitions.

In my firſt Petition I did onelyonly promiſe, That for the remainder of my dayes I would lead a peac…able and quiet life in all godlineſſe and honesty, and that in my place and calling I would endeavour the peace and welfare of this Common-wealth. The firſt part of this promiſe is my duty, as I am a Chriſtian, it was the Apoſtles prayer in 1 Tim. …. 2. therefore ought to be my practice. The ſecond part of this promiſe is my duty as I am an Engliſhman, to endeavour the peace and welfare of this Commonwealth. where by Common-wealth I underſtand not this form of Government in oppoſition to a Kingdome, but by Common-wealth, I underſtand the whole Body or Community of the people of this Nation, I ſhall endeavour their peace and welfare as I am a native of this Nation.

In my ſecond Petition I promiſed only this, To endeavour in my place and Calling the compoſing of differences among the godly, and preſerving ſpirituall peace and love throughout the Churches of the Saints, as well as the civill peace and welfare of this Common-wealth. And I further promiſed, neither to plot, contrive, or deſigne any thing to the hurt of the preſent Government, and, if it be required, to put in further ſecurity for performance thereof. In which words I promiſe four things.

1. In my place and calling to compoſe differences among the Godly. It would be my ſin to widen differences, it is my duty to compoſe them. I would have Chriſt's Coat without rent, as well as without ſpot. I can truly ſay for the breaches among the Godly I have had ſad thoughts of heart, the grief of my heart hath been for the Diviſion, and the deſire of my ſoule, for an Vnion, and cloſure of the differences that are amongſt us. Oh that my body could make up that breach, I would caſt it in, or my blood ſoder the differences, I would let it out with gladneſſe, for the attainment of ſo deſired an end.

2. To preſerve ſpirituall peace and love throughout the Churches of the Saints. It is my duty not only to endeavour to reſtore peace and love where it is not, but to preſerve it where it is.

3. To preſerve the civill peace and welfare of this Common-wealth, which is the ſame with that promiſe in the firſt Petition; by Common-wealth I underſtand, not a form of Government, but the whole body, or Community of the people of this Nation. I promiſe to ſeek their civill peace and Vnion. I am bound to the two firſt as I am a Chriſtian, and to the latter as I am an Engliſhman.

4. Neither to plot, contrive, or deſigne any thing to the hurt of the preſent Government, and if it be required, to put in further ſecurity for the performance of the ſame. p. 14In which promiſe I doe not abſolutely binde my ſelf to doe nothing againſt this preſent Government, ſo as not to pray, or not to preach againſt their Vſurpations and Oppreſſions, but I doe confine my promiſe to Not plotting, contriving or deſigning the hurt of the preſent Government, that is, that I ſhall not engage in any plot, contrivement or deſigne againſt them who are in preſent power, and this promiſe I had reſolved to keep, had they given me my life, though I might have opportunity and ſecrecy to carry on ſuch plot, contrivement, or deſigne againſt them. Such a Negative promiſe as this, in ſuch a caſe of extremity as I am now in, I might lawfully make to a company of Theeves, when they have their knife at my throat, or their ſwords at my heart, I may lawfully promiſe to them, that I will neither plot, contrive, nor deſign to hurt them, to way-lay them, and take them; I promiſe no more to the preſent power, and this I ſhould make good, and if I might not be believed, I did offer ſecurity for the performance hereof; Yet were I at liberty, at my free choice, I ſhould not promiſe ſo much unto them, nor would I adviſe others to engage themſelves in the leaſt unto them, yet it would not offend me, if any man in the condition I am in did promiſe ſo much, if he would promiſe no more.

In my third Petition I promiſed and offered further ſecurity, neither to plot, contrive or deſigne the ſubverſion of this preſent Government, accounting it as a brand of the higheſt ingratitude to imploy my life againſt you, if I ſhall by an act of grace and favour receive a new life from you. In which words, I beſeech the Reader to obſerve, my promiſe is only Negative, I make no poſitive promiſe to them of a concurrence with, or acting for this preſent Government; this is the ſame promiſe in terminis with that in the ſecond Petition, only there is an additionall clauſe here, viz. That I account it as a brand of the higheſt ingratitude, to imploy my life againſt them, if I ſhould by an Act of grace and favour receive a new life from them. I do not ſay I ſhall imploy my life for them if I ſhould receive my life from them, that I dare not do, yet I will ſay I will not imploy my life againſt them, and this promiſe I would have kept, had they given me my life, as long as I had lived under their preſent Government.

