It is not (or at least should not be) unknown to you; what selfe Intere [...]t appears, in your assuming so great a power, onely by virtue of that Title: through which you exceed the sounds of ministeriall liberty; and many of you, being blinded with self (by whom the rest may be spur don, or else the same lust will appear uppermost in all) are so furious, that you trans­gresse the law of Christian meeknesse; which I shall proceed more clearly to discover (avoiding a long Preamble) in the subsequent Answer: to the subject matter of your Letter.

And therefore in the Preamble to the following matter in your Letter, you con­fesse, ‘divers applications have been made, as well in writing, as by verball messages; inviting the Ministers of London, or some of them, to meet with the Officers of the Army, in their consultations about matters of Religion; which you say is most sui­table to you Profession.’ And a delay in the propagation whereof, your selves hath often decryed, as a sin in others; and yet now are guilty of the same: by ur­ging civill (though groundlesse) reasons, as will appear in that your concurrence, (which amongst the rest, you make one ground of this your writing) with your quoted Brethren in their dislike (which you say, you were willed to signifie) of those mentioned proceedings of the Army.] For your refusall of such meetings: which refusall had it indeed, proceeded from right principles of fore-sight, that such a meeting would have inevitably (through your own busie dispositions) pro­duced [Page 2]a controversie about civill government (with which authoritatively, you are not to meddle) and so have frustrated the end of your meeting, viz to consult a­bout matters of Religion: or from insight to your own unworthines [of so in­dulgent an invitation in preference of what you professe, viz. Ministers of the Go­spel, [though your calling thereunto is unwarrantable] men of parts and the like] through those many unjust, and publique contradictions, and Pulpit aspersions (many of you chusing subjects for that very purpose) that you have cast upon their proceedings: upon these grounds, it had been acceptable, and laudable in you to have refused a meeting; but on the contrary, not being contented with that pre­assu [...]d title; but soaring to be Ministers of the State likewise, to which your ambition, the Army having put a stop, or at least, because they would not depend upon your fallible judgements, and so limit the spirit of God and their own rea­son, and consciences to your way of government and interpretation of the scripture thereto: for these reasons, which are the main, to refuse a meeting was contem­ptible.

But that your matter might seem the stronger, you ascribe your selves a large cir­cuit viz. the Ministers of London, in defence of this your peremptory refusall un­der that stile: when the [...]e are as many sound, holy, conscientious, and (almost if not quite as many) learned, and yet contrary minded men [whose title is as good to the Mini [...]tery] as your selves therein. But being carryed on with that lust of self esteem, and continuance in the kingdome, you convert the reproofs in scripture unto wicked men, to those that oppose and resist this lust as a sin in you: and whereas you should lift up your voices as trumpets, to shew the people their trans­gressions, as swearing drunkenesse, whoredome, pride and the like; and against the Magistrates for bearing the sword in vain herein; you excite the people to more sin, which is fle [...]ly contention, and opposition, being far distant from your assu­med title, Minisers of the Gospel, and so should be of peace. But justly may that wo be pronounced against you; Woe be unto them that speak good of evill, and evill of good; Is 1.5. [...]0. which put darknes for light, and light for darknes; that put bitter, for sweet, and sweet for sowre.

But in your 2 page, you discover that so openly, of your selves, that needs not be discovered to you, for your words are ‘had a conference beene desired with [...] o [...]h, to have g [...]e [...] you resolution, whether the wayes wherein at present you are walking, are agreeable to the word of God; we should have delivered our judge­ments, &c.’

There needs no farther testimony of your ambition, or discovery of those ends, for which you first engaged and complyed in deposing the Bishops [though you yet continue your Ordination from them] and conjunction, would supply their places: then these your own aspiring words, whereby you demonstrate, that you would be (as claiming a sole right thereunto) the Armies counsellors, as if the spirit of God rested upon you onely, that none could discern what is agree­able to Gods word, or what is rationall, and essentiall to the peace and freedome of the kingdome, in the establishment of a civill government (the word of God not prescribing every particular expedient therein) but your selves: and as if there were no Ministers, that had the same title, to the preaching of the Gospel, that si­ded with the Army, and that you are the onely men to be enquired off, concerning the minde of God in his word: but your conjunction herein may well be com­pared [Page 3]to theirs in Ezek. 22.25. there is a conspiracy of her Prophets in the middest thereof, like a roaring lion, raving the prey: they have devoured souls, &c. Many poor souls have been allured to depend upon your doctrine as infallible, (and so are deceived) through your usurping and maintaining such a sole right, to explicate the scriptures, especially upon mens traditions, humane grounds, degrees in lea­ning; which if any expedient at all, as receiving it by tradition, yet one of the least,1 Cor. 1.26. when the Apostle saith expressely, not many wise men after the flesh, &c. but God hath chos [...]n the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise (that are so esteemed by the world) and vile things of the world, and things which are despised: Verse 28. [such as Coblers, and Tinkers; let their outward calling be never so mean, by reason whereof, they are contemned by the world, and thought unworthy, as to the expo­sition of the scriptures; yet these] hath God chosen of the world, and things which are not [in the worlds appr [...]h [...]nsion, and their own likewise, capable of such pre­ferment] to bring to nought [to render vain and unprofitable, not onely to them­selves, but those also,John 9.41. by whom they were esteemed] things that are [and none else besides them, in their own estimation, and the worlds likewise; which say they sco, but therefore their sin remaineth:] Nay, unto babes, shall the hidden mi­steryes of the kingdome of heaven be revealed, to men of small capacities,Matth 11.25. in the esteem of such as have fle [...]y wisdome; such babes, [for that the spirit of God is powerfullest, purest, simplest, and discernably so where least of humane helps are a [...]joyned] in Christs accompt, have suitable spirits, for Gospel revellations. But remember, you self conceited and so ascribing men, that, Wo unto them that are wise in their own eyes, Isa. 5.21. and prudent in their own sight.

But had the Army questioned the lawfulnesse of their wayes [in which they are as confident pro, that they are good, as your selves cont.] and hereupon had in­vited you to a conference, you should have met: ‘And have given in this as your advice, that instead of proceeding further in such unwarrantable courses, they should have testified their timely and godly sorrow, for which [so clearly against the direct rule of the word] they have already acted.’ Who would have thought, that such self confident men, [in that you peremptorily conclude, the Armies wayes are against the word of God, though your interpretation thereupon (as hereafter ap­pears) makes the scriptures irreconcileable] should at a conference seek so much advantage from men, as to desire they should so much as question, much lesse de­ny the justnesse of their wayes, about which they were to conferr: for those that question the legality of their proceedings, may easily be perswaded that they are il­legall. But you still page 3. finde fault with your invitation ‘As is (say you) your wayes were already granted by us; we were onely invited to contribute our as­sistance in prosecution of what you had undertaken, which we conceive to be out of your Spheare.’

Whe would think that men [that would seem to be so conscientious as you do] should grumble that the Army (by their invitation) did repute you better then you were; yet I believe you mista [...]e them in it, for they could not be ignorant of the publique impertinent and seditious opposition you made, and still make against them: therefore it would be folly to thinke, they should invite you to contribute assistance to their proceedings, which they know, you so greatly did and doe (though undeservedly) vilifie; and all this from a meer conception, that they act out of their Sphear, gives more just ground to believe, that you are excee­dingly [Page 4]transported with some affianced lust, thus inconsiderately to act out of your s [...]heer, even to the reproach of your profession, by contending for such a power, which the word of God, allowes not in any, and wherein to comply with you, [...] [...].1 is to contradict the Apostles rule, that bids us have no fellowship with the un­srui [...]full w [...]rks of [...]rknesse but reprove them rather.

