Vindication of the Ministers of London, Discourse

Vindication of the Ministers of London · Discourse

p. 1A MODEST and CLEAR VINDICATION Of the Serious Repreſentation, and late Ʋindication Of the Miniſters of London, from the Scandalous Aſperſions of JOHN PRIC…, In a Pamphlet of his, Entituled, CLERICO-CLASSICƲM OR, The Clergies Alarum to a third War.

John Price,

WOULD one imagine that you who thought your ſelf once ſo good an Alchymiſt, as to extract**Alluding to a book… entituled, Honey out of the Rock, made by …ohn Price. honey out of the rock, ſhould now ſuch poyſon out of a flower? I cannot compare you to a Bee (unleſſe for your ſting) but to a Spider, for ſucking poyſon from that ſavory and ſerious Repreſentation, and late Vindication of the Miniſters of London, againſt whom you have ſpit ſo much of your venome. I ſhal not return you rayling for rayling, ſlander for ſlander, but in a ſpirit of meekneſs indeavour, to diſcover your ſin to recover your ſoul. Before I ſhal take a ſurvey of your book in particular, I ſhall give you this obſervation in the generall; That either I was not my ſelf when I p. 2read your book, or you were not your ſelf when you made it; The latter I am induced to beleeve upon this ground, in your book you declare your judgment for taking away the li… of the King, and blame the Miniſters of London for expreſſing themſelves to the contrary; now had you been your ſelf, undoubtedly you would not have declared your ſelf for killing the King in this book, yet profeſſe againſt it in another made by you when you were of a more ſober ſp…it; In your book entituled, **See a Spiritual Snapſack for the Parliament Souldiers, by Iohn Price. p. 8. lin. 32A Spirituall Snapſack for the Parliament Souldiers; you ſpeak to them in theſe words: You fight for the Recovery of the Kings Royall perſon out of the hands of theſe miſ…r…ants, and re-inſtate him in his Royall Throne and Dignity, that both Hee and His Poſterity (if God will) may yet flouriſh in their Royalty, ſo that notwithſtanding all contradictions you ſight for your King: … forbear to deſcant upon your words; he that will compare your two books together, muſt think you, if not out of your wit…, yet at leaſt out of your way; Oh that I might reclaim you! that is all the hurt I wiſh you. Paſſing by your ſlanderous Title and Epiſtle, I come to a particular ſurvey of your book it ſelf. You ſay.

The Letter writers are (as they ſay) Miniſters of the Goſpel,Pag. 2. lin 14. ſo the falſe Prophets of old pretended to be be the Prophets of the Lord, ſo the Pope, Chriſts grand Embaſſadour and Vicar upon earth, ſo the Popiſh Prieſts and Jeſuites, the Miniſters of Chriſt, &c.

Anſw. 1. The Letter writers are (as they ſay) Miniſters of the Goſpel, and doe not you ſay ſo too? dare you ſay the contrary? I am ſure you were of this mind when you … Spirituall Snapſ…ck for Parliament Souldiers; there you … learned and conſcientious Miniſters in one place,In Spiritual … p. 6. l. 17. … godly Divines in another; if you be otherwiſe … would better become you to have brought … throw their Calling, then … and ſlanders to … names.

2. Becauſe the falſe Prophets ſaid they were Prophets of the Lord, &c. would you inſerte hence, the Subſcribers are not Miniſters of the Goſpel? Paul ſaid he was an Apoſtle… falſe Teachers ſaid they were Apoſtles, when they were not, was … therefore no Apoſtle? John Price ſaith he deals honeſtly in … p. 3trade, common cheaters will ſay that they deal honeſtly alſo, will it therefore follow John Price doth not deal honeſtly? this is all the force your reaſoning hath with it, which ſmel… more of the Exchange then the Univerſitie, more of John Price his ſhop, then John Goodwins ſtudy.

Surely who ever among them can vindicate their divine origination,Pag. 2. l. 24. theſe men have adminiſtred cauſe ſufficient to queſtion their abilities hereunto.

Anſw. 1. You that make a doubt whether the Miniſters can vindicate their divine origination; it were well you, who preſume to be a Teacher in Iſrael, would make good your own, tel me in your next whence had you it; whether from the ſhop in the Exchange, or the alley in Colemanſtreet.

2. Whereas you ſay, they have adminiſtred cauſe ſufficient to queſtion their Miniſter…all abilities, this is ſo palpable a calumny that I need not confute you therein, becauſe you confute your ſelf:Epiſt. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax. p. 1. p. 1. l. 30. In your Epiſtle you ſay of the ſubſcribers in the generall, that they are judicious, grave, and learned men: and in pag. 12. in the body of your book, you ſay of ſome of the ſubſcribers, that they are wiſe and good men; now if the ſubſcribers be judicious, grave, learned, wiſe and good men, what cauſe ſufficient is adminiſtred to queſtion their Miniſte…riall abilities? Surely were the Apoſtle Paul upon the earth, hee would never queſtion the Miniſtriall abilities of judicious, grave, learned, wiſe and good men; nor would hee approve them as fit for the Miniſtery, who are injudic…ous, raw, illiterate, indiſcree… and bad men, yet ſuch are the Teachers you cry up, and the others you cry down; me thinks if you doubt of their office, you ſhould not queſtion their gifts alſo.

Some of them have promoted,Pag. 2. l. 3…. incouraged, and …etted the very ſelfe ſame actions done at another time, by other perſons, (as we ſhall ſpeak to anon) which here they … and branded … an …curſed thing.

Anſw. You neither name the men, nor mention the actions; when you particular…i…e the men, and ſpecifie the actions, which at one time they promoted and encouraged, and at another anathemati…ed and branded, it will then be time enough to give you a particular anſwer; for the preſent I ſhall ſay but this to p. 4you by way of Retortion, this Brat may be laid at your doores, you promoted, encouraged, and abetted the forcing of the Parliament by the Army at one time, yet condemned the violence offered by the King at another; but the Miniſters of London did not thus, they miſlik't it in the one as well as in the other.

Poor London thy Prophets make thee to erre,Pag. 3. l. 5. &c.

Anſw. 1. Poor London indeed, and it is like to be poorer before you have done with it; I could tell who have made themſelves rich, and the City poor.

2. You would have ſaid more truly, if you had ſaid thus, London of late hath made her Prophets poor, rather then the Prophets made London erre.

3. You ſay her Prophets make her err, had you named the men, and particularized the errors, it would have been more credible and demonſtrable; but generall accuſations are no proofes; I am ſure one Prophet of your own hath vented more groſſe and pernicious errors in one year, then can be faſtned upon all the ſubſcribers throughout the Courſe of their Miniſtery. None of the ſubſcribers ever held that the Engliſh Scriptures, or that book called the Bible, is not the Word of God; that no writings whatſoever, whether tranſlations or originalls, are the foundation of Chriſtian Religion; that a natural man had free wil and power to do good ſupernatural; that thoſe without the Goſpel written or preacht have ſufficient means for beleeving; that the ſun, moon, and ſtars are the Apoſtles of Chriſt to preach the Goſpel unto them: But theſe, with many others, have been invented by Mr. J. Goodwin, as may appear in his Hagiomaſtix, and by Divine Authority of the Scriptures, quoted in the Teſtimony of the London Miniſters, againſt errors, &c. I would fain know whether any or all the ſubſcribers have taught any error that carries the leaſt proportion to any of theſe; let the world then judge what Prophets they are that make London to erre.

One while thou mayſt take up arms,Pag. 3. l. 16. by the inſtigation of thy Miniſters, to maintain the cauſe of God, decency of wooſhip; viz. the Prelaticall faction, or the glorious intereſt of the Clergy thereof; another while thou muſt arm thy ſelf from the ſame inſtigations to ſacrifice thy p. 5gold and ſilver, thy monies and thy plate upon the happy promotion of the Houſe of God, the government of Chriſt, &c.

Anſw. 1. This is to notorious a falſity, the very mention is a ſufficient Confutation; did ever any of the Letter-writers (as you ſcoffingly call them) ever inſtigate the people to maintain the Prelaticall faction, or the Clergy thereof? 'tis well known the Prelates were nevee friends to them, nor they to the Prelates; wherefore the Lord rebuke thee thou lying tongue, who goeſt about to belye their perſons, when thou canſt not confute their doctrin.

2. For the latter part of your charge, that they did move the people to ſacrifice their ſilver & gold, monies & plate for the promotion of the Houſe of God, &c. I verily thought that you would mention this as an ornament to the Miniſtery, not a reproach to their perſons. I am ſure you were of this mind when you made your Snapſack for the Parliament ſouldiers, Spiritual Snapſack by John Price. p. 6. …. 17.you encouraged the ſouldiers in the Parliaments war, that all the learned, godly, orthodox & conſcientious Miniſters did join iſſue with them, & juſtifie defenſive arms; did you commend the Miniſters then, and dare you blame them now? by this I ſee you have a muſty budget (out of which at one time you can bring lyes and ſlanders againſt the Miniſters) as well as a Spirituall Snapſack, wherein you have Encomiums of their praiſe.

The ancient love,Pag. 3. l. 36. anion, and goodneſſe of thine (i.e. Londons) inhabitants is turned into hatred, diviſion and bitterneſſe each againſt other, cauſing thy foundations to ſhake, and thy pillars to tremble, which is all the ben fit thou haſt received by the exchange of thy late Dioceſſe for the Province of London.

Anſw. 1. I perceive you are a chip of the old block, like maſter like man, Young …ng elder by John Goodwin. p. 25.Iohn Goodwin indeed ſaid, that all the ſucceſſe the Miniſters of London had in converting of ſoules, for three or foure years laſt paſt, unleſſe from God to Satan, may be caſt up with a Cypher, and meaſured with a reed that never grew. One may ſee by this you are his ſcholar to faſten on the London Miniſters ſo notorious a falſity, that all the benefit the City hath received by them, is but to turn its ancient love, union and goodneſſe into hatred, diviſion, and bitterneſſe each againſt other.

2. This is ſo notorious a calumny, that many of your own p. 6party bluſh to read it, and acknowledge it ever God did the…e ſoules good, it was by the Miniſtery of thoſe men whom you falſly accuſe.

3. It were well that you and others (who ſay the labours of the London Miniſters are inſucceſſefull) would conſider, whether the ſpirit of the Lord be not departed from your Congregations, ſince you have fallen into ſeparation, whether more hath not been perverted then converted by your Miniſters. For my part I cannot diſcern any ſignalls or ſeals to the Miniſtery of many of your ſeparated congregations, of bringing ſheep to Chriſts fold, but of ſtealing ſheep out of the flock, brought in by the bleſſing of God upon other mens labours.

4. Whereas you ſay, that all the benefit London hath received by the Miniſters, is but to turn the ancient love and union of the inhabitants thereof, into hatred and diviſion; all that I ſhall ſay to the ſlander, is this, the Lord bee Judge between them and you; London was once a City at union within it ſelf, and did ſerve the Lord with one conſent, and carry on the work of the Lord with one ſhoulder, untill men of your turbulent faction and humour fell to ſchiſme and ſeparation, gathering Churches out of Churches, and that not when declining, but when reforming (a practice never heard of before late years) theſe and ſuch like practices of yours, have turned Londons ancient love, union and goodneſſe, into hatred, diviſion, and bitterneſſe one againſt another.

5. By theſe laſt words, viz. which is all the benefit thou haſt received by the exchange of thy late Dioceſſe for the Province of London, by this I perceive Iohn Price had rather have London a Dioceſſe then a Province; and thinks London in a better condition under Prelacy, then with Presbytery; of this I ſay no more, I wiſh you had not ſaid ſo much.

That which Gregory wrote to Mauritius, Pag. 4. l. 19.concerning the ambition of the Prelaticall Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, may be as truly ſaid of our preſent Clergy men, exclamare compellor, ac dicere O tempora! O mores! &c. that is, I am compelled to cry out, Oh times! Oh manners! behold in all the parts of Europe, Townes are deſtroyed, Caſtles overthrown, Provinces are ſpoyled, no labourer inhabiteth the land; notwithſtanding the Prieſts who ſhould lye in a…he… upon the p. 7ground weeping, they are ſeeking to themſelves names of v…nity, &c. Greg. lib. 4. Epiſt. 323.

Anſw. 1. Who would have thought that Iohn Price had ſtudyed Pope Greg…y? That he that cries out againſt all ordained Miniſters, as having the mark of the Beaſt, ſhould ſtudy the language of the beaſt?

2. The paſſage you quote out of Gregory, is ſaid to be in the fourth book, Epiſt. 323. whereas Gregory hath but 56? Epiſtles in all in his fourth book, if Iohn Price ſhould quote the third Epiſtle of Paul to the Corinthians, when Paul wrote but two Epiſtles to them, I would ſay he were as ignorant in Pauls Epiſtles, as in Gregories Epiſtles: As I know Pope Gregory never ſaw your face, ſo this miſtake makes me think you never ſaw his Epiſtle; let me tell you, though you miſtake Gregory to have more Epiſtles then he had, yet Gregory [the Executioner] may not miſtake you, to have more necks then you have, if you perſiſt to juſtifie the Killing the King, forcing the Parliament, impriſoning the Members, altering the fundamentall government of the Kingdom, as you have done already.

3. Let me know in the next whence this groſſe miſtake did ariſe, either from the careleſneſſe of the Printer, or the ignorance of you the Authour; that I may help this poor Ignoramus at a dead liſt: I ſhall let you know that it is true indeed, there is ſuch an Epiſtle of Gregories to M…ritius, and ſuch words as you mention, but 'tis in lib. 4. Epiſt. 32. yet what was then ſaid by him concerning Iohn Biſhop of Conſtantinople, & other Biſhops, cannot as truly be ſaid of our preſent Clergy men, as you falſly affirm, for it will evidently appear to you, if you read the whole 32. Epiſtle, that the name of vanity that ſome did deſire, was to be Univerſall Biſhop; … then hee comes in with the words you quote, O tempora! O … then he goes on, Qui… eſt qui contra … Now I leave it to your ſelf to be Judg, … be ſaid of our preſent Clergy men (as your reproachfully … them) at Gregory of th…ſe Biſhops: p. 8did ever any ſubſcribers of the letter, affect the name of Biſhop in the Prelaticall ſenſe? did any of them arrogate the Title of Univerſall Biſhop, or any other name of vanity of the like nature? if not, then what Gregory ſaid of thoſe Biſhops, cannot as truely be ſaid of our preſent Clergy men, as you ſlanderouſly affirm: Beſides, what names of vanity do the Miniſters ſeek to themſelves? are they any other then Miniſters of the Goſpel, Preachers of the Word, Embaſſadors of Chriſt? if theſe be the names of vanity, do not you count Chriſt vain in giving theſe names unto his Miniſters? Which if you doe I ſhall eſteem you a man of vanity and blaſphemy too. To conclude my anſwer, to this Quotation out of Gregory, I ſhall only give you this counſell, that it would better become ſuch a raw novice to ſtudy Perkins Principles, then Gregories Epiſtles.

Was not the late ſecond Warre,Pag 4. l. 35. and the flames thereof, kindled and blown up by the Pulpit Incendiaries, the like Miniſters of the Goſpel, Embaſſadours of Ieſus Chriſt, viz. the ambitous Presbyters, who are now again by their fiery tongues, and furious pens, ſcattering their furious Pamphlets among the people, and hiſſing them on to a third war, reſolving as it appears to ſee the Kingdom in aſhes, but they will have their wiſhes?

Anſw. 1. Surely you think your tongue is your own, elſe you durſt never be ſo frolick of your ſlanders; the blame of the firſt warre, nay of the ſecond, yea of inſtigating to a third, you lay upon the godly Miniſters of the City; I wonder your heart did not tremble, and you hand ſhake when you wrote theſe lines; had you not a brow of braſs, you would bluſh and be aſhamed for raiſing againſt them ſuch improbable and incredible aſperſions.

2. I appeal in their behalf to the righteous Judg of al the world to give ſentence between them and you, who kindled the ſecond war; did not they whoat one time**Armies R… mon June, 23. 164…. cryed up the King, cloſed w^th the malignants, pleading for the Immunities of the Royall family, and a moderate Compoſition for Delinquents; yet at another time forc't the Parliament to the Vote of Non-addreſſes: this fickleneſſe and falſneſſe in the Army being ſo palpably diſcerned by all, did ſo irritate and provoke the malignant party, that hereupon many tumults and inſurrections did ariſe in p. 9many parts of the Kingdome; yea the Mariners at ſea, did take the Souldiers on land for their example, and did revolt from, and refuſe obedience to the Parliament; yea the Lord Inchequeene in Ireland alſo made the Armies diſobedience to the Parliament, to be the cauſe and Preſident to him, why hee did diſpute their Commands, and refuſe ſubjection; as appears by the Relation made to the Houſe of Commons, publiſht in print; by this you may ſee, who they were that did kindle the flames of a ſecond Warre.

3. May not you now well be aſhamed for charging that on others, which only you, and others of your faction are guilty of? do not you doe juſt as Nero did, ſet Rome on fire, yet charged the Chriſtians with it, or as the Papiſts did, contrive the Gunpowder-treaſon, yet lay the blame of it on the Puritans? you have put the whole land on a flame, yet lay it on the godly Miniſters, who would live quietly and peaceably in the land.

Your letter ſtandt though faintly upon 4 feet.Pag. 5. l. 33.

Anſw. As faintly as it ſtands on 4 feet in your eſteem, yet it is able to travail up and down the world (when your Pamphlet is hung with cobwebs on the Stationers ſtall) and ſpeak in many languages, beſides its own, the Piety, Loyalty, and Charity of the London Miniſters.

May wee not behold the domineering,Pag. 6. lin. 22. Lordly, and Prelaticall pride of theſe unchriſt-like Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt, that would not vouchſafe ſuch a condeſcention as to give them (viz. the Generall, and his Councell of War) a meeting? then a few lines after you ſay, theſe Miniſters of the Goſpel, theſe zealous and hot diſputers againſt the errors, hereſies, and blaſphemies of the Army, cannot be prevailed withall, by ſeverall applications by writing, by verball meſſages to adviſe, counſel, and direct them in the matters of the greateſt concernment to the whole nation, &c.

Anſw. 1. Your aſperſions on the Miniſters, will not prove them unchriſt-like, they rather prove your ſelf to be unſaintlike.