In my fourth petition I promiſed that I would neither plot, contrive or deſigne, any thing prejudiciall to the preſent Government, but in my place and calling oppoſe any Malignant deſigns whatſoever, (whether in this or the neighbour Nations▪) that may tend to the ruine of this Common-wealth. And a while after I promiſed, never to imploy that life againſt you, I ſhall receive from you, but bold it my duty to lay out my life for the glory of God, the good of his people, the peace and ſafety of this Commonwealth. I have promiſed four things in this Petition, the lawfullneſſe whereof (as the caſe ſtands) I ſhall ſufficiently evince.

Firſt, I promiſed neither to plot, contrive, or deſigne any thing prejudjciall to the preſent Government. This is the ſame, in terminis, with what is promiſed in my ſecond and third Petitions. To vindicate which, I refer my Reader to what I ſaid there.

Secondly, I promiſed In my place and calling to oppoſe any Malignant deſignes whatſoever (whether in this or the neighbour Nations) that may tend to the ruine of this Common-wealth. In which words I deſire the Reader to take notice. Firſt, That I hold my ſelf ſtill bound to oppoſe malignant deſigns as much as ever I did, I ſtill retaine as great a diſlike of a Malignant intereſt as ever. Secondly, When I mention Malignant deſigns, I do not underſtand the honeſt Scots undertakings, in p. 15preſerving their King, Country, Religion and all againſt the invaders, to be a Malignant deſigne; farre be it from me I ſhould once imagine it; but by Malignant deſigns, I mean ſuch which the Covenant expreſſeth, the Covenant brandeth them for Malignants, Incendiaries, and evill inſtruments, who divide the King from his people, or one of the Kingdoms from another; they are the Malignants which I did oppoſe, and ſhould oppoſe, who did labour by Arms to force the two Houſes of Parliament, this the Cavaleers would have done but could not, but this the Army hath done. Thirdly, I do not ſay I ſhall oppoſe all deſigns that may tend to the ruine of the Government of the Common-wealth, but that may tend to the ruine of the Common-wealth, that is, to the ruine of the body of the people of this Nation.

Thirdly, I promiſed Never to implo… that life againſt you I ſhould receive from you. This is the ſame, in termin…s, with that in my third Petition; could they give me a thouſand lives, I would not imploy one for them, yet if they had given me my life, I would not imploy that life againſt them.

Fourthly, I promiſed To lay out my ſelfe for the glory of God, the good of his people, the peace and ſafety of this Common-wealth. That is not the Government of this Common-wealth, but of the Community or whole Body of the people; I thinke there is none that will queſtion the lawfullneſſe of this promiſe.

Thus you have ſeen to a tittle both the Narratory and Promiſſory part of all my Petitions, wherein I have declared, and promiſed, nothing that will ſtrengthen this Government, that doth contradict my Principles, wound my Conſcience, or juſtly offend my Godly Brethren. I promiſe nothing in a way of active concurrence or complyance with their State Government, neither to preach or pray for them, fight or act for them in the leaſt. Thus I have juſtified the lawfullneſſe of the titles of my Petitions, &c. Alſo of the matter of them, both of the Narratory, Promiſſory, and Petitionary part of them. I now begin to juſtifie my practice, in giving in a Narrative of the whole tranſaction. This I did not out of conſtraint, but voluntarily. In my Narrative offence is taken at two things. Firſt, That I accuſe my ſelfe. Secondly, That I accuſe others, yet at firſt I did refuſe to doe either. To this I ſhall give a clear and ſatisfactory anſwer, to juſtifie what I have done. It is true, before I was condemned to dye I deemed it againſt the Law of Nature to accuſe my ſelfe, and againſt the law of love to accuſe my Brother, therefore then would do neither. And I am ſtill of this judgment, before a man ſees his accuſers face to face, and is convicted, I would not have a man confeſſe a word in a caſe of that nature as mine is; but as the caſe ſtands with me, being a condemned man, I conceive it is not againſt the Law of Nature to confeſſe againſt my ſelfe, nor againſt the Law of Love to confeſſe againſt my Brethren, who are partakers with me in this buſineſſe; I ſhall begin with the firſt, viz. To prove the lawfulneſſe of my practice in giving in a Narrative of what I had done; This is not forced from me, I offered this from the begining (I mean ſince I was condemned, I would not do it before) to let them know what I had done in this whole buſineſſe, but it would not be accepted unleſſe I would name other men, which I was then loath to do, but, upon further conſideration, I afterwards inclined to it.