You proceed now more particularly [though inconsiderately in that you for­get theThe [...] the [...] fast president of attempt against lawfull aut [...]ority, countenanced and [...]tted (if not by verball justification, yet in silence by you) to demonstrate the (by you so conceived) unjustnesse of the Armys ways, by their (by you called) late attempts up [...]n authority: and your words are these. ‘It is already suffi­ [...]ien [...] known (besides all former [...]is [...]arriages) what attempts of late have been put in practise against lawfull authority: especially by your late Remonstrance and Declaration published in opposition to the proceedings of Parliament.’

The practiz'd attempts you speak off are [laying aside the common enemy, who in this ca [...]c are not to be our Judges, and indeed have forfeited so much as nomination] only discerned by your faction of unifo [...]mists, and consequently, the lawfull authority you speak it, can be but alike opinionated prevailing facti­on in the Pa [...]liament, which upon just grounds being oppos'd, is accounted an unparrallel'd attempt against authority by you; when as such a faction is but joyntly int [...]usted, by the Kingdome with the [...]est; now for them, by vi [...]tue of a maj [...] vote, to ass [...]me irresponsible and incontrolea [...]le power to themselves, is no l [...]sse usurpation: [...]h [...] that of the late Kings was [which is amply manifested in a book, en [...]ituled, the [...] [...]tion of the late King justified &c. already published by m [...] to the Crown, by ve [...]tue of succession: and therefore no l [...]sse [but ra­ther more because their trust is greater] offensive, and accordingly punishable, which I shall further illustrate, from your owne parties example in the Parliament, when united with these, from whom they and you now dissent; both joyntly taking occasion [in discharge of that trust was reposed in them by the Kingdome] to exempt the Malignant party [upon that forfeiture of trust they made] from par­taking in the priviledges of Parliament, and likewise to exclude them the House: And yet after this, your faction in the Parliament (which you call the only law­full authority) shall recede and indeavour to resigne up, that into the Malignants power, which themselves joyntly condemned, as breach of trust in them for at­tempting [viz. an i [...]thr [...]lling of the peoples liberties] and therefore dispossessed them, let reason & the world judg, whether the minor part in Parliament may not lawfully prosecute the samd forfeiture upon them, though the major part [breach of trust being the same in any, only the higher the persons the greater their offence therein] in cashiering them their trust, which they conco [...]ded should be, in the same case, upon the first Malignants, therefore what you charge the Army (the interest of the minor party) for attempt against the authority of your interest, was only the same advantage necessarily and justly improv'd by them, for the de­posing of your Parties authority, which both united, took against the common [...]ne [...]y; for, in that, your party in the Parliament [waving their late complying with the late King] did only seek the advancement of their own Interest, with pretence of good to the Kingdome, when it could be so only to themselves and their complices, they forf [...]ted their trust; by which they were ingag'd to indea­vour the good of such that then assisted them in that cause, as much as their [Page 5]own, which good cannot extend to all that so ingaged with the Parliament, un­lesse established from common princi [...]les, which were and are very wide of their and your ten [...]nts, th [...]t est [...]em not that liberty, which consists not in others op­p [...]ession; the Army and their party, therefore [being as greatly intrusted for and in er [...]ssed in the good of the Kingdome, as those of yours] finding their li­berties to be infringed by them, could not, but (in discharge of their duty to the Kingdome) clip their prevalency and obstruct their resolute prosecution of such an interest, meerly satisfactory to their own party: and therefore far from a ge [...]rall good: which to effect [in the establishment of such a government whereunder, as to your selves, you may partake of as great benefit and freedome, as the present prosecu [...]ors thereof] the indeavours of the Army, can be no op­pression, and therefore not unlawfull, but expedient for them to attempt; where­in, your accusation of them is impertinent and scandalous. Yet you still persist pag. 4. [after severall attempts recited and esteem'd so by you, which I have all­ready clearly prov'd in the negative] to justifie your faction in the Parliament [...]s the only authority, and therefore condemn the Army (though therein likewise you include the minor part of parliament) for opposing them; saying: ‘All [...] sr [...]ilues we cannot but judge, to be manifestly opposite to the lawf [...]ll authority of those Magistrates, which God hath set over us, and to that duty and obedience, which by the loves of God and man, and by our manifold Oaths and Covenants, we stand obliged to render to them.’

To which I answer, that if God had immediately (which your words would seem to imply) instituted and appointed y [...]u [...] party in the Parliament, to be sole (with [...]ut others co [...]joyn'd) Magistrates over us, and had injoyn'd us universall, in all cases, (for which we have neither precept nor president in Gods word) obedience to them; it would have been sin in the Army in resisting them; but since God sets not all Magistrates (in that h [...] sets not tyrants) over us, otherwise then by permission: those are neer [...]st unto Gods ordination, that receive their authority by his rule, which is now only through free election, and that not to an absolute power, to govern as they list (for then the people looseth their end, viz. th [...]ir own good in their choice) but to walk according to the rule that shall be prescrib'd them [a great defect (through the usurpation of predecessing Magstrates till of late days) in our laws] to discharge the end of their respective offices, and to perform the conditions upon which they are chosen (or at least for which they are intended) Magistrates; but now those that usurp authority, respects none of these rules, and therefore not lawfull Magistrates for a lawfull Magistrate can­not, and knows not, how to govern well [in that every particular expedient for the peoples good in civill government, is not written in his heart] without a rule, [which the people only are best able to prescribe, seeing they know best their own wants. Now then, in what yon charge the Army of disobedience (as universal without exceptions to any) your selves are guilty in the same, by complying which I urge against you (allowing it in your selves and yet reproving it in them) as an example unto (though just in) hem, (but unjust in you, in that you now al­l [...]dge universall [...]bedienc [...]) not to ye [...]ld obedience to all Magistrates.) Against the late King: let your pretence be what it will, viz. that you ingaged against his evill councell or the like; in your then ingaging against them, you ingag'd against him abetting and inducing of them thereto, which is clearly testined by his [Page 6]approof (in which he dyed, as to all outward appearance) of them therein: and therefore to what you accuse the Army, for opposing lawfull authority; I ans [...]er, that (besides that preci [...]ed, your own example) they have the reason, and righteous­nesse of the act it self to justifie them, in their opposition to your party, which had then the major Vote in Parliament, and by v [...]tu [...] whereof you call them lawful authority: Now, though from hence, you would injoyn the Army, obedience to them, which I have before shewed is no plea, yet pray know thus much more, in an­swer thereto; that in just dissents, viz. for the good of the people, the minor part in Parliament (because so) cease not to be a power, but are the onely power (in adhearing to their charge) intrusted, because the p [...]wer of the other party is ex­t [...]nct throu [...]h their abuse thereof, by managing it to a wrong end, which your par­ty was doing [...]edy for advantage to their own faction: therefore, in discharge of those b [...]nds both of God and men, which lay upon the minor part in Parlia­ment, being then the only just power; they could not but improve (as they did) the [...] utmost indeavou [...]s to perform their trust, viz. the peoples Liberties, though against when they saw the digression of [...]a major party; therefore the opposi­tion that you make against this present Parliament, (the onely just power in be­ [...] is practicall attempt against lawfull authority; which according to your own words [...]ou are bound by the laws of God a [...]m [...]n, and manifold Oaths and Covenants to o [...]ey. Now [...]h [...] the Parliament being then di [...]ded into lawfull magistrates, and [...] [...]hey were magistrates, let reasonable (not obstinate) men judge, whether the Army deserve [...]et to be acquitted of your accusation, and ju­sti [...] in those proceedings, since the word of God commands them, to abb [...] that which is [...]ll, and clea [...]e to that which is go [...]d. Rom. 12.9.