2. You would by this endeavour to make the world beleeve, as if the Miniſters were guilty of the greateſt act of incivility that is imaginable, to refuſe a meeting with the General and his Ofcers, p. 10& that when invited; but if the whole tranſaction of the buſineſs were clearly underſtood, their refuſall of a meeting would turn to their honour and your reproach; I ſhall therefore give you a brief narrative of the whole buſineſſe (to rectifie your miſtake) as I have received it from thoſe who have very good reaſon to know all the particulars of it; which was thus; Col. Titchbourne came to M^r. Aſh as from the Councell of the Army, deſiring that hee and other Miniſters would come to a debate concerning the Coercive power of the Magiſtrate in matters of Religion; ſoon after a letter was written by M^r. Peters directed to M^r. Calamy, wherein he, with other Miniſters were deſired in the name of the Councell of the Army, to meet at White-hall, about ſomewhat to be held forth by them, about liberty in worſhip: To the firſt invitation by Col. Titchbourne, Mr. Aſh did in the name of the Miniſters, declare to him, that if the Councell of the Army would come to a debate, whether they had ſinned or no, in entring upon thoſe wayes wherein they were unduly ingaged, in ſeizing on the Members of Parliament, &c. he profeſſed the Miniſters would be willing to meet, where and with whomſoever, to labour to ſatisfie them therein; but this offer was declined, they that do evill hate the light, leſt their deeds ſhould be made manifeſt; I need ſay no more, becauſe the letter it ſelf ſaith ſo much for the Miniſters vindication, in refuſing ſuch a conference as was deſired, read pag. 2. of the Serious Repreſentation, that may ſtop your mouth. Had a conference been deſired with us, only to have given you reſolution, whether the wayes wherein at the preſent you are walking, are agreeable to the word of God, wee ſhould moſt willingly have delivered our judgments, &c. And if only for the clearing of this caſe a conference had been deſired, it was from the firſt profeſt, that we ſhould be ready and willing to meet where, and with whomſoever, to aſſert and maintain our judgment therein, but as if the juſtneſſe of your way were already granted by us, we were only invited to contribute our aſſiſtance in proſecution of what you had undertaken, which we conceive to be out of your ſphear; and for us to have joyned in any conſultations of this nature, would have made us acceſſory unto them, guilty of the evill that is in them, &c. Thus was the letter. And becauſe you are but of a vulgar capacity, I ſhall relate a compariſon M^r. Aſh uſed to Col. Titchbourne, p. 11Suppoſe (ſaid he to the Colonell) your ſervants ſhould offer you violence, and lay you under reſtraint, and ſhould then come to a Miniſter, and pray him to adviſe them, how they ſhall diſtribute their Maſters goods, and what or how much each of them ſhould take to themſelves; now ſhould that Miniſter conſult with thoſe ſervants, hee ſhould bee an abettor in their horrid inſolencies againſt their Maſter; the Miniſter ſhould rather tell thoſe undutifull ſervants, that it were more proper for them to ask whether they had not ſinned in thus abuſing their Maſter, and to charge them, to reſtore their Maſter to his liberty, and the enjoyment of his authority, by them unduly uſurped, to obey him for time to come, &c. The drift Mr. Aſh aimed at is eaſy to conjecture, the Army who are as ſervants to the Parliament, did lay violent hands on, and reſtrain their Lord and Maſter the Parliament of England, (whoſe Army they were, raiſed by their authority, for preſervation of their priviledges, &c.) and when the Army had done that, they ſent to Miniſters to adviſe what was yet further to be done; and how they muſt manage their Maſters work, (I mean, diſpoſe of the affairs of the Kingdome) but never deſire to be reſolved whether they had done well or ill in offering violence to their Maſters the Parliament, but as if it were to be taken for granted that the Army had done well in forcing the Parliament, the Miniſters are only deſired to join in conſultations with them, to adviſe about thoſe things which are not legally within their cognizance to ſettle, what ever ſatisfaction they ſhould receive from the Miniſters.

Your ingenuity and …andor appears by your ſubmiſſive and chriſtian reſpects to Authority,Pag 7. l. 34. eſpecially the Parliament, and as at all times, ſo chiefly when they contend not, (though with the ruine of all) for your greatneſſe and intereſt, then your Miniſteriall ingenuity and candor appears, calling them an Apoſtatizing Parliament, a Covenant-breaking Parliament.

Anſw. 1. Generall accuſations are no certain proofes: ſi ſufciat accuſare, qui… erit innocent? if you mention the time when, the place where, and the Miniſters who did call the Parliament an Apoſtatizing, Covenant-breaking Parliament (for I know none did ſo) I ſhal then blame them, and acquit you therein.

p. 122. Notwithſtanding your ſlanders, 'tis well known what ſubmiſſive and chriſtian reſpects to Authority, eſpecially the Parliament, the Miniſters of the Presbyterian judgment have expreſſed; yea if the Lords and Commons ſhould ſit full and free in Parliament, though in ſome things God might leave them to act ſinfully, yet would the Miniſters live quietly and ſubmiſſively, if not in doing what they command, yet in patient ſuffering what they inflict; and not expreſſe ſuch a ſpirit of Turbulency, as many have done in the impriſoning of the chief Magiſtrates, altering of our Laws, and putting the whole Land into a conflagration.

3. If the Miniſters will not with you cry up a faction, muſt they therefore needs be charged by you to cry down a Parliament? ſuppoſe they ſhould not acknowleg. 60 members of the Houſe of Commons (now under the power of the Sword) to be a free Parliament (when above two hundred Members are forc't away) or the Supream Authority of the Nation, are they therefore diſingenuous, and unſubmiſſive to all Authority?

Doth not your ingenuity and candor further appear,Pag. 8. l. 20. by your abetting, countenancing, and encouraging violence and force upon the two Houſes, by company of looſe, prophane and wicked fellows at one time, is ſome of you did, falling in with the diſ…ffected, delinquent, and malignant party; and at another time, crying out, and exclaiming againſt the Army, &c?

Anſw. 1. It would make more for your honor and their ſhame, had you named thoſe Miniſters that did abet, and encourage the violence and force upon the two Houſes. Yea it would more have advantaged you, if in ſtead of a perempory and naked aſſertion, you had given in ſome plain and evident demonſtration, that any of the Miniſters had done ſo.

2. I can truly ſay, that thoſe Miniſters, with whom I have had moſt occaſion to converſe, have expreſt their utter abhorrency of that force and violence. Yea to my knowledge, many of them did declare againſt it in their Pulpits.

3. For the other part of your accuſation, that they fell in with the diſaffected, delingquent and malignant party, that's moſt notoriouſly falſe, as well as the reſt. 'Tis well known the p. 13Miniſters have never been friends to Malignants, nor they to the Miniſters.

4. Whereas you ſay, they did at another time declare againſt the Army for S…izing on the Members of the Commons Houſe: I grant they did ſo, and had they not cauſe to do it? conſidering that the Parliament had long before declared,Declar. Ian. 17. 1641. that if any perſon ſhould offer to arreſt or detain any member of Parliament, that it was againſt the libe…ties of the Subject, and a breach of the Priviledges of Parliament, and ſuch a perſon is declared a publick enemy of the Common-wealth. And conſidering alſo the Vow and Covenant, when the Lords and Commons declared a horrid deſign to ſurpriſe the City, and by armes to force the Parliament, they did then vow and covenant, to reſiſt the ſame, and all other of the like nature; ſo the Miniſters have dealt moſt impartially in blaming the violence offered the Houſes, as well in the one, as in the other. Indeed it may be ſaid of you, that you are the moſt partiall judge in this matter that can bee in the world; to countenance and encourage the Armies forcing the Parliament at one time, yet condemn it in the Apprentices at another, for my own part I muſt profeſſe I condemn it in both.

The ingenuity and cand…r of London Preachers in fam…us throughout the whole Kingdome,Pag. 9. l. … doth not it further appear, by ſetting the people at firſt againſt the King and his party—And now having raiſed mens ſpirits to a reſolution of requiring juſt and ſcripturall ſatisfaction that blood may be avenged, in cry out in your pulpits, of ſtaining the Proteſtant Religion with the blood of the King, &c?

Anſw. 1. You did once count it a vertue in the Miniſters to excite the people againſt the King and His party, and doe you now eſteem it a vice? are you turned malignant after ſo many turnings?

2. 'Tis true the Miniſters did excite the people to cleave to the two Houſes of Parliament, who were neceſſitated to take up defenſive arms, againſt the forces of the King, but never againſt the perſon of the King.

3. But did they ever ſtirre up any to bring the King to a judiciall Tryal, and to take away his life? The Miniſters underſtood themſelves better then for they know 'twas lawfull in David to p. 14take up defenſive arms, to fortifie Ziglag, and other places of ſtrength againſt Sauls fury, yet that it was unlawfull for David to kill Saul, when he had him in his hands, yea though hee were a moſt bloody and tyrannicall King.

The Miniſters doe well conſider that it is one thing to take away the life of a King, and another thing to withſtand the violent execution of the unjuſt commands of a King: And this diſtinction your Mr. Goodwin did well know,I. Goodwin in his Anti…aval. p. 10. l. 31. when hee wrote his Anticavalieriſme, pag. 10. 'Tis one thing (ſaith he) to offer violence to the perſon of a King, or to attempt the taking away of his life; another to ſecure a mans own life, or the life of another whom we know to be innocent, and much more the publick ſafety, by ſtrengthning a mans ſelfe towithſtand the violent execution of any unjuſt Command from a King: M… ^. Goodwin juſtified the withſtanding the violence of the King, yet condemned all attempts of taking away the life of the King: The Miniſters are ſtill of this mind, though he be revolted from theſe his firſt Principles.

4. Whereas you ſay, the Miniſters cry out againſt ſtaining the Proteſtant Religion with the blood of the King; had they not cauſe to do ſo? conſidering that people of the Proteſtant Religion did never take away the life of their King till now: Bleſſed be God, and bleſſed be they, that it was in their hearts to vindicate themſelves to the world to bee clear in this matter.

If you deny this,I. P. p. 9. l. 16. I ſhall ſhew you ſeverall of your owne Bookes and Sermons, preaching the one and the other; and for a taſt at preſent, take one inſtance of M^r. Chr. Love Paſtor of Anne Alderſgate, &c.

Anſw. 1. I deny it abſolutely that any of the ſubſcribers did ever ſtirre up the people to take away the life of the King; for ought I could ever yet underſtand: You pretend you can ſhew their books and Sermons for it, but I am very confident you can ſhew none.

2. I obſerve you promiſe in your book more then you make good; you promiſe as if you would ſhew ſeverall bookes and Sermons of the ſubſcribers, yet you quote but one, viz. M^r. Loves Sermon at Ʋnbridge; now becauſe you ſingle him out from among his Brethren, I ſhall therefore ſpeak the more in his p. 15vindication. 1. I perceive you quote M^r. Love no leſſe then ten times in your Clerico-Claſſicum, yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary, ſo that it ſeems you could not them rake together ſo much matter againſt him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary. 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front ſpice of your book, as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cauſe, for bringing the King to Capitall puniſhment; his words you quote are theſe: Men of blood are not meet perſons to be at peace with, til all the guilt of blood be expiated & avenged, either by the ſword of the Law, or the law of the Sword, elſe a peace can neither be ſafe nor juſt. Chr. Love in his Englands diſtemper. pag. 37.

Anſw. To which I have four things to ſay. 1. There is no mention at all of the King, either in that paſſage, or any other part of his Sermon, that Hee ſhould be cut off. 2. M^r. Love doth clearly expreſſe himſelfe whom he means by thoſe men of blood, viz. not the King, but as he ſaith, pag. 32. of Englands diſtemper: Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed. 3. Tis true, Mr. Love then was, and ſtill is of that mind, that thoſe who were the chief inſtruments to engage the King in the late bloody War ſhould be cut off, either by the ſword of the Law in a time of peace, or (if not reach them that way) by the law of the ſword in the time of war; and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defenſive arms, and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after; according to the fourth Article of the Covenant, wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne puniſhment, as the degree of their offence ſhall require or deſerve, or the ſupream Iudicatories reſpectively, or others having power from them for that effect ſhall judg convenient. Yet 4. M^r. Love doth well conſider, that in that very part of the Covenant, where we promiſe to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign puniſhment, we promiſe to preſerve the perſon of the King; as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea thoſe M^r. Love deems ſhould be brought to condigne puniſhment, whom the Covenant deſcribes to be malignants and evill inſtruments, viz. ſuch as hinder the Reformation of Religion, divide the King from his people (and have not you done that?) or p. 16one of the Kingdomes from another, or that make any factions or parties among the people, of all which your ſelfe, and the men you plead for, have been moſt notoriouſly guilty, as wel as the malignant; therefore deſerve to be brought to condign puniſhment as well as they.

As for that other paſſage of M^r. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote, I. P. pag. 9. l 24.It will ſearch to the quick, to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his ſon came to a timely death yea or no. It would, ear…h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed, and by whom; It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Iriſh Rebellion was not plotted, promoted, and contrived in England, and by whom. M^r. Love in his Englands Diſtemper. pag. 23.

To this I have 3 things briefly to anſwer for his vindication, viz. M^r. Loves deſire is, that the earth ſhould not cover the blood of the ſlain, but that the ſhedders of blood ſhould be all made manifeſt; he often wiſht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland, the Betrayers of the Proteſtants in Rotchell, the Conſpirators of King James or Prince Henrys death (if they did come to an untimely end) might be found out. 2. I demand of you, is there any clauſe in that Sermon, or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry, or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland? 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King (which he did not) yet there is not the leaſt intimation in all his Sermon, that you ſhould bring the King to Capitall puniſhment. Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly againſt cutting off the King, I ſhall produce anon a book of his long ſince in print, againſt that horrid attempt.

Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to aſſert ſeveral notorious falſities and untruths,…. P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12. as to inſtance, pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin, where you ſay the Agreement of the people, was the ſame for ſubſtance with that of the Armies, and declared againſt by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth—again you ſay, that one of the Souldiers was ſhot to death for promoting it, this is firſt a moſt notorious untruth; and ſecondly, a moſt injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man, the man that was ſhot to death, was not at all ſo much as queſtioned for promoting that Agreement; but being ſent with his Company by the Generall to New-caſtle, did with others p. 17make a mutiny, reſiſted and beat their Officers, tooke away the Colours from their Enſigne, beat him with his own Colours, for which this fellow that was ſh…t to death was condemned, &c.

Anſw. 1. You who are ſo pragmaticall as to faſten falſities and untruths upon the Miniſters, will ſhew your ſelf to be (I ſay not the father of lies, yet) a ſon of falſehood.

2. It ſeems you are put to your ſhifts, in ſearching out any accuſation againſt the ſubſcribers, for from their Repreſentation, you run to their Vindication, and leap as far as the ſixth page at once, and therein it ſeems can meet with nothing for your purpoſe in the body of their book, that you are forc't to pitch upon a ſmall marginal note; which I need not anſwer, yet I ſhall, and I hope clearly evidence that they ſpeak truly, but you falſly, for you ſay, it is ſaid in the marginall note, that the Agreement of the People, is the ſame for ſubſtance with the Agreement of the Army. I affirm 'tis true (though you ſay 'tis falſe:) I have compared the one and the other together, and find them for ſubſtance the ſame; only I muſt confeſſe, the late Agreement hath more pernicious paſſages in it then the former Agreement of the People had, which was voted by the Commons aſſembled in Parliament, 9. November, 1647. to be deſtructive to the being of Parliaments, and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome. And afterwards in December 17. 1647. there was an Ordinance of both Houſes, wherein it was ordained, that no perſon who contrived, abetted, perſwaded, or entred into that ingagement, called the Agreement of the People, ſhould bee capable of bearing office in the City of London, for the ſpace of one whole year.

The other falſity you would faſten upon the Marginall note, Pag. 12. lin. 10.is, that one of the Souldiers was ſhot to death for promoting of it. This you ſay is a moſt notorious untruth.

Anſw. To convince you that you (not the Miniſter) have ſpoken an untruth; I ſhal produce againſt you a threefold Teſtimony. 1. Of the Honorable Houſe of Commons, who on November 23. 1647. voted a Letter to be ſent to the Generall to give him thanks for the execution of that mutinous perſon, for promoting the Agreement of the People, and to deſire him to proſecute the examination of that buſineſſe to the bottome, p. 18and to bring ſuch guilty perſons as he ſhall think …it, to condign and exemplary puniſhment; now ſurely the Houſe of Commons then ſitting at Weſtminſter, was more likely to have true intelligence why the man was ſhot to death, then John Price could have at his ſhop in the Exchange.

2. Of the full Relation in print, having Gilbert Mabbots Imprimatur, pag. 5. of the proceedings of the Randezvouz (Nov. 15. 1647.) held in C…rkbuſh heath neer Ware, wherein 'tis fully declared, that for diſperſing ſundry ſcandalous and factious papers, as the Agreement of the People, &c. for this 3 of them were tryed and condemned to death, and one of them was ſhot to death at the head of a Regiment. Yea to give a third teſtimony, the Generall and divers of his Officers who acknowledged it, yea and did commit to ſafe cuſtody Col. Eyre and Major Scot, for abetting and promoting this Agreement; yea afterward did not the Generall write a Letter to the Parliament againſt Col. Rainsborow, who was the man that preſented this Agreement of the People to the Generall? Is not all this proof evident enough that the Generall and his Officers then did diſlike the Agreement of the People, and did put the man to death for promoting it? Yea I might quote a fourth teſtimony alſo, if it were of any credit, viz. Lilburne and his Agitators, who with one mouth have exclaimed againſt the Army, for voting that man (viz. White) to death. But ſuppoſe it were true, as you relate it in p. 12. that he was ſhot to death, for mutinying againſt his Enſign, and taking away his Colours from him, and beating him with his own Colours. What will this advantage you? I would ask you which deſerves death moſt, whether a Souldiers mutinying againſt an inferiour Officer, an Enſign, or the Armies mutiny againſt the Supream Councell the Parliament? Whether he that takes away the Colours from an Enſign, or they that take away the fundamentall laws from a Kingdom? Whether he that beats an Enſign with his own Colours, or they that offer violence to a Parliament, with their own ſwords? If you ſay, that 'twas not only for his mutinying againſt his Enſign, but againſt the Generall and his Officers Commands, who ordered him to goe to New-caſtle; If it were ſo. I would ask you but this one queſtion more, Whether doth deſerve death moſt, either he that p. 19diſobeyes a petty Councell of Warre, or they that diſobey the Parliament the great Councell of State?Pag. 14. l. 26.

Had you been ingenuous and candid, as you would ſeem to bee, you would have ſaid Nicholas Prophet Miniſter at Foſters, aliàs at Marlborough in Sommerſet-ſheet, and Stanley Gower Miniſter at Martins Ludgate, aliàs Paſtor of Dorcheſter in Dorſet-ſhire, &c.

Anſw. What poor cavills are theſe? I ſee you had rather wrangle then diſpute. To rectifie your miſtake about Mr. Prophet, let me tell you firſt, that he was never a Miniſter in Somerſetſhire, indeed he was about three years ſince Miniſter of Merlborough in Wilt-ſhire, but hath now left the place, and hath received not ſince that time any profit thence; beſides there is a Miniſter choſen by them now among them; Moreover, hee was fairly choſen Miniſter at Foſters, where ſtill hee is; now what blemiſh is it to the Miniſters ingenuity, if M^r. Prophet is ſaid to be Miniſter at Foſters? would you count it want of ingenuity in John Goodwin to call himſelf Paſtor of the Church at Swanalley, becauſe about three years ſince he was Miniſter of Stephens Colemanſtreet. And to inform you better about M^r. Gower; I muſt tell you that he was never ſetled at Dorcheſter, yea when the Letter was made hee was not fully reſolved to remove from Martins Ludgate to my knowledg; now was it not more proper for M^r. Gower to ſubſcribe himſelfe Miniſter of Martins Ludgate (where he had been ſo long) then of Dorcheſter where he was not then ſetled at all?

