I Having read some Books inveighing against the Armies late removing some Members of Parliament from sitting in the House; wherein they utterly mistake the state of the present condition of affairs in the King­dom in all their Arguments; could do no less in duty, than humbly to propose my thoughts, in vindication of them therein.

Those who dispute against them, do affirm these six things, viz.

First, That they have resisted Authority.

Secondly, Broken their Trust and Vows to God and Men.

Thirdly, Dissolved the Parliament.

[Page 2] Fourthly, Justified the King in that former somthing Parallel attempt of his.

Fiftly, Opened a gap to all Rebellion.

Sixtly, Acted without any warrant from holy Writ.

All which I conceive are grounded upon this one mistake, viz. By giving that Authority to Governours which is the right of a Free-born People, and onely ju­stifies our taking up of Arms in Vindication thereof. That is, that the Peoples Trustees, and not their Gover­nours, should be Judges of their own Laws, and con­sequently to remove their Rulers, if they will not keep themselves within the bounds of their trust: which how it may be applyed to justifie the present act of the Army, in regard this Parliament was chosen to be the sole Judges thereof in the behalf of the People; And consequently the King who attempted to offer them violence in the performance of this their Duty was so justly condemned. How this Army in this particular can be justified, is the scope I aime at.

In order to which, we may observe that before the King deserted his trust; the Parliament (being the peo­ple) were in such a capacity, that they were the sole Judges of what concerned the Peoples Freedoms, and therefore could not be said to tyranize over the People. But since the King deserted the Parliament, they became Governours themselves; and all Governours of a Free people, ought to have their Wills regulated by the Peo­ples Trustees over whom they rule: which as the case now stands, the Army having authority to do, did not in restraining these members, act out of their Places and Callings: And to cleer these particulars, we shall handle them in this Order: Namely, to prove

1. What it is to be in a capacity to act tyrannically, and what not.

[Page 3] 2. That before the Kings deserting the Parliament, they were not in a capacity so to act.

3. That since the Kings deserting the Parliament, they are in a capacity so to act.

4. That the Army have a lawful Authority to judge of, and restrain them from so acting.

Which 4. being soundly proved, I doubt not but our Ad­versaries, such as are ingenuous, will yeild and confess, that God hath overcome them, not onely by swords, but words; by strength, but truth; by might, but right.

And first, To be in a capacity to act tyrannically, is for ru­lers to be the sole Judges of what they do or order, in refer­ence to the government of the people: because in this case, whatsoever they ordain, the people are in no capacity to shew their dislike: and consequently, if for their own privat advantage, or some other by-respect they take away the just due or Interest of some other man or men, there is no power on earth to check or restrain them. On the other side, when Rulers can make no Orders or Proceedings that are binding. but those which the People (by their lawful Deputies) are in a capacity to dis-avow and restrain, then Rulers are not in a capacity to act tyrannically.

2. Before the Kings deserting the Parliament, they were not in a capacity to act tyrannically. For the Parliament were the people met together, to demand of their Rulers what they thought meet for their owne safety, and therefore were not in a capacity to tyrannise over the people, because themselves were the people, and not the Rulers, but were to return to their dwellings, and themselves to be ruled by those Laws they demanded.

3. Since the Kings deserting the Parliament, they are in a capacity to act tyrannically. For in his absence, they were by approbation of the people, to take upon them to be Ru­lers: [Page 4] that is, to make Orders and Ordinances to govern the People by. Now it is already proved, that for Rulers to be the sole Judges of what they do or order in reference to the government of the People, is to be in a capacity to act Ty­rannically. Therefore since the Kings deserting the Parlia­ment, they are in a capacity so to act.

Or secondly, By giving Commission to Armies, they be­come the Governours of those Armies; and by governing them, they govern the Kingdom: Now to govern a King­dom, especially by force of Arms, and to be the sole Judges of what they do or order in reference to the Government thereof, is to be in a high capacity to act tyrannically.

