ANd here first of all the question must be rightly stated, or else there can be no accurate reasoning, but we shall ever and anon fall into the fallacy ex ignoratione E'lugchi. Now the case I conceive may be thus impartially stated: This Kingdom having bin long imbroyied in an unnaturall consu­ming war, through a misunderstanding between the King & Parliament: The King at last fell into the Parliaments power, all his strength being broken by them. While the King is in this condition (after many other overtures uselesse, and ex­perience of the discontent of the Nation, both for want of settlement; and the sad condition of their King) There is set on foot a personall Treaty with the King: In which the Parliament demand of him concession, and confirmation of such priviledges, as from the beginning they thought condu­cible to render this people free, and happy, and were the summe of all that had been formerly demanded in any of their other treaties or proposals, or had been held forth in their Declarations, as the scope of their undertakings. To this Treaty the far Major part of the House of Commons a­greed & that willingly, yea so far were they from being forct to it, (as it pretended) by petitions, that neither the impetu­ousness of petitions from people, nor fear of souldiers pistols, could make them relinquish it, for they were satisfied in their consciences, that it was the fairest, justest, & most probable way to promote and settle the peace, & weal of a distressed King­dom; so this Treaty is prosecuted till its very neer an happy conclusion. The Army (raised by, and deriving their millitary power from the Houses) dislike this Treaty, suppose it would indanger them, & a godly party in the land (so they stile their adherents.) This their judgment they remostrate to the house of Commons. The house not convinc'd by their reasons, nor dis­mayd [Page 3]at their power, laid aside their Remonstrance, hold on the Treaty, vote the Kings concessions to contain matter for a well grounded peace; hereupon the Army beset the passages to the House of Commons, take above forty of the Mem­bers of Parliament into safe custody, and violently keep or fright a major part out of the House, debarring them liber­ty of sitting, and voting there. This action of the Army Mr. John Goodwin undertakes to defend under the title of garb­ling the Parliament. And I yet beleeve,pag. 2. that it was a most irregular and scandalous usurpation, destructive to Parlia­ments, and so to the welbeing of this Kingdom, if not to the present ruine of it, unlesse it be retracted by the actors. And this I here undertake to make good against Mr. John Goodwin, by making good those arguments, which he would overthrow, and enlarging them as occasion is offered.

Sect. 2.

The first argument which he incleavours to answer, is;pag. 3. From the Armies acting without sufficient authority, and so transgressing that law which commands every man to keep or­der and within the compasse of his calling. And this he stiles the first born of our strength. And you shall see that it is indeed like Moses, a goodly child, if you view him in his right and full proportion, in mood and figure thus.

All exercise of jurisdiction, where neither by God or man we are clothed with authority, is usurpation, breach of order, injuri­ous, and so greatly sinfull.

The Army in inhibiting the Members entrance into their House of Councell, and more grossly in imprisoning their persons, did exercise jurisdiction, where they were clothed with noe autho­rity from God or man. Therefore

The Army in that force upon the Houses stand guilty of usur­pation, breach of order, and injurie to the Members so used, and so sinned greatly.

The Major is undeniable; if men will grant there are such things as usurpation, disorderly walking and injury, or that those are sinfull where ever they be. For what is usurpation if this be not for men to exercise jurisdiction over them who are not under their authority, nay to whose authority they are subject? What is breach of ranke and order if this be not, for men that are under authority to usurpe authority with­out [Page 4]a call? And what is injury if this be not, to be haled to prison, by those that are neither authoritative judges of my fact, nor have any superiority over my person, and that only for acting according to the dictates of my conscience? And are not such abuses grosly sinfull, that doe as it were make void the fifth Commandment, and destroy Govern­ment?

And for the Minor, first its clear that the Army did exercise jurisdiction over the Members: for suspension from office, and commitment are high acts of jurisdiction. And if the Ar­my were clothed with any authority for this, let them pro­duce their patents that we may beleeve them, or else the conclusion is in force against them, to convict them of usurpa­tion, breach of order and injury.

Sect. 3.

But now what saith Mr. Goodwin to this?pag. 3. As our Saviour saith. The Sabath was not made for man but man for the Sa­bath. So certain it is, that callings were made for man, and not man for callings. Therefore as the law of the Sabath, was to give way to the necessities of men: so the law of callings &c. therefore unles it can be proved, that there was no necessity ly­ing on the Army to garble the Parliament; Their exceeding their callings, will not illegitemate their actions.

Answ. 1. That saying of our Saviour, that the Sabath was not made for man &c. was not utter'd by him to show that the action of the Desciples in plucking, and eating the ears of corne, was warranted by necessity against the command of the Sabath, but that it was not within the prohibition of workes on the Sabath, which ordinarily is restrained to works of a civill or servile nature, not to naturall refresh­ment, which is alwayes indulged on the Sabath and so that work of mercy is not under the prohibition, for the pluck­ing of the eares of corn, when they were n the field was no more then drawing drink out of a vessel and of this opinion is learned Chemnitius. Hoc Christus it a defendit, ut simul osten­dat extra casum contempus publici ministerii, et turbationis cul­tus sabati propter otium externum Sabati, hominem ne levi quidē incommodo assiciendum. By this Christ doth so defend his De­sciples, as withall he shews that out of the case of contempt of the publike ministery, and disturbance of the worships of the Sabath, [Page 5]for the externall rest of the Sabath, a man is not to undergo the least dammage. So that in his judgement, though the other arguments shew, what is lawfull in case of necessity, so à Majori clears the disciples, yet this argument shews this was not in the prohibition of works on the Sabath.

2. The rest of the Sabath, and keeping within our callings, are duties we owe to God by vertue of commands of a far different condition: The one by a command positive, as that of the Sabath, the other by a law naturall, as the fifth com­mandment, that commands every one to observe their ranks, and duties in them. Now commandments that are positive, are to give way to duties naturall. Sacrifice, to mercy: The rest of the Sabath, not to the life only, but to the cheerfulnesse and welbeing of man; as the instance of the disciples, who were not in danger of death if they had fasted a little longer, but of inconvenience. But I hope Mr. Goodwin will not judge, that danger of inconveniency, should make every man, or party of power, turn controulers of magistracy. Not onely Ʋz­ziah, that wantonly 2 Chron. 26. but Saul who out of fear of inconveniencie, 1 Sam. 13.11, 12, 13, 14: yea and Ʋz­zah, who as he thought was a case of necessity, put his hand without the call to the work of a Priest, aswell, as the former reproved, and smitten, 1 Chron. 13.9.20.

And if there be any case wherein necessity amounts to a calling, it must be where that necessity ingageth to a duty, that ought to take place before this Commandment for or­der amongst men, as that for saving life &c. And then the danger must be apparent, not probable onely to some and disputable; for else he shall run against an undoubted rule, upon an uncertain exception. 2. It must be imminent, so that no other means is left, or possible in an ordinary way. 3. And illegall, as when any, whether Magistrate or other, is about to act mischief to the persons of others without or a­gainst law. But if a mans life be in danger in a legal way, though unjustly, A man may not himself, nor ought others to resist authority armed with law, for that were to take a­way all honor and opportunity of Martyrdom. The servant who hath a froward unjust Master, is according to Christ's example to be patient, though he suffer unjustly committing [Page 6]his cause to him that judgeth righteously,1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 2. though ma­ny times the servant hath strength enough to bind his exor­bitant Master. And such should be the carriage of private Christians to hard magistrates executing hard laws. But now that there was no danger, evident, imminent, and a­gainst the laws of the Nation to urge the Army so to force the Parliament, shalbe afterwards cleared.

Sect. 4.

But secondly Mr. Goodwin hath found out a new fancy, if the former fail him; but that is such a feeble one, that I question whether he be serious in it; for he takes the bold­nesse to affirm that the Army did not exceed the bounds of their calling, in their force upon the Parliament men, and he would seeme to prove it;pag. 3. for saith he, their calling and commission was to act in the capacity of souldiers, for the peace, liberty, and safety of the Kingdom &c. But here first I must minde him that the Army themselves have mand his market: for they who know better the purport of their own commission then he, and whom he flatteringly tells in his E­pistle dedicatory, that he doubts not but they were satisfied in the righteousnesse of their actions from heaven, before they were in being, roundly confesse, (in their answer to the demands of the remnant of the House touching their Members Jan. 3. 1648.) That their restrayning the Mem­bers was a course in it self Irregular, and UNIUSTIFI­ABLE, but by honest intentions, and extraordinany necessi­ty, whereby they plainly disclaim any call by the tenour of their Commission. But least any in such times as these, when men many times are imprisoned first, and shew of just occa­sion is gladly laid hold on afterwards, This false plea might be made use of, though it were not at first thought of, I will examine what he saith; he inlargeth himself: nor did their Commission (I presume) limit or conclude their judg­ments to any kind of enemies &c. But I presume their Com­mission was to bear armes, to remove evill Councellers from the King, and bring him back to his Parliament, and to en­deavour the subduing of all them that were in armes against the Parliament, or the welfare of the Kingdom, and (as I am informed) they were still to be regulated in their procee­dings, by the Judgement of both Houses of Parliament; [Page 7]which any man may easily beleeve; for that the Parliament should give them a Commission inabling them to judge of their Councells, and imprison their persons, if they answer­ed not their new illuminated fancies (for they must be judges what grounds are competent to make men enemies) is so far from policy, reason, or common sence, that I wonder any man of judgement should aver it in print.