But that you might confirm your matter, you proceed to quote scriptures, which as from God, are purely spirituall, no contradiction in them, all together righteous; but th [...]ough mens various and corrupt interpretations, they are put (as t'were) at civill wars, scripture against scripture, and made a cloak for most lustfull errours; therefore the first text you cite, runs thus, in the advice to Solo­mon: Fear thou the Lord and the King, P [...]. 24 21. and medle not with them that are given to change: I shall (by way of answer) in these words denote, that the fear which So­lomon enjoyns to the King [in which title is comprehended all supream Offices in power, therefore the same text commands fear, to a Parliament, or to the autho­rity of any other way of government; else what the Apostle saith should bee for instruction to all, is made uselesse, and of no force to many nations, that have no King,Rom. 15.4. but are governed by States, someone way and some another] this fear I say, to the King, is conditionall from the precedent fear, with which its coupled; that is, the fear of the Lord: Fear thou the Lord, and the King; implying that we are not to fear the King, when it is disjoyned, and much more when it will pre­judice and extinguish the fear of the Lord; I would be as clear, yet as brief as I can; because my time is streightned: therefore

Secondly, when he saith, Feare the King, without doubt, he means a lawfull King, a King quallified for the Office; and then the text, inj [...]yned not fear to the late King, as will more amply appear in my prenominated book.

Thirdly, He means it not in all ci [...]ill cases, for then we shall come under that his reproof, it is not good, that is, 'tis a [...]n to have [...]espect of persons in judgment, but now,Vose 23. to respect Kings in judgement (through that former injunction to fear) [Page 7]notwithstanding punis [...]able offences in them, is to respect persons in judgement, and so this latter text becomes ineffectual: but now that this latter may comply with the former verse, the latter must be expounded thus; It is not good, or it is a sin, to have respect of persons in judgement; that is, a King inclusively (though lawfull in his calling) in ca [...]e of [...]ansgression, should be so far from being feared, as that judgement with [...]ut partiality, should be executed on him:Luke 12.28. and this is ac­cording to Christs own rule; that to whom much is given, much shall be required: therfore the same laws that upon breach of trust, or any other offences, are (or should be) prosecuted against subordinate officers, or a Kings (should be brethren) sub­jects: the same should be prosecuted against a King, or superiour magistrates so much the heavier, by how much, his or their trust and gifts being the more, his or their offences are the greater. Now then it is clear, that Solomon enjoyns fear to Kings, or (where none are) to other superiour Magistrates, onely upon these grounds: viz. that they ar [...] lawfull Magistrates, and as our fear to them, may con­sist with our fear to God; and this can be onely in the execution of justice and judgement, which he commands: then lastly, the wiseman speaks this, not to those that have authority and power above the King, [as (before shewed,) the agents in these transactions hath from the people, but to those that are private persons, with­out any interest in publiqu [...] affairs, as to trust: now in this sense I comply with the text; that private persons are to fear the higher powers, all such, whether Par­liament or others, being included in this title King: but besides all these, I shall recite one p [...]oof more, (though the least) for justification of the Army herein, and that is your own examples in complying against the late King, which I wave, be­cause before hinted: Now the application to what hath been said, in reference to this your first quoted text, I leave (because so easie) to be understood, and pro­ceed (onely hinting thus much) that seeing Solomon bids us meddle not with those that are given to change, (or in other translations, that are seditious, which is most fitly applied to your selves, (and for the Army to observe towards you) that instead of preaching peace, the glad tidings of the Gospel, preach contention and debate.) yet your selves are examples of a change, else many of you, would have had but smal communion with light; and the reason why you are in such obscu­rity, i [...] because you are not so throughly changed, as you should be; there are yet too many episcopall principles in you, which particularly to survay, is from the purpose in hand; therefore I leave them as best known to God, and your own consciences, yet in part to the Kingdom; but only this, there are blessed changes.

To the next text you quote, and that is, ‘Withdraw from every brother, that walketh disorderly; and not according to the traditions, which you have received fro [...] us. 2 Thess. 3.6.’

Though you wave the particular end [in that Saint Paul in these instructions intende [...] them, to that particular act of inordinacy, vers. 8. from which he clears himself, by administring to his own necessities, & which he urgeth,Act [...] 18.34. as a motive for every man, to work from his own example, though hee had authority to have received maintenance from them, yet he saw it more expedient, to preach the go­spel freely, since himself (among other reasons) was able to work: now though from this sense of that place, you very likely willingly) digresse, yet it is too much veritied upon many of you, that make a trade, and pin your livelihoods upon the pre [...]ching of the Gospel, notwithstanding your abilities to the contrary: but if the [Page 8]Apostles thought it expedient to work; much more may you (whose authority is not so good) refer your selves to the benevolence of your Congregations, or at least, not ungospel-like, to contend for a reward] now I say, though you wave the particular end of the Apostles words; yet I shall answer a little to them in your own sense: therefore in the next place, you say, one of the Apostles traditions is,

"Put them inminde to be subject to prin [...]ipallities, and powers; and to obey ma­g [...];" T [...] [...]2.1. Fo [...]. 13 1, 2. and to let every soule be subject to the higher powers, &c.

These te [...] h [...]th in effect been already answered, the lesse therefore will now serve; now th [...]n seeing magistrates have a power above them: viz. the people, the originall of their authority: it is clear, that the Apostle exhorts obedience in the people,D [...] [...]8. [...]6. F [...]. 33.2. non co [...]junction, as they are the center and top of the magistrates power, sed d [...]s [...], as they are private persons; else you will civide the scripture, and make the fountain dependant on the streams; and the master, on his servants.

Again he minded them of this obedience, either as a Church (which I rather believe) or as members of a State; if as a Church (though this interpretation wi [...] h [...] good therein likewise) then what you infer, is as wide from the then pre­sent trans [...]tions of the Parliament and Army, as spirituall things are from tem­po [...]ll. And if as members of a State, y [...]ur application of this text is altogether [...]ti [...]ent, seeing it is granted, that private persons ought to obey lawfull ma­gr [...]ates in lawfull causes.

But [...]his [...] t [...]xt you quote, seems to [...]g [...]a reason of obedience to magistrates, yet far from;Rom. 13.1, 2. [...]ur sense; the text saith, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there i [...]to po [...]er but of God, the powers that [...]e are ordained of God: whos [...]e­ [...]er therof [...]or [...]ieth the power, resisleth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to the [...]selves damnation.’