The Reaſons which induced me to give in a Narrative of what I my ſelf had done (I being now a condemned man) are theſe.

p. 16Firſt, As ſelf juſtification can do me no good, ſo ſelf accuſation can do me no hurt; before I was convicted I would not confeſſe a word, that were to make me guilty of mine owne blood, if out of my owne mouth they ſhould condemn… me; then confeſſion might have been a prejudice to me, but now it can be none.

Secondly, My acknowledgment may ſoften, and ſweeten, the ſpirits of thoſe toward me, in whoſe hands my life is, remove many prejudices out of their minds, that I am not obſtinate or perverſe, when they ſhall ſee me deale with them with an ingenuous freedom, and openneſſe of heart to them.

Thirdly, I do it to take off jealouſies. out of the minds of them who are in power, who ſurmiſe plots and deſignes carrying on againſt them, who ſuſpect there is not a full diſcovery of this buſineſſe; upon this ground therefore I ſhall diſcover what I well remember, and diſtinctly know in this buſineſſe.

Fourthly, I am willing the world ſhould know the worſt I have done, therefore I ſhall acknowledge, not only what is proved againſt me, but thoſe things none in the World could accuſe me of, they are ſuch things as I need not, I ought not be aſhamed of, viz. That I deſired, as a private man, there might be an agreement between the King and the Scots, upon the intereſt of Religion, and tearms of the Covenant; or that I relieved Maſſey with money, not upon any Military accompt▪ but meerly as a ſupply for his perſonall neceſſities, &c. theſe are things I am not, I need not, be aſhamed of.

Fifthly, If I ſhould now conceale what I had do…, the World would thinke w…rſe of it than it is, and worſe of me than I am.

Sixthly, I intend upon the Scaffold to make an acknowledgment of what I have done, and why may I not do it before? I need not, ought not, be aſhamed to juſtifie what I have done, upon the Scaffold, I have done nothing either by the Lawes of God or of this Nation for which I ought to dve, although by their bloody Lawes, they have condemned me to dye. Theſe are the reaſons why I have confeſt againſt my ſelfe. I am now to give reaſons why I have in my Narrative confeſt againſt other men, when before I did refuſe to doe it.

To this alſo I ſhall give a brief yet ſatisfactory account; it is true, before I was condemned I would not accuſe any man, becauſe then my teſtimony haply would be looked upon as valid in Law againſt them▪ ſo that in that caſe, I had rather lay downe my owne life than be inſtrumentall in taking away the life of another man. I might have had my owne life given me for a prey, would I have but informed againſt other men, and ſo devoted their lives for a ſacrifice to the bloody rage of men, but … ſtill withſtood it. I then was, and ſtill am of this principle, to judge it better to be a ſufferer with the Brethren▪ than an accuſer of the Brethren, eſpecially when my accuſation may turne in the leaſt to their prejudice.

The reaſons which ſwayed with me to name other men in my Narrative, are theſe.

1. Becauſe my Teſtimony (being a condemned man) is not valid in Law, and ſo can do them no harm, as to Eſtate or Life.

2. I do name thoſe perſons only, who are already diſcovered, and certainly known to thoſe in power; ſhould I goe about to vindicate them, I ſhould do them no good, and now I do nominate them. I can do them no hurt.

p. 173. Moſt of the perſons I have named, have given me their Conſent that I ſhould name them; ſo that themſelves being Judges, they thought I could do them no injury.

4. Moſt of the perſons I have named in my narrative, have of their own accords confeſſed as much (if not more) than I have ſpoken concerning them; yea before I have ſent in my narrative (for I am one of the laſt, though my danger is the greateſt) they have ſent in theirs, and confeſſed againſt themſelves more than I have mentioned in my narrative.

Thus I have ſpoken as briefly as the matter would permit, to juſtifie the Title and Matter of my Petitions, and the giving in of my Narrative; This I doe, becauſe I would give no offence either to Jew, or Gentile, or the Church of God.