4. That the Armies which they raise, have a lawful Au­thority to judge of and restrain them from so acting. For first, the People in Parliament are not Governours, but as some of us are willing to acknowledge them so: For it is the unquestionable right of a free people, not to be subject to any whether they will or no. Indeed the Jews had somtime Governours appointed them by Divine Authority; but we (as far as we enjoy our freedom) not without our own choise, and therefore as we were free in chusing them to represent us as the people of England, so we were as free in chusing whe­ther we would allow them to be our Governours; except we grant that the Kings deserting the Parliament, and their undertaking to free us from tyrannie, could entitle them to be our Governours, though none of the people of the land had at all believed that they intended it. Therefore the peo­ple in Parliament were not our Governours, but as some of us were willing to own them so.

And that this is a truth, appeareth secondly, By the Parlia­ments declaring the case, and therein appealing to the people to be their own Judges, whether they wou'd receive Com­missions, and take up Arms under their Authority or no.

[Page 5] 2. We never owned their authority in giving Commissi­ons to us or any of us, but as it gave them who received the Commissions for us, a lawful authority to judge of and by the sword, or otherwise to restrain them in acting tyrannical­ly. For if they gave us or our deputies (whom we and they entrusted to receive the sword to defend us) a Commission to oppose the Arbytrarie and Tyrannical power of Gover­nours, then they gave us in our said Deputies, a Commissi­on to oppose it in themselves; because in receiving their Commission, we allow of them as Governours. Which although it might not be expresly mentioned in their said Commissions, yet it is to be understood, because we had no other reason to take up Arms against our former Gover­nours, but to oppose tyrannie.

And secondly (as I have already shewed) if those who in the capacity of Rulers do make Ordinances, should also in the capacity of people have sole power to judge of the just­ness of them, then they are invested with power both to make Ordinances whereby to dispose of the publike monies for their own privat use, or otherwise dispose of our lives and estates, and also be the sole Judges of the justness of so doing: and it is not tolerable that our taking up Arms against tyrannie, was to maintain such a tyrannical power. Where­fore it must necessarily be allowed, that we never had owned their authority in giving Commissions to us, or any of us, but as it gave them authority, who received the Commissions for us, again to judge of, and restrain them in acting tyranni­cally.

3. That thus to oppose, is the proper work of the Armies raised by them; they being those who are entrusted with the sword. First, because none but they are lawfully entrusted to use their endeavours for this end: and therefore if those who have no commission to assert our Liberties, should (be­ing [Page 6] of another judgement) endeavour to oppose the Army in what they do according to their Commission, they should oppose them acting according to their places and callings to preserve the people, without any commission or authority: for to oppose those that act by a lawful commission, is to re­bel against Authority.

2. If both we as the people in Parliament, were willing to give them a Commission to defend us the people of the land against the tyrannie of Governours; and also they (as willing to venture their lives in such our defence) were wil­ling to accept of this our deputation, as sufficient Authority to bear them out in so doing: then though (now we see their acting) we do not approve of their acting therein, yet if we resist them, we act as private men against the Authority gi­ven them by all the people in Parliament; and after we have engaged ourselves to allow them liberty in so acting, howso­ever they should act therein, we also break our trust and en­gagement if we deny it unto them: Therefore to use the sword to oppose tyrannie is their proper work, and not ours. So that you see here are three reasons why we may not op­pose them herein.

First, None can show a Commission to oppose tyrannie but the Army.

Secondly, We all entrusted them to use their best skill herein. VVhich one is divided into two arguments.

1. That they who oppose them, oppose their private opi­nions against their own authority in Parliament. And

2. Break their publike engagement to the Parliament and Kingdom: which David saith we may not do, though the keeping thereof should be to our prejudice. Now then, you see it proved, that it is not onely the work to which they are call­ed lawfully: but so theirs, as none else may oppose, without opposing the Authority of the whole Kingdom. Therefore [Page 7] the Armies raised by the Authority of Parliament, have a lawful Authority to judge of, and restrain the same Parlia­ment (as they are not our selves or people, but our Gover­nours) from acting tyrannically.

And now I come to answer the six things before mention­ed, alledged against their proceedings herein.

Object. 1. That they have resisted Authority.