Now to open this scripture in opposition to your sense of it; I shall premise these things. viz. full, that there are powers immediatly ordained of God, or by an immediate particula [...] command from God:1 S [...] 17. 1 [...] 13. 2 [...] [...] 3.9.3. that is, when God doth particularly institute such, or such a person to be a magistrate: thus God commanded Sam [...] to single our Saul the s [...]ist King, and the same Prophet afterward, to [...]int Davi [...], the youngest of his br [...]h en [...] in like manner was J [...]hu (though a servant to the successive King his master) in [...]ituted; theref [...]re th [...] text commands not sub­jection in this sense, there [...]eing no such ordi [...]ation now. But.

Secondly, there are powers mediately ordained of God, that is, God hath committee [...]t to a people, [...] 6.1 [...]. to constitute their own Officers, whethe [...] high or lo [...]: n [...]w when a people hath thus elected, & with power invested their own magistrates (upon that generall limitation to their respective Offices: viz. to doe equity and righteousnes in all the particular acts thereof, as far as the p [...]l [...] a [...] convinced of them) then that people are injoyned by your precited text,1 [...] 1 [...] 9 as private persons, to obey them (in lawfull commands) as the mediate ordinance of Go [...]: but it being clear (as before amply demonstrated) that the lawfull auth [...]rit [...] you speak of, had not this qualification, or at least, acted not up to it; it is [...], that this text injoyned not obedience to them, but conseque [...]tly oppos [...] the con­trary of subjection: and the Army is to be justifica (as upon many o [...]r grounds, so upon this) therein.

Thirdly and lastly, in answer to the same text; there are powers permissively ordained by God, that is, such that God doth not prevent or oppose, but suffer­eth [Page 9]to be; and these are illegal, tyrannicall, & oppressive powers, which God is said to ordain, as he is said to do evil by permitting it to be done:Amos 3.6. now for any to think that God is the author of evil because he permits it, or that God ordains (otherwise then permissively) and enjoyns tyrannicall powers, because he doth not appear against them: is to charge God with injustice; it being against his attribute of justice to en­joyn obedience to an unjust power, it is indeed to make God the author of sin, so far as an unjust power is sinfull; and therefore that the Apostle might manifest (as I believe) the justice of God herein; he limits our subjection to a condition, by rendring a reason thereof (which though you omit, yet is the very qualification of our subjection) the command is, Be subject to the higher powers, &c. but why? For, or because he (that is the magistrate) is the minister of God for thy wealth, &c. this is the very Hinge upon which the power of magistracy hangs,Rom. 13.4. but take away the Hinge, and the doore must needs be down; that is, if the magistrates actings, for the wealth of the people dyes, their power dyes with it: now if omissi­ons of, much more commissions against the common wealths good (by oppres­sions in designing self-interest and the like) makes the power of Magistrates extinct: wherein likewise we are bound to resist them; it being the complaint of God, that none are found in a Nation, to oppose the exercise of an unjust po­wer, whether in Princes by shedding of blood, or in Prophets by divining lies, or in the people (most likely in their Representatives) by oppression. The Lord saith, Ezek. 22.30. I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me, for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none: not onely to stand in the gap by Prayer, but make up the hedge, put thorns in their way; and as the Margin hath it, which should shew himself zealous in my cause, by resisting vice, & in the like neglect, Isa. 59.16. God wondred that no man offered himself to do judgement; and how acceptably did God take it, Numb. 25.11. that Phineas (though a private man) did execute justice upon Zimri and Cosbi, though the chief of their families; and though he had no particular com­mand for what he did, and so not a rule (as some of you say) yet it is a renowned example (approved, by God himself) unto us (In case of the like neglect in others) to act up to that generall and universall command, viz. the execution of judge­ment and justice, as he did; and such may expect the same blessing, if they respect the same end: therefore the Parliament and Army (that had both equity and po­wer; and were entrusted) unto that opposition which they made against your (tho the major) partie in Parliament (in their sought to be established oppression, and therein to infringe the peoples liberties, tending to subvert the end and cause of their trust; an offence in any sole power, much more in them, who were but joyntly intrusted] the feare of God did oblige them, though the minor part, as a happy and most desirable civill change from darknesse unto light, communion wherewith we should most cover to enjoy, free from discontent, since we should rather secondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army, then trust­fully to adhere to their authority,The first man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. L [...]try last, being, then Fast-day when there was the lest yet lawfullest (part there­of (which I have shewed, we must rather obey) appearing to discharge their duty

Now then, that can be no plea (though asserted by one of your * Brethren, upon that subject of universall obedience to Magistrates, seeing he made no exceptions) the effect of it [viz. that magistrates are of divine institution, that they bear Gods image; that God himself cals them Gods; and therefore disobedience to them [Page 10]is an eternall dan mage, whereas to disappoint the peoples safetie, is but a tempo­rall losse, and so to be lesse esteemed then an eternall.] I say, this can be no plea (craving leave a little to digresse from your matter: for satisfaction sake, more formally, though this is effectually already answered since that the office or duty of the Magistrate not his own person) is onely of divine institution; in the execution of which office [viz. 1 Kings 10.9. to do equitie and righteousnesse, in as much as therein consists holines] he bears Gods image; but when Magistrates shall act quite contrary to the cause, which take away, and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being, by oppression, injustice, Covenant-breaking, exaltation above their (brethren, subjects; and all this with that great aggravation of self, respect: herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holinesse, so unto dominion which is to rule in righteousnes, meeknes and mercy) in which de­fect they cease to be either the ordinance of God or man; and the people are dis­obliged from obedience to them, and so by consequence and contrary, may law­fully resist their evil practices. Nay, lawfull magistrates enjoining things (that may ordinarily in themselves be lawfull) in all extraordinary cases, may some­times erre; and lawfully be resisted therein; in as much as they obstruct a grea­ter good: let all remember therefore, that as of two evils, the least, so of two goods the greatest is to be chosen: but the example of David may more fitly insert here­after, at present I therefore wave it; and proceed to your fifth page, and there your words are:

Wee have not forgotten those declared grounds and principles, upon which the Par­liament first took up Arms, and upon which we were induced to joyne with them, &c.

Which though you say, you have not declined, yet will prove the contrary: for the grounds that the Parliament first did (or at least should have done) take up arms upon; was not so much their own priviledges, as the peoples liberties: and therefore theirIaintry 17 1 [...]1. Declaration (which you instance for confirmation, will prove the confutation of all your matter) upon that attempt which the King made upon their Priviledges; putteth such an assault, as an offence against the liberty of the Subject, before a breach of their own priviledges: whose priviledges to preserve, indeed were the instrumentall cause of our first taking up Armes; but we (not you, unlesse you confirm this truth) rested not here, this was not our end; the onely thing we aimed at: but we had respect to some thing beyond, and yet then through the priviledges of Parliament: viz. the Peoples liberties, the very end wherefore they sit: and the grounds of our assistance to them, was not so much [though our liberties were apparently, because we had no other power to appear for us, and whose miscarriage would have been ours not subordinately wrapt up in] their Privileges, as our own liberties; therefore consonant to this, is the conclu­sion of the precited Declaration; wherein they declare, the Person that shall so Arrest any member, or members of Parliament, to be a Publique enemie to the Common-wealth; which clearly shews, that such members must be acting for the good of the common wealth, or else the Person or Persons so arresting them, will be so far from enemies, as that they will bee friends to the Common-wealth in so doing: therefore from hence, this flows clearly, by way of use; that those are no Priviledges (but usurped) of Parliament, that are inconsistent with the Peoples l [...]borties.