There are other ſcandalous aſperſions and ſlanderous reports caſt upon me, which I muſt endeavour to ſatisfie the world about. I have publikely made 3. ſolemne and true Proteſtations, both on the firſt and laſt day of my appearing before the High Court of Juſtice, the truth wherof I ſtill ſtand to maintaine; it is bruited abroad, that both by the Teſtimony of the Witneſſes, and by my owne Confeſſion I have contradicted my own Proteſtations, which is moſt notoriouſly falſe, I did therefore in the end of my Tryall declare, that it was my rejoycing, that though 8. Witneſſes came in againſt me, yet none of them did contradict or falſifie my 3. Proteſtations; I had rather dye, than any ſhould make my glorying voyd, yea, I had much rather be made a Sufferer than a Lyar. In going about to vindicate my ſelf in theſe particulars, I ſhall give you the reaſon why I made theſe Proteſtations, becauſe the Charge was ſo black and foule againſt me, of correſponding with the King, Queen, Iermin, and Piercy, of raiſing great ſums of Money for the Scots to maintaine a War againſt this Nation, &c. To remove prejudices from the minds of my Judges, and of the hearers then preſent, I did make theſe three Proteſtations, the truth whereof I ſtand now to juſtifie and ſeal with my blood.

1. The firſt Proteſtation I made before the High-Court was this; viz. That I never writ any Letters either to the King of Scots, or the Queen his Mother, or to the Church or State of Scotland, or to any particular perſon of the Scotiſh Nation, ſince the beginning of the Warres between ENGLAND and SCOTLAND, to this day.

This firſt Petition hath not been falſified, either by the Teſtimony of my accuſers, or my own Confeſſion. None of the 8. Witneſſes did prove that I ever writ a Letter, yet, I confeſſe, I did write one to Maſſey in Scotland, and another to Bamfield in Holland, yet my Proteſtation is not falſified, for they are both of the Engliſh, not of the Scotiſh Nation; though I did write to Maſſey who was in the Scotiſh Nation, yet is he not of the Scotiſh Nation; ſo my Proteſtation holds true.

2. My ſecond Proteſtation was this, That I never received any Letters writ to me, either from the King of Scotland, on the Queen his Mother, or the Church or State of Scotland, in the generall, or from any other particular perſon of the Scotiſh Nation, from the beginning of the Warres between the two Nations to this day.

This Proteſtation is true alſo, and hath not been contradicted by my own Confeſſion, or any of the Witneſſes, only Capt. Potter did ſwear, That he received a Letter from Colonell Bamfield with a great L. on it, and that there were encloſed Letters from 4 Scotiſh Lords and from Mr. Bayly a Scotiſh Miniſter. He ſaid in his Examinations: before the Committee of the Councell of State, That he conceived p. 18the Letter from Bamfield was writ to me; but before the High-Court, being on his Oath, he could not ſay ſo; nay, he ſaid he thought it was not writ to me; nor can I imagine why Colonell Bamfield ſhould write to me, for I had never heard from him, or writ to him before; nor did I ever ſee his face. But if Bomfields Letter with a great L. written on it, had been writ to me, yet my Proteſtation is not contradicted, for Bamfield is an Engliſh man, not a Scotch man: Now my Proteftation was, That I received no Letters writ to me from any of the Scotiſh Nation, ſince the Wars began. Moreover, the Letters from the 4 Scotch Lords, and Mr. Bayly the Scotch Miniſter (which were encloſed in Bamfields Letter) had not a great L. written on them, as Bamfields Letter had, and were not writ to me; and had thoſe Letters from the Scotch Lords, and the Scotch Miniſter been written to me (which they were not) yet my Proteſtation is not falſified, for Captain Potter received them, opened them, read them, before he ſhewed them to me, he kept them and carried them away, as was confeſt in open Court, but I did neither, nor did I write an Anſwer to thoſe Letters from the Scotch Lords, or the Scotch Miniſter; indeed I did write to Bamfield in Holland, but he is of the Engliſh, not of the Scotiſh Nation: ſo my Proteſtation not contradicted.