But saith he again,Page 4. If it shall be supposed, that by their Commis­sion they were limited, to judge only those enemies who were in Arms with the King, and his partakers: Those Parliament-men whom they have excluded have notoriously discovered themselves to be men of this engagement, &. But was ever any accusation more unjust or senseless? Did not they in the Treaty hold the King so hard to it, as to justifie them and the Army in the war, to the vertual condemning of himself and his? And to grant all, for which they ingaged against him and his party? And can they for this be traduc'd, as apparently friends and abettors of that party. But he comes on with a third answer,Page 4, 5. That if the Parliaments call were warrantable to levy Forces against the King and his party; then was the Armies call to act in the businesse under Debat [...], warrantable likewise. But this conse­quence is very weak, for the Parliament is the supreme Court, and Councel in the Kingdom (and in your apprehension, I be­leeve, the supreme authority) who were indeed called to that Trust by the people▪ but being by their call made members of Parliament, they became clothed with authority, to consult, and provide m [...]ans for the safety of themselves and the Nation, according to the Laws and Constitutions of it. And so issued out Commissions, &c. but this as private men they could not do. But now the Army was not by any Commission clothed with any authority over the Parliament. And therefore they cannot justifie their actings against the Parliament, over whom they had no authority, by what the Parliament did, having so great authority; yea in the conceit of our new Lords, the greatest authority in the Land. But he argues further,Page 5, 6. That if the Parliament-men by being made Parliament-men, had for­mally and really power to raise an Army, then that Army hath power to act whatsoever lies within the verge of their Commissi­on, &c. This is not doubted: But the thing which we doubt [Page 8]and deny is, That the tenor of their Commission should be by strong hand to suppress all that by rationall grounds, they should judg enemies of the peace of the Kingdom, without dependance on Parliamentary judgment: for they were as raised, so to be regulated by the Parliament in their proceed­ings. The power of judging being reserved in the Parliament; The power of executing committed to the Army, especially in case of doubt or difference. Never would, never did, any State raise an Army on other terms, unles they meant to make them Lords, not Servants. For who is likely to be more skil­ful in judging what is conducible to peace and publick weal? A Councel of War, or a Councel of State? Therefore its clear that the Army in assuming power to judg their raisers autho­ritatively, and so using force against them; have exceeded the bounds of their Commission, falsifyed trust, and are injurious usurpers on the Parliament men.

Sect. 5.

But he raiseth an Objection, That it is not likely that the Par­liament would give Commission to act against themselves. He answers:pag. 6. 1 That Law-givers when in their righe mindes, may give out Laws against mad men, which may be put in execution against themselves when they become mad. And in case any of the Parliament men from whom the Commission issued had turned Cavaliers, &c. But this is a wilde answer: for the excluded Parliament-men are in the same way, and in the same princi­ples, in which they first gave out Commissions, that is, to have the King home, separated from his evil Counsellors, that his Throne might be establish'd in righteousness. Therefore to ar­gue, That because their Commission might have been used against them if they had left the Body that gave it, and united with the Kings party, that Now it may be so used when they continue in Parliament; and act on the same principles, on which they issued out the Commissions, is as poor a come off, as could be expected from the weakest Sophister.

Nor hath his 2 Answer any more strength where he affirms, That what one Traiane Emperor spake expresly to an inferior Officer, is said implicitly to al inferior Officers, by their superiors; to use the power they have for them, if they rule well; against them, if they rule ill: pag. 6.7. for they are also for the punishment of evil-doers, and that without partiality. And S. Peter requires submission not only to [Page 9]the King as supreme, but unto governors, sent by him for the pu­nishment of evil doers. But first, if there were nothing peculiar in that saying of Trajane, why is it so often mentioned of him, as a note of eminency and honor? Again, though inferior officers should use their power and be respected in the use of it, yet they must also remember their limits. A Justice of Peace hath pow­er, but it is with limits in regard of place, which if he exceed, though his act be never so just, he usurps, and is punishable. And so is he limited also in regard of persons. Subordinate Magistrates are to govern, & to be obeyed by those under them; but they are to be governed by the powers above them, and not exercise authority over them, for their Commission ex­tends not so far; Though we are to be subject to subordinate Magistrates, yet in case of opinion of wrong, we may appeal from them, as Paul to Caesar; which shews the supreme Magistrate is to censure their Sentences, not they his.

You might have spared that Scripture which here you too lightly bring in, that in this Armies Commission there can­not be pretence for that exception which is in that of Christ. 1 Cor. 15.27. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is exempted that did put all things under him, God the Father being incapable of sin. For though the superiour magistrate is not exempt from sin, yet is he excepted out of the Commission of the inferiour Magistrate, because his superiour in Magistracie; and Par in Parem, much lesse inferior in superiorem (in codem genere) non habet potestatem, equall hath no authority over his equall, much lesse the inferiour over the superiour in the same kind, especially where the supreme Magistrate thinkes he doth well; for whose judgement shall controll? shall the inferi­ours controll the superiour? Neither doth Mr. Prinne or any judicious Divine that I know, affirm that any other inferiour Magistrates but the representatives of a Kingdom, shall take order with the restraining of Tyrants: or if any inferiour Magistrate may do it, yet they and the representa­tives are to proceed, by taking order with their ministers which are under the penalties of the law, and within the verge of authority. And there is no usurpation in this, when penalties are inflicted on them that are under juris­diction. [Page 10]But he adds If the Army had not so for mall a call, as the Parliament, yet had they a call as materiall, for the one had it from the persons of the people, and the other from the peoples liberties, yea and lives, many of their lives be­ing now laid upon the altar &c. what a loud untruth is here in matter of fact? whose lives were on the alter? Or what better security could the Parliament devise. Then first to be justified by Act of Parliament, and secondly to be secured from violence by the command of the militia? Again what palpable weaknesse is here in matter of argument, to com­pare the calls of men to their votes, with reall calls of their miseries, and these too most in their own fancies for the major part of people apprehend no such thing, and so their gron [...]s call not: who knows not, that personall call by votes clothes with authority, gives jurisdiction, and enables to or­der others? But sight of miseries, gives a man no authority to command, onely calls him to put forth that power he hath to help,

Lastly he affirms incase of extream necessity, Aquinas, q. 32. Art. 7. all things are common, and so callings; for this he cites a Popish writer, a fit patron for a false position; for if this be true, here is no theft in extreme need when a man must dye, to feed on ano­ther mans store, it is no theft. But this is against the Scrip­tures, making a difference indeed between him that steales presumtuously, and him that steales for need, the one de­serving pitty, but is a theif still, and must restore, though it be to all his substance Prov. 6, 30, 31.So Augustine in Psalm. 73. Pauper mendi­cus furtum fa­cit ex macie processit ini­quitas. And Cicero is of the same judgement, that a good man must famish rather then steale, lib. 3. Off.Nonne igitur sapiens si fame ipse conficiatur abstulerit ci­bum alteri ad nullam rem utili? Minimè vero; non enim mihi est vita mea utilior, quam animi mei talis affe­ctus, neminem ut violem commodi mei gratia. wherein he speaketh to the shame of Pa­pists and all that symbolize with them. To the example of David I have answered already, for what he cites out of Pola­nus; That when eclesiasticks are negligent, Laickes may reforme, Its just nothing to his purpose; for who knows not that Polanus and other Protestant Divines, hold the reformation of the eclesiasticall estate to be within the verge of a ma­gistrates call? But will Polanus or Mr. Goodwin say, that a magistrate in case of defect without any other call, may ad­minister the Sacraments? could necessity excuse Ʋzzah? Therefore this pretended community in case of necessity, is a Popish device, and a figleafe too narrow.

He closeth his answer with a similitude of his owne, which he amplifies out of Master Prin, Pag. 9.10. [Where he supposeth the Pilot of a Ship drunke, or mad, and the Ship running on quick-sands, &c. In such a case may not any man or inen Act as a Pilat, which others stand bound at the perill of their lives in this case to obey.] But first, similitudes are better for illustrations, then proofes, Secondly, They prove nothing at all, unlesse there be parity betweene the example, and the thing exemplified. Whereas here is the greatest disparitie. For if this similitude cleare the Armie, it must suppose the Parliament-men drunke, or mad, whereas indeed they that accuse them, labour of somewhat proportionable to these diseases. But let the case be put thus: The Master of the Ship is, according to his place ablest to guide the Ship, and he according to his best skill, directs such a course, and accordingly gives out commands. The Master Gunner, presumes he can steere a safer course, and thereupon, by the helpe of his under-officers, awes, and forcibly seizeth the Pilot, and so takes his owne way. Is not the Gunner here guistle of usurpation and disobedience? Just so stands the case between the Parliament and the Army. The Parliament are best able to judge, for they are the Councell of State, and have most right to guide the Ship of the common-wealth, for they have the Superior Authoritie. But the Souldiers command the Guns, and they propose another way, which though lookt upon, as most dangerous by the skilfull Pilots; yet by force, all are se­cluded, that will not run their way. Is not this usurpation in the Souldier, and dangerous, not safe to publique weale? In case of difference in judgements, whose sentence shall con­troll? Shall the sons judgement controll the fathers? or the servants his Masters? no more ought inferiours Magistrate con­troll the Superiours. The Armie therefore should obey, not pr [...]scribe to the Parliament in things dubious, especially such as are of Civill, not Martiall cognizance. But because the exception that Master Goodwin all along supposeth is, That the Parliament Members restrained, are drunke or mad civilly, or have turned back on trust, and there is much de­pends on this. I will here, once for all, lay downe grounds to cleare it; That the Parliament-men restrained, are in re­ference [Page 12]to the Souldiery, sober, in their right wits, and true to trust, and that the contrary errours rest among their op­pressors. As first I argue thus:

Sect. 6.