As likewise this undeniable conclusion, that to arrest or seclude (as was then [Page 11]endeavoured by the late King) any Person or Persons in the Parliament acting for the peoples liberties, is contrary thereunto; and a breach of the priviledges of Parliament.

But the Army [with the consent of those onely lawfull ones (and so the house) left be­hinde] secluded the late members of Parliament, for infringing the peoples liberties.

Therefo [...] it was no breath of their Priviledges.

But it is most manifest by all your precedent arguments and quotations, that you would make the people the Packhorse to all your imposed burthens, and slaves to no lesse then three powers; the King his Honour, and Prerogative; the Parliament their Priviledges which you make distinct from, though if they are so, they must concu [...] in, the peoples liberties) above them; and you your Ecclesiasticall government above all: but your complying with the two former; from all evidences, is onely that they may assist in advancing yours; when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all cases, at all times, upon all occasion: all three would center in the peoples liberties; they being ordained for the peo­ple, and not the people for them: but herein you preferre the Box before the Ointment, the Raiment before the body: and you are blinded with self, yet confidently you say, you see; but therefore your blindenes remaineth, and no wonder, if you occasion your own fal [...].

Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting, because in your 6 page 25. line: you say, that in reference to the power of Magistracy, they are but private Per­sons: it seems strange, that you should so forget the priviledge, that both you and we, when united (in a then thought just cause against the King, by suing out our liberties) took (notwithstanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the king­dom) to esteem our selves the kingdom: as witnes your own words in the 5 p. of your pam­phlet, line 12. upon the attempt of. the late King (destructive to the good of the Kingdom,) and shall the Army, and their party (which in comparison to yours, are more numerous, then both of us then were to the Kings) be esteemed as private Persons, and lesse justifi­able, in the prosecution of the same end, against the proceedings of your Party onely? and can this be a breach of the Priviledges (being onely a Purge, which though it makes sick, yet is, in order to the health) of the Parliament, in acting up to the fountain of their Priviledges: let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceedings, since our cies have been witnesse of the justnes of them; and the rather, because they acted not alone (very lawfull to do justly, should none other appear thereto) but contributed their assistance unto their solely lawfull authority, which (though for quantity the least, yet for quality the best) being in the right, a minor Vote, was then [...]ver-powred by might, a major Vote; and yet this doth, nor did not extenuate, or lessen the equity of the minor part, which to maintain (as being bound in dutie thereunto) the then appearance of the Armic must needs be justified; in as much likewise as chusing the good, and eschewing the evill is ju­stifiable: and therefore for farther confirmation hereof, (though the premises considered, there needs none) from Junius Brutus (in as much as such reliques chiefely appear upon some) upon the same subject, cited by Mr Prinne [in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments, and Kingdomes. pag. 198. line 1. to the 18,] from whom I gather them, viz

The King swears that he will seek the safety of the Realm, the Nobles swe [...]r every one the same by himself: whether therefore the King, or most of the Nobles neglecting their Oath, shall either destroy the Common-weale, or desert it being in danger, ought the rest therefore to desert the Republique; or at least, but rather then especially, they ought to shews their fidelity, when as others neglect it, be lesse bound to defend it, as if they were observed from their Oath? Especially, since they were principally instituted for that end, like the Epho [...] and every thing [Page 12]may then be reputed just, when it attaines its end: whether truly if many have promised the same thing, is the obligation of the one dissolved by the perjury of the other? whether if many be guilty of the same sinne, are the rest freed by the fraud of one? whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupill, shall one good man be lesse bound with the burthen of the wardship through their de­fault? but rather, neither can those avoyd the infamy of perjury, unlesse they, ende [...]our to satisfie their trust as much as in them lieth; neither can those exempt themselves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianship ill administred, unlesse they implead the other Guardians suspected; when as verily one guardian may not [...]uely implead the rest suspected, and take care of those to bee removed, but also remove them.

The application of this passage I need not insert, seeing the words themselves are clear and easie to be understood, and that in generall it holds forth thus much, That a minor party are bound in duty to discharge their trust, though in opposition to the major party negle­cting or falsifying it. And although you would seem to take off an objection from the Par­liaments own example in opposing the late King, by th [...]se your words.

And although both Houses of Parliament (who are joyntly together with the King intrusted with the supream authority of the Kingdome) saw cause to take up Armes for their owne defence, against the attempts made upon them by the King and his evill Counsellors; and for some o­ther ends which you cite, though doubtlesse experience will produce sufficient testimony of better effected; yet it hath been amply and satisfactorily proved, that the Army have not acted as private persons, since they assisted the lawfull authority (though the least part of the Nobles, yet the Kings superiour and so supream, it being most unsafe to leave the supremacy undetermined, as is largely demonstrated by that Author [Iunius Brutus] quo­ted by Mr. Prinne in the 196, 197. pages of that his prenominated Booke) in prosecution of the end of their ingagements, the peoples libertie, since likewise they were not instituted the Parliaments servants to pursue their end, but the peoples good, in as much as the Par­liament represents, and are but servants thereunto also. And therefore, whereas, when the Parliament first took up Armes, you would [page the 7.] plead their intentions then, was not thereby to doe violence to the person of the King, &c. yet I answer, that this was not binding either to the Army, or to themselves, in case of greater enormities committed by him; for I had thought you had known the distinction, between intentions, and illimited determinations, or conclusions: because a man at the same time when he intends a thing; may prescribe to himselfe the intervening of some other thing that shall divert his intended act; therefore intention cannot proceed so farte as determination or resolution, could the Parliament then intend, should the late King have acted never so high in tyranny, to ex­empt him from accounting, and so collude (as the precited Author hath it) and not be re­puted in the number of Prevaricators; or connive, of desertors; or not vindicate the Re­publick from his tyranny, and not be traytors?

Now then, 'tis resolved upon the question, That the intentions of the Parliament then, could extend onely unto that present time, wherein had he return'd, they were willing to re­mit (without (as you term it) violence to his person) what he had then offended in, viz. attempts upon their priviledges; but the (measure of his iniquity not being then full) not unto that time, wherein he prosecuted those attempts (not onely on their priviledges, but on the very foundation of Government, the peoples liberties) in the blood of thousands; seeing they adjudged him by that their declaration, you have precited, no lesse then a pub­lick enemy, for practising such attempts, & might have justly proceeded accordingly; but I say, if then, much more now are they to be justified in that justice, o [...] frequently enjoyned in Scripture, to be executed without respect of persons, and so, far from violence, wherein [Page 13]therefore your accusation is very scandals us.

Again, neither could the Parliaments intentions then (as you affirm page 7.) extend to the continuance of that government now: for the constitution thereof must be considered either as good or bad; if as good in the positive (though the negative may be proved, which I wave, because the affirmative is indurable) yet better, or best, is to be preferred before it. Now then, could the Parliament then intend (or should they, yet were it binding either to themselves or us) the establishment of that or any other government? when greater light (in reference to the end for which government should be constituted, viz. the peoples safety) should be manifested; nay, could the accomplishment of such purposes be esteemed other­wise then a rejecting of the light, and a loving of darknesse rather then light. To instance this in one particular, Episcopall government (then constituted it's likely in the greatest measure of light they had) had it been binding either to future yeares or ages, then your a­bolishing of it was illegall; but through pretence of a greater light, and so lawfully, you have ex [...]irpated it therefore the constitution of what government you mean, was conditio­nall (not upon yours, but our own light) and so not binding to us.