You ſtain your Reputation with the mention of Thomas Bedford Paſter of Martins Outwich, Pag 15. l. 7.carried from Plimouth for his notorious Delinquency, and worthily ſequeſtred for the ſame.

Anſw. 1. It ſeems you want ability to confute the matter ſubſcribed, that one while you muſt be forc't to exclaim againſt the perſons ſubſcribing, and at another time againſt a marginall note.

2. Whether M^r. Bedford is a Delinquent or ſequeſtred I know not, yet this I know that the Miniſters in a generall meeting did manifeſt their diſlike that any ſhould ſubſcribe the Letter or Vindication but ſuch as had owned the Parliament from the beginning.

3. Whether his name was ſubſcribed I know not, in the p. 20printed Copies which I have ſeen his name was not annexed, yea the Printer told me that to above 2000 Copies his name was not printed; how it came ſubſcribed hee could not give an account.

You ſtill inſiſt upon the Armies proceedings againſt the Members,P. 15. l. 31. which themſelves do acknowledg ſimply conſidered, irregular, and not juſtifiable but by honeſt intentions, and an extraordinary neceſſity for the ſame end leading them thereunto.

Anſw. 1. If the Army (who are but partiall Judges in their own caſe) are forc't to confeſſe their proceedings to be irregular and unjuſtifiable, may not indifferent Spectators ſay they are ſinfull and abominable?

2. Surely the Army are put to their ſhifts, when they are conſtrained to make honeſt intentions their main plea to juſtifie irregular actions; this was no good Divinity in Pauls time for any to ſay, Let us do evill that good may come, Rom. 3. 8. nor in the time of the Old Teſtament; Saul had, a good intention in offering a ſacrifice to the Lord (which was the Prieſts office, not his) yet his good intention could neither acquit him from ſin or puniſhment, 1 Sam. 13. v. 9. to 15. nor could it excuſe Saul that he had a good intention for the publick, viz. his zeal to the children of Iſrael and Judah, in ſtaying the Gibeonitel, whoſe lives by Covenant he ought not to take away, but the Lord puniſhed that iniquity upon his poſterity, though Sauls intentions were honeſt, 2 Sam. 21. 2. I could inſtance in Ʋzzah. 1 Chr. 13. 9, 10. and the men of Bethſhemeſh, 1 Sam. 6. 13, 14. 19, 20. with many others, to ſatisfie you, herein, that honeſt intenteons cannot juſtifie ſinfull actions. Beſides this plea were ſomewhat the more tolerable, if the intentions of the Army had been for publick good; but if we may gueſſe at their intentions by their own expreſſions in print, they will then appeare to bee more ſinfull, treaſonable, and irreligious. Were not their intentions expreſt in their Remonſtrance, Novemb. 16. 1648. and other papers of theirs, as againſt an accomodation with the King upon any tearms at all; p. 57. though never ſo ſafe or juſt, for the taking away the Kings life, p. 62. that the Prince and Duke of York be made incapable of government; that if they come not in & render themſelves, that they ſtand exiled for ever, p. 21dye without mercy, if ever found or taken in this Kingdome, pag. 62. that a Period be put to this Parliament, that the ſupream power be put into the hands of the people. pag. 65, 66. that in ſtead of this & all future Parliaments there may be a new kind of Repreſentative; that all profeſſing faith in God, ſhall have a Toleration whatever his opinion be; that the Magiſtrate meddle not with matters of Religion; theſe and ſuch like are the declared intentions of the Army, which muſt juſtifie all their irregular and unjuſtifiable procedings; by this it appears, that the ends they aim at are no more juſtifiable, then the means they uſe. Now whether ſuch intentions can juſtifie their irregular actions, let the world judg, ſo that I may ſay of them, as one did of men of the Popiſh Religion, if theſe bee Saints, who bee Scythians? if theſe be Catholicks, who be Caniballs?

3. For the extraordinary neceſſity the Army pleaded for, I have but three things to ſay in way of anſwer. 1. Tis apparent by what was mentioned before, that the end the Army aimed at, were no more juſtifiable then the means they uſed, now what can be more unreaſonable, then to make neceſſity a plea to juſtifie not only irregular actions, but corrupt ends alſo? 2. The godly in former ages had a more conſcientious tenderneſſe, then to make neceſſity a plea and patron of impiety; they thought it better to ſuffer the greateſt evill then to commit the leaſt ſin;Aug. in Pſ. 73.Ps 73 Ferenda eſt magis omnis neceſſitas, duam perpe…randa eſt aliqua iniquitas, ſaid Aug. in Pſ. 73. yea it was a Maxime among the primitive Chriſtiane,Tertul. Apol. Nulla eſt neceſſitas delinquendi, quibus una eſt neceſſitas non delinquendi. 3. I am of the ſame mind with the ſubſcribers,The ſerious Repreſentat. of the London Miniſters, p. 14. viz. that the neceſſity pleaded for, is either meerly pretended, or elſe contracted by their own miſſcarriages. And this I am induced to beleeve, becauſe at one time they plead a neceſſity, for treating with the King (as they confeſt in a Letter to the Houſe of Common…, July 18. 1647.) And at another time plead a neceſſity for their violence … the Parliament, becauſe they did … with the King, muſt not this be a pretended neceſſity? In one Remonſtrance, in June 23. 1647, they ſay, There can be no peace in this Kingdome … and laſting, without a proviſion for the Rights, Quiet; and … of His Majeſties Royall family. And in mother Remonstrance of November, p. 2216, 1648. they declare, that it can neither be juſt before God, nor ſafe for the Kingdom to have any accommodation with the King upon any terms at all, that ſhall imply His Reſtitution, &c. but that he muſt be brought to tryall and judgment, for treaſon and blood he was guilty of. Is not this ground ſufficient to ſuſpect that the neceſſity pleaded for, is but pretended or contracted, when they have done the quite contrary this year, to what they did the laſt, yet plead a neceſſity for doing of both, though never ſo contrariant the one to the other. So much at preſent to this plea of neceſſity; I ſhall have occaſion afterwards to ſpeak more to this point.

I obſerve by pag. 16, & 17. that you are not content to vent your paſſions againſt the Miniſters of London only; but alſo againſt the ſecluded and impriſoned Members of Parliament, whom you falſely accuſe for countenancing the tumultuous violence of the Apprentices, imbezling the 200000 l. appointed for the relief of Ireland, correſponding with the revolted ſhips, the Scots Army, and the Inſurrections in Kent, &c. For the taking off thoſe ſcandalls from thoſe renowned Gentlemen, I referre the Reader to that clear and ſatisfactory Vindication of the impriſoned and ſecluded Members of the Houſe of Commons, printed January 20. 1648. Hoping that the Lord will bring forth their righteouſneſſe as the light, and their juſt dealing as the noon day.

You have been as full of changes as the vannes of your ſteeples,I. P. pag. 18. l 9. one while ſtirring up the people againſt the King, and for the Parliament, witneſſe many of your Sermons, preacht before the Houſes, and elſewhere.

Anſw. 1. With what face dare you who have been toſſed to and fro with every wind of doctrin, accuſe ſo many grave and godly Miniſters of …ickleneſſe, who have ſtill kept their firſt ſtedfaſtneſſe, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left? Indeed you and your teachers have been as changeable as the Vannes, but the Miniſters of London as fixt and immoveable in their principles as the Steeples themſelves.

2. If you mean by ſtirring up the People againſt the King, and for the Parliament; that the miniſters did, being called thereunto, plead for the lawfulneſſe of defenſive arms againſt the King with his p. 23forces, this I grant; for they were bound by a Solemne Oath to aſſiſt the Forces raiſed by the Parliament, againſt the Forces raiſed by the King without their conſent. But if by ſtirring, up the people againſt the King, you mean the bringing of the King to capitall puniſhment, or the taking away of his life, then I flatly deny that any of the ſubſcribers did ſtirre up the people to that end, or that they have any books or Sermons in print to that purpoſe. I am ſure many of them in their Bookes and Sermons did expreſſe their utter abhorrency of any ſuch intendment. I'le inſtance but in two of the ſubſcribers (though I could mention many more) the one is M^r. Caſe, who though he were a zealous Anti-cavalieriſt, yet no Anti-caroliſt, in a Faſt Sermon before the Houſe of Commons 26. October. 1642. pag. 11, 12. hath theſe words. It is and hath been from ancient times the curſed policy of deſperate malignant Courtiers and Counſellors, when they would arme Princes and Potentates againſt the poore people of God, to poſſeſſe their ears and hearts with this prejudice, that they are enemies to Monarchy. With ſuch jealouſies did the enemies of God and his people in the neighbour Nation of Scotland labour to poſſeſſe his Majeſty towards thoſe his loyall Subjects there; they were repreſented to His Majeſty as Traitours and Rebels, that intended nothing elſe but to un-Crowne and un-King him, when power ſhall be in their own hand. And is not the ſame deſigne practiſed upon his faithfull Parliament and Subjects here in England? Do not theſe Rehums and Shim…hies fill his Royal ears with this odium, that the Parliament and the Puritans are enemies to Monarchy, and intend nothing but to bring all into a parity, and after they have pulled down Biſhops, then down with King too? with a world of ſuch calumnies invented by the father of lies; truely the Land is not able to beare their words. If M^r. Caſe then thought the Land could not beare ſuch words, blame him not though he be ſo pathetick and compaſſionate (as you ſay he was) that he cannot beare your deeds, in imbruing your hands with the bloud of your Soveraigne, as you affirme he ſaid.

Yea M^r. Love alſo, whom you ſlanderouſly report to be for cutting off the King, hath a booke in print neare two yeares ſince, entituled Works of darkneſſe brought to light, &c. wherein he doth clearly expreſſe himſelfe to the contrary, he having ſhewed that the deſigne of the Army was firſt to new mould the p. 24Houſe of Commons, next to deſtroy the Houſe of Lords, their third deſigne he laid downe in theſe words, viz. To cut off the King if he ſides not to the Independent party; 'tis true of late they ſeem to appeare for him to gaine Malignants on their ſide, but 'tis notoriouſly knowne how their principles are directly againſt Monarchy; what deſperate ſpeeches have ſome Independent Members uttered againſt the King, yea it will never be forgotten how inraged the Independent Members of the Houſe and Sectaries of London were againſt the City Remonſtrance, chiefly becauſe there was this paſſage in it, for the preſervation of the Kings perſon according to the Covenant. Yea the Sectaries publiſh to the world in print, that [the King for his miſgovernment muſt loſe his life—By this it appears that the Sectaries intend as the 32 Syrian Captains did, 1 King. 22. 31. to fight neither with ſmal nor great; but with the King of Iſrael. In laying downe this their deſign I would have none conceive as if I were a Malignant Royaliſt (I hate Arbitrary power and tyranny in Princes, as much as any) I onelyonly mention this that malignants might not be brought to fools Paradiſe to joine with the Army, as conceiving them to be for the Kings honour and ſafety, who are the greateſt enemies of both. Theſe are M^r. Loves own words, then he concludes with theſe verſes.

Malignants all beleeve this thing,

Sectarians would deſtroy the King,

Yea they do wiſh there might be none

For to ſucceed him on the Throne.

All this Mr. Love declared neare two years ſince, however you may account him a mean Preacher, yet I am ſure he was in this a true Prophet.

One while ſtirring up the People againſt the King,I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10. another while ſtirring up the People againſt the Parliament and for the King, as you did of late in your prayers and preaching expreſſing greater malignity againſt the Parliament, and their party, and greater zeale for the King and his intereſt, then thoſe very Miniſters whoſe places you poſſeſſe, they being ſequeſtred and caſt out for the Tenths of that Anti-parliamentary malignancy which you have vented.

Anſw. 1. 'Tis true they ſtirred up the people indeed (according to the Vow and Covenant) to aſſiſt the forces raiſed and continued by both Houſes of Parliament againſt the Forces raiſed by the King, but never ſtirred any up againſt the perſon of the King.

p. 252. As for the other part of your charge, that another while the Miniſters did ſtirre up the People againſt the Parliament, and for the King; this is ſo manifeſt a falſity, that the very mention is a ſufficient confutation of it.

3. For the laſt part of your charge, viz. that the Subſcribers expreſſe greater Malignity againſt the Parliament, and greater zeale for the King and his intereſt then thoſe very Miniſters whoſe places they poſſeſſe; this is ſo palpable a calumny that I ſhould have more adoe to hide and cover your folly, then to vindicate their innocency in this matter; Will not all that know the London Miniſters acquit them and blame you? could you not be contented to charge them with falſities, with the want of Miniſteriall abilities, and of that candor and ingenuity that becomes Miniſters, but muſt you now tax them with Malignancy alſo? yea were you not aſhamed to tell the world, that Malignant Miniſters were ſequeſtred for the Tenths of the Anti-parliamentary Malignancy which the London Miniſters vented? when you know that one century of ſequeſtred Miniſters is printed, and the reſt recorded, which will remaine a laſting monument of their ſhame and your falſhood. If you think as you write, in time you may become the Malignant Miniſters Advocate to have them brought into their places, and the godly Miniſters to be throwne out.

And now being come to pag. 19. of your booke, I cannot but give you notice wherein you diſcover palpable weakneſſe; for you ſet your ſelfe to anſwer what makes moſt for your eaſe (though not for your cauſe) you ſtand much upon circumſtantials, the Title page, a Marginall note, and ſuch like, but ſpeak not a word to the moſt grave, weighty and moſt material paſſages of the Repreſentation or vindication. This I can eaſily and plainely demonſtrate, for when the Miniſters did ſtrongly reaſon, that if the Kings comming to the Houſe of Commons to demand but five Members was deemed ſuch a horrid violation of the Parliaments Priviledges, that they thereupon Ordered that any perſon that did ſeize upon any Member of Parliament, was declared a publicke enemy of the Common-wealth: Then how might the Armies forcing the Parliament be aggravated by many more heinous circumſtances? yet you have not a word p. 24duplicate page p. 25duplicate page p. 26in way of cleare anſwer to this;…. P. p. 19. l. 8. all that you ſay is this. I …ay anſwer you that you never mentioned that Order of the Houſe in aggravating the Apprentices forcing the Houſe the laſt yeare, and to give you any other anſwer were but to beat the air, for we are like to hear no reply to it. Now to this ſ…eight and ſhallow anſwer of yours to that ſtrong and weighty objection of theirs, I have but four things …o ſay.

1. The Miniſters did ſufficiently declare againſt and aggravate the evill of that act of the Apprentices.

2. Suppoſe the Miniſters had not declared againſt that act of the Apprentices, yet doth that any way extenuate that act of the Army?

3. Whereas you ſay that to give any other anſwer were but to beat t…e aire, I'le ſay ſo too; I verily beleeve you had as good beat the aire as go about to juſtifie the Armies forcing the Houſe of Commons; and yet condemn the violence offered by the King at one time, and the Apprentices at another. For 1. the King demanded but 6. the Army impriſoned 42. ſecluded 100. and forc't away 100. Members more. 2. The King did take away none out of the Houſe; but that they Army did, they pulled out Mr. Stevens and Collonel Birch by force and violence out of the Houſe. 3. The King was one of the three States who together with the two Houſes was entruſted with the Supreame Authority of the Kingdome, but the Army can lay no legall claime to any ſuch authority. 4. The King relinqui…ht the proſecution of the Members, and promiſed to have a tenderneſs of the Parliaments Priviledges for the future, but the Army avowes the act and per…iſts in their force to this very day. Again for the violence offred by the Apprentices, on July, 26. 1647. (though I goe not about to extenuate it, yet conſider, 1. They came unarmed to the Houſes, the Army came in a Hoſtile manner. 2. They pulled none of the Members out of the Houſe, but the Army plucked M^r. Stevens, and Col. B…rch out of the Houſe where they were doing their Countrey ſervice. 3. They hindred none of the Members from comming to fit in the Houſe, but the Army excluded and kept by force above a hundred Members from …itting in the Houſe. 4. They when they heard of an O…der forbidding …hem to co… to Weſtminſter, the next day did p. 27deſiſt, & did ſo no more; but the Army perſiſts in what they have done to this very day. If theſe things were compared together, John Price had as good b…at the air, yea his brains too againſt the wall, as to goe about to juſtifie that unparalleld violence offered the Parliament by the Army, yet condemne a leſſer violence offered by the King and the Apprentices.

4. Whereas you ſay, you are like to hear no Reply to it. I would ask you, did you think your ſelf ſuch a ſtout champion, and potent Goliah, that none durſt come forth and encounter with you▪ The reaſon why you have had no Reply ſooner, wa…, that ſome wiſe men eſteem your ſelf ſo unworthy, and your book ſo weak, that neither deſerves an anſwer. I am almoſt perſwaded you did not look for a Reply, if you had, ſurely you would never have written ſo rawly, weakly, falſely, and inconſiderately as you have done, ever and anon expoſing your nakedneſſe to the laſh of any adverſary that ſhould deal with you.

Suppoſing that when Argument,I. P. p. 20. l. 34. Scripture and reaſon cannot helpe you, yet the Proteſtation, Vow and Covenant will do it, theſe like the Egyptian reeds run into your …ides▪ and do no ſervice at all for you, but diſcover your nakedneſſe.

Anſw. 1. There is a ſufficiency in ſcripture and reaſon to juſtifie them, and condemne you; now if ex abundanti they can plead the Proteſtation, the Vow, the League and Covenant alſo, this makes their cauſe more ſtrong, and yours more weak.

2. If theſe ſacred oaths were well conſidered, it will appear they are as pillars of Marble, on which the Miniſters ſafely ſtand, but like Egyptian reeds run into your ſides, and cauſe the ſhame of your nakedneſſe to bee made manifeſt.

You begin with the Proteſtation; I. P. p. 21. l. 6.whereby (you ſay) wee are tyed to His juſt Authority, and not abſtractively to His Perſon, if acting contrary to his juſt Authority; and that the Proteſtation i… complex… for the priviledges of the Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, as well as the Perſon of the King; if the Perſon of the King be ingaged againſt the priviledges of the Parliament, or Liberties of the Subjects, the Proteſtatio… cannot be obligatory.

Anſw. 1. I ſee you are a pregnant ſcholar in the Jeſuites ſchool, you have learnt their Art of Equ…vocation, and Mentall p. 26duplicate page p. 27duplicate page p. 28reſervation, in all that you ſay or ſwear; an oath hath no more hold upon your conſcience, then a looſe collar about an Apes neck, which hee can put on and off at pleaſure.

2. Why did not you tell the world this your mentall reſerve, that if the King did any thing contrary to his juſt authority, that then the Proteſtation was not obligatory, but you might deſtroy His Perſon?

3. The Proteſtation did bind us to preſerve the Kings Perſon according to the duty of our Allegiance; wherein you ſwore, …ad the Oath of Allegiance.to defend the KINGS PERSON, and that oath you took according to the expreſſe words, and their plain and commonſenſe, without any Equivocation, or mentall Evaſion, or ſecret Reſervation whatſ…ever.