Those that keepe to their Principles, Professions and Declarations made, when they are confest to be sober, in their right wits, and true to trvst, must needs be judged to be so still. The Parliament men who indeavour the setling of the King and Kingdome, upon his large Con­cessions, keepe to their principle Declarations and Professions. Ergo, They are to be judged sober, in their wits, and faithfull to trust. The Major is manifest, for constancy in Principles and wayes, is the greatest evidence of sobriety and faithfulnesse. A double-minded man, a drunken man, a frantick man, is unstable in all his wayes. The Minor is undeniable, which may be seene by every one in the Record of their Principles, Declarations and Professions, in the Booke called, The exact collections, prin­ted long since by the Parliaments appointment, and in other Summaries of them. And if the Members be soher, in their wits, and true to trust; their opposites are under the evils, con­trary to these vertues; For Contrarioram contraria sunt praedicata.

Secondly, Those that proceed in a way to which they stand ingaged, by divers solemne and religious bonds, they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust. The oppressed Members proceeded in a way to which they stood ingaged by many solemne and religious Bonds, therefore they are sober, &c. The Major is not to be doubted of, unlesse we be like Felix, and think much Religion or Learning makes mad.

The Minor is as evident, for the Oathes of Allegiance, Supre­macy, Protestation, the Nationall Covenant, are all sacred and solemne Bonds, and all ingage to preserve the Kings Honour, Safety, and Greatnesse, at least upon such Concessions as these gran­ted by him. Therefore the conclusion is undeniable, and the blame must rest on their Oppressors, but the oppressed Mem­bers are free.

Thirdly, They that walke in a way suitable to the Religion that they professe, and after the patterne of the wisest and best professors of [...], they are sober, &c. The Parliament in according with the King upon his Concessions walke sutable to the Religion they professe and [Page 13]follow the patterne of the wisest and best professors of it, therefor they are sober, &c. The Maior is evident, and the Minor is cleare, if there be any difference, it is from the Parliaments holding up the King too high, and not in stooping too low. For no Re­ligion is more for not onely accepting, but exalting Gover­nours in legall waies, then the religion of Protestants in mat­ter of Loyalty, even in case of difference of Religion, alwaies condemning the Jesuiticall Doctrine of deposing, or destroy­ing Princes; And for the practise of the best Protestants you shall heare, Iunius Brutus in his Vindiciae contra Tyranos, a Book that is Scandalous even to many Protestants, for the great liberty he gives against Princes; yet in this case, thus he speakes, p. 47. Cum his quoties cun (que) optaris praesto est pax de­sine caedere cedunt, Desine deum, oppugnare, desinent propugnare. Ar­ma si velis iis è manibus encutere, satis est modo ne percutias. A Prince saith he may have pe ace with protestant Subjects when he will let him leave beating them, they yeeld to him; let him leave opposing God, they will leave their forcible defence; If you would dis­arne them, its enough that you strike them not: and a little after Principi portas urbis claudunt, ubi res [...]p [...]erit, & ad se redierit, im­pertata facere parati. They shut the gat [...]s of the City against the Prince; assoone as he shall repent, and come to himselfe, they are rea­dy to doe his Commands. A little after, no strovero etiam tempore meni­vimus eos, qui pro vera religione, adversus impietatem in Germania, Gallia (que) pugnarant, quotiescun (que) dei pure colendi potestas facta est, arma ultro deposuisse. Also we remember that those in our time have fought for true Religion against impiety, either in Germany or France, as often as they had liberty given to serve God purely, lay downe Armes. And his conclusion is very remarkeable, Ejus­modi ergo signis possient hi a defectoribus facile distingui. Therefore by such like signes, those (that maintaine legall liberties a­gainst Tyranny by the Sword) may be easily distinguisht from Rebels or apostate Subjects. And thus it is cleared, that the Par­liament, in indeavouring peace upon the Kings Concessions, doe walke after the rules and patterns of Protestants and their Religion; Therefore the conclusion stands good, that they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust, but then what to thinke of their oppressour [...] is obvious enough.

Fourthly and lastly, (that I may not exceed in ma [...]ters so cleare; Th [...]se whose worke and trust is, to provide for the honour, safety, peace, and pr [...]sperity of a Nation, who proceede in the most pro­bable way, to promote the honour, safety, peace and prosperity of that Nation; they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust. But such was the worke, and trust of restrained Members, and they tooke the most probable way to promote it; Therefore, they are sober, in their right wits, and true to trust. The Maior is manifest; The Minor may be cleare thus, Monarchicall Government, is the most honourable Government, when it is regulated, that it degenerate not in­to tyranny, and its an honour to people to be loyall to Go­vernours in good wayes. Loyalty is praise-worthy, Treachery vile, and base; Therefore when by the Kings concessions. Tyranny is prevented the liberties of the people secured: to preserve the Monarch, in safety and honour; and the people in loyalty is undoubtly, the glory of a Nation. And this would be as conducible to peace and safety, for this would have put a present period to our broyles, and set the Parliament in a capacity to preserve peace, by their command of the forces by Sea and Land, and hereby we should have recovered reve­rence from friends, and become terrible to enemies, and what could in reason be the result of all this, but great prosperitie? and this was the Judgement of the Army, but a little above a yeare agoe, and this discovered by sundry Declarations and proposals, inforc'd with solid reasons, and this they pursued a good while, till selfe interest, ambition, or I know not what tentation turned their braines, and though they have layed out all their skill in their Remonstrance, to shew that the King by peace on his Concessions, would have both oportunity and will, quickly to make himselfe absolute, and so fall upon re­venge, yet there are fairer probabilities on the other side, that he would not, if he could or could not, if he would let out his spirit in such a destructive way of revenge; And that he would not, if he could may appeare. Because he hath given so ample testimony of deepe wisedome, whereby he is able fully to foresee the desperate danger of attempting any such change, or revenge. Secondly, Experience will make him wary; The burnt child dreads the fire, he hath sufficiently felt [Page 15]the misery, acrewing to Princes, by the alienation of Subjects. And thirdly, Which is most moving with me, his invincible patience, and tranquility of Spirit in his sufferings. Noble na­tures that can beare adversity without fainting; can injoy prosperity without revenging; revenging most haunts base, and cowardly natures; But if he would he could not breake out, because by these concessions his hands are tyed; and by this recommodation, the Parlioment would be reinvested in the peoples affections, and any attempt of breach on the Kings part, would cary so much ill in the face of it, that the whole Nation would be ready to rise up, and plucke in pieces, who­soever should be supposed to be either Counsellors or Actors in such a breach of faith; And the Militia being in the Parlia­ments hands, such incendiaries might bs easily crusht. I might adde the Kings carriage in his concessions, where his owne honour, or externall rights was concerned most facile; but where his conscience was interested tenacious to the greatest adventure, what found reason can be given, why the King should be so resolute in the matters of his conscience, but that he meanes to keepe what he granted; And therefore would not grant now, what conscience hereafter might inforce him to breake, as being against conscience, and see the ingage­ment to it sinfull, and null. But suppose the danger in peace on these concessions be more then I apprehend; yet if the danger of deposing or destroying be greater, [...]nd more unavoy­dable: It is not madnesse, but sobriety to chuse the suffer way, wherein if we fall, we shall fall with inward peace and honour, having discharged our consciences in reference to our Oathes, and professions: and to decline another way more dangerous, wherin if we fall, our fall will be more foule and uncomfortable. Now let the danger of deposition or de­stroying the King be weighed in the ballance, either of ex­perience or reason, and I doubt not but it will waigh downe the danger of commodation on such concessions; for that the Prince of Wales should come in, and submit himselfe to the deposers or destroyers of his Father, is not imaginabl. What cause, and minde to revenge he will have; any man that hath a Father, to who [...] he is not onely linkt in nature, but associa­ted [Page 16]in cause, may easily apprehend; And his opportunities are as Evident. What potent Prince will not seeke his af­finity, having a just and cleare title to such three Kingdomes? And what a partly is he like to have at home? The whole Peerage of England, distast rigour against the person of the King; and I thinke three parts of foure in the House of Com­mons are in their minde. The Generality of the people of the Land detest it; The Ministry, that have not beene thought altogether inconsiderable, stand amazed at it, as most disho­nourable to Religion, nor are the affections of Scotland du­bious in this point; nor is all faire weather in Ireland. The party, that had enough to doe, to grapple with the King, when United, is now divided; Peace in Germany will afford plenty of Mercenaries; What greater probability was there ever for any Prince, either to attempt or atcheive revenge? And by the same meanes be in condition to make his owne tearmes with his people? And if he should faile in his attempts at first, yet how endlessely they will be renewed, till the King­dome be setled on his right basis, is as cleare as the Sun in our experience. After the deposition of Richard the second, and setting up Henry the fourth, of the younger House, There was no settlement betweene the House of Yorke, and Lancaster, for above fourscore yeares, but ever and anon bloody Wars, to the inestimable damage of this poore Kingdome; neither was there any hope of setled Peace, till their titles were United by the marriage of Henry the seventh, of the House of Lanca­ster, with the Heyresse of the House of Yorke. And thus I hope I have cleared it, that the Army was not oney destitute of any warrantable call, but also of all just occasions, so to oppresse the Members of Parliament, for proceeding to settle the Kingdome by treaty: for its evident, they therein acted wisely, soberly, faithfully, and suteable to their former professions, and sacred ingagements.

Sect. 1.

Now Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a second objection, from the Ar­mies resisting lawfull authority, or the powers set over them, and therein the Ordinance of God. View the argument in its full proportion, and I doubt not but it will be sound Herculean.