But whereas, in the same page, you say you apprehend your selves obliged thus to ap­peare for the maintenance of your Religion, Lawes, &c. as against those that would intro­duce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King: so on the other hand against the irregular proceedings of private persons (as you terme them, though I have shewed they are publick) to introduce anarchy, irreligion, &c. the former of which justifies the Army in that oppo­sition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing, by tolera­ting, if not tyranny, yet such a power in the King, whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people; and the cause of your obligation to the latter, is ta­ken away, since you may enjoy under the government to be set led (laying aside your prin­ciples of oppression) as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any: whereunder likewise, as may be (because the best way) continued love and amity, so in stead of irreligion, a free religion most sutable to the Gospel (not compulsive or constri­ctive) may be introduced.

But now, that your former matter might seem infallible, you reinforce it with a Cove­nant, though never intended for such an abuse; you include the Army (making them [...]n­paraleld Covenant-breakers) as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such (as you instance from Scripture) who violated an absolute, pure, simple Covenant; whereas ours was limited & conditional, only the bond or rye of both being alike, the breach where­of was the cause that God powred down his judgements upon them: In this therefore your hold-fast will prove as infirm as in the rest, and according to the literali sense of it, (not to mention here your omission of the end) your selves will be found more guilty of perjury then any, and so your texts are misapplied.

You say then, page 7. That you are the more strongly ingaged to adhere to your former just principles, [...]y reason of the severall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome; and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641, wherein (as your words are) We do in the presence of Almighty God promise, vow & protest, according to the duty of our Al­legeance, to maintain and defend with our lives, powers and estates, his Majesties Royall person, honour and estate, and the power and priviledges of Parliament.

To this I answer first, That your first ingagement upon these precedent principles (as if they were independent, and the peoples sole happinesse did consist in them, as you posi­tively cite) was unjust and without understanding. For mark you how the former particu­lar in the oath doth depend upon the latter; you did not sweare (give me leave a little to in­lighten [Page 14]lighten you, it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance, but a greater to continue ignorant of it) to maintain and defend the late Kings Majesties person, &c. in case he should with his person, make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and priviledges of Par­liament, which (unlesse you be turned malignants obstinate) you cannot but confesse is a limitation to the former clause in that oath, and indeed with which you complied against the late King, and never violated the oath, as to that particular, because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other (as experience hath witnessed) by cleaving to one and forsaking the other: we break the oath unlesse we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other, which was the late Kings case, the Parliament being more intrusted, and so more supream then himselfe. This your selves have granted: herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant.

Again, as to that latter clause [to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Par­liament] I answer, that this likewise doth relye and depend upon something, which though you insert not, and if neither exprest in the oath, yet is consequently and necessarily under­stood to be the top and end of both. For in what you did ingage against an unquestio­nable and tyrannicall power in the King, to set it up in a major vote of Parliament, you did it voyd of understanding, and a great deale of blood was shed to no purpose, which (up­on such an ingagement) for ought I know, may as soon lie upon your account, as else­where But to be short, because before insisted on, the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in such force above a Kings, whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted, and from whom the same end both did and doe receive their power, which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and King­dome, particularly these words, [Iunius Brutus, p. 154.] A King exists by and for the people, and cannot consist without the people, and that all Officers are chosen by the peo­ple. Severall other Authors to the same purpose he quotes: but desirous to hasten to a conclusion) I wave, and proceed to discover how palpably your selves are guilty of the breach of this oath.

First, as to that particular which you did sweare to defend the late Kings person, &c. you are guilty of perjuty, for that you never ventured your lives, persons, and estates, to preserve his person, many times (perhaps not intentionally, yet accidentally) in jeopar­dy from the Parliaments Forces, against whom according to this clause in your oath, with your temporall All you should have defended him.

Secondly, as to the maintenance of his Honour, you faile likewise, since you have com­plied with the Parliament, a [...] least by silence, to detract from his honour, by intending to dimini [...]h that Authority which formerly (though unlawfully) he had in the King­dome.

I hirdly, to be briefe, by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament, in depriving him of his (because possest of it, though it were and is the peoples) former estate. M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and King­domes, in his seventh Observation, his words are, That Emperours, Kings, Princes, are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands, Revenues, Forts, Castles, Ships, Iewels, Am­munition, Treasure of their Empires, Kingdomes, to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures, but onely the Guardians, Trustees, Stewards, or Supervisors of them, for their Kingdoms use and benefit, from whom they cannot alien them, nor may without their consents or privities, lawfully dispose of them, or any of them, to the publick prejudice, which if they doc, their Grants are void and revocable.

Now, as to this first clause in that oath, in which I have shewed you are guilty of a [Page 15]breach) the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant, the peo­ples safety, which they are principally to endeavour, though against other subordinate in­clusions that prove prejudiciall thereto: as to the Oaths of Allegiance, the obligation is void, since he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us, as Subjects; which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book, where he saith, There is every where between the Prince and People, a mutuall and reciprocall obliga­tion: be promiseth that he will be a just Prince; They, that they will obey him, if be shall be such a one: therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition: the Prince, pure­ly to the People: therefore if the condition be not fulfilled, the People are unbound; the contrast void, the obligation null in law is selfe: therefore, the King is perfidious if be Raigns unjust­ly: the People perfideous, if they obey not him, who Raigns justly.

To which I add, that the Magistrate, being but a servant in duty cannot call them to ac­count, for their perfidiousnes (God properly being the avenger of that in them) but they him: since the wrong and hurt is cheifly done unto themselves, not unto him; who dis­chargeth his duty in gentle perswasion and admonition.

But the People are free from all crime of perfidiousnesse, if they publikely renounce him who raigne unjustly: or if they endeavour to evict him with Armes, who desires to retaine the kingdome unlawfully.

Again, as to the defence of his Person, the Army is clear, as to that time (the Oath be­ing then the same) since he was out of their power, and in the possession of others; and might (if he would) have destroyed himself: there is this limitation to it, likewise to ju­stifie the Army in their late proceedings against him; that our defence to his Person must needs be understood to be in just waies; else such would be partakers in his sin, and be­come liable to the same punishment, as the justly executedHamll [...]ton Lords were, Holland, and Capell.

And then as to the latter particular in that Oath, viz. The defence of the power and Privi­ledges of the Parliament: the Armies refining their House cannot be reputed a breach of that Priviledges, no more then the rectifying of one crooked line to the Center, may be esteemed the disordering of the circumference: since likewise, that the convening, or as­sembling of the Parliament is not (but their representing the People, not onely in their Persons, but in their qualifications, which doth distinguish them from Slaves: is) the originall of their power and Priviledges: the which therefore, can be no longer reputed theirs, then they are the peoples; and the endeavours of the Armie to repossesse them of their own, can be no breach of Covenant.

Again, concerning the Vow and Covenant, taken to unite us against those conspiracies and designes that were practised against the Parliament; you are likewise guilty of a breach, (though herein you have acted, yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own) by disjunction of what tended to unity, and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every respect, as we to you; notwithstanding your labour hath been spent to hale others to Conformity to your way: In which (laying aside their endeavours to free themselves from your oppression) they are clear towards you.

But now, your last and greatest seeming prop, upon which you build all your argu­ments, as to your sense upon it will prove as invalid, as all the rest; and those scriptures you cite for proofe thereof, misapplied. You cite the Covenant thus:

That you will sircerely, really, and constantly, in your severall Vocations, endeavour to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments; and preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdomes.

Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant, I shall not here farther inlarge, because before insisted upon, and proved that they have (though you exempt) conditions understood as limits and bounds to our defence and preservation of them. Therefore I shall onely commemorate you a little of the conclusion: The Independent part (as to tem­porals) of this Covenant, which when first instituted, was intended for a generall good; therefore that party that hath sought to over reach any other thereby, and designe it only for their own good, must needs be guilty, as of fraud, so of a breach thereof; but I leave this to your own Consciences (if not dead) to apply, and proceed to recite the ingagement: viz. We will, &c. indeacour to preserve and defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and the Kings Person, &c. But how? In the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms: that is so far, as the two former doth concur and incur, to the preservation of this latter; so far, as the maintenance of the Rights & Privileges of the Parlia­ment do; and as the Person, Honor and safety of the late King did Center in the safety, pre­servation, defence, and propagation of the true Religion, and the liberties of the Kingdome: but now should the Parliament, as your party therein, & the late King did) usurp Privileges and Pr [...]ogat [...]ves, as to establish themselves in the government; so likewise forcibly what form thereof they please upon others, and turn enemies to the liberties (the very spring of all their most as and actings, as lawfull Magistrates) of the Kingdoms; By this Cove­nant, we are not only disobliged from obedience to them, but also ingaged to oppose them, as enemies to the true Religion: it being free, and to the Liberties of the Kingdomes.

Furthermore, we are the more firmly obliged hereunto, by that relation & union, this oath hath with the former; wherein both you and we [supposing my self (had I been through age capable) to have taken the Covenant] equivalently did ingage against those conspitacies, that were & after should be contrived against the Parliament: but now, was not our, conjunction & colligation against such confederacies, more with respect unto, or for that they were desig­ned against the publike good of the Kingdoms; then meerly or principally, for the defence & preservation of the Parliament therein: who were onely, as an assembly of men, without qualifications accordingly. Now then, this being granted (as necessarily it must, unless you will be unnaturall, and irrationall, to prefer so few singly before the safety of the Kingdom, wherein your selves likewise are interested) I say, this being granted, it undeniably follows, that if the Parliament (as is sufficiently proved your party thereof did) should turn enemies to the good of the Kingdomes (which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance, and them no otherwise then they shall concur herewith) we are bound by those precited Cove­nants, as to oppose them, so to inflict (without respect of persons) the same (if not greater, because their trust aggravates their fault) punishment upon them, as upon o­thers in the like offences; provided that right take place.

But now I shall proceed to speak a little to these two particulars in the end of the Cove­nant; We swore to defend the Person of the King, and the Priviledges of Parliament, &c. in the defence of the true Religion, &c. because this is one of your main accusations against the Army that (you say) they have not endeavoured to preserve Religion: in as much likewise as that it is distinct from the Peoples civill liberties, and the first thing necessary, could it in­fallibly be determined.

I shall propound some things to your consideration, as to clear the Army from your aspersions herein; so likewise to illuminate your selves and stop (if reason will) your in­vectives: And

The first is this; did we in covenanting to preserve and defend the true Religion, swear to maintain your Religion? Especially, when we were not convinced of the truth of it; [Page 17]and then though it were so, if we knew it not, how could we keep the Covenant in maintai­ning it as true? And therefore I answer in the negative, we did not (weare to defend your way of Government, because this were sinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it, which your selves cannot make out to be Iure Divino, & so infallible, and there­fore not to be imposed upon others. Again, suppose we had ingag'd to have maintained your Government of Uniformity, as being (to our light) the truest way then extant; yet could this ingagement firmly extend to times of greater light, & not sinfully suppresse the truth? As for instance, Had you in the dayes of Episcopacy, taken an Oath (without any limitations exprest) to maintain and defend it, yet could you think your selves obliged to have kept it, when convinced of the way that you are now in, and not forget that a greater light al­wayes extinguisheth a lesser, as the light of a Torch that of a Candle? Now then, what I would inferre herefrom, is, That seeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true [in that we expect, and doe or should patiently wait (according to Gods promises) for a more perfect] Religion, which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man: the best way to preserve this Covenant unviolated, is to tolerate many opinions, or (if you will) religions: For by this meanes there will be a doore opened for the truest to have free passage, which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph; but otherwise, con­strain'd conformity to one way, not the perfectest, is to limit and consine the Spit of God to a generall illumination; which limitation, how sinfull; and dispensation (if at all) how seldome, let any reasonable men judge. Therefore such a predicted toleration endevoured by any, cannot be reputed a breach of covenant.

Now then, the other particular, viz. the peoples liberties, in the end of our Covenant (the first, viz. true Religion being yet in obscurity) doth appeare to be the sole and visible end of our engagement, and therefore the Master-wheele, upon which the motion of the power and priviledges of Parliament, and the person of the King (though by this Oath (waving his Office being the cause of his greatnesse) we are no more tied to his, then a private mans person) as being under and lesser wheeles doth depend. Now therefore those that have complied with the two former, which indeed are but instruments, (and as men cannot build without tools, so a people cannot rule without some elected and compendious form; yet as the instrument cannot ascribe any thing to it self, in the work it is appointed unto, being made, guided, and acted by man; even to, the Parliament or any others [...] whom the people shall contract themselves to govern, and prescribe them Rules according­ly, cannot ascribe the good discharge of their trust according to those rules, unto them­selves, so much as to the people that instituted them, since likewise that the burthen of the ill managing of their power, if not redressed by, would most of all be laid upon the people) I say, these that have complied with the two former, that are but as instruments in the peo­ples hands, and herein have preferred the shell before the kinnell, the effect before the cause, their motion before the suggestion, and this against the liberties of the people, the very end of their and our Covenant; those are the onely persons that have violated their oath.

For in all Obligations (as well temporall in which the liberties of the people, as in this of ours, is principally aimed at: as in spirituall, in which the glory of God is or should be chiefly intended;) the end, the thing aimed at, the cause of the obligation, is above the bond or tye thereof; because, not endeavouring, or neglecting to attain the end, doth occasion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant: And therefore the use of an oath in this case, is onely to incite [in that there is an ingagement lies upon the spirit of those that sweare] firmly and undauntedly to prosecute their end; which they cannot doe, as that [Page 18]Oath against Conspiracies testifieth; but in opposition to all the enemies thereof: there­fore if Parliament, as your faction therein did, and the King not onely desist from en­deavouring that end of the Covenant, viz. The peoples liberties, upon which condition they were included in preservation; but also turn enemies, though intended for the former end, to the good of the same: the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of con­nivance and perjury, unlesse they couragiously in prosecution of their cathes end [not­withstanding all other literall, conditionall, and subordinate inclosions therein] oppose them as enemies thereunto. But now unto this effect, the Army in their late transactions hath manifested their opposition unto the two former, therefore they have performed the Covenants, insomuch that the world may beare witnesse with their consciences, that they had no th [...]ughts [the premises considered] to diminish his Majesties [just] power and greatnesse.

Now then, your grand objections from the Covenant, being fully answered, and the Ar­my from your aspersions hereupon vindicated, as I hope all reasonable men will clearly discern, it were an easie thing to reply all your subsequent quotations of examples of Gods judgements upon Covenant-breakers, upon your selves, since you have neglected the end, and so are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant; but I wave this, and shall with more brevity and lesser pains, prove the said quotations misapplied and impertinent.