To which I answer, That I have proved they were so far from acting against Authority, that they have acted herein according to their places and callings: and it is impossible that mens very doing their duty should be the committing of sin, or acting rebelliously. 2. I answer, That if the Members in Parliament, as they are our Governours, have no Autho­rity to act and persever in acting things contrary to our liking, declared by our lawful Deputies; then in so acting, they act that which they have no Authority to do: in which to op­pose them, is to oppose their wills onely, not their Authori­ty. 3. It might by the same reason be proved that the Parlia­ments War is unlawful, because therein they opposed the will of him that was their Governour. Therefore the A [...]my have not resisted Authority.

Object. 2. That they having vowed, and being entrusted to maintain the Priviledges of Parliament) have broken their vow and trust herein.

Answ. The Priviledge of Parliament is the priviledge of the people, whereby through their lawful Deputies they are authorised to oppose that which they judge to be Tyrannie in their Governours. But the Army (seing they, and none else have Commission to oppose Tyranny) are therefore the lawful Deputies entrusted to oppose that which they judge Tyrannie in their Governours: Therefore they have per­formed (not broken) their trust and vows to God and men in thus doing.

[Page 8] Object 3. They have dissolved the Parliament.

Answ. If the Parliament be now not in the capacity of a formal Parliament or People, met to demand our liberties of our Governours, but as it were, a Councel of State, au­thorised (by means of them our lawful Deputies, taking up Arms under their command) to be our Governours; then to remove such evil Governours as by our lawful Depu­ties we judge tyrannical, is not to dissolve a Parliament, nor yet to destroy, but regulate such a councel of Governours, who must needs (in this case) without such a removal, be in a capacity to destroy, but not to save us; and by such a remo­val, are restored unto a capacity to rule us safely. Now I say, if this be true, (all which is either cleer of it self, or already proved) then the Army have not by this act dissolved the Parliament, nor yet the Government, but have done that, which if they had not done, this Councel would have bin not onely useless, but destructive to us, and being done, is re­stored unto a capacity to preserve us: whose preservation is the onely end of our fighting, and of their government.

Object. 4. That they justified the King in that former som­thing Parallel attempt of his.

Answ. They are parallel in nothing but this, that the Kings Act was in as high a degree of breaking of trust, as the Ar­mies was a keeping of trust; That the Army without so act­ing, could not have performed their trust, I have already pro­ved; because they being in place of us the people, cannot be faithful to us, but in removing such Governours they judge tyrannical. And that the King without resisting the free Par­liament or people of England, could not lightly have broken his trust, is as cleer; but sure I am, that by his attempt to re­move some of them out of the House, he did endeavour to o­ver-aw the rest, and so to make us all his creatures and slaves, by our own consent in Parliament, is so evident, as it need not [Page 9] be proved: which is manifestly against his Oath and Trust.

Object. 5. That they have opened a gap to all Rebellion.

Answ. For the lawful Deputies of the people not to be satisfied without a timely removal of such as they judge ty­rannical Governours; is so far from opening a gap unto, that it shuts the dore against Rebellion, which otherwise they judge would ensue▪ For that is properly rebellion, which is acted against the authority of the people in their lawful De­puties, upon any pretense whatsoever.

Object 6. That they have acted without any warrant from holy writ.

Answ. He that turns the truth with the wrong side up­wards, and in that posture laies it to the rule of God word, must needs give a judgment quite contrary to truth: For we have proved that insteed of resisting our authority, they have maintained our authority: insteed of breaking their trust, they have performed their trust: insteed of justifying the Kings act, they have condemned it: insteed of opening a gap to rebellion, they have shut the dore against it: and conse­quently it follows, that insteed of acting without warrant from holy Writ, they have acted by authority from such Warrant. And now, not doubting all honest Christians will see their error, and (as David) take their own sentence to themselves unto whom it belongs, which they have urged with as much zeal as we can press upon them; We are assu­red they will yeild obedience unto lawful Authority, which if others amongst them refuse to do, shall not God (to use his own expression) laugh to see them taking such pains, thus to sentence themselves, whilst they rejoyce in conceit, that they have beaten his cause and servants down to the ground? And shall not all the Saints say Amen? Even so be it Lord Jesus.