THey that resist lawfull powers, who they acknowledge lawfully set overthem, and to whom these should be subject for conscience sake; They defile themselves, and incur damnation. The Army in their late forcible act on the Houses, did resist lawfull authority, lawfully set over them, to whom they o [...]ght to be subject for conscience sake: Therefore the Army by that act did defile themselves, and make them­selves ly able to damnation. The Major is the Apostles, Rom. 13.1.2.34. and now let us see how Mr. Goodwin quits him from the Minor.

He answers, [That to resist authoritie imports two things; A deniall of obedience to the just command of authority; pag. 11. But this is not all, there is resistance in opposing authority in legall commands, whether just or unjust; if they be legall, they be obligatory to the subject, either in regard of doing or pati­ent suffering, or else the advice were of little use to those that lived in heathnish Common-wealths, and under Empe­rours, none of the best, but many times the worst of men; But, saith he, [The House had given out no such Commandment, that none of their Members should be seazed, though Voting never so pal­pably against their trust; But though they have not Voted things in such au absurd way, yet have they declared (upon occasion of the Kings demand of five of their Members,)pag. 11, that the arresting of any Member whatsoever, without a legall proceeding against them, and without the consent of the House, whereof such person is a Member, is a breach of pri­viledge of Parliament, and the person that shall arrest any such Member of Parliament, is declared a publique enemy of the Common-wealth, Die Lunae Janu. 17. 1641. And this [Page 18]I hope Mr. Goodwin, and the Officers of the Army did not then thinke unreasonable; and so into what condition the Army have put themselves by that Declaration, is evident, But Mr. Goodwin would have no act binding, p. 11 unlesse the justice of it may be sufficiently cleared: It this must be in the judgement of their opposites (which it must be, or else it will not serve his turne) sure it is a tenent that destroyes all Government.

Sect. 3.

But Secondly, [He saith resisting imports an ingagement, to take away authority, but that they did not they declare their ap­probation and resolution, to maintaine authority Parliamentary, &c.] But what more ridiculous, or hypocriticall apology can be made, then to say, they will maintaine authority, when it is onely so much, and so farre as it will be ruled by, and sute their conceipts? which is indeed to subdue not to main­taine authority, as they pretend.

But he objects against himselfep. 12. [That if the Army did not in either of his senses resist Authoritie, yet they did what was worse, offer violence to persons in Authoritie, &c. He answers, Its lawfull by violence to wrest a Sword out of a mad mans hand, &c.] An easie, and readie way to de-throne all Authoritie, if say­ing they be mad will serve the turne, when they are neither in drinke, passion, nor under any other symptome of such unna­turall distemper: Besides, I have proved, that the madnesse that is lyes at the doores of their opposites, and sure else they would never runne on so confidently, as they doe, in irregular wayes, and yet pretend to so much conscience.

Sect. 2.

He answers,p. 13. secondly, [That the King had as legall an investi­ture into the power of the Militia, of sitting in Parliament, &c. as also men had in their Parliamentarie trust, yet did the Parlia­ment upon a discoverie, &c. deprive him of this power.] First, what power the King had in the Militia by Law, is not within my element to determine. But if that Principle layd down by him be true, for ought I know, its likelier to draw the Parlia­ment into a communitie in erring, then exempt the Army, Beside, The King did at first leave the Parliament, and their chiefe overture of Warre, was to bring him to, not keep him out of Parliament; And that he hath not beene re-admitted e'r now, I think he may chiefly thank some of your Party.

Sect. 4.

He answers, thirdly, [As a Client may cast off an Advocate, whom he suspects, or a Pupill his Guardian, &c.] But first, Can a Pupill cast off his Guardian till he be fourteene yeares of age, when he is inabled thereto by Law? But to compare also the Parliament to a mercenarie Advocate, is base and ridicu­ous. Besides, if the Parliament be Guardians, it is of the Na­tion, not of them onely. Who made them Trustees to cast them of for the whole Nation?

Sect. 5.

But he Objects against himselfe, first,p. 14. [That the Parliament were Judget lawfully, Constituted of the Kings Delinquencie. But the Armie not so, in regard of the Parliament. He answers, That if wee measure the Parliaments judicature, by the peoples call, the Armie hath every whit as lawfull a Constitution to judge who are enemies, &c. as the Parliament; as he hath proved.] But the folly of that proofe hath bin manifested, for they had no call at all from the people, but from the Parliament: And that call was not to be Judges, but Actors, according to the judgement of Parliament: And this they did usually professe, and pro­mised to the Parliament, as long as the Parliament pleased them. [What he addes of explicit, and implicit call from the people.] Its nothing for him, for the Armie had neither. The implicit, I have disproved; [explicit he confesseth, they had none, for want of opportunitie at the present: Nay, he confesseth, That the generalitie of p [...]ple dis-relish their Act, but they are in a Phrenzie too.] A short cut to make a man absolute Master of his Actions to dub every one mad, that opposeth him. But it is the most insolent, and mendicant way, that ever was avow­ed by a Scholar.

But secondly,p. 15. He saith [The investiture of the Armie into the judicature, which they have exercised, is by a Law of greater Au­thoritie, then any the Parliament can pretend; that is by the Law of nature, necessitie, and love to their Countrey.] For his Law of nature, and necessitie, they are all one in his account. For his Law of love, they were just acted by it, as Saul when he slew the Gibeonites in Zeale to the children of Israel, 2 Sam. 21.2. and a like pleasing to God. But the Armie acted against their Perso­nall Oath, Saul onely against the oath of his Ancestours.

Sect 6.

But he Objects against himself,p. 16. [That the necessitie might be pretended, not reall. Pretence of necessitie is easie, but not so easie [Page 20]a thing, to designe what that necessitie is, which is authorized by God with a suspensive power over humane Lawes.] Its very true, that pretence of necessitie is easie, and the difficultie in design­ing that Authoritie, which hath no Law, great. And yet it will be a greater difficultie to prove the Armieunder that ne­cessitie, both which lyes on you; but let us see how you proceed.

He answers,p. 16 17. first, [That every man hath power given him in judging of persons, or things, in respect of themselves, and with relation to what concernes themselves, by way of dutie, to doe, or to forbeare, &c.]

This is in a right sense true, that man being a Rationall creature, and so to doe his actions in judgement, and wise­dome. He is to judge of every thing, that is before him, whe­ther it be good, to be acted, or bad, to be omitted. But this is as cleare a Principle: That he is to judge of things by Rule, and one plaine Rule is, That Publique things are to be done by publique authoritie. And in such matters, the judgements of publique persons, using their best skill, ought to preponde­rate private judgements, at least to prevent contrarty acting. Or else wee must fall into confusion, and have all authoritie overthrowne, and Apostolicall precepts touching sub­jection to Principalities, and Powers, quite enervated. And this cleare Principle they walke by, that judge the Armie guiltie of grosse usurpation in their force upon the Members. And therefore doe not usurpe upon them, nor are injurious to them, in such censures, as expose them to no more dis-re­pute for this fact, then it deserves.

Sect. 7.

But he proceeds, [To prove the sentence which the Armie past on the Members, as meet to be dispossest of their Parliamen­tarie Authoritie, not to he erroneous either for want of skill in judge­ment, or for want of care in putting forth that skill. And why? Because for some probabilities, to wit, That the Royall Partie, by agreement, p. 18. 19. would have had and improved opportunitie to have ta­ken revenge on those, whose hands had beene heavie upon them to in­rage them, and who had shewed most courarge for the Parliament.] But the Parliament it selfe, upon more probable grounds (as I formerly shewed) have judged their way to be for the Peace and safetie of the Kingdome, in composing differences in such a way, that they should by Law have established, all that for [Page 21]which they had so long contended for, and all securitie they could demand, for the preservation of it. And their judge­ment ought to be binding to all under their Authoritie to ac­quiese in it, at least so far, as not to oppose it forcibly.

Sect. 8.

He proceeds,p. 20. [Its no such difficult matter to judge of such e­mergent necessities, which is authorised by God to suspend humane lawes. He instances Mat. 12.3, 4, 5. in hunger.] But here you must note the necessitie of hunger, doth onely suspend a cere­moniall (not a morall) Law, as that about Shew-bread; or if you apply it to the Sabbath, that was onely morall by institu­tion, not by nature, and such a morall differs little from the ceremoniaell, but in perpetuitie. Hunger will not dispence with that naturall law, Thou shalt not steale, as I have proved from Prov. 6.30, 31. Men doe not despise a thiefe, if he steale to satisfie his soule, when he is hungry. But if he be found, he shall restore seven-fold. So the necessitie of hunger makes not theft, no theft. And thus much Mr. Goodwin in effect confesseth:p. 21. [In his caution, where he saith, When wee seeme to approve of that Principle of the Jewes perill of life drives away all; wee intend not to say, That men may lawfully transgresse every precept of God. As for example: Men may not lye, forsweare themselves in such eases.] Wherein he hath said enough to confirme my answer, and [...]o cut the throat of that Cause, which he would maintaine.

For was not the seizing of the Parliament-men, a manifest breach of that priviledge, which they had Sworne to main­taine? What is a priviledge of Parliament, if that be not, that their persons be free from violence, in and for Voting accord­ing to their consciences, upon the probablest grounds that they can discerne? If this necessitie doe not give a man leave to be forsworne, as he confesseth, it cannot be their discharge in this fact. And undoubtedly, the law of an oath, is of absolute and indispensable authoritie, and so judged hitherto by all but that Antichrist, who for assuming to himselfe authoritie to dispence with oaths, is evinced to be that Man of Sin, who in the Temple of God, sits as God, 2 Thess. 2.3, 4. Neither let any man deceive himselfe, by thinking that necessity doth not give leave to be perjured, but by this necessitie the oath was not binding, & so breach of the oath was not perjurie. For so the Papists say in making it excuse theft, in case of necessitie taking what is a­nothers [Page 22]ceaseth to be theft; and yet this Mr. to Goowin, I sup­pose likes not, for he saith, We may not lye, in case of necessi­tie, and not to steale, is a command of the same stampe.