4. It ſeems you your ſelfe did once deem the Proteſtation to be obligatory, in reference to the Kings perſon, notwithſtanding Hee ſhould act contrary to His juſt authority; for long after the Perſon of the King was ingaged againſt the priviledges of Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, in demanding the 5 Members, ſetting up His Standard, and in His own Perſon ingaging in a War againſt His Subjects; yet I ſay after all this, in your Spirituall Snapſack. pag. 8. you tell the Parliaments Souldiers, that without all contradictions they did fight for the King, to reſcue him out of the …ands of Malignants, and re-inſtate him in his Royall Throne, &c. With what an impudent face, and traiterous heart can you at one time plead for the Souldiers to bring the King to a dolefull ſcaffold, when at another time you tell the Souldiers they fight to re-inſtate Him in His Royal throne?

5. Yea the Lords and Commons aſſembled in Parliament (who are the beſt interpreters of the Proteſtation) declared that notwithſtanding▪ His Majeſties Proclamations againſt their Generall and Army as Traytors,Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879. yet they will preſerve His Majeſties Perſon and Cr…wn from all dangers, yea that they would ſuffer farre more for and from their Soveraign, then they hoped God would ever permit the malice of His wicked Counſellors to put them to: yea when the Houſes were taxt that their intent was to murder and depoſe the King, Exact Collect. p. 2…8. 695. 657. 991.they declared, that the thoughts of it never entred, nor ſhould enter into their Loyall hearts, and they hoped the Contrivers of theſe ſcandalou… p. 29reports, or any that profeſſed the name of a Chriſtian, could not have ſo little charity as to raiſe ſuch a ſcandall, eſpecially when they muſt needs know the Proteſtation made by the Members of both Houſes; wherby they promiſe in the preſence of Almighty God, to defend & preſerve his Majeſties Perſon. By al which it appears, both Houſes thought the Proteſtation obligatory (though you doe not) touching the defence of the Kings Perſon, notwithſtanding His doing many acts contrary to His juſt Authority, to the priviledges of Parliament, or Liberties of the People.

6. When the Trained-bands & Seamen of London did wear the Proteſtation in their hats, & on their pikes, ingaging themſelves to King and Parliament, can it be imagined that they had this mental reſervation, that if the King ſhould go about to infringe the priviledges of Parliament, or liberties of the People, they were no longer bound to preſerve His Perſon, but might cut off His head? Had you then made this Paraphraſe upon the Proteſtation, you ſhould have loſt your head, and not the King His.

But you go on. I. P. p. 22. l. 12.We are bound (ſay you) by this Proteſt…tion to maintain and defend the King, Parliament and People, ſo farre a… lawfully we may, which referres unto the manner of this defence; while the King was in Perſon againſt the Parliament, we were by this Proteſtation to defend the Parliament and People, though with the …azard of the King; if the King and Parliament ſhould ingag… againſt the People, we are by the ſame reaſon tyed to preſerve the People, though with the …azard of both.

Anſw. 1. I told you but even now, both Houſes of Parliament did hold themſelves bound by the Proteſtation to preſerve the Kings Perſon (as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned) even after the King had ingaged in perſon againſt the Parliament as wel as before, ſo that your limitation of the Proteſtation to ſuch a period of time is invalid. 2. Tis true the Proteſtation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament,The King confeſt it in His … Anſwer to the 19 Propoſitions of Iune, 1642. that there is power legally in the two Houſes of Parliament to reſtrain Him from Tyranny. as if they could not legally withſtand any Forces to be raiſed by the King againſt Parliament & Kingdom, but only by it they were bound p. 28duplicate page p. 29duplicate page p. 30up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Perſon of the King; yea to manifeſt that they had no evill intention to His Maj…ſties Perſon, when they choſe the Lord of Eſſex to be General, & raiſed an Army under his conduct, before any blow was given, they ſent a humble Petition to the King, to be preſented by the Lord Generall, That His Majeſty would not put His Royall Perſon in danger, but remove Himſelf from His Army, and come in perſon to His Parliament, where he ſhould be ſure to remain in honour and ſafety. So that if the King would indanger His Perſon in being in the head of his Army, 'twas He that put himſelf upon hazard, the Parliament ſtil declared, their hands ſhould not be upon Him to offer Him any violen…e.

3. And whereas you ſay in the laſt place, that if the King and Parliament ſhould ingage againſt the People, we are by the ſame reaſon tyed to preſerve the People, though with the hazard of b…h. Certainly your ſpeech bewraies you; you that once utterd language of Loyal…y in your Snapſack, can ſpeak nothing but Levelling language now; you are not a friend either to King or Parliament, unleſſe they will patronize your party, and favour your faction, though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome beſides. But I would ask you, (and pray reſolve me in the next) Who are the moſt competent judges to determine what is for the good, or what for the hurt of the people? if you ſay King and Parliament; why did you not acquieſce in their judgments, in their late tranſactions of the Treaty, tending to the ſettlement of the Kingdome? but if you ſay your Soveraign Lords the People, then why doe you not give them their power, and put it to the ſuffrages of all the People of this Nation, whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People; or whether what the Army did both againſt King and Parliament, bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole; if you would leave them to bee Judges, there is a hundred to one that would give ſentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army; Alas! what tyrannicall Uſurpers are you? a few Members in the Houſe of Common… (when 200 are forc't away) muſt rule King and Lords; the people muſt rule the Houſe of Commons, and the Army muſt rule the people? have not you brought the Kingdom p. 31to a fine paſſe, that in ſtead of having it governed by the Lawes which ſhould adminiſter an equall right to all, the Land ſhould be overruled by the ſword, which wil give right to none, neither King, Parliament, or People?

Have you neit…er for hope or fear,I. P. p. 24 l. 6. nor other reſpect relinquiſht this Proteſtation? How is it th…n that you are ſo ſhuff…ing, changing, and uncertain, for the King and againſt the King, for the Parliament and againſt the Parliament, for the Army and againſt the Army, for juſtice and againſt juſtice, &c?

Anſw. 1. The Reverend Miniſters are ſtil the ſame they were, 'tis you and your Teacher (who hath made you to erre) are the ſhufflers and changelings;I. P. His Snapſack, p. 8. one while for the King, to re-inſtate to his Throne, another while againſt the King, to bring Him to the ſcaffold;Iohn Goodwin Anticaval. p. 6. one while that it is the juſt Prerogative of the Perſons of Kings, in what caſe ſoever to be ſecure from the violence of men, and the…r lives to he as conſecrated corn, meet to be reapt & gathered only by the hand of God. Yet at another time, that the axe of the Executioner muſt cut off the King, or cut down this conſecrated corn: let the world judge who are ſhufflers or changelings, the Miniſters or you?

2. I grant that Miniſters were for the King and againſt the King; but in this ſenſe, for the Perſon of the King, never againſt it; and againſt the forces of the King, never for them; I hope this will not make them Changelings.

3. I yeild the ſubſcribers are for the Parliament and againſt the Parliament, but clearly in this ſenſe: for the Parliament when they ſit free and ful, although they ſhould expreſſe frailty as men, yet would the ſubſcribers live ſubmiſſively as become… Miniſters. And if you mean nothing but this, when you ſay, the Miniſters are againſt the Parliament; viz. that they cannot in their Conſciences beleeve, that the Members ſitting at Weſtminſter are a free Parliament, ſeeing they are under the power of the ſword, nor a full Parliament; in regard above 200 Members of it are forc't away; nor a compleat Parliament, when two States are aboli…ht, viz. King and Lords, if only in this ſenſe, you ſay they are againſt the Parliament, I ſhall not contend with you.

4. I grant further that the Miniſters were for the Army and againſt p. 32the Army; yet only in this ſenſe, for the Army whileſt obedient to the Parliaments commands, and followed their directions, but againſt them when they did diſpute the Parliaments Authority and diſobey their commands; for the Army whiles they uſed the ſword to ſubdue Malignants in arms▪ but againſt them when they uſed the ſword to cut off the King and force the Parliament. And have not the Miniſters cauſe to be againſt them in regard they go againſt thoſe ends,Vid. the Ord, of P…rl. 15. of Febr. 1644. as the firſt raiſing the Army under Sir. T. Fairfax. for which they were firſt raiſed? For that Ordinance by which this new Mod…ld Army was raiſed under the Lord Fairfax was for the def…nce of the King and Parliament, the true Proteſtant Religion, the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome, and to be from time to time ſubject to ſuch orders and directions as they ſhall receive from both Houſes of Parliament.

5 I yeild in the laſt place that the Miniſters are for juſtice and againſt juſtice; for juſtice on chiefe delinquents, that they may be brought to condigne puniſhment as the degree of their offences ſhall require or deſerve, or the Supreame Judicatories of both kingdomes reſpectively, or others having power from, for that effect ſhall judge convenient; yea are they againſt the trying, condemning, and ekecuting the King; which is that which you call juſtice: this kinde of juſtice the Miniſters are againſt; and had they not reaſon? becauſe the Parliament declared to the whole world, that one end of the warre was to bring Delinquents to condigne puniſhment, yet to preſerve the perſon of the King. And thus I have given you an anſwer touching the Proteſtation;Pag. 23. lin. 3. as you conclude about it, ſo will I. Now let the World judge who it is that doth violate this Proteſtation ſo as you d…e. I come in the next place to examine whether the Vow and Covenant ſpeaks for the Miniſters, or againſt them.

Where as you mention the▪ Vow and Covenant you might have indeed ſhewed your ingenuity and candor becoming Miniſters of the Goſpe…,I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14. to have taken notice of that which was the maine end of that Vow and Covenant contained in thoſe words, that I will according to my power and vocation aſſiſt the forces raiſed and continued by both houſes of Parliament againſt the force raiſed by the King without their conſe…t; have you performed this vow?

Anſw. … The Miniſters have not been wanting in that ingenuity p. 33which becomes Miniſters of the Goſpell even in the main end of the Vow and Covenant, for they have according to their power and vocation, aſſiſted the forces raiſed and continued by both Houſes of Parliament, againſt the Forces raiſed by the King, without their conſent. Now becauſe the Subſcribers will not aſſiſt the ſaid Forces againſt the Parliament, as they did once aſſiſt them againſt the Forces raiſed by the King, muſt they be accounted tranſgreſſ…urs or breakers of their vow?

2 You might have ſhewed that ingenulty that becomes a Chriſtian to have taken notice of the grounds or motives why the Vow and Covenant was made, viz. becauſe there was a horrid and treacherous deſigne to ſurprize the Cities of London and Weſt…inſter, with the Suburbs, and by arms to force the Parliament, therefore the Lords and Commons thought fit that all who are true hearted and lovers of their Country ſhould bind themſelves each to other in a ſacred Vow and Covenant, wherein we declared our abhorrency and deteſtation of the ſaid wicked and treacherous deſigne, and that according to our power and vocation would oppoſe and reſiſt the ſame and all other of the like nature. So that by the Vow and Covenant it appeares the Miniſters were bound according to their power and vocation to oppoſe and reſiſt the Armies forcing the Parliament as well as the former attempt of Malignants by arms to force the Parliament, they being both of the like nature.

3 Yea you would have ſhewed your ingenuity to have taken notice that the Vow bindes to aſſiſt onelyonly ſuch Forces as are raiſed and c…ntinued by both Houſes of Parliament, not ſuch Forces as are raiſed by both Houſes but continue longer then both Houſes would have them; Now the Forces (I mean the Army) raiſed by the Parliament are continued longer then both Houſes of Parliament thought fit to continue them. For they would have disbanded them (unleſs 9000) in May 1647. & they are continued untill March 1649. and God knowes how much longer yet they may continue to be an oppreſſion to the people. To conclude this, I would aske you whether in caſe the Earle of Eſſex his Army, the Lord of Mancheſter's, Sir William Waller's, and Major Generall Maſſie's Souldiers, who were all raiſed by the Parliament, had refuſed to disband when the Parliament p. 34did command them, and had continued in arms together longer then the Parliament thought fit to continue them, I pray reſolve me in your next whether the Vow and Covenant did oblige thoſe that had taken it to aſſiſt and defend thoſe Forces; if not, then how can you accuſe Miniſters that they have broken their Vow in not aſſiſting the Army, who though they were raiſed by both Houſes, yet have continued longer in arms then both Houſes were willing to continue them.

4 Wee were all bound by the Vow and Covenant to aſſiſt the Forces raiſed and continued by both Houſes of Parliament againſt the Forces raiſed by the King, but not againſt the perſon of the King, the priviledges of the Parliament, &c. Now to aſſiſt any Forces whatſoever in oppoſition unto thoſe juſt ends for which they were firſt raiſed, would have involved us in the guilt of the greateſt perjury imaginable. And that the Army raiſed by the Parliament went directly contrary to thoſe juſt ends for which they were firſt raiſed, is eaſily demonſtrable. For …. the Army was raiſed for the defence of the Kings perſon, and they have deſtroyed his perſon. 2. For the preſervation and defence of Religion, and they have endangered Religion, by pleading for a licentious toleration. 3. For the priviledges of Parliament, and they have offered ſuch an unparalleld violation of their Priviledges as the like hath not been heard. And now tell me whether the Proteſtation and Vow be not as Aegyptian reeds to runne into your ſides when you leane on them. I come in the third place to examine whether the Solemne League and Covenant will ſtand you in any better ſtead then the Proteſtant Vow and Covenant hath done. You ſay,

When Scripture,I. P. p. 26. l. 3. reaſon, civility, juſtice, and honeſty leave you, you make the Solemne League and Covenant to goe along with you, uſing it as you do the holy Scriptures themſelves, diſpoſſeſſing them of their true, naturall and genuine meaning, and (as Satan once aſſumed Satans body to d…ceive) you ſpirit them with your owne opinion.

Anſw. 1. Is it not enough for you to walke in the Counſell of the ungodly, and ſtand in the way of ſinners, but will you ſit in the ſeat of the ſcornfull alſo? what contemptuous and contumelious calumnies are theſe which you caſt on the grave, godly, and learned Miniſters of London? could it not ſuffice p. 35your ſcornfull and revengefull heart, to ſay that ſcripture, juſtice, and reaſon had left them, but impudently to affirme that civility and common honeſty had left them alſo? The Lord rebuke thee, thou falſe and deceitfull tongue.

2 Whereas you ſay they do diſpoſſeſſe the Scriptures of their true, naturall and genuine meaning, all that I ſhall ſay is this, if you had named the men who, the place where, the time when, and what particular part of the Scripture that is which they have diſpoſſeſſed of its true naturall and genuine meaning, I ſhould then have been ready to have given you a fuller anſwer, but 'tis your manner to raiſe a generall ſlander when you have no particular proofe.

3 You ſay further that they uſe the Covenant as they do the holy Scriptures, vi…. pervert the true, naturall and genuine meaning of it, but how, or wherein, or againſt whom can you evidence this? they do not as you do, lay the Covenant on the racke of a tortured miſinterpretation,See Teſtimony to the tr…h… of Chriſt by the Miniſters of London p. 28. forcing it to ſpeake what it never meane. The Miniſters did formerly declare that neither the Covenant, nor any other O…th is otherwiſe to be interpreted then according to the common, plaine, and true grammaticall ſenſe of it.

By your example are all contrary parties taught to plead the Co…enant,I. P. p. 27. l. 1…. thoſe you call Sectaries, Schiſmaticks, &c. plead the Covenant, eng…ging each to go before others in matters of Reformation, the Presbyt…rian pleads Covenant engaging conformity with the Church of Scotland; the Parliamenteer pleads Covenant engaging to pre…erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament; the Royaliſt pleads Covenant engaging to defend the Kings Majeſties perſon and authority; the Armiſts plead Covenant engaging to preſerve the Liberties of the Kingdome, &c. So that you have made the Covenant a meere contradi…ious thing, &c.

Anſw. 1. I wiſh all contrary parties would plead Covenant and keep Covenant according to the good example of the Miniſters.

2. Becauſe all contrary parties do plead the Covenant to different ends, muſt it needs be charged on the Subſcribers that they make th… Covenant a contradictious thing? becauſe Prebyterian plead Scripture to warrant Presbyteriall Government, and Papi…s, Prelates, Eraſtians, Seekers, and Independents p. 36plead Scripture too, to warrant quite contrary wayes, muſt the Presbyterians beare all the blame that they make the Scripture a contradictious thing?

3. 'Tis you and your party (not the Miniſters) who make the Covenant a contradictious thing: the Covenant tyes to preſerve the Kings perſon, yet you plead Covenant to deſtroy his perſon: the Covenant bindes to preſerve the priviledges of Parliament, yet you plead Covenant to deſtroy their priviledges: the Covenant engageth to extirpate Hereſie and Schiſme, and you plead Covenant to tolerate them: the Covenant binds to preſerve the Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland, and you plead Covenant to cry up your owne kinde of Diſcipline and Government, and c…ie downe theirs: the Covenant ties us to endeavour after an Uniformity in Religion, and forme of Church Government, and you plead Covenant to allow men to be what Religion they liſt, and ſet up what forme of Church Government they pleaſe. Now let the world judge who makes the Covenant a contradictious thing, or (to uſe your owne phraſe) like unto one of the Diabolicall Oracles of the Heathens to ſpeake nothing certain, but ambigui…ies.

4. I wiſh you would conſider that the Malignants and you are equally partiall in the Covenant, they cry out againſt S…hiſme and Hereſie, but not ſo zealous againſt Prophaneneſſe and Prelacy; they cry up the preſervation of the Kings perſon, but not a word for the priviledges of Parliament▪ and are not you altogether as partiall? you cry out againſt malignity▪ but not a word againſt Schiſm and Hereſie, (though the Covenant is expreſly againſt both,) you cry up the Liberties of the people, but not a word for the preſervation of the Kings perſon, and the priviledges of the Parliament, though engaged by the Covenant to the one as well as to the other. But the Godly Miniſters were impartiall in the Covenant of their God, they held themſelves bound. in their places and callings to oppoſe Malignity as well as Hereſie, to defend the Kings perſon and the Parliaments priviledges as well as the Peoples Liberties; in fine they hold themſelves engaged to one thing in the Covenant as to another.

p. 37But you goe on. I. P. pag. 28. l. 8.The obligation (ſay you) is for the preſervation of His perſon and Authority. Not for his perſon ſimply, but his perſon and Authority; if both come in competition, then the greater is to bee preferd before the leſſe, that is, his authority before his perſon.

Anſw. I have anſwered this cavil when I cleared the Proteſtation from your groſſe miſtakes▪ I ſhall ſay therefore the leſſe here. I have but three things to ſay, by way of anſwer; viz.

1. Tis to be obſerved when the Covenant was made, not before the King had done acts contrary to his juſt authority, but long after the King had ſet up His ſtandard, declared both Houſes Traitors, and engaged in perſon in the head of His Army, yet I ſay after all this the Parliament thought fit to make this Covenant, to preſerve his perſon, that all the world might bear witneſſe with their Conſciences, of their Loyalty, and that they had no thoughts or intentions to diminiſh His Maj…ſties juſt power and greatneſſe.

2. I would as…, why would you take the Covenant to preſerve the Kings perſon, even then when His perſon & authority ſtood more in competition then afterward they did? for then He was in the Head of an Army, but ſince caſt himſelf on His people; then unwilling to yeeld to any reaſonable terms, but ſince offred more for the Parliaments ſafety & peoples good (though I wiſht hee had yeelded to more) then ever any Prince that ſate upon the Engliſh Throne.