My third Proteſtation was this, That I never collected, gave, or lent …ne penny of money to ſend into Scotland, or any foreign parts, either to the King, Queen, Church▪ or State of Scotland, or to any particular perſons of the Scotiſh Nation, ſince the beginning of the Wars unto this day. As to theſe three particulars I have ſaid it, and doe ſay it againe, I am as innocent as my harmleſſe Child that is not 3 years old. This third Proteſtation is true alſo, though I did ſend 5 l. to one Bamfi…ld in Holland, and 10 l. to Maſſey in Scotland, for they are of the Engliſh, not of the Scotiſh Nation; Yea, though I did give money to relieve poor Scotch men, priſoners, and others here in London, yet this contradicts not my Proteſtation, for therein I ſaid, I did not give money to ſend into Scotland, or any other fo…eign parts, to any perſons of the Scotiſh Nation; but I did not ſay I did not give here in London to any perſon of the Scotiſh Nation, I did relieve many of the poor Scotch priſoners who were taken at Dunbar fight, and brought to Black-wall: Yet this doth not falſifie my Proteſtation; though I did give money to poor Scotch men in London, yet I ſent none into Scotland to any Scotch perſon ſince the Wars began, to this day.

When I firſt put pen to paper, I did not intend to look fo far back as the Tryall, but becauſe the Tryall is ſo miſ-repreſented, and miſ-reported in ſome Bookes in Print, eſpecially in that lying Book, called, The Plea for the Common-wealth, and becauſe many black and hideous things are laid to my Charge, of which I am not guilty. Wherefore I ſhall doe two things, 1. Lay down what none of the 8. Witneſſes did prove againſt me. 2. Give a brief Extract of what they did prove againſt me, that ſo the World may be ſatisfied upon what I was Condemned to dye.

None of the 8. Witneſſes did prove in Court.

1. That I writ Letter to the King of Scots, or Queen, or Jermin, or Piercy, or to any other perſons in foreign parts, either in or of the Scotiſh Nation, ſince the Wars began, to this day.

2. Or, that ever Letter was writ in my Houſe, or in any place elſe where I was preſent.

3. Or, that ever I directed, ordered or perſwaded any others to write.

p. 194. Or, that I did know of any perſon that did write Letters into Scotland, or any foreign parts.

5. Or, that ever I ſent, or gave my conſent to the ſending away of any Letters into Scotland, or any forein parts.

6. Or, that ever I received any Letter from Scotland, or any foreign parts.

7. Or, that I ordered any other perſon to receive Letters for me.

8. Or, that ever I did ſo much as read any Letter in my Houſe, or any where elſe, that did come from Scotland, or from foreign parts.

9. Or, that ever I collected, gave, or lent any money, either for the King of Sc…ts, the Queen his Mother, the Church and State of Scotland in the generall, or for any particular perſons, either in, or of the Scotiſh Nation, ſince the beginning of the Wars to this day.

10. Or, that ever I invited any foreign Forces to invade either England or Ireland.

11. Or, that I was, in the leaſt, privy to, or accquainted with any preparations or endeavours tending to the raiſing of inteſtine inſurrections at home, or joyning with any foreign Invaſions from abroad. None of theſe particulars were proved againſt me, yet I was condemned to dye; which doth manifeſt to the world, that I I am put to death rather upon an intereſt of State, than Principles of Conſcience; rather to put a terror upon others, than for the merits of the Facts I have don my ſelf, yet my Oppreſſors ſlay me, and hold themſelves not guilty.

The moſt that was proved againſt me, was this, That I was preſent at meetings in ſeverall Faſts, to begge a bleſſing on the Treaty between the King and the Scots, that there might be an Agreement between them, upon the intereſt of Religion, and termes of the Covenant; That I was ſeverall times preſent at my Houſe when Letters were read, that either were ſent to, or received from Scotland; That I moved for money for Maſſey and Titus (yet one of the Witneſſes ſwore that it was not upon a Military account) to maintain the War in Scotland, but meerly to relieve the perſonall neceſſities of Maſſey and Titus; That two of the Witneſſes brought Fifteen pound for Maſſey and Titus to my Houſe, viz. Potter brought Ten pound, and Far brought Five pound, but neither charged me that I received it. Here I deſire the Reader to take notice, that though 8. Witneſſes came in againſt me, yet no two of them did concurre in their Teſtimony to prove any one thing againſt me, unleſſe that I was preſent at the bearing of Letters read, which other men brought to my Houſe. As for all other things, though two Witneſſes might ſometimes ſpeake ad idem, yet not to the ſame thing, eodem tempore. 'Tis true, two ſwore that I moved for money, yet one ſwore I did it in a meeting, the other ſwore I did it to him alone at another time, But leſt it ſhould be thought I am too favourable in my own Cauſe, I have here made an Extract, out of the Depoſitions of the Witneſſes, that ſo you may ſee the worſt that is proved againſt me.