It being therefore clear that the act of the Army was both against their Word, and Oath, and Mr. Goodwin confesseth that necessity dispenseth not with an Oath, or a Ly. I need adde nothing to what he saith concerning humane Lawes, Though I must tell him that many humane Lawes, are but the backing of Divine Lawes with civill sanction and penal­ties, because carnall men are senseles of sin against God, and fearlesse of his threatnings, and such lawes are as indispen­sable as the Laws of God themselves, being but the Laws of God, put out in a Politicall dresse. And such is the Law of man, for private men to be subject to the Lawes, and Votes of those, that are clothed with authority over them, thus far as not to resist them, or rise up in rebellion against them, for this is required by a Law, that Commands things morally, intrinsecally good, and forbids the contrary, Honour thy Fa­ther and thy Mother, and so much for that Objection also.

But he proceedes to another Objection, [That at least many of the Parliament men, disturbed in their way, were religious, and conscientious men, and voted, and acted what they did consci­enciously judging the course they steered safest, &c. And is it not contrary to Reason, and Religion, That such men upon so faire an account, should be used so fowlly? But I would rather frame the Objection thus, when wise and conscientious men, cloathed with authority, do act conscientiously, and according to their best skill, determine a way for publique weale. No private persons can have place left for the plea of such a necessity, as may authorise them against the rules of order, to resist them. For that necessity, that dispenseth with Lawes, must not be probable only, and disputable among men of equall parts, and integrity: But apparant and imminent, which the con­scientiousnesse of the Members opprest proclames to be other­wayes, in the case in hand. But now what saith he. 1 Af­ter an oblique reflection upon their Religion in a parenthesis, hee answers though they be religious, yet they be men, and so have not that Divine prerogative James 1.13. to be untemptable to evill, and then addes an uncharitable, and to men in authority, an arro­gant [Page 23]insinuation. They that are capable of receiving of gifts, or of any inordinacy in their desires after earthly accommodations, how wise soever, are jubject to have their eyes blinded. But doth hee not see how this may be retorted, are the army above temptati­ons? Above ordinances some may be, and that is to be over­come of temptations, but above temptations he will not say they are, I suppose; And do not the Army and their party receive gifts and accommodations? who equall to them in this Kingdome? many of them from so meane and defective a condition riseu to such a shining condition? Besides though the Parliament men be not untemptible, their determinations are uncontrouleable, by inferiours, as subject to temptations and possessing more advantages by distractions, then they were like to get (at least most of them) to themselves in particular, by accommodations.

Secondly, saith he, when men are religious onely to a mediocrity and withall servile in their judgements to some principles, with great confidences obtruded on their consciences, for sacred truthes and yet full of enmity to a thorough dependance on God, they may be­come twofold more the children of feare, and more capable of dismall impressions from the World. By which obscure passage, I con­fesse I know not what he glanceth at. But me thinks he hath no great cause to upbrayd them with feare, who did with that resolution reject the motion of such an Army, and after a Vote, so highly crosse to their designe, passed through them, so in armes, to proceed in their discharge of their trust. Let Mr. Goodwin please himselfe and his followers, with his black insinuations, but all uninteressed men will believe that action showes them above feares, and that they had not lost, but recovered that noble spirit, that once moved in Nehemiah, shall such a man as I flie? I might also oppose to his old saw, that feare is a bad counsellour, another as authentique Prudens magis metuit, quam sperat. The prudent counsellour is apt rather to feare then confidence, and Aristotle gives it as an effect of feare [...] feare makes deliberative, Rhet. lib. 2. c. 6. But saith he secondly, When Religious men sin against the common liberties of a Nation, and make one purse with the thrice declared enemies of the Nation; here then the law of nature, and necessity cannot stand to make inquiry after such a [Page 24]difference, &c. But first how false this supposition is, in refe­rence to the oppressed Members, I have formerly shewed proving the goodnesse of the way they were in. And againe there cannot be more senseles boldnes, then to call such an agreement, so much to the advantage of one party, and to the burthen of an other, making one purse with them. And lastly, so long as the necessity is so obscure that so many wise, and good men, apprehend safety not danger; There can be no necessity so apparant, as to authorise inferiours, to rise against their superiours, to the violation of that Ordi­nance of God wherewith the superiours are clothed.

Hee addes fourthly That the corruption of the best men is worst, with such other flourishes in themselves true to dazle the eyes of his unwary Reader, wherein he still begs the question, that these men were corrupted,pag. 26, and waves the force of the argu­ment, which is, that being the Parliament men were not on­ly by their places more able to judge, but by their conscien­tiousnes, like to put forth their abilities to the best advan­tage. The course that such approve cannot be thought so apparantly destructive, as to give just cause to pretend such apparant necessity of danger, as to break Lawes humane and Divine, seen only by men, that can pretend to no more of science, or conscience, then those whom they reject.

He addes fifthly For any hard measure objected to bee used a­gainst the Parliament men, he answers, Hee knowes not bow the Army could walke toward them with a softer foot. How doth affecti­on blind men, could not they have used more softnes, then leave so many of them in Hell all night, without any accom­modations for rest? And what menaces have bin cast out, a­gainst the lives of some of them, separated from their bre­thren, into a place of straiter custody, & of greater terrour, but all sufferings are light with some, that light not on them and theirs. For close of this, because he hath cast out some ob­lique and some more direct glances, at the Religion, and integrity of the secluded Members. I will make him this offer. That if the secluded Members, be not as free from raysing advantage during the late troubles, and have not gi­ven as good satisfaction to the World, both of their know­ledge, integrity, and affection to Religion, as so many, [Page 25]chuse them where they can, of the same trust, that approve of their necessity, let them carry the cause among men. But if not their pretended necessity, is not like to be the genuine issue of a faithfull brain and heart.

Sect. 1.

[Mr. Goodwin proceedes to a third Objection, from the Cove­nant, he might have added the Protestation made May, the 5. 1641. which was taken more generally from which I present the argument, thus formed.

EVery act contrary to any one, or more solemne ingage­ments made to God is lawfull, and impious: the Act of the Army seizing the members of Parliament, is contrary to one, or more solemne ingagements made to God. Therefore that act was unlawfull and impious; The Minor is cleare, for in the protestation May, 1641. This is one clause to defend their power, and priviledge of Parliament. Now what more unquestionable priviledge of Parliament then this, to have free a ccesse to the House, and there to vote according to their consciences?pag. 27.

Mr. Goodwin answer, ‘["That it is no priviledge of Parlia­ment to act in opposition, to the benefit of the Kingdome.’ True, but when the qustion is, what is for the benefit of the Kingdome; it is part of the power of Parliaments (which is one thing which you have protested to maintaine) to be the finall Judges, else broyles and confusion must follow; for they shall stand bound, (together with all of their Judgement,) to maintaine, what they judge so conducible for the Kingdomes wealth, and if their Judgements be not determining, others may thinke themselves bound by force to oppose them, and what can be expected from this, but perpetuall broyles?

But he answers further, to a supposed reply ‘["That this is a priviledge of Parliament for the Members to be free from question without the consent of the House; True saith he, when a Parliament is taken in a proper signification, noting out a company of men not dead to trust; But if these be dead to trust, then they are not properly a Parlia­ment; As he is not a Jewe that is one outwardly, &c.’ But who shall Judge them dead to trust? They are not to be Judged, autho­ritatively by private persons, none such can pronouce them dead; neither have they in what they are accused, given evi­dence to be dead to trust, but faithfull as I have shewed; Againe [Page 26]He that was onely a Jew outwardly, was not to be denied the outward priviledge of a Jew, by man. Though in Gods account he was no Jew, that is not holy to, & accepted of God, therefore not onely is the insinuation against the Parliament men, false, but if it were true, the Army hath no authority to pronounce them so, so nor to deale with them as such; Is not the Parliament the Supreame Iudicature, against which lies no writ of errour, or appeale but to God? So it stands good that their act was against their Oath.

But secondly he saith, ‘["That if such a number of men be a Parliament, p. 28 though dead to trust, &c. he knowes no priviledge of Parliament due to them, no more then a dread man hath the privi­ledges of a man; and this he sets off with many flourishes,’ wherein he keepes this old artifice to play upon a plausible string, to please his party, that agree with him in the supposition that those Parliament men are dead to trust; whereas that suppo­sition is apparantly false and scandalous. But his flourishes are but Sophisticall neither, for a dead thing hath no privi­ledge, as it is dead, but if it be dead in one selfe, and alive in another, it may have priviledge in one selfe, [...] have none in another; as the carnall seed of Abraham [...] [...]ewes to men, and so had their outward priviledges, but not so re­puted, of God and so had no spirituall priviledges: so a degene­rate Parliament is dead indeed to God, who is above it, to judge it, it hath no honour with, nor shall have any reward from God. But it is not dead to men, so far as to resist it; for they have no authority to judge it or resist it: but it is only so far dead to private men, that they are not to give life to the dead acts of it. If the Army had said the Parliament is dead, we will not uphold it in dead wayes, the charge being true, it had beene noble to have laid downe their Commission, and not have supported them: but to resist was out of their sphere; Let me aske this man what he would have said of Saul, when the spirit of the Lord departed from him, and an evill spirit seized on him, 1 Sam. 16.14. Was he dead to trust or no? And yet you see David was as observant and tender of him, as though he had beene good aswell as great. These distinctions therefore be fig-leaves, and truly I thinke such delusions that men otherwais quicksighted, use to be left to for their want of integrity to truth.