3 Is it not moſt inequitable that you ſhould… take away the life of the King becauſe His perſon and authority ſtood in competition, and yet you and your faction the only men that hindred the Kings perſon and authority from a conjunction with His two Houſes of Parliament? The truth is, the Kings perſon, and the Armies deſignes ſtood both in competition; and therefore they muſt deſtroy the one to carry on the other. If the King in perſon would have had ingaged in a combination or conjunction with the Armies Counſels▪ all the blood that had been ſpilt, or the evills that Hee had done would have been forgotten, you would not once have muttered that his perſon and authority had then ſtood in any … Competition.

But you plead,I. P. p. 28. l. 37. that the Covenant binds us to preſerve His Perſon p. 38in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion; true Religion doth not ſay, if the Subject do kill and murder, &c. he ſhall be …o and …o puniſht, but if the King do theſe things… he muſt not be medled withall by any but God alone; true Religion ſaith, he that ſhed mans blood, by man ſhall his blood be ſhed, the murderer ſhall ſurely be put to death; if then the King be a murderer, true Religion commands that h…e bee put to death.

Anſw. 1. Was the Kings perſon, and Religions preſervation ſo inconſiſtent, that there was no way to preſerve the one, but by deſtroying the other? I am ſu…e the death of the King was a ſtain to Religion, I am not ſo ſure that his life would have been ſuch a wound to it; whether purpoſes were in his heart to alter it, I know not, yet if power were not in his hands, how could Religion be indangered?

2. If true Religion doth not ſay, if the King kill or ſteal, &c he muſt not be medled withall by any but by God alone; then ſurely John Goodwin muſt be of a falſe Religion, for he ſaid, …hn Goodwin Anticav. p. 11.Tis the juſt Preregative of the Perſons of the Kings, in WHAT CASE SOEVER, to he ſecure from the violence of men, and th…ir lives to be as conſecrated Corn, meet to be reapt and gat…ered ONLY by the band of God himſelfe.

3. The King had ſpilt much blood (by His Forces, for I know of none kill'd by His own hands) at Edgehill, and many other places,I. P. His Snapſack, p. 8. long before you made your Spirituall Snapſa…k, yet you told the Souldiers that without Contradiction they did fight for the King, to reſcue his Royal Perſon out of the hands of Malignants, and re-inſtate Him in His Royal Throne and dignity; if true Religion commands that the King ſhould be put to death, what Religion then were you of when you ſaid the contrary?

4. Whereas you af…irm, that if the King be a murderer, true Religion commands that Hee be put to death. To this I have 3 things to ſay. 1. Tis unknown to mee, that ever the King murdered any in His own Perſon, what blood was ſpilt, was in a Military way, wherein he did conteſt for His ſeeming right. 2. The word of God which is the rule and ſtandard of true Religion, doth not afford one inſtance, that ever any King was judicially tryed or put to death for the ſpilling of blood. 3. If you ſtand ſo preciſely upon this, that the murderer ſhal ſurely, be p. 39put to death, th…n are you bound to put every man to death, that bore Arms for the King; they were guilty of blood as well as Hee, yea was not the Lord Goring, and Sir John Owen guilty of death? if ſo (according to your Principles) did not true Religion command you to put them to death as well as the King?

If Kings may be dealt withall in a judiciary way,I. P. p. 30. …. 17. why are they ſo angry that the late King was brought to condigne puniſhment? if they ſay no Court by the Lawes of the Land had any auth…rity to judge Him, then it would he worth our enquiring, whether every man, even to the laſt man left, was not bound to lay his hands upon him, for the murtherer muſt not be ſuffered to live, but muſt ſurely be put to death, the land muſt not be defiled and polluted with blood.

Anſw. 1. If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way, &c. here you beg the queſtion, taking that for granted, which was denyed by the ſubſcribers; had you produced any one inſtance in the Word, that any Kings were judicially tryed and put to death by their Subjects; or that there is any known Law of this l…nd, that the Kings of England ſhould be arraigned and executed, it would the more advantage your cauſe.

2. Becauſe you ask, why were the Miniſters ſo angry, that the late King what brought to condignpuniſhm…nt? I muſt anſwer you, they expreſt no anger, but a holy indignation againſt ſo horrid a fact, and had they not reaſon? Conſidering, 1. That o…e end of the War was to preſerve the Kings perſon. 2. Many ſ…bſequent O…th…, Proteſtations and Declarations of the Parl…ament for the preſervation of His perſon alſo. 3. He was the f…ſt Proteſ…ant King in the world, ſo put to death by His own S…ject…. 4. That you could not put to death the King of England, but muſt kil the King of Scotland and Ireland alſo, who had as tru… right in Him as their King, as this Kingdom had. 5. That Hee had granted more for the good of the Kingdome, then any King that ſa…e upon …he Engliſh thron▪ 6 The houſe of Commons if free and full (which now they are not) have no power to take away the life of any man, much leſle the li…e of the King; if they cannot adminiſter an Oath, how can they take away the life of any man? ſeeing no man … but by the oath of two or… three witneſſes. Theſe and ſuch like conſiderations might ſtir up a holy p. 40indignation in the Miniſters againſt bringing the King to capitall puniſhment.

3. If the Miniſters ſay there is no Court by the laws of the land that hath any authority to judg the King, (then ſay you) it would he worth our inquiring after, whether every man even to the laſt man left, was not bound to lay his hand…, upon him. All I ſhall ſay to this inquiry of yours, is to propoſe to you 3 other enquiries, viz. 1. Whether was every man in Iſrael, even to the laſt man, bound to kill Saul a bloody King? if you anſwer affirmatively, I am ſu…e you anſwer falſly, for David ſaid, who can ſtretch forth his hand againſt him and bee guiltleſſe?1 Sam. 26. 9.1 Sam 26:9 2. If the Adulterer by the law of God was to bee put to death as well as the murderer, and there is no Court by the laws of the Land that hath authority to put him to death, whether is every man in the land even to the laſt bound to lay hands upon the Adulterer? if you ſay yea, I am ſure ſome of your greateſt Grandees would not be long lived; if you ſay no, tell me a reaſon why you hold your ſelf bound to do ſo to the one and not unto the other. 3. If it be true that it is not the condemnation but the execution of blood-guilty perſons that makes ſatisfaction for the blood they ſpilt, and keeps the land from being defiled, then I demand whether every man in the nation (according to your principles) is not bound to lay their bands upon the Lord Goring, and Sir John Owen, to put them to death, ſeeing thoſe that are in power will not doe it? I might adde a fourth enquiry, viz. to know whence you had this notion, that if Courts of Judicature will not put a Murderer to death, that then every man even to the laſt man is bound to do it… I am ſure the Scripture affords you no ſuch notion; Paul puts the ſword only into the hand of the Magiſtrate, and ſaith, that he is the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13. 4.Rom 13:4a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill. If this looſe Principle of yours ſhould take place, that any man may kill a Murderer, if the Magiſtrate doth not; I fear there would be a hundred murders committed by private men, before one will be legally puniſht by the publick Magiſtrate. Pareus hath a good note on thoſe words;Pareus on Gen. 9. 6.Gen 9:6 He that ſheddeth mans blood, by man ſhall his blood be ſhed. Ʋt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem, non ſane quemvis, ſed gladio divinitus armatum, p. 41hoc eſt per magiſtratum; alioqui homicidiorum licentia daretur in immenſum ſi interſiciendi homicid as poteſt as cuivit eſſet; that is, that the murderer be put to death by ma…, tis not meant truely by every man, but by him that is armed by God with the ſword, that is, by the Magiſtrate; elſe a Licence of murder would be given beyond all meaſure, if the power were in the hands of any one to kill the Murderer. But to end this; by what you have here ſaid, I do plainly pe…ceive, that if no body would have put King Charles to death, you would have been the Executioner.

You goe on, I. P. pa. 31. l. 27.That the people (ſay you) ought to puniſh… their King according to their demerits, hath been the declared judgment of many Proteſtant Divines.

Anſw. Before I come to clear thoſe Authours alledged by you in particular; I ſhall give you theſe advertiſements (about your quotations) in the generall.

1. Many of the authors you quote do you belie in affirming that they plead for the killing of Kings by their Subjects, which they never did: thus you wrong …ez…, Zuinglius, Pareus, Mr. Rutherford, M^r. Pryn and M^r. Love; as I ſhall evidently make appeare anon.

2. In your liſt of Proteſtant Divines, I find one Popiſh Prieſt, whom you cal Junius Brutus, aliàs Parſons the Jeſuit, as I ſhall prove when I come to anſwer your allegation of him.

3. I have good reaſon to beleeve that you borrowed moſt of your quotations not from the Authors themſelves,See a Booke …ntituled the image of both Churches Ieruſal…m and Baby lon by P. D. M. but from a Popiſh writer (ſuppoſed to be Toby Matthews) his lies and ſlanders againſt Proteſtant Divines you take up for undoubted truths. He railes on Bez… p. 82. and ſaith that the book entituled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus was his, p. 105. & againſt Zuinglius, p. 81. & p. 115. againſt Knox, p. 134. and Goodman his aſſociate, p. 134. brands Pareus in p. 225. rails on the Wieliffs and Waldenſes, p. 250. Theſe are moſt of the Authours quoted by you, whom he repreſents unto the world, as Rebells againſt, & murderers of Kings & Princes; yea doth impudently affirm, that the Proteſtants have depoſed more Kings in 60. years; then was by the means of Catholicks in 600. Ibid. p. 226. Now is it for your credit to gather ſuch broken ſcraps, and tortured collections from ſo infamous an Author? That which induceth p. 40duplicate page p. 41duplicate page p. 42me to beleeve that you had theſe quotations not from the Authors themſelves, but from that Popiſh writer, is this. 1. In reading thoſe Authors I find ſome of them to be of a quite contrary mind to that which you alledg them for. 2. Thoſe very men, and that matter almoſt in terminis is quoted by that Popiſh writer; and may not this give ſome ground to beleeve what I aſſert?

4 You muſt needs be put to a penury of proofs, when you pretend to alledg Proteſtant Divines, yet among them mention M^r. Prynne a Lawyer but no Divine, and Junius Brutus a Jeſuite but no Proteſtant; ſurely either your memory muſt be ſhort, or your reading but ſmall.

5. In ſome of your quotations you only name the men, but do not mention the page where ſuch a paſſage is to be found. Thus you deal with Zuinglius, Pareus, Dudly, Fenner, and Rutherford; which makes me think you never read their books, or elſe that you intended to pervert their words, and put your Reader to more pains before hee ſhall find out your abuſe of the Authors.

6. Though ſome of the Authors alledged ſpeak high of puniſhing Tyrannicall and idolatrous Kings, yet none of them (unleſſe the Jeſuite, under the name of Junius Brutus) ever gave the leaſt intimation of ſpilling the blood of a Proteſtant King.

7. One ſolid Argument had ſtood you in more ſtead then a hundred quotations; not mens ſayings, but their reaſons are to be regarded.

8. There is no opinion ſo groſſe, but there may be ſome particular men who will labour to maintain it; tis true, ſome particular men may plead for the putting of Kings to death, but is this the received opinion or declared judgment of any of the Reformed Churches? could you ſhew that (which I know you cannot) it would be of more weight with me.

9. Although ſome of the Authors ſpeak high in this point, yet none of them come up to the preſent caſe. There were ſo many conſiderable and concurrent circumſtances in the caſe of the king that varyed it much from the caſe of Kings in former times; the buſineſſe is ſo circumſtantiated that were all the Authors alledged by you alive, none of them (I verily beleeve) nor any Caſuiſts in the world would give their conſent to the taking away p. 43the life of our King as the caſe ſtood with us. For, 1. Hee was a Proteſtant King. 2. The end of the Parliaments War againſt the Forces raiſed by him, was to preſerve His perſon, as appears by their many Declarations in that behalf. 3. Many Oaths and Covenants made to the moſt high God for the preſervation of His Royall perſon. 4. The King of England could not be put to death, but they muſt kill the King of Scotland and Ireland alſo, who had as true a right in Him as this Kingdome had. 5. That he granted more for the good of the Kingdome then ever any King that ſate upon the Engliſh Throne. 6. That Hee never perſonally ſhed blood. 7. That the Army muſt firſt force the Parliament before they could kill the King; which wil be to after ages a laſting monument of the Parliaments Renown, and the Armies Reproach. 8. That the Houſe of Commons (if they ſate free and ful, which now they do not) have no power by law to erect a new Court to take away the life of any man, much leſſe the life of the King. 9. That the General & his Officers declared in their Remonſtrance, June 23. 1647. that they did clearly profeſſe they did not ſee how there could be any peace to this Kingdom firm and laſting, without a due conſideration of and proviſion for the Rights, Quiet & Immunities of His Majeſties Royal family, &c. theſe and ſuch like circumſtances conſidered, can it be imagined that any could have their hands in the Kings blood, unleſs they were led more by paſſion then reaſon, by deſign then conſcience? Thus having given you theſe advertiſements (touching the Authors by you alledged in the general) I come now a to particular ſurvey of the ſeverall authors brought by you to maintain your King-killing Doctrine.

You begin with Mr. Love and ſo will I, I. P. p. 31. l. 31.of whom you ſay, that in his Sermon preacht at Uxbridg, and printed, having ſpoken before of the blood-guiltineſſe of the King, yea intimated u…aturall and horrible blood-guiltineſſe in Him, as if Hee had been guilty of King James his death, and Prince Henries death, the blood of the Prot… ſtant… in Rochell, and the Rebellion of …reland, and all the Proteſtant blood-ſhed there. p. …3. of the ſaid Sermon ſtiled Englands diſtemper.

Anſw. 1. That M^r. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preacht at Ʋxbri…ge is true, but that hee ſpake therein of the p. 44blood-guiltineſſe of the King is utterly falſe; I have read over his Sermon from the beginning to the end; and can find no mention of the King throughout his Sermon, but in two places, and there too, without the leaſt reflexion or accuſation on the King,See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands diſtemper. &c. pag. 16. the firſt place is in p. 16. where he ſaith, that the riſing (though now falling) Clergymen would ſerue up Prerogative to the higheſt peg (by which means they have crackt it, at leaſt the credit of it) affirming that Kings might do what they liſt, that the lifes, …ives, liberties, and eſtates of Subjects, are to be diſpoſed by the King, according to his own will, yea have they not taught the people, that if the King require the life of any or all his ſubjects, they muſt lay their necks to the block, they muſt not defend themſelves by force of Arms in any caſe? Here M^r. Love doth accuſe Court-preachers, & Paraſities of flattery bu… is there the leaſt word here of accuſing the King of blood-guiltineſſe?Ibid. p. 19. The ſecond place where he makes mention of the King is in p. 19. and there he ſaies nothing but this; Is not our King the head divided from his Parliament, the Repreſentative body of this Kingdome? and is not one member divided from another? and doth M^r. Love in this accuſe the King of blood-guiltineſſe? Theſe are the two places where M^r. Love ſpeakes about the King, I am ſure there is not one word elſe touching the King in all his Sermon.

As for your falſe charge againſt M^r Love, I. P. p. 31. l. 35.that he intimated unnatural & horrible bloud-guiltineſs in the King, as if he had been guilty of K. James his death, & Prince Henrys death, the blood of the Proteſtants in Rochell, and the Rebellion of Ireland, and al the Proteſtant blood there; See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands diſtemper. p. 23.this you ſay in p. 23. of his Sermon. To this I have two things to anſwer in his behalf. 1. I need not become his Advocate; the Sermon may plead for him that made it, al that Mr^. Love ſaies is this, It would ſearch to the quick to find out whether King James, and Prince Henry his ſon came to a timely death, yea or no? It would ſearch to the quick to know whether Rochell and all the Proteſtants in it were not betrayed into the hands of their enemies; and by whom? it would go to the quick to find out whether the Iriſh Rebellion was not plotted, promoted and contrived in England, and by whom? Is here the leaſt charge againſt the King? cannot a man ſpeak of King Iames or Prince Henries death, but muſt it bee interpreted that he ſaid King CHARLES had a hand in it? cannot a man wiſh that the betrayers of the Proteſtants in Rochel, the contrivers p. 45of the Rebellion in Ireland, may be diſcovered, but muſt all the guilt of that blood be needs laid upon the Kings head? 2. But ſuppoſe he had intimated that the King was guilty of blood-guiltyneſſe (which he did not) yet is there not the leaſt intimation of that for which you alledg him, viz. to prove that it was his decl…red judgment that the King was to be put to death: you labour to ſtain his reputation, but you do no way ſtrengthen your▪ own aſſertion. I am ſure M^r. Love declared his judgment againſt putting the King to death long before the Armies attempt to bring him to tryall, as appears by that book mentioned before, entituled Works of darkneſſe brought to light, printed about two years ſince.

You ſay that Mr. Love made the King the Troubler of England as Achan was of Iſrael, I. P. pag. 32. l. 3.and hath theſe words, p. 32. It was the Lord that tr…ubled Achan, becauſe he troubled Iſraell; Oh that in this our State Phyſitians would reſemble God to cut off thoſe from the land who have diſtemperd it: M…lius eſt ut pereat unus, quam unit as.

—Immedicabile vulnus

Enſe recidendum eſt, ne pars ſincera trabatur.

Anſw. 1. Did not your heart give your hand the lye when you wrote theſe words? doth not your Conſcience tel you that there is not the leaſt ſyllable in M^r. Loves Sermon tending to this, that the King was the Troubler of England, as Achan was of Iſraell?

2. Doth not M^r. Love clearly expreſſe himſelf whom he meant by thoſe Achans who were to be cut off; and that but three or four lines before thoſe words you quote of Achan, where he ſaith that there are many malignant humers to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdom before we can be healed? but there is not in that place, nor in 13 pages before▪ any one word about the King; and what is ſaid of him in p. 16 and 19. is not in the leaſt diſparagement to his Royall perſon and authority, as I made appear before.

3. The phraſe by any grammaticall conſtruction cannot be referred to the King; for hee wiſht that the State Phyſitians would reſemble God to cut off thoſe from the land that had diſtempered it▪ now had it been meant of the King he would have wiſht that they would have cut him off (not thoſe off) that diſtempered p. 46it. As for thoſe Latin ſayings, Melius eſt ut pereat unus quam unitas: and,—Imm…dicabile vulnus

Enſe recidendum eſt, ne pars ſincera trabatur:

theſe expreſſions cannot bee referred to the King unleſſe ſomething ſpoken either before or after (of which there is not a word) doth inforce ſuch an inference. Beſides, Mr. Love doth well know that although the cutting off one Malignant member may preſerve the body, yet the cutting off the head (though there may be Malignant humours in it) is not the way to ſave the body, but to deſtroy it.

You goe on, I. P p. 32. l. 11.But yet more plaine, pag. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood (ſaith M^r. Love) are not meet perſons to be at peace with till all the guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the ſword of the Law, or law of the ſword.

Anſw. 1. But yet more plaine ſay you, truely you had need of ſomething more plaine ſay I, before you will be able to make it appeare that ever Mr. Love did plead for killing the King.

2. It ſeemes this is the plaineſt paſſage in the Sermon, but doth this …peak what you aſſert, that the King muſt be puniſhed according to his demerits? Is there any clauſe to this purpoſe in the words you quote?

3 M^r Love doth well conſider that in the ſame Article or part of the Covenant wherein we promiſe to bring Delinquents to puniſhment, we engage our ſelves to preſerve the perſon of the King.

4 I do verily beleeve M^r. Love is ſtill of this minde (and I have ſome cauſe to know it) that the guilt of that innocent bloud which hath been ſpilt, muſt be expiated and avenged on ſome of the chiefeſt Incendiaries either by the ſword of the Law in a time of Peace, or (if that cannot reach them) by the Law of the ſword in a time of Warre; and what is this more then we are all ingaged to by Covenant? to bring Delinquents to condigne puniſhment as the degree of their offences ſhall require or deſerve, or the Supreame Judi…atories of both Kingdomes, or others having power from them for that effect ſhall judge convenient. But for you to wreſt and torture his words, as if he meant that the guilt of the bloud ſhed could not be expiated unleſs KING CHARLES p. 47were executed; I am perſwaded there was never ſuch an expreſſion from his mouth, nor motion in his heart.

The ſecond Author you alledge is Mr. John Knox,I. P. p. 32. l. 25. who in his book… called the Appellation &c. affirms (ſay you) that the people may depoſe their Princes and puniſh him &c.

Anſw. 'Tis true Mr. Knox ſpake more freely in this point then any Scottiſh Divine that I know of before or ſince, yet let me tell you, that what he ſaith will not reach to ſuch a caſe as ours. For 1. I read in his b…ok called the Appell…tion of John Knox, pag. 78. that he pleads onelyonly for the puniſ…ing of ſuch Kings as are Idolaters and Tyrants againſt God and his known truth; now our late King was not ſuch a one. Secondly, he ſpeakes of ſuch Kings as were raſhly and unadviſedly choſen by the People; now our King was not meerly elective, but had a title to the Crowne by ſucceſſion, and a juſt Hereditation. Thirdly, I do not read in his Book called the Appellation, &c. that he contends for bringing Kings to a judiciall Tryall and taking away their lives, but onelyonly in generall of puniſhing and depoſing them. Now what is ſaid here by way of anſwer to what you alledged out of M^r. Knox, may ſerve alſo for an anſwer to Goodman whom you call the great aſſociate of John Knox.

The third Author you quote, I. P. p. 32. l. 38.is Doctor John Ponnet in his Books called A Short Treati ſe of Politique Power, Cap. 6. pag. 45.

Anſw. 'Tis true, D^r. Ponnet is of large principles in this point, yet 1. 'tis to be obſerved that when he made his booke it was in the reign of Queen Mary, Ann. 1556. and ſo ſpake of Popiſh, not Proteſtant Princes; yea it was during the time of his baniſhment out of England, at which time his diſcontent might make him to bee led more by paſſion then reaſon. 2. Though hee holds it lawfull for a People to depoſe and kill a Tyrant, yet he gives not this power abſlutely to a particular party, but to the body of the People;See a ſhort Treati ſe of Polit. Power. by Dr. I…n Pennet, …. 6. pag. 49. The body (ſaith he) …f every State may (if it will) yea and ought to r…dreſſe and correct the vi… of their Heads and Governours. I am ſure you cannot ſay the body of this State was for the execution of the King; there were an hundred againſt it to one for it. Yea 3, Though hee goes further, that p. 46duplicate page p. 47duplicate page p. 48private men may kill a Magiſtrate, yet he holds it with ſome ſpeciall limitations,See Dr. P…nnets Treatiſe of Polit. Power. cap. 6. In ſome caſes private men (ſaith he) may kill their Magiſtrates, as when a Governour ſhall with his ſword run upon an innocent, or go about to ſhoot him with a gun, or if he ſhould be found in bed with a mans wife, or raviſh a mans daughter, or go about to make away his Country to Forraig…ers. Now can you prove the King to be guilty of ſuch things as theſe? If not, your quotation of Ponnet doth not reach our caſe. To cloſe this, I would aske you, Are you of Dr. Ponnets mind that any private man may kill a Tyrant? do you thinke that Moſes his practiſe in killing the Aegyptian, and Ehud ſlaying Eglon, is to be imitated by every private man? It ſeemes you do ſo, why elſe do you urge theſe inſtances out of Doctour Ponnet to juſtifie your King-killing Doctrine? If you do, I feare you will often times follow the Devils inſtigation to murder the innocent, when you thinke 'tis the impreſſion of Gods ſpirit on your heart to do juſtice on the guilty. Oh take heed that you be not given over to beleeve lies, and then to worke wickedneſſe with greedineſſe. Before I leave this unſafe aſſertion in Dr. Ponnets Booke (of which you approve) viz. that private men may kill a Tyrant: I deſire that this might lye ſadly on your heart, ſuppoſe you ſhould think ſuch a Magiſtrate to be a Tyrant and a murderer, and becauſe none wil put to death that Tyrant, therefore you hold your ſelfe bound to do it: ſuppoſe againe, another thinkes him to be a juſt Magiſtrate whom you ſlew, and kils you that killed him, and a third kils him that killed you, and ſo ad infinitum: Is not this the way to make us Cains, not Chriſtians, one unto another, and in the end not to leave ſo many men in the world as Cain did when he ſlew his brother?

A fourth Author you quote is Junius Brutus ſuppoſed by good Authors to be Beza's workes,I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30. in his booke called Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, &c.

Anſw. 1. Indeed if you count the Popiſh writer ſuppoſed to be Toby Matthewes to be a good Author, who made that book intituled the Image of both Churches, Jeruſalem and Babylon (by P. D. M.) He ſaith it was Beza's works pag. 105. and yet herein he was no more ingenuous then you were; for ſaith he, if it was not Beza's it might be Hottomans, pag. 107. and pag. 111. Do you p. 49deale candidly with ſo Orthodox a Divine as Beza was, to receive the ſlanderous reports of Papiſts againſt ſo zealous a Proteſtant? The ſame Author who ſaid that Beza made that booke called Vindiciae contra tyrannos, See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82.affirmed alſo that Beza uſurpt another mans pariſh, that hee was the husband of another mans wife, &c. the one is as true as the other. 2. It may bee made demonſtrable that Beza was not the Authour of that book, which goes under the name of Junius Brutus, for can it be imagined that ſo ſober and learned a man as Beza was, ſhould be ſo inconſiſtent to his owne principles, to write one thing in one book, and the quite contrary in another? throughout all the veins of his writings, he calls for ſubjection to Magiſtrates, but not a word of depoſing or murdering of Kings, which is the whole drift of that book called Vindiciae contra tyrannos. Beza lib. confeſ. Chriſtianae fidei cap. 5. Eccleſia circa finem.I could produce multitudes of places out of Bezaes works utterly repugnant to what is in Junius Brutu…; take for preſnt one or two: Nullum aliud (ſaith he) rememedium proponitur privatis hominibus tyranno ſubjectis, preter vitae emendationem proeces & lachrymas; that is, there is no other remedy left to private men being ſubject unto a tyrant, beſides amendment of life, prayers and teares. Yea Beza was of this judgment, that though private men might diſobey the ſinful commands of a Prince, yet he was utterly againſt taking up of Arms:Beza in confeſſ▪ fidei Chriſtianae c. 5. Sect. 45. Tis ane thing (ſaid he) not to obey Magiſtrates, and another to reſiſt or take up Arms, which God doth not permit thee. If Beza was againſt private mens taking up of defenſive arms, can it be imagined that he would plead for offenſive Arms againſt the life and perſon of a King? Indeed Beza hath a learned Tract extant de Haereticis a Magiſtrati… puniendis; but not a word de Magiſtratibus ab Haereticis puniendis; Beza did hold that Magiſtrates ſhould puniſh Hereticks, but never held that Hereticks ſhould puniſh Magiſtrates.

3. This Iunius Brutus whom (you ſay) good Authours affirm to be Bezaes works, is indeed and intruth no other then the work of a Jeſuite; I have it from good hands that Parſons the Jeſuite was the Author of that booke; there are now ſome alive that can witneſſe it, that one Rench a Printer was condemned to be hanged for printing it, and another book of the ſame mans, under the name of Doleman. And here I cannot but give the p. 50world notice that one of the good members now ſitting at Weſtminſter (whom I could name but that naming men now in the Houſe would be accounted breach of priviledg, when pulling Members out hath been eſteemed none) did imploy Walker the Mercury man (who writes the Perfect Occurrences) to get this booke being tranſlated into Engliſh to be printed; it ſeems themſelves were aſhamed of it, ſuſpecting that it might bee known to be Parſons the Jeſuite, if it had continued ſtill under the name of Junius Bru…us, and therefore they did make a new Title to this book; which is this.

Four great Queſtions concerning the Tryall of the King, as it was delivered to the Colonells and Generall Officers of the Army, and preſented to the High Court of Iuſtice appointed by an Act of the Commons of England for Tryall of the King.

I only mention this that it might appeare unto the world, that the Bookes, Principles, and Counſells of the Jeſuites had a great concurrence with, if not influence upon the late Tranſactions of the Army; and High Court in putting the King to death.

You goe on, and diſcerning a ſcarcity of Proteſtant Divines, you are beholding to Popiſh Preſidents to help you out; you ſay Chriſtierne loſt the Crown of Denmapke, I. P. p. 34. l. 29.&c.

Anſw. True, he did ſo, but yet he did not loſe his life; but you have made King Charles loſe his Crown and life together. Chriſtierne was only reſtrained as a Priſoner, but not adjudged to dye. Beſides the Kings of Denmarke come in meerly by election, but the Kings of England by a rightfull ſucceſſion. So that your inſtance of Chriſtierne will not advantage you a whit.

Edward the ſecond (ſay you) loſt the crown of England for the ſame miſ-government as our late King loſt His Crowne and head.I. P. pa. 34. l. 31.

Anſw. 1. This was in the time of Popery; are Popiſh practices good patterns for Proteſtants to walk by?

2. Edward the ſecond did not loſe His Crown by a judicial Deprivation, but by a conſtrained Reſignation.

p. 513. He was never legally arraigned and brought to tryall in Parliament for his life.

4. Tis to be obſerved that Mortimer (who had the chief hand in depoſing King Edward the ſecond) was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed as a Traitor, and guilty of High treaſon, for murdering Edward the ſecond at Berkely caſtle, although he was depoſed. It may be after Parliaments may call ſome of you to account for the Kings death.

That ſuperiour Magiſtrates may be put to death by the inferiour,I. P. p. 35. l. 3. becauſe Domeſtick Tyrants are chiefly to be repreſt, was the opinion of Pareus in his Commentary on Judges.In caſu neceſſtatis licita eſt defenſio per magiſtratum infe…oorem … ſuperiorem. D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262.

Anſw. Indeed in his Comment on the Romanes he ſaith, that in caſe of neceſſity the inferiour Magiſtrate may lawfully defend himſelf againſt the ſuperiour; but hath not a word in his Comment on the Iudges (that I can find) that ſuperiour Magiſtrates may be put to death by the inferior. Surely Pareus would not ſay one thing in his Comment on Iudges; Chriſtianes … minus quam alios quoſ…un que poteſta…. ſubject… eſſe debere non tantum fide …lus ſed etiam infidelibus ſed, &c D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1.Rom 13:1and the quite contrary in his Comment on the Romans. He ſaith expreſly, that Chriſtians no leſſe then others ought to be ſubject to the Powers, not only when believers but when Infidel…s, as all the powers then were, not only to the me…k and juſt, but to the froward and unjuſt, &c. Tis true, Pareus pleads for defenſive arms in caſe of neceſſity, (and ſo doe I) but yet hee never went in ſo high a ſtrain to plead for the killing of Kings and Princes; yea when Pareus ſpeaks of defenſive arms hee doth it with abundance of wiſdome and caution:Vide Paraeum in explic. dubiorum. in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262. Subditi (ſaith he) non privati ſed in magiſtratu inferiori conſtituti, adverſus ſuperiorem magiſtratum ſe & Rempublicam & eccleſiam ſeu veram Religionem etiam armis defendere poſſunt. His poſitis Conditionibus, cum ſuperior ma…iſtratus degenerat in Tyrannum. 2. Aut ad manifeſtam idolotatriam atque blaſphemias ipſas vel ſubditos alios ſuae fidei commiſſos vult cogere, &c. The ſum of what he ſaith is this, that it is lawfull (not for private men but) for the inferiour magiſtrates to defend the Church and Common-wealth, againſt the ſuperior Magiſtrate, yet he laies down 6 conditious or limitations; provided that the Superiour Magiſtrate degenerates into a Tyrant, that He compells His Subjects to manifeſt idolatry and blaſphemy; and that they keep themſelves in the bounds of ſelfe-defences according to the Laws, &c. Now can it be imagined that Pareus ſhould lay p. 52down ſo many cautions to juſtifie a defenſive war in his Comment on the Romans, and yet affirm that the ſuperior Magiſtrate may be put to death by the inferiour? It makes me think that you never read Pareus his works; or if you did, that you intended to be lye him, as you have done many others. Beſides, Pareus never made a Comment upon Iudges all his life; after hee was dead there was found ſome ſhort notes written in his own Bible, only for his own private uſe, which his ſon Philip Pareus did lately put among his other works.

That famous Dudley Fennor affirms,I. P. pa. 35. l. 8. that an evill Prince may bee taken away in a time of peace, or by warre, which they may do who are either Ephori or ordinum omnium conventus, ſaith he.

Anſw. 1. You uſe ſtill your wonted ſtratagem, to alledg Authors, mention their names, but give no notice in what page that paſſage is, which you quote of theirs, which muſt argue either your ignorance of ſuch mens works, or elſe a purpoſe in you to deceive the Reader, and abuſe the Authors you quote.

2. Though I am not bound to anſwer you in every Author you quote at large, yet for diſputes ſake I ſhall yeeld to your weakneſs; tis true Dudly Fennor hath ſome ſuch words in his Sacra Theolog. cap. 13. Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor. c. 13. de Politeiae-civili. p. 80.de Politeia civili. p. 80. though you pervert them wofully; you had ſhewed your ingenuity had you quoted all that Dudly Fennor ſpake touching the point in hand. He doth diſtinguiſh of a Tyrant, there is Tyrannus ſine titulo, and tyrannus exercitio. Tyrannus ſine titulo eſt qui imperium ad ſe abſ que legitimâ ratione rapit, huic quiſ que privatus reſiſtat, & ſi poſſit è medio tollat. that is, A Tyrant without a title, is ſuch a one who by force and fraud hath got the Government of a Kingdome into his hands, when he hath no legall claim thereto; now ſuch a one (ſaith he) any private man may reſiſt and take him out of the world. Put caſe O. Cromwell or any other man who hath no legall claime to the Crown, ſhould by force and fraud uſurpe to himſelf the Kingdome, ſuch an one is Tyrannus fine titulo, and if you wil follow Dudly Fennor he gives liberty that any private man may reſiſt ſuch a one, yea if he can take him out of the world. I hardly beleive that Dudly Fennors doctrine (whom you call famous) would pleaſe at White-hall. Again, when he comes to ſpeak of a Tyrant (not in title, but) in the exerciſe of his government, he doth not plead for popular p. 53tumults, but ſaith (which you have unworthily left out) that ſuch a tyrant may be puniſht, but yet only by them (qui ea potete donati ſunt) who are indued with ſuch an authority; now that is moſt true, that if the laws and conſtitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be ſuch, that there are ſelect men impowered by Law to reſtrain and puniſh the vices of a tyrant; in ſuch a caſe 'tis unqueſtionably lawfull. And if you can ſhew that the Houſe of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land, to condemn and execute any man, much leſſe the King, I ſhall then be ſilent.

When a tyrant is taken away either by the ſuffrage or conſent of the people,I. P. p. 35. l. 15. fit Deo auſpice ſaith, Zuinglius.

Anſw. 1. Here you name the man, and mention the words, but quote not the place where ſuch a paſſage is to bee found; in Zuinglius his works (who hath four large volumes extant.) I perceive your drift is to put him that ſhould anſwer you to the more pains, to manifeſt your abuſe of both of Author and Reader.

2. Tis true, there is ſome ſuch paſſage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you, yet I muſt tell you, as the Devill did with that ſcripture he quoted to Chriſt; ſo do you with Zuinglius words, viz. leave out the moſt conſiderable clauſe, and groſly pervert the meaning of his words, which I ſhall evidently demonſtrate: His words are theſe:Quum Conſenſu & ſuffragi…s totius an… certe … is multitudinis, Tyr…annus tol…itu…r, deo fit auſpice. Zuingl. in explanatione Articuli 42. p. 85. Tom. 1. When a Tyrant is taken away by the conſent or ſuffrages of the whole or better part of the people, it is done God diſpoſing it. Now you have left out theſe words [of the whole or better part of the people] It may be your conſcience told you you, that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their conſent to cut off the King, and therefore you have done it without them, never deſiring their conſent, ſo that what Zuinglius ſaith will not juſtifie your practice, which was done by the leſſer (and not the better neither) of the people. Beſides, you groſly abuſe and pervert the meaning of his words; as if Zuinglius juſtified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant, which he was utterly againſt, as appears in that very Article where this paſſage is ſound. Tis true, he was for the depoſing of Tyrants, ſo it were done by the whole or better part of the people, but yet againſt the killing of them, as he ſaith expreſly. p. 54Quopaecto tyrannus movendus ſit ab officio facile eſt conjectare, Zuingl… exp. Arn… 42 p. 84. Tom 1.non eſt ut …umtrucides, nec ut bellum & tumultum quis excitet, quia in pace vocavit nos Deus, ſed aliis viis res tentanda eſt, &c. that is, after what ſort a Tyrant ſhould be put out of office it is eaſy to conjecture, tis not that thou mayſt kill him, or raiſe war or tumult againſt him, becauſe God hath called us in pea…e, but the thing is to be aſſayed by other wayes, &c. Yea tis further to be obſerved how he defines a Tyrant, viz. to be ſuch an one (qui vi regnum accepit, & per ambitionem irrumpit) who hath gotten a Kingdome by force, and breaks it by ambition. There is no doubt but ſuch may be depoſed, yea deſtroyed too, if the people have ſtrength to do it.

See more to this purpoſe in a book not long ſince put out,1. P. p. 35 l. 17. as it is upon very good grounds ſuppoſed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland, called Lex Rex, and eſpecially in M^r. Pryns works, &c.