Sect. 2.

But Master Goodwin adds, that though the Army had stood, p 29. [...]0.31. bound to the priviledges of Parliament, yet they stood bound al­so to maintain the liberties of the Kingdom against all impedi­ments whatsoever, and what they are not able themselves to sup­presse &c. And the liberties of the Kingdom he endeavours to prove to be greater then of the Parliament, and in opposition of lawes or priviledges, he greater is to take place &c. But first here is supposed a Bull, that the liberties of a people and a Parliament of the same people, may be inconsistent, where­as it can be no true priviledge on the one side, but pretended, if they push oue another. Secondly he must remember the limitation in the Covenant, that every one is to act in the per­formance of it according to their callings; that is not onely the Souldier as a Souldier, the Minister as a Minister, but the private man as a private man: so that a private man is not to act in a juridicall way, by vertue of his Covenant, but according to Law or Commission from men in authority; and therefore the Covenant bound not them in reference to the Kingdom to act juridically in committing the Parliament men. Again, though the liberties of the Kingdom be in some sence more then the liberties of the Parliament, yet the priviledges of Parliament are first put, and the bond of it takes hold there; therefore by what is spoken afterwards, the true priviledges of Parliament cannot be prejudic'd. And indeed there is nothing wherein the priviledges of the Kingdom are more concerned then in the liberties of the Parliament: And there is greater probability of the land being watered with blood, by the way that the Army are in, then by that way of accommodation that the Parliament men were in: and therefore it is but their fancy, that the liberties of the nation are in danger; nay, that particu­lar mischeif is not eligible, before this inconvenience of gi­ving the inferiours liberty upon their own private conceits to resist and disturb the supreame Indicature of a Common-Wealth.

Sect. 3.

But he adds thirdly;p. 31. If there had been no clause in the oathes for the liberties of the Subjoct, yet had the Army more then warrant sufficient to stand up for them with out any breach of Covenant; for men stand bound by the Law of nature against all other obligation whatsoever. Now there is no Law of na­ture [Page 28]that speaks more plainely then this, that the strong ought to stand by the weake in cases of extremity. Formerly you made exceptions in the cases of extremity, that a man may not lye, forsweare himselfe &c. Now all bonds must give way to the Law of necessity, nor only word bur oath, oportet esse memorem. Againe, I would know of him, if the Sheriffe differ in judgement from the Iudge when a case is argued,pag. 21. and the Sheriffe thinks might overcomes right, and that if the Iudge proceed, he undoes or destroyes a poore man and his family, Is the Sheriffe having power bound to pluck the Iudge off the Bench, or keep him from the Bench rather then suffer him to passe (in his conceit) an unjust sentence tending to extremity? For what hee adds touching the intention of the Covenant makers and Covenant takers, I referre me to his con­science, whether though they did not intend the Covenant to binde to things against the Law of nature, yet that they inten­ded, that they themselves should be ultimate judges what was for the publique weale of the Kingdom, and so not against the Law of nature; what not? and you know the old rule, qua­cunque arte verborum quis jurat &c. whatsoever art of words are used in the oath, the oath is to be interpreted according to his sense that gives it, not his that takes it.

But next he tels us, that this act of the Army in the disso­ciation of the Parliament, doth not give the least colour or shadows to the act of the Kings breaking into their House, and demanding which and how many of their Members he pleased to be sacra­ficed upon the sor [...]ice of his will.

But I answer 1. The act of the King is falsely and uncharita­bly, that I say not maliciously represented by him; for the King did not break into the House of Commons as he mouthes it, but had admission there, which of right he may claime in ei­ther House of Parliament upon occasion; nor did he demand the Members to be sacrificed to his owne will: his words were fayrer to have them legally tryed, touching some things which he had to lay to their charge; what was in his heart you know not. Now compare the act of the Army to this of the King, and see whether there be not only some colour, but according to our English Proverbe, whether they have not made the King a Saint? 1. The King demanded but five of the Commons [Page 29]Members; they imprisoned above forty, and secluded as they say, above an hundred; Secondly the King took none out nor can any man tell what he would have done, had they been there, reason might have qualified him. They did not onely violently inhibit many, but as I am informed by Master Ste­vens himselfe, he and Collonell Birch were puld out of the House. Thirdly the King was the supream Magistrate, they clothed with no authority. Fourthly the King pretended a legall tryall, they have no legall objection against them. Fifthly The King confesseth Parliaments should be free,Collect. [...] Declar. p. 37. and one of his objections against the five members of Parliament, was that by tumults they hindered the freedome of Parliament, and you affirme tumultuous ingagements have as much hindered freedom of Parliament this two years,Article [...] as the forcible act of the Army. Sixthly the King was easily reduc'd from his errour, and relinquisht it, and assured them of tendernesse of privi­ledge for future; you avow the Armies act, and they persist in their soree. Now who is the greater transgressour thus far? Neither did the King (as you say) look upon the accused Mem­bers as the greatest Patrons of the Kingdoms interest, but un­der the notion of such as fought to alter the well tempered government of it; as he erred in his apprehensions, so doe you now in your conceits of the Parliament men restrayned. Nor was the pretence of the King, 'to advance the wil and pow­er of one against the peace and comfort of many, but to preserve the government as it stood free from alteration, which was in the judgement of any uninteressed farre more for the benefit of this Nation, then the new modell of your fancy (witti­ly by Sedgewick termed All breech) which if it take, will make us a base, and in all likelihood ere long a broken King­dom. But if the King under faire pretences did intend, as you hint, tyranny, may it not as well be objected to you that you intend Oligarchy? It's therefore cleer as the light, tha [...] as the King did ill, the Army did worse; and the Declaration of that House against the Kings act, doth militate as strongly against the act of the Army, which declares the arresting of any Member of Parliament without a legall proceeding and consent of that House whereof he is a Member, a breach of pre­viledge; C [...]ll. of Remonst. Decla. &c. pag. 39. and the preson that shall arrest any such Member, is de­clared an enemye of State.

Sect. 1.

Master Goodwin proceeds to a fourth Objection, To prove the Armies Act unjustifiable, because against the Law of the Land; which should rightly be framed thus:

WHosoever being under law, and sworn to maintaine the Law, or legall Priviledges of others; doe against Law, or legall Priviledge imprison the Persons of others, are guilty of an act of impious transgression. The Army being under Law, and sworn to maintaine the legall Priviledges of others yet against Law, and legall Priviledges have im­prison'd the Persons of others; Therefore by that act of theirs they have made themselves guilty of impious transgression: That imprisonment of the Members is against Law, and le­gall priviledge, is clear; for the Law is, That no free man shall be imprisoned without due processe in Law. And the greater the person, the greater is the presumption, in the op­pression of them.

Master Goodw. To this: First, Sums up his Answers alread given to this Objection, which have had their Answers in their places.

He addes,Pag. 33. That we may charitably suppose, that there is no Law prohibiting any sort of men from being benefactors to the Publike especially from preserving the Publike Liberties, when they stand in extremâ tegulâ.

Ans. How false this supposition is in the Armies case, to wit, that the Liberties stand in extremâ tegulâ, I have formerly shewed, nor is there any thing more prejudiciall to the Pub­like Liberties, then that the persons of their Publick Counsell, shall be restrained upon the uncertaine fancies of a small Party: And necessity cannot dispence with a lie, nor an Oath, as he hath formerly confest: God can preserve where our hands are bound without our lieRom. 3.7. or perjury, or sanctifie all that is to be suffered.

Sect. 2.

Secondly,Pag. 4. Saith he, If there were such a Law, it could have no obliging force, &c. If he mean it could have no obliging force in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven; so that man should [Page 31]not obey it: It is true. But if he mean, it hath no obliging force in foro humano, in the Courts of men; so that a man ought not to suffer, but resist, it is falfe; for then all the Lawes of Emperours made against Christians are invalid: And those sufferings of Primitive Christians, especially when they grew into multitudes and legions, were not such glorious actions, but rather the follies of the Christians, that knew not their Liberty to use their power to resist those dead Lawes to which they no wayes stood bound: At least, Bellarmines Answer in behalfe of the Church of Rome, running courses contrary to Primitive times, is true; that then derant vires temporales, they wanted temporall strength; and Protestants have been in an errour that have ascribed the dissimilitude to the decay of spirituall graces. But its nothing for such as Mr Goodwin to symbolize with Papists.

Sect. 3.

He proceeds: Thirdly,Pag. 31.35. If there were a Law to make force in any kinde to interrupt Magistrates in their way punishable, yet this would not evict this Act of the Army, to have been contrary to the Lawes, because it is the constant genius and manner of Lawes, to lay down only the generall Rules, and conceale the exception: Now the exception doth not break the rule. And here hee cites something out of Tully, Grotius, Aristotle, and the Im­peirall Lawes; and the chiefest exception is necessity.

But first, where no such exception against the Law lies, there the Actor is the Transgressor of the Law. And those that urge the Law against them, suppose it clear that there was no such necessity. For those Magistrates restrained, were good and wise men, and in their serious thoughts judged the way that they were in preservative, and ten parts of the Land to one, are of their mind still; and so the necessity is but pre­tended. Besides, though the Lawes of men be subject to ex­ceptions, I referre it to his conscience, in case a Magistrate may be consulted, whether he thinks that any of his Authors will say, that private mens exceptions are to be received be­fore the judgment of those with whom power of interpreting Lawes is intrusted? And lastly, whether an Oath to a parti­ticular Law engage not to it, though it prove detrimen­tall? Psal. 15.4.

Sect. 1.