Anſw. 1. You ſtill uſe your old device, name the man but not quote the place. I ſhall not conteſt with you whether M^r. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex, yet this I will maintain, that in all that book there is not one paſſage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall puniſhment; I am ſure in many places he is againſt it, in anſwering that objection which Royaliſts made, that becauſe David would not ſtretch forth his hand againſt the Lords anointed, therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be reſiſted. To which he gives this anſwer:Lex, Rex. queſt. 31. p. 330. David ſpeaketh of ſtretching out his hand againſt the perſon of King Saul; no man in the three Kingdomes did ſo much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON; Il. p. 104, 105.and in another place,Queſt. 14. he ſaith, one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right; and a little after he ſaith, any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King, though he were a bloodyer, and more tyrannous man then Saul;Ib. p. 233. qu. 26 & in p. 233. he ſaith, That the King is an eminent ſervant of the State in the puniſhing of others; if therefore he be unpuniſhable, it is not ſo much becauſe His Royall power is above all Law-coaction, as becauſe one and the ſame man, cannot be both the puniſher and the puniſhed, &c. Many ſuch like paſſages as theſe are to be found in Lex, Rex. Is it like that M^r. Rutherford (if hee be the Author of it) ſhould plead for putting the King to death, in one place, yet declare himſelfe againſt it in ſo many places throughout his book?

p. 552. Whereas you would make M^r. Pryn a patron of your opinion, I need ſay nothing in his vindication, he is alive, and now among us, more able then I to vindicate himſelf; 'tis true, in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes, he hath made many inſtances of States and Kingdoms that have depoſed and puniſht their Princes. Yet he gives no inſtance of a Proteſtant State that ever did ſo; yea in his ſpeech in the Houſe of Commons on D…cemb. 4. 1648.M. Prynnes ſpeech in the Houſe of Common, Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. he ſaith expreſly, that though there be ſome Preſidents of Popiſh States and Parliaments, depoſing their Popiſh Kings and Empeperors at home & in foraign parts, in an extraordinary way, by power of an Armed party yet there is no Preſident of any one Proteſtant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depoſe, or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never ſo bad, whether Proteſtants or Pap…ſts, &c. … I hope our Proteſtant Parliament will not make the firſt Preſident in this kind, nor ſtain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Proteſtant King, &c.

And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted, moſt of them make againſt you, none ſpeak for you, I leave the Reader to judge. As you quoted ſome few Authours who ſeemingly might ſpeak for you, but really againſt you, I might produce a cloud of witneſſes againſt you in this point, not only of Proteſtant Divines ſince the Reformation, againſt killing Kings in the generall, but alſo multitudes of Proteſtant Divines declaring againſt the cutting off the head of our King in particular; as the Miniſters beyond the Seas, the Miniſters of Scotland, the Miniſters of Eſſex and Lancaſhire, and of many other places of the Kingdome beſides the London Miniſters, who have unanimouſly declared their abhorrency of that horrid fact of taking away the life of the King; But I forbear quotations, only to manifeſt the levity and inconſtancy of you and men of your faction, I ſhall mention ſome few who have in print declared againſt the cutting off the King, yet have been of late great ſticklers for the ſpilling of His blood. I ſhall begin with your ſelf, not that I think you deſerve the honour of Priority, but that your ownmiſtake may be the more obvious unto obſervation.Iohn Price his Snapſack. p. 8. In your Spirituall Snapſack for the Parliament Souldiers, p. 8. you tel the Souldiers thus, You fight for the recovery of the Kings p. 56Royall perſon out of the hands of thoſe Miſcreants, and re-inſtate Him in His Royall throne and dignity, that both Hee and His Poſterity may (if the Lord will) yet flouriſh in their Royalty; ſo that without all contradictions you ſight for your King. By this it appears that ſince you have ſeparated from the Miniſters Churches, you are like the vannes of their ſteeples full of changes, one while to bring the King to His Royall throne, another while to bring Him to a dolefull ſcaffold; one while that His Poſterity may flouriſh in their Royalty, another while for the extirpation of the Royall family root and branch. The next I ſhall quote ſhall bee your goodly Paſtor John G…o…win, that the world may ſee you are like people,Iohn Goodwin Anticaval. p. 10, 11. like prieſt. In his Anticavalieriſme, p. 10, & 11. he ſaith: As for offering violence to the perſon of a King, or attempting to take away his life, we leave the proof of the lawfulneſſe of this to thoſe profound diſputers the Ieſuites, who ſtand ingaged by the tenour of their profeſſed Doctrin and Practice, either to make good the lawfulneſſe thereof, or elſe to leave themſelves and their Religion an abhorring and hiſſing unto the world: As for us who never travailed with any deſires or thoughts that way, but abhor both mother and daughter, doctrine and practice together, we conceive it to be a juſt Prerogative of the Perſons of Kings in what caſe ſoever to be ſecure from the violence of men, and their lives to be as conſecrated Corn, meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himſelf: Davids Conſcience ſmote him, when hee came ſo neer the life of a King, as the cuttiag off the lap of his garment. notwithſtanding theſe high expreſſions of his againſt taking away the life of Kings in any caſe whatſoever, yet had this wretched Apoſtate a great hand in bringing the King to death. It would be endleſs to mention all that could be found in their books in print to this purpoſe;See the Armies Remonſtrance of Iune, 23. 1647. p. 12. I ſhall only quote the Armies judgement touching the preſervation of His Perſon; their words are theſe, wee clearly profeſſe wee doe not ſee how there can be any peace to this Kingdome firm or laſting, without a due conſideration of and proviſion for the Rights, Quiet, and Immunities of His Majeſties Royall family, and His late Partakers; and more fully in their Propoſalls of Aug. 1. 1647. See the Armies Propoſalls. Aug. 1. 1647.they propoſe, that His Majeſtic… perſon, Queen, and Royall Iſſue, may be reſtored to a condition of ſafety, honour and freedome in this Nation, without Diminution of their Perſonall Rights, or further limitation to the exer…iſe of their p. 57Regall power then according to the particulars aforegoing. Yet there very men in their late Remonſtrance, deſired that the Capitall and grand Author of our troubles, the Perſon of the King, may be brought to juſtice for the treaſon, blood, &c he was guilty of. What laſting ſettlement can be expected from th… men who at one time deſire one thing, and at another time the quite contrary?

If ſo be the ſaving of the Kings perſon being a murderer,I. P. p. 37. l. 25. &c. bee the deſtruction of the Command of true Religion, that the murderer ſhall ſurely be put to death, we muſt by the obligation that lies upon us from the Solemn League and Covenant, cut off the Kings head for the Preſervation of true Religion.

Anſw. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and Ands, begging the queſtion, taking that for granted which was ſtill denyed; ſay not if the ſaving of the Kings perſon being a murderer, bee the deſtruction of the Command of true Religion, but prove that he was a murderer, and that the ſaving of His perſon would be a deſtruction to true Religion; a convincing Argument would ſtand you in more ſtead then a confident aſſertion of the one, or a naked ſuppoſition of the other.

2. I would demand of you, whether the ſaving of Davids perſon, who killed Ʋriah the Hittite; and of Sauls, who ſlew 85 of the Prieſts of the Lord; and of Manaſſehs, who made the ſtreets of Jeruſalem run down with blood, were a deſtruction of the Commands of true Religion? if you ſay it was, are not you a very charitable man to ſtigmatize the children of Iſrael, that they deſtroyed the Command of Religion, that the land was defiled with blood, and that to many generations, for not executing all their Kings who had ſpilt blood; if you ſay no, give me one cogent reaſon why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Iſrael (as wel as the good) ſhould live, and yet our late King dye.

3. You are the firſt (and I hope will be the laſt) that ever I could hear of, that pleaded an obligation by the Covenant to cut off the Kings head for the preſervation of true Religion: unleſſe to preſerve his perſon, can be interpreted to cut off his head, I am ſure the Covenant laies upon you no ſuch obligation; was the Kings perſon, and Religions preſervation ſo inconſiſtent, that you muſt needs deſtroy the one to preſerve the other? were there no p. 58veins to be opened to let out malignant blood from any part of the body, but muſt you cut off the head? could no perſon bee found but the King alone to expiate the guilt of blood? I remember indeed you ſay in p. 23. that the cutting off the Kings head was the moſt acceptable and fatteſt ſacrifice unto juſtice, that ever was offered in this Kingdome. I do verily beleeve it was ſo fat a ſacrifice that it wil overturn your ſtomacks, it may be ſomething elſe too.

4. I grant 'tis the Command of God that a murderer ſhould be put to death; yet is there a great difference to be put between one that kills another maliciouſly, and between a multitude who ſhed blood only in a Military way in a time of Civill war; as for inſtance,Judg. 20.Judg 20 in the bloody war betwixt Judah and Benjamin; though the men of Judah (who had the beſt cauſe) loſt 40000 men in two battails, yet upon a third attempt when God gave them the day over the Tribe of Benjamin; though they do ſlay them in the purſuit and heat of the battle (which was lawful) & ſmote 25000 of the children of Benjamin; yet when the war was ended, and a full and finall victory gotten by the men of Judah; they did not bring the reſidue of the children of Benjamin to a judiciall Tryall, nor executed them, though they ſlew of the men of Iudah 40000; but the ſword having determined the controverſy in the field on their ſide, by a very full and finall conqueſt, the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty; as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation ſent ſome to ſpeak to the children of Benjamin, that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them, or as it is in the margin, to proclaim peace to them; yea 'tis ſaid that the people (even thoſe that ſlew them) repented them for Benjamin, becauſe the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Iſrael. c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions, they had been bound not to have ſuffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was ingaged in the war againſt them, eſpecially conſidering that they had ſpilt ſo much blood, no leſſe then 40000 men ſlain by the Benjamites. I could produce many inſtances in ſcripture of the like nature; but this may ſuffice, I ſhall only mention that the Army was not in time paſt ſo high flown, as to put no difference between ſhedding blood maliciouſly, and in a Military way, elſe how could they ſay, that tender, equitable and p. 59moderate dealing both toward His Majeſty and Royall family, See a Letter from Sir Tho. Fairfax to both Houſes of Parliament Dated from Redding, Iuly, 6. 1647. which he declared to be the generall ſenſe of all or moſt part of the Officer in the Army.and late party, ſo far as may ſtand with the ſafety of the Kingdome, and ſecurity to our Common rights and liberties, is the moſt hopefull courſe to take away the ſeeds of War, or future ſeeds among us for Poſterity, and to procure a laſting peace, and a government in this diſtracted nation. The Army you ſee became Petitioners for the King and His party, yet beleeved them to be guilty of blood; if they had beleeved that the Law of God had reacht them they ſhould have petitioned that all might dye, not that any might live: I am ſure you will ſay the King and His party were murderers, if ſo, why would you cut off the King, yet ſpare His Party? when they in your eſteem are guilty of blood as wel as He? doth your Religion teach you to puniſh the King and ſpare the Subjects? Now in regard I ſhal meet with but little or no further occaſion in the following part of your book, to con…ute that bloody practice you pleaded for; viz. the putting the King to death, I ſhal therefore before I leave this ſubject give you theſe 6 ſcripturall advertiſements, if it may be, to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine.

1. That there is no Preſident in all the ſcripture, that the Sanhedrin of the Jews, or Rulers of Iſrael did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Iudah or Iſrael, though many of them were moſt groſs Idolaters, and tyrannous Princes, who ſhed much innocent blood, and oppreſſed the people ſundry wayes. Tis true indeed, ſome of the idolatrous Kings of Iſrael were ſlain by private conſpiracies, and popular tumults in an illegall way, but none were ever arraigned, condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins, or generall Aſſemblies. So that in putting the K to death, you have done that for which you have no Scripture preſident.2. 2. The ſervants of God in ſcripture did hold it lawful to take up defenſive arms to withſtand the rage and tyranny of their Kings, yet did not count it lawfull to deſtroy the perſons of their Kings; thus David did by force of Arms defend himſelf againſt the raging and tyrannicall invaſion of Saul, by poſſeſſing many ſtrong holds and fortified places,1 Sam. 24. 6, 7. 13.1 Sam 24:61 Sam 24:71 Sam 24:13 yet thought it not lawfull to kill him; God forbid (ſaid David) that I ſhould do this thing to my maſter the Lords anointed, to ſtretch forth my hand againſt him, 1 Sam. 26. 8, 9.1 Sam 26:81 Sam 26:9&c.—and ſaid he to Abiſhai, Deſtroy him not, for who can ſtretch forth his hand againſt him, and p. 60be guiltleſſe. If many circumſtances had been conſidered, David had much to plead why he ſhould take away the life of Saul, (more I am ſure then you had to take away the life of our late King) for 1. Saul was in actuall purſuance of David for his life, 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King, 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Iſrael, 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had loſt his governing abilities, the ſpirit of government was departed from Him, 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood; He ſlew 85 Prieſts of the Lord; and put to the ſword, both men, women, children and ſucklings in the City of Nob, 1 Sam. 22. 18, 19. 6. Hee was earneſtly urged to kil Saul by the men that were about him, 1 Sam. 24. 4. & 1 Sam. 26. 9, 10. 7. Saul was the only man that ſtood between him and his actuall poſſeſſion of a Kingdome, yet all theſe conſiderations did not take with David; he was ſtill of this mind that none could ſtretch forth their hands againſt him,1 Sam. 26. 10, 11.1 Sam 26:101 Sam 26:11 and be guiltleſſe; His day (ſaid David) ſhall come to dye, or he ſhall deſcend into hattail, and periſh, the Lord forbid that I ſhould ſtretch forth my hand againſt him, &c. Another ſcripturall inſtance that I may give you (to name no more) you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Ionathan to death, the people roſe up and reſcued Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, that he dyed not, yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himſelfe. I ſhall conclude this advertiſement with a good obſervation M^r. Prynne hath,Mr. Prynnes third part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, p. 95. That we may forcibly reſiſt and repulſe with ſafe Conſcience, th…ſe whom we may not wilfully ſlay, &c.—The King may not with ſafe Conſcience be wittingly ſlain by His Subjects; but that therefore Hee and His Cavaliers may not bee forcibly reſiſted for their own defence, is a groſſe inconſequent, &c.

3. To ſpill the blood of any (eſpecially Royal blood) meerly out of a Political deſigne, is in the account of God murder (not juſtice) although the men may deſerve to be put to death. The ſcripture affords a pregnant proof of this, the Lord commanded Iehu to ſmite the houſe of Ahab, 2 King. 9. 7.2 Kgs 9:7to avenge the blood of his ſervants the Prophets;2 Kings 10. 6.2 Kgs 10:6 according to the command of the Lord, Iehu cauſed 70 of the ſons of Ahab to be ſlain by the Rulers of Iezreel; God commends him for doing this, the Lord ſaid unto Jehu, p. 61becauſe thou haſt done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and haſt done unto the Houſe of Ahab, according to all that was in my heart, thy children of the fourth generation ſhall ſit on the throne of Iſrael. Yet for all this, becauſe Iehu had a Politicall deſign in ſmiting the Houſe of Ahab, viz. the emolument and eſtabliſhment of his Kingdome, not a conſcientious reſpect to the command of God,Hoſea 1. 4.Hos 1:4 therefore the Lord by the mouth of the Prophet Hoſea ſaith, that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the Houſe of Jehu. That is, the blood of Ahabs 70 ſons which was ſhed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command: I wiſh thoſe who had a chief hand in putting the King to death, would conſider whether a Politicall deſign, rather then a conſcientious reſpect to juſtice, was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt.

4. Moſt of thoſe men in ſcripture who ſpilt the blood of their Kings (although wicked) did not dye a naturall death, but came to an untimely end. Tis ſaid in 2 King. 21. 23. that the ſervants of Ammon conſpired againſt Him, 2 Kings 21. 23, 24.2 Kgs 21:232 Kgs 21:24and ſlew the King in His own Houſe; then 'tis ſaid in the very next verſe, the people of the Land ſlew all them that had conſpired againſt King Ammon. Againe Elah King of Iſrael was ſlaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots,1 Kings 16. 8, 9.1 Kgs 16:81 Kgs 16:9 as he was in Tirzah drinking himſelf drunk, 'tis ſaid Zimri went in and ſmote him, and killed him; But what became of Zimri? Jezabel could ask, had Zimri peace that ſlew his maſter? 2 King. 9. 31. No, he had not, for when 'twas told in the camp of Iſrael, that Zimri had conſpired and alſo ſlain the King; 1 Kings 16. 16.1 Kgs 16:16upon this the Army of Iſrael fell into a mutiny, made Omri King, and came againſt Zimri, 1 Kings 16. 18.1 Kgs 16:18who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings houſe, put the houſe on fire about his ears, and was there burnt to aſhes, that was the end that Zimri came to: Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoaſh King of Iudah; 2 Kings 12. 19, 20, 21.2 Kgs 12:192 Kgs 12:202 Kgs 12:21'tis ſaid, his ſervants aroſe and made a conſpiracy, and ſlew Jehoaſh in the Houſe of Millo. But what became of theſe men that ſlew Iehoaſh? 2 Kings 14. 5.2 Kgs 14:5'tis ſaid expreſly 2 King. 14. 5. that as ſoon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the ſon of Jehoaſh, that he ſlew his ſervants which had ſlain the King his father. 2 Kings 15. 10. 14.2 Kgs 15:102 Kgs 15:14So likewiſe Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Iſrael, but he himſelf was ſoon afterward killed by Menahim the ſonne of Gadi, as 'tis ſtoried, p. 622 King. 15. 10, 14. Again Pekah the ſon of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Iſrael, and ſoon after he himſelfe was killed by Hoſhea, as 'tis recorded 2 King. 15. 25. 30. Many other inſtances might bee alledged, if I ſhould exactly looke over the Hiſtories of the Kings of Iſrael; but theſe may ſuffice.

5. Tis to be obſerved, that Omri who did ſucceed Zimri (who came to ſo untimely an end) was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Iſrael; and was he better then the reſt? no, he was rather worſe,1 King. 16. 25.1 Kgs 16:25 'tis ſaid expreſly, that Omri wrought evill in the ſight of the Lord, Micah. 6. 16.Mic 6:16and did worſe then all that were before him. It is my wi…h that thoſe Rulers or Repreſentatives, or cal them what you wil, who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands, and have gotten it by the power of an Army, doe not worſe then all the Kings that ever went before, that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins.

6. The children of Iſrael from Saul their firſt King, to Zedekiah the laſt (which was about 480 yeares) were never under ſuch intolerable oppreſſion and miſery,2 King. 16. 21.2 Kgs 16:21 as in the times of thoſe Kings before mentioned,Mr. Arth. I ackſon in his pious and learned Annotations hath a good obſervation; It ſeems (ſaith hee) the people miſliking the King the Souldiers choſe this Ti…ni to be their K. between whom there was continuall war for three years and upwards, &c. who were ſo put to death; ſuch violent removalls of their Kings made ſuch ſtrange alterations, and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Iſrael, that the people had not peace or ſettlement, but lay under the miſeries either of oppreſſion or Civil wars; thus it was after Zimri King of Iſrael was burnt in the place of the Kings houſe; then Tibni and Omri had a conteſt about a ſucceſſion, or claime to the Kingdome; upon this 'tis ſaid, the people of Iſrael were divided into two parts, half to make Tibni King, another halfe followed Omri to have him King, upon which a bloody war followed, for three years and upward. Tis my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Iſrael. This inſtance may ſuffice in ſtead of many,I. P. p. 38. l. 34. I ſhall mention no more.

It ſeems theſe Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt in London, I mean theſe ſubſcribers could aquieſce in ſuch conceſſions from the King, &c. then a little after, the Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt in London, plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquieſcing in the conceſſions of the King at Newport, which (by the teſtimony of the whole Miniſtry of Scotland) acquieſced in, would deſtroy both Religion and Covenant.

p. 63Anſw. 1. Tis no wonder that you who make ſo little conſcience to maintain errors, ſhould make no more of ſpeaking falſhood; and that not only againſt the Miniſters, but againſt the Parliament alſo; you ſay the Parliament did acquieſce in the Kings conceſſions, which they did not; yea they did wholly wave that queſtion, Whether the Kings Anſwers to the Propoſitions of both Houſes were ſatisfactory? and like men of wiſdome, honor and conſcience they voted only this; That the Anſwers of the King to the Propoſitions of both Houſes, are a ground for the Houſe to proceed upon for the ſettlement of the peace of the Kingdome.

2. The Miniſters did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquieſcing in the Kings conceſſions, (I am ſure their Repreſentation and Vindication hath no ſuch intimation in them) the Miniſters did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more, and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom.

3. The Miniſters of the Church of Scotland, did not ſay, that the Parliament did, or would acquieſce in the Kings conceſſions as ſatisfactory, but only they gave a timely caution, that if they ſhould be acquieſced in, it would bee dangerous and deſtructive to Religion and Covenant.

Look back into your former courſe of life,I. P. pa. 40. l. 16. and call to mind how many oaths and ſubſcriptions you have made from time to time, over and over, &c. And how have you directly for ſworn your ſelves againſt the light and ſenſe of your own judgment and conſcience? have wee not cauſe to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party? who being men of learning and conſcience, and never ſo violent againſt their oppoſers in Church and State as your ſelves, &c.

Anſw. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuſe the Reverend and godly Miniſters of falſity, vain-glory, malignity, but muſt you now lay Perjury to their charge alſo?

2. Suppoſe any of them (I am ſure all did not) did ſwear or ſubſcribe to the Church-government by Biſhops, and to the book of Common-prayer, (for 'tis of that you ſpeak) and ſhould now renounce them, yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory, and not aſperſe them with the ſtain of Perjury for thus doing. 2. Was it agreeable to the Law p. 64of love, or rules of Chriſtianity, to ſay that ſo many godly and conſcientious Miniſters did forſweare themſelves againſt the light and ſenſe of their own judgments and conſciences in ſo doing? 3. Although the Miniſters did ſubſcribe to Biſhops and the book of Common prayer, yet cannot they juſtly be accuſed of Perjury, though they did afterwards ſwear to extirpate them, becauſe Biſhops (and Common-prayer) were ſetled not by a Divine but meerly a Politicall inſtitution in this Kingdome; the ſame power that eſtabliſht them, might either for a while ſuſpend, or totally aboliſh them without the leaſt ſhew of Perjury: I ſuppoſe when you were made free you tooke an oath to maintain the Priviledges and Charter of the City; if that Power that made that Charter think fit to aboliſh or alter it, you will not think your ſelfe under the guilt of Perjury, for ſubſcribing to another Charter ſomewhat different from the former. 4. If the ſubſcribers have forſworn themſelves, then I am ſure Iohn Goodwin and the reſt of your Independent Teachers (if Miniſters) are as deeply guilty of Perjury as they are; the one ſubſcribed to no more then what the others did.

3. Whereas you declare, that you have cauſe to judg better of the Prelaticall party, who are men of learning and conſcience, and never ſo violent againſt their oppoſers in Church and State as the Miniſters. To this I have 2 things to ſay, 1. This malicious and malignant language of yours, ſhews you to be a follower of Pragmaticus or Aulicus, rather then a diſciple of Anticavalieriſm…. 2. It ſeems, the Prelatical party are in your eſteem men of learning and conſcience,Iohn Price his Snapſack. p. 8. but the Presbyterian party are men of neither; you ſay in p. 2.All the godly, learned & conſcientious Miniſters are for defenſive arms, & few there are of the contrary judgment, but Papiſts, Atheiſts, Prelates, Delinquents, and prophane wretches. they want Miniſteriall abilities, and here in pag. 40. that they forſwore themſelves againſt conſcience, &c. and if ſo, you account them to be men neither of learning or conſcience. I am ſure you were once of another mind, when you reckoned the Prelaticall party among Papiſts, Atheiſts, Delinquents and profane wretches, and the Miniſters to be learned, godly, and conſcientious, &c. O quantum mutatus ab illo! Surely you are not the man that you were. Would one think that you ſhould be the man to cry up the Prelaticall Clergy, and cry down the godly Miniſtry; to publiſh thoſe unto the world to be men of peace, but theſe to be violent diſturbers both of Church and State? doe not you juſtifie p. 65the wicked, and condemn the innocent, both which are an abomination to God: Alas! what wrong have the Miniſters done? what violence to any have they ever offered? it may bee you who wil not be ruled by the golden red of Presbytery, may have your neck under the iron y…ke of Epiſcopacy, and then you will feel who will be moſt violent againſt their oppoſers, whether the Prelaticall party, or the godly Miniſtry.

The truth is,I. P. p. 41. … 24. (i. e. the Army) have ſpread the ſweet ſavour of Religion abroad throughout this Kingdome, more then thouſands of thoſe who ſtile themſelves Miniſters of the Goſpell, &c.

Anſw. The truth is, the ſtink of the camp, both for their practices and opinions, is come up into the noſtrills of the Lord of hoſts as an abhorring to him as for their practices, diſobeying the Parliaments commands, diſputing their authority, impriſoning many of their perſons; uſing the ſword for the deſtruction of the perſon of the King, & priviledges of Parliament, which was put into their hands for the preſervation of both; ſuch practices as theſe, with many others, have no ſweet ſavour of religion in them. And for their opinions, are there not among them multitudes who deny the myſtery of the Trinity, the Divinity of Chriſt, the Authority of the Scriptures, the Immortality of the ſoul, the reſurrection of the body, & ſuch like; and is this to ſpread the ſweet ſavour of Religion throughout the Kingdom? If the Jews were baniſht out of England for poyſoning our fountains & ſprings of water, what do ſuch men as theſe deſerve, who labour to poyſon the pure fountains of the Scriptures? Many are of opinion, they have done more hurt by their errors, then good by their ſwords. Yet are not you aſhamed to ſay, they have ſpread the ſavour of Religion abroad, more then thouſands of the Miniſters of the Goſpell. To conclude, I ſhall …ay but this, that many who when they came firſt into the Army had ſweet and ſavory affections, whoſe gifts are now withered, and are but as ſtinking ſnuffs; As it was a Proverb in Queen Elizabeths time, If you would ſpoyl a Preacher make a Biſhop of him; ſo it will become a Proverb in our time, If you will ſpoil a Profeſſor of Religion, make a Souldier or an Armyman of him, he will then ſoon turn heady, Hereticall, and what not?

p. 66Many of your own party being more moderate, meek and conſiderate then your ſelves,I. P. pa. 42. l. 5. have declined you and are aſhamed of you, &c.

Anſw. I know no moderate, meek and conſiderate men who have declined them: indeed ſome raſh, paſſionate, inconſiderate men have done to them,2 Tim. 4. 10.2 Tim 4:10 as D…mas did to Paul, forſaken them to imbrace this preſent evill world, they could not get followers and advantage enough in being the Diſciples of the Truth, and therefore would be Maſters of an error to draw diſciples after them, that ſo many might follow their pernicious wayes and tis no wonder if ſuch as have declined and are aſhamed of the Truth, are aſhamed alſo of the Miniſters that preach it.

Why may not they (i.e. the Army) conclude from ſucceſſes as well as you,I. P. p. 44. l. …2. p. 45, 46. &c.—2. Though ſucceſſes are not alwaies infallible teſtimonies of the goodneſſe of the cauſe on which ſide they fall, yet ſucceſſes with their circumſtances, do ſometimes moſt evidently vindicate the mind of God. As 1. when both parties appeal ſolemnly to God, &c. 2. When th…ſe ſucc…ſſes are carried on in an uniform manner, the Lord giving ſeverall years ſucceſſe upon their appeals unto him. 3. When the glorious Majeſty, power and preſence of God doth appeal after ſuch appeals, when he ſhall with a ſmall Army of 16000 men deſtroy near an 100000 men in Arms, as if the Scots Army, the Welch Army, the Kentiſh Army, the Eſſex Army, were conſidered, it would appear. This is the ſum of what you ſay about the point of ſucceſſe in three pages.

Anſw. 1. The Miniſters did never conclude ſucceſſes to bee the infallible teſtimonies of the goodneſſe of the Cauſe, on which ſide they fall; they know that oftentimes they that worke wickedneſſe are ſet up,Mal. 3. 15.Mal 3:15 and they that tempt God are delivered; yea that a juſt man may periſh in his righteouſneſſe,Eccl. 7. 15.Eccl 7:15 and that a wicked man may prolong his life in his wickedneſſe.

2. In this the Papiſts and you are not much unlike, they make Proſperity a note of the true Church, and you make Succeſſe an evidence of a good cauſe; if it were ſo, the Heathen Emperors might plead their Cauſe to be good, and the primitive Chriſtians to be bad; yea the Turke and the Pope might borrow an Argument from you that their waies are good, becauſe they have proſpered, and the Church of God have been perſecuted and kept under by them.

p. 673. You think that you have a ſhift that will help you out, by ſaying, that ſucceſſes with their circumſtances, as praying, and ſolemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God. To this evaſion of yours, I ſhal ſay but this, Succeſſe may not alwaies fal to that ſide (though juſt) which doth pray and appeal to God, but on that ſide which is unjuſt, and doth neither. As is clear in the caſe of the men of Judah, Judg. 20. 18. 23.Judg 20:18Judg 20:23they ſought unto God, and askt Counſell of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin, yet for all that they loſt in two battails 40000 men; yet their cauſe was good, their prayers and appeals to heaven were ſolemn and ſerious.

4. Conſider God may give the Army ſucceſſes not out of any love or approbation of their wayes; but out of love to his own name and people, whoſe work for ſome time they were imployed about. Cyrus was ſucceſſefull againſt the Chaldaeans; theſe ſucceſſes were given him not for his own ſake, but for the ſakes of the children of Iſrael; God may uſe the Army as a battail axe, to break the enemies of his Church in pieces, and yet neither love their perſons, nor own many of their actions, but break them in the end. Dionyſius did ill to ſay, becauſe he had a proſperous voyage at ſea, that therefore the Gods did favour Sacriledge; God neither favours nor loves Rebellion, though they may proſper that are guilty of it. If you do build ſo much on ſucceſſes, yet make not preſent but finall ſucceſſe the ground of your confidence; if the Army perſiſt to juſtifie their ſinfull actings, mark what will become of them in the latter end. He conclude this with the wiſh of the Poets.

—Careat ſucceſſihus opto,

Quiſquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.

That impulſe of ſpirit,I. P. pa. 49. l. 8. and thoſe impreſſions of heart, that ſtirred up Jehoiadah the Prieſt to raiſe up ſeverall parties, to put Queen Athaliah to death, for her cruelty and murthers, did ſtirr up the Army, Parliament, and Court of Juſtice, to put the late bloody Tyrant to death, and wee may expect reſt and peace as the iſſue thereof.

Anſw. 1. Had the Army as good grounds to put to death King Charles, as Jehoiadah had to kill Queen Athaliah, I ſhould not open my mouth. Conſider 1. Athalia… was an uſurper of p. 68the Crown of Iſrael, Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12, &c.2 Kgs 11:22 Kgs 11:12but ſo was not King Charles of the Crown of England. 2. What Jehoiada did do was by Authority derived from the young King Joaſh, who was proclamed and crowned King by the conſent of the whole realm. 3. Iehoiada was not only a Prince of his Tribe, and the young Kings uncle, but alſo hee was as it were Lord Protector of the young King, during his minority; and therefore might without queſtion legally put that uſurper to death. Prove the King to be ſuch an uſurper as Athaliah was; or the High-Court and Army to have ſuch an authority as Iehoiada had, and Ile be ſilent.

1. If ſhe had had a true and legall Title to the Crown, as the King had. 2. If he had ſolemnly ſwore to God to preſerve her perſon, as you did to preſerve the Kings. 3. If ſhee had been no Idolater, as the King was not. 4. If he had not authority from the young King for doing what he did, would he have done it? no doubtleſſe.

2. I ſhall paſs that by, that you put the Army before the Parliament, and only ſpeak to that impulſe of ſpirit, that ſtirred up the Army and Court of Juſtice to put the King to death; I ſhall yeeld that they did by an impulſe of ſpirit, but yet I have reaſon to beleeve 'twas by the impulſe of that ſpirit that now works mightily in the children of diſobedience, becauſe 'twas done without and againſt the rule of the Word (as I ſhewed before) by which as the ſpirit, ſo all the impulſes of the ſpirit are to be tryed, and if they agree not thereto they are Satanicall ſuggeſtions, not the Spirits inſpirations.

3. And whereas you expect that the iſſue of putting the King to death will be reſt and peace; I muſt tell you the blood of Kings hath been oftentimes the ſeeds of diſſentions, commotions, and deſolations, not of reſt, peace and eſtabliſhment unto Kingdoms; as I told you before, ſo I ſay again, that the children of Iſrael from Saul their firſt King, to Zedekiah their laſt, were never under ſuch intolerable oppreſſions and miſeries as in thoſe times wherein their Kings (though wicked and bloody) were put to death by their Subjects.

That the murderer ſhall ſurely be put to death,I. P. p. 50. l. 1. is a known Precept of God, if this muſt be diſpenſed withall, ſhew us the abſolute, preſent, and clear neceſſity of it; if you cannot, will you ſpeak wickedly for God, &c. p. 69As for the Armies prrceedings, if there was a neceſſity that the Land ſhould be cleanſed from blood-guiltyneſſe, that the great ends of the Covenant, and all our wars ſhould be ſecured, &c. then was there a neceſſity on the Army to take that courſe they did.

Anſw. 1. I may anſwer you by way of Retortion, that the murderer ſhould be put to death, is a known Precept; that Goring and Owen had murdered many, was a known practice; for their pardon there is a known Vote; now if they were innocent, why were they condemned? if guilty of blood, why were they ſpared? can you deſpence with blood and none elſe?

2. Though murdering of one perſonally and maliciouſly cannot be diſpenſed withall; yet God never required that all who in a military way ſhed blood ſhould be put to death; as is clear in the caſe of Abſolons Rebellion, and the Benjamites unjuſt war (with many others) neither David, nor the men of Iudah, (when the ſword had determined the controverſy in the field on their ſides, and had cut off many of the evil doers) held themſelves bound to cut off the remainders that was left of the Armies either in the one or the other. If you think that this Precept (viz. that the murderer be put to death) reaches to all blood ſpilt in a military way, then are you bound that every man that was in the Kings Armies ſhould bee put to death, elſe (according to you) the land would be defiled with blood.

3. To what you ſay in the laſt place, that there was a neceſſity on the Army to take that courſe they did, if there was a neceſſity that the Land ſhould he cleanſed from blood, &c. I ſhall return this briefe anſwer. 1. The Army pleaded a neceſſity in the year, 1647. for things of a quite contrary nature, to what they pleaded a neceſſity for in Nov. 1648. 2. Who are the moſt competent judges, the Parliament or the Army, to judge of this neceſſity? if you ſay the Parliament, they ſaw no ſuch neceſſity, why did not the army then acquieſce in their judgments as they once promiſed to do? If you ſay the Army may be judges (which is moſt inequitable for them to be judges in their own Cauſe) then why may not any other 20000 men in the Kingdome plead neceſſity to oppoſe the Army, as they did to oppoſe the Parliament? ſhould any party, (whoſe principles are not conſiſtent with, but contrariant to the Armies proceedings) plead a neceſſity for their appearing p. 70for the intereſt of Religion, laws of the land, Priviledges of the Parliament, and Liberties of the People, &c. how can you juſtifie the Army, yet blame them? 3. If the neceſſity pleaded for, was ſo clear, preſent, and abſolute as you pretend; how it comes to paſs that it can be diſcerned by none but by the Army themſelves & their own party? This makes me of the ſame mind with the ſubſcribers, that the neceſſity pleaded for is but pretended, or elſe contracted by their own miſcarriages; the Army that prevailed againſt the ſharpeſt weapons of their enemies, were overcome by this own poor dart of pretended neceſſity; true is that Proverb, durum telum neceſſitas; could the Army have overcome their groundleſſe fears and jealouſies, they would never have done what they did; yea could they have truſted God, they wonld have been of Auſtins mind, (Ferenda eſt magis omnis iniquitas quam perpeiranda eſt aliqua iniquitas) viz. to endure the greateſt evil, rather then commit the leaſt ſin.

If your Temple work goes on ſlowly,I. P. p. 55 l. 8. then the City is ſet on work, the Country is excited, the Apprentices encouraged to offer violence upon the two Houſes, forcing them to Vote and Ʋnvote at pleaſure, and encouraged by ſome of your Tribe and ſubſcribers, as ſhall be made good if occaſion bee.

Anſw. 1. It will turn to your reproach that you are builders of Babel, but to their renown, that they are imployed about Temple work, which though it go on ſlowly, yet ſafely, you have no cauſe to deſpiſe the day of ſmall things; hee that hath laid the foundation ſtone, will rear up the top of the building, that all the people may cry Grace grace unto it.

2. And whereas you ſay, that they had excited men to offer violence to the two Houſes, forcing them to Vote and Ʋnvote, &c. I anſwer, you meaſure other mens corn by your own Buſhell, and other mens hearts by your own practices, you and your faction have offered violence to the two Houſes, forcing them to Vote and Unvote at your pleaſure, and yet you do the evill and other men muſt beare the blame.

3. As to that you ſay, that it ſhall be made good if occaſion bee, that ſome of the ſubſcribers did encourage the Apprentices to offer violence to the Houſes, I ſhall give you but this anſwer, viz. to give you a challenge and offer you an occaſion to make it good if you p. 71can; that you have not done it all this while, I impute not to your lenity but their innocency.

And thus I have returned you an anſwer to the moſt materiall paſſages in your book; I ſhall not meddle with thoſe fond Queries you propoſe in the latter end thereof; I know one fool can ask more queſtions in a day, then twenty wiſe men can anſwer in a year.

You conclude your book with a prophane deſcant on a ſerious and ſavoury Sermon of Mr. Calamies; you who were once, when you wrote your Snapſack, ſo humble as to ſay you were neither a Prophet nor the ſon of a Prophet, are now ſo proud as to become a Lord & judg of the Prophets? yet thoſe that know you will count your tongue to be no ſlander; M^r. Calamies perſon is ſo well eſteemed, and his Miniſtry ſo approved, that all your revilings will turn to his glory, and your ſhame: M^r. Calamy only affirmed that Anarchy, Perjury, Toleration, &c. are ſuch deeps able to ſink a Kingdome, if you ſay the contrary, you will ſhew your ſelfe a ſimple and ſhallow fellow. To conclude all, the counſell I ſhall give you is this, that you would be more in the ſhop, leſſe in the pulpit, more in your dwelling houſe, leſſe in the Printing-houſe, then will the Church be leſs diſturbed and your family better provided for.

FINIS.

End of the text · Christopher Love, Vindication of the Ministers of London (1649)