Master Goodwin proceeds to a fifth Objection, From the mischievous consequence of the example of the fact of this Army which may bee made use of by any Party, finding themselves strongh enough to attempt the like disturbance and confusion: but I would frame the Argument thus:

EVery action grounded on such Principles as are a mani­fest inlet to wickednesse, confusion and Anarchy, is perni­cious and wicked: The force exercised on the Parliament by the Army grounded on necessity, visible only to them and their party, is a manifest inlet to wickednesse, anarchy, and confusion. Therefore the Armies sayd Act is pernicious and wicked.

Mr Goodwins Answ. 1. page 36. The lawfulnesse of acti­ons is not to be judged by what doth, but by what is likely to fol­low and that not by accident, or misconstruction, but by the na­tive tendency of it, &c. Ans. 2 Though there were not only a possibility but a probability, that the Armies Act should beget disturbances, yet should not they have stood still, because when the seed time is come, we must not observe the winde.

But these Answers reach not the Objection, as it is laid by me, and should have beene laid by him which condemns actions, grounded on such principles which will beare out other persons of strength, in wicked and State confounding actions: The ground of this action in the Army was necessi­ty, whereof themselves are Iudges; for it appeaes not to others: But if necessity be a sufficient warrant to disturb Authority in legall wayes; and the Parties in whom Power is, be Iudges of this necessity: By this any Party of Power may justifie themselves to men in disturbing Governours, whether the Par­ty bee Royalists, Papists, or Athiests: That plea would have served the Northern Army if it had marcht up against the Parliament, as well as the present Army did, or the Appren­tizes as well as them, they might have pretended necessity, and been judges in their own case; ex veris nil nisi verum, nothing but truth will naturally flow from true principles: Therefore the [Page 33]ground of the Armies Act was a false principle, because it will beare false conclusions; nay further, if necessity may dispence with Lawes, and the Actors be judges; what if the Levelling Part of the Army should have further designs then the Moderater Part, and the heads of the Moderate Party stand in their way, may not they take up this plea, and with­out Law, or legall processe tollere è medio take them out of their way? yea, then what barre is left against Iesuiticall King-killing by assassinates.

Sect. 2.

Nor will this be taken off by what he saith Thirdly,Pag. 36.37. that where there is not a concurrence of the same circumstances for­mally and equivalently, there can bee no place for exempla­rtnesse; for we speake not now of the legitimacy of actions in the sight of God onely but men also. Wee are to provide for things honest in the sight of all men, Rom. 12.17. 2 Cor. 8.21. And if there be the same pretences not to be disproved by men, which (they cannot be) if they must be judges of them, who carry the long sword, Those actions which are the same in externall, though not in reall circumstances, shall be as im­pleadable by men.

Sect.

And there is yet lesse sence in his fourth answer, That it is not likely that action should breed disturbance, that was done in due order to prevent occasion and opportunity of disturbance &c. For what if they that leveld this shaft at this mark, were un­skilfull Archers, may they not shoote quite wide the marke they aim at, and hit a friend instead of the butr? I am sure they have been most of them but little used to the bow of Politicks, and what if the Scene change? May not the present Army degenerate, (no man can say they are stable in their Princi­ciples) and then will not this plea of necessity fit their hands for worse changes, if worse can be? I am sure it hath once served their turnes, to comply with the King against the minds of the Parliament, and now to imprison Parliament men, and to threaten the destruction of the King, and who knowes what designe it may carry on next? And is not this course a means to irritate an opposite party, and who knowes where God may cast strength? and then what a gallant plea is here for them, Qu [...]dlibet audendi? adventuring upon any thing.

Sect. 4.

Lastly he argues,37. that if that action of the Army is not dis­proveable [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34]by any likelihood of evill that it may bring upon this Kingdom hereafter, no more then preservation of a man from imminent death is reproveable, because by it he is occasionally exposed to dye another time. There were something in this, if there were any iminency of death over our Nation; but this is denied upon better grounds, then they can give to the contra­ry, and that by those that are the legall judges of it, which the Army was not. You adde, they who conceive the Army had better have sate still for feare of after disturbance, plead as if a man shall counsell a friend dangerously sick, not to use a Physi­cian, because if he do recover, his recovery might prove an oc­casion of more sicknesse afterwards. But this answer hath wit without reason; for first, it presupposeth that to bee sicknesse of the Common-wealth, which indeed was good Physick for her recovery. And secondly to make the similitude hit, the Physick that is disswaded, must be to have an influence by the hazardous cure of one malady, to have procured more. And truely I should not think him mad but wise, that should dis­swade such Physick; nor is the example of Hezekiah any bet­ter, that he was to be thankefull for his recovery, though hee were to dye fifteene yeares after. For first it runs upon the former false supposition: And secondly that which recovered Hezekiah, was not the cause of his death afterwards. But here it is objected against the medicine that hee saith revives, that it will have an influence to kill afterwards. Nay, after a pretended cure, that medicine which he saith revives, is not like to preserve long, not fifteene yeares, nor fifteene moneths; for where there is one in the Kingdom that accounts this act of the Army medicine, it's conceived there be an hundred that count it a cup of poyson and so to be broken: And what a Paroxysme this is like to beget shortly in this poor Kingdom, let the prudent Reader judge.

Sect. 1.

Master Goodwin proceeds to a sixth Objection, counted hee saith by some impregnable; It is taken from Rom. 13.1.2. Let every soule be subject to the higher powers; for the pow­ers that be, are ordained of God. He therefore that resisteth [Page 35]the powers, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. And this I doubt not will yeild an Argument too hard for Master Goodwin to an­swer, or else sure all Protestant Divines have been much mista­ken: It may be formed thus.

VVHosoever resisteth the higher powers, resists the Ordinance of God and receive to himself damnati­on. The Army in secluding and imprisoning Parliament men did resist the higher powers; therefore thereby they did resist the Ordinance of God, and receive to themselves damnation. For the minor, Master Goodwin will not deny but the Parlia­ment are higher powers, to which the Army are to be subject. This he saith he hath considered in the second objection, yet be­cause he would give surplusage in such urguments as pretend to Scripture, he will take it in hand againe; let us see whether he can acquit himselfe better then he did before.

And first he presents us with a distanction betweene the power and the abuse of the power; the abuse of the power is not of God, pag. 38. and so the resistance of that not forbidden nor damnable. Now that the Army did only resist the abuse of the power (he saith) he hath proved in his book: And I reply, that it hath been as often disproved in my Answer. Again, this distinction be­tween the powers, and abuse of powers, is to be taken with cau­tion, or else it may deceive. Mr Burroughs his distinction in his Lord of Hoasts page 32. contains better divinity, which is between the commands of abused anthority, and the commands that are from the wills of men in authority. That is abused au­thority when those to whom power of making lawes doth belong, shall make evill lawes; in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flight, untill some way bee taken to rectifie the authority that is abused (that is disannulling those evill lawes) but when men that are in authority command any thing out of their wils &c. So that in his judgement abuse of authority be­ing legall, is to be borne with patience, not resisted by violence. And indeed if we consider that these powers were in St. Pauls times Heathens, and how bloudy their lawes were against Christians, and how impious they were in many other things, [Page 36]one might judge it had been sitter (after Master Goodwins light) to have taught them his new doctrine of resistance, rather then to have prest subjection on them. Magistracy is the Ordi­nance of God, the lawes of the land the rule of it, while it keepes within that sphere; though the lawes be corrupt, the Magistrate is no tyrant; so he is a power ordained of God, and we are to be subject in obeying or suffering, but may not resist.

Sect.

He adds,pag. 35. it is manifest that they did not resist Parliamentary power because this power remaines quiet and indisturbed: but is he in good earnest? Is not Parliamentary power a power represence of the whole Nation? Doth it remayn undistur­bed when so great a part are secluded, and so many thereupon think it unlawfull for them to handle the affaires of the Na­tion without the concurrence of their fellow Trustees, that as they say ordinarily, searce a sixth part of that number that ought to sit, meet in the House? Secondly he sayth, that they have care to settle Parliamentary power on better tearms. Yes by their new Modell. What disturbers of present Go­vernance were over found without that pretence? but how few if ever any, effected it?

He objects against himself, That the Parliamentary pawer is under force now. He answers, That they are no more under force now, then they were before the Army secluded the Mem­bers. I answer, Why is that which hee cals Parliamentary power free from force now, but because they act after the Ar­mies misguided fancy? but should they crosse them in their Idoll Designe, doth Mr Iohn Goodwin think they would be more exempt fromOne Parlia­ment man told me, that as he was comming from the House the day after the seizing, one of the Souldiers cryed roome, roome, another said knock him down; so he ne­ver came there since. Was not hee forced a way? And are not many m [...] (not of their principles▪ kept away in like manner? And is the Parlia­ment free from force▪ force, then their brethren now secluded? why doth he then trifle so? And it is palpably false, That the Parliament now is not more under force, then it hath beene for two yeares by reason of tumultuous ingagements; for though there was one unhappy tumult soone appeased, there was no o­ther tumult so neare them that threatned them other wayes then with desertion in affect on, whereas now they are seclu­ded the House and imprisoned.

Sect. 3.

But Master Goodwin proceeds the Ordinance of God in Ma­gistraticall power, is the adequate foundation whereon obedience [Page 37]to it is to be built, and he intent of magistraticall power is the good of those that are subject to it. Therefore there is no sub­jection commanded of God to any higher power, further or o­therwise then they act, and quit themselves in due proportion of the good of men. I answer the conclusion here inserd is point-blanke to the plaine word of God; for the power of a Master over a servant is a power ordained of God, and the Apostle Peter directs servants to be subject not onely to the good and gentle, but to the froward; for it's prayse worthy to suffer wrong­fully, 1 Pet. 2.18.19. and why this should not hold in office powers; I shall expect a solid reason from Master Goodwin, till then his premises must passe for false with me, because his conclusion is contrary to expresse Scripture, and he knowes ex veris nil nisi verum. And me th [...]nks it's strange to see what difference there is betweene the new light and the old: The Apostles whom Christ Iesus made the infallible lights of the world, were most carefull to warne Christians, that they should not suffer at evill doers, but as Christians, 1 Pet. 4.15.16. But new [...] tels us that we need not suffer but when wee are evill doers; for if the powers molest us in good, they are abused, decline from their ends, so we owe them no sub­jection, but may resist. But the Apostles had the spirit of truth, and those that dissent give heed to seducing spirits.1 Tim. 4.1 The truth is because Magistracy is an Ordinance of God appointed for the good of men, though they through weaknesse do mis­carry, yet so long as they act as Magistrates, that is, legally, we are not to resist them, because they have Gods Ordinance upon them. And utable to this was the doctrine of Pomi­tive times to be read in the legible characters of their glori­ous sufferings; and therefore sit seems they so understood St. Paul and St. Peter.

Sect. 3.

He adds lastly, That the resisting of the higher powers here condemned, is not detaining men in authority by strong hand from doing mischiefe &c. but detaining them by strong hand from going on in their Office, is the resistence condem­ned, which the Army did to the Parliament men. [...] saith Beza, is verbum militare, the originall is a milita­ry word, and therefore the Souldiers restraining the Members [Page 38]as Souldiers in a warlike posture, did resist in the exact pro­priety of the word, But saith he, It is either refusing obe­dience to their lawfull commands, which he ascribes to Parae­us: but he abuseth Paraus, if he make that all that Paraus thinks is intended there, for he affirmes, Christianos non minus quam alios quoscunque potestatibus subjectos esse debere, non tantum fidelibus, sed infidelibus, quales tunc omneserant: non tantum placidis & aequis, sed etiam difficilibus & iniquis; Chri­stians no lesse then other ought to be subjest to the powers, not only when believers, but when infidels, as all the powers then were; not onely to the pleasing and equitable, but also to the froward and injust. And what Master Goodwin cites out of Parous, That every disobedience is not to bee accounted Rebellion or resistance, but onely that which is practised out of malice contrary to the Lawes, is true; but helps not him, but is onely suteable to Mr Burroughs his distinction, between the Authority of Magistrates, that is, when he acts legally, and his will; disobedience, to his will, is not condem­ned but to his Authority, that is his legall will: Again, if we disobey out of conscience, but submit to suffer, and be not carryed with passion to oppose, we doe not rebell. The latter thing which you cite out of Pareus, will stand you in no more stead: That if a Tyrant set upon a private man at a Robber, &c. he may defend himself from him (in case of no other meanes of escape) as against an ordinary Robber; for in that case a Tyrant acts not legally, and his will, not his authority is re­sisted.

But Mr Goodwin addes another sence out of Calvin, Page 41. That by resisting it meant a completting and attempting to shake off the yoak of all obedience to the Magistrate: But he abuseth Calvin and the Reader, if he set down that as the full of what Calvin thinks is forbidden; whereas he makes that only the scope of the place to be the preventing such a tentation, to which he showes it is likely Christians might be subject: But upon the place delivers Doctrine as contrary to Mr Goodwins, as light to darknesse; for faith he, on Vers. 3. Caterum hic de vero & quasi nativo Magistratus officio loquitun, à que tametsi non [...]aro degenerant qui principatum tonent; nihilominus deferenda [Page 39]est eis obedientia quae principibus debetur: Nam si malus prin­ceps flagellum &c. But the Apostle here speaks of the true, and at it were native Office of a Magistrate, from which although they degenerate, which hold the Principality; yet neverthelesse; the obedience which is due to Princes is to be given to them, for if an evill Prince be a scourge sent of God, Page 41. &c. But you adde, The Army did not in what they did, refuse to obey any commands of their Superiours; false: The remaining Mem­bers in the Commons were their Superiours; and their de­mands of their Members imprisoned twice by their Serjeant, were commands disobeyed by the Army; You say also, They refused not giving satisfaction to the Law by refusing to suffer any punishment; Ridiculous: What Magistrate will attempt their punishment? Yet we shall see how Mr Goodwins words will hold, when Mr Prynne brings his action of false imprison­ment against them.

But you have another clinch out of Calvin; he saith, say you, but you tell us not where that the Apostle speaks of powers in the abstract, not of the persons of Magistrates at all, other­wise then he useth his power in due order. First, this is flat con­trary to that which I cited out of Calvin, That the place teacheth Obedience to Princes though they degenerate; there­fore sure you abuse Calvin: And Beza (that is not used to differ from Calvin) saith. Potestatis nomine este, tropice intelli­guntur, qus sunt in illis dignitatibus cons [...]tuti, ut [...] ha [...]e subjectione in i [...]sis dignitatibus habend [...] [...]msi indignisint qui eo sunt evecti: By that name of powers, they are tropidully un­derstood, which are lac [...]d in those dignities, that we [...]ay know this subjection is to be given to the Powers, though they are un­worthy that are advanc'd to them. Besides, all that can be hinted in the name of Powers so often used, is but according to the distinction between the will, & Authority of the Magistrate for conscience sake, further, then it is cloathed, with Power, that is, legally, and that is plainly the inraning of Pareus cited by you, He names Powers rather then Kings and Princes, for in the persons vices [...] causes of disobedience are found; therefore he would have the Powers different from the persons. That is, their corrup­tions will put them on to seek to have their will a Law, & their [Page 40]Power extends no farther then Law, nor further are wee bound to obey. But what need we stand upon this terme any longer, sith S. Peter expresly mentioneth the persons both of the King, as Supreame, and all that are in Autho­ty under him? Therefore Mr Goodw. without just ground, Limits the subjection to Magistrates only, while they act regularly, and with a single eye on procurement of Good. Though I doubt not but our Parliament men feised for endeavouring agreement with King, were both regular in their way and aimes: I may conclude therefore, for all Mr Goodwins sleek Apology, the Armies forcible Act upon the Parliament stands convict of grievous guilt, and yet we see the old adage [...]ue. Durum telum necessitas; for behold that Army, that hath so often prevailed against the sharped weapons of their Ene­mies, fallen and expiring in their honours, vanquisht by this one poore dart of pre [...]ended necessity.

And yet this Act of theirs, that is so unwarrantable in it selfe, is made much more abominable, by the intention of it, which the issue discovers; for its evident it was to make a Party, to proceed to the deposition and destruction of the King, if God prevent them not: A thing directly contrary to their sworn Allegeance, to the Doctrine of the Church of England, to which they are also engaged by Protestation, to the constant Profession of the Parliament in generall; their partakers in their Apologeticall Declarations, andAmongst wh [...] Mister [...] in his Anti cavalierisme hath spo [...] as plain and sensibly as any, That it is a just Pre­rogative of Persons of Kings to be se­cure from the violence of men in what causes soever; and their lives to be as consecra­ted corn, meet to bee reaped and gathered onely by the hand of God himselfe: with other words which may be seen: [...] sent unto him by a learned god­ly and [...]or­thy Knight, Sir [...]ra. Ne­the [...]sole. Books whereby they engaged many people in their quarrell, who will now detest the present Act, the more because they have been made somewhat to contribute to it, by the former hypocrifie and present treachery of others. And this also heightens the injury of the Armies Act, that they should exclude the Trustees of so many Shieres, Cities and Burroughes, when a thing of so great a concernment to them, as the life of their King is to come in question; is this justice? If their Trustees be degenerate, should they not have leave and time to have chosen other before such a matter had been taken in hand? For that of Aquinas you cited to no purpose, pag. 15. will not take place here neither; for you confesse their choyce was good, but the men are degenerate. I may there­fore [Page 41]conclude, little reason had Mr Goodwin to conclude his Book with such hyperbolicall (that I say not blasphemous) flattery, as to compare so sinfull an Act of the Army, to the sufferings of Jesus Christ to save a lost world &c. But the con­clusion sutes with the premises both Popish; for its the manner of Papists to extoll their assassinates, so they doe it with a good intent adificandicausa, and in case of necessity to save the lives, or prevent the ruines of many Catholiks. And I now seriously propose it to Mr Goodwin and his Associates, Whether the nec [...]ssity harpt upon, be any other then danger to a sort of people in the land, that out of pretended new Light, would live exempt from the ordinary and received rules of Go­vernment. Danger I say to such, lest they should meet with trouble; loose those preferments and that Ruledome that they draw, and many times usurpt to themselves in Parliament, City, Countrey, by the Power of the sword intrusted to more Publike ends. If this be the necessity, as there be hints many, that it is: How much more suteable were it for men of conscience, not to disturb the Treaty for Peace, but inter­pose in it for their own Interest? And if they think exemp­tion from the coercieve Power of the civill sword in matters of Religion be a native Liberty of Christians: Let them desire it may be debated freely, before a free Parliament; and if we convince not the impiety and iniquity of it, let them carry it. If they fall short in that, yet whatever indulgence may bee consistent with duty to Truth, and the peace of the Church will never be denyed them. Oh! did any relenting appeare to procure return from those irregular wayes, how would all godly hearts imbrace them with joy, looking on them in their irregularities past, as men under a strong tentation, and with consideration that they also may be tempted. But if they bee resolved, that what they have usurpt they will hold, I hope I shall no [...], I am sure, I need not envie their slippery places; for when they have done Gods whole work on those under their oppr [...]ssive power, I am confident God will visit the fruit of the great hearts of this aspiring Faction, and the glory of their high looks.