And therefore to the first of them, viz that oath of Zedekiah [Ezek. 17.14, 15, 16, 19] King of Jerusalem, of obedience to the King of Babylon; I answer, that his oath was absolute, and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylons part, so is not ours, as hath been amply proved. Againe, the end of his Covenant was perfect obe­dience as to civill affaires; ours, limited to the peoples liberties; his attempt of the peoples freedome (or perhaps his own rather then theirs) being against the will of God, in that his oath was inconditionall, and he had no such superiour relation and power above the King of Babylon, and so exposed the people more unto his tyrannicall will and power then before; ours, being agreeable to the will of God, in executing justice, especially since the people are the root of the Kings and all other Authority: and he, their servant to act for their good, and therefore accountable; put in trust by them, and therefore their Steward, and so required to give an account of his Stewardsh: as to God in the things he hides from men, so to his people in publick neglect of his trust. I need not further amplifie the dispa­rity of our Covenant with his, since it is cleare, that therein we had an end above the preser­vation of King or Parliament; which to endeavour, can be no violation of the tye of the Covenant (of which Zedekiah was guilty) and therefore I believe (as to the merit of such a sinne) we shall not partake of his judgements.

Now then, my serious (and therefore let it not be rejected) advice to you is, That you would consider and conferre you covenant with what I have dilated thereupon, and confesse and revoke your mistakes and breaches thereof in those severall particulars where­of (and as I have cleared you are guilty, in our publick assemblies, that through your hearty sorrow for the same, and such a reall testimony of your illumination, the Parlia­ment and Army may be again induced to invite you to their Consultations. And whereas you have been instruments of sedition, you may be so now of inlightning and composing the spirits of those you have seduced and incensed against the publick good; and that hereby you may redisplay what excellencies hath been all this while under a cloud of self-interest in you, that so you may recover our hearts, helps, and prayers, that the blessing of God may be upon you, and that you may relinquish revilings and invectives with mixtures of [Page 19]self esteem in your preachings, that so the Gospel in the simplicity, purity, and truth thereof, may be dispensed by you, to the comfort of all those whom now you (undeserved­ly) oppose, and that by your serious and cordiall application of this matter, you may be­come their professed friends in one day, to the terrifying of both your enemies, that yet re­joyce in your dissention. But in your tenth page you still brand the Army, (as being your greatest eye-sore and heart-sore) with Disobedience to Magistrates, which indeed were a great sinne, as by the examples of Gods judgements (which you cite) upon it, did you rightly apply it. But because your particular designes are obstructed, and prevented, there­fore you will unpreach what ever formerly with vehemency you have conjured the people unto: I cannot but reply (since you are conscious of the frequent commands in Gods word to yeeld obedience to Magistrates, doth not include tyrannicall Magistrates, or law­full ones in all cases, which hath been sufficiently proved, yet the example of Jehu, re­maining for our instruction in the like case, doth more confirm, who (though a private person, yet was commanded from God [2 Kings 9.7.] to avenge the blood of the Prophets upon the House of Ahab, by whose authority or connivance they were destroyed, which accordingly he executed, as in the 24 verse upon Jehoram, that had an hereditary right to the Crown, and succeeded in his stead.) You know the word of God frequently enjoynes universall and unpartiall justice, without exemption and respect of persons; and yet you speak contrary to your knowledge, by seeking to impell totall obedience in the Army to Magistrates, when through some defaults from Scripture-warrant, they may be exposed to a condition of punishment, and then very incapable either to command or be obeyed. And then you practise otherwise then you speak, when your own interest is uppermost, and ob­structed by the Magistrates (as now) none more forward to oppose them, and excite others thereunto, then your selves, as witnesse your resolution against tyranny in the King, in the seventh page of that your Book, and your groundlesse impudent opposition to the Parlia­ment now.

But to your exhortation page your 11. and 12. for the Army to examine themselves, whether they should not have opposed those proceedings (there largely recited by you in o­thers if done by them, which they did approve of and esteeme as a vertue in themselves; I answer, that one and the selfe same act done by distinct persons, may become just or unjust according to the cause or end thereof for which the party acts it: Now then, 'tis just and unjust to seclude a Major part of Parliament; just in them, that secluded your party their trust, when they were apparently acting against the end thereof, the good of tho [...]e that in­trusted them; and therefore I cannot but remember, how when the Army was first before the Citie, they voted in the King, and proclaimed to make humble addresses to him for peace, without any conditions, and how easily, (if excepted against at all by them) in the treaty with the late King, they let slip his negative voyce (though the chiefest ground of so long a warre) if I am not mistaken. Again, it would have been u [...]just in your party from their principles of self-interest, to have secluded any other (though a minor) part in Par­liament, endeavouring onely their own liberties, not prejudiciall to others, when indeed they might (as now they doe) better extend freedome to the whole Nation. And lastly, it would have been more unjust in malignants from their superlative principles of tyranny, to have attempted the seclusion of either. It was Ichu's unjust end in his act, not the [...]ct it selfe which was just, that brought a judgement upon his posterity. And in 2 Chron. 25.2. Amaziah did those things that were upright in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heirs. Hypocrisie in a duty makes the manner of its performance become abominable in the sight of God, it makes the manner which God most respects in a duty, become the ob­ject [Page 20]of his hatred, and greatly inferiour to the matter of the duty Now then, the reproofs in Scripture that you alledge against the Army, as disobedient to Authority, may most fit­ly and deservedly be repl [...]ed upon your selves. Therefore give me leave a little to urge your own interpretation of the Scriptures upon your selves. The first is, Tit. 3.1. Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and to obey Magistrates. You kn [...]w Sirs, where the Powers are, since you make Pulpit-confessions of them (though not as a Parliament) most intolerable contempt in you, of no lesse th [...]n the ordinance of God, (waving the justnesse thereof as from Man, because larg [...]ly p [...]d [...]m [...]nst [...]ated) for that the Apostle Rom. 13.1, 2. commands, Let every sou [...]e of yo [...] be subject to the higher powers, for there is no powers but of God. Here are the reasons of your obe [...]i [...]nce; The power, that be are ordained of God; and they thu r [...]sist, r [...]si [...] the Ordinance of God. &c. Mark Sirs, the Apostle speakes it in the pre­sent tense, or time, The powers that be are ordained of God, as being the word of God that is everlasting, yesterday, and to day, and the same forever, firm and effectuall in all generati­ons. Now then, what is the reason you somuch oppose them, and resist the Ordinance of God, by di [...]av [...]wing their authority? Surely this among others, that they are so honest to su [...]er other men to p [...]a [...]tue what you professe, and not to cause them hide their Talent in a Napkin, but as they have received freely, so, freely to give (the Spirit of God not being limited in his gists, o [...]ely where such a traditionall and humane calling (as yours) is.) This b [...]n [...] likewise agreeable to Mos [...] this publick p [...]t for Gods glory, that would that all the L [...]r [...] people were Prophets; and I cannot conceive so hardly, as that he should with them gists inf [...] in to his own.

Now therefore I intreat you to consider, that your centempt of this Gods ordinance, de­pends upon no lesse then an ternall penalty, viz. damnation, unlesse you timely recover it by your future and sincere obedience; which in neglected, you likewise come under a brand here, that Iu [...] verse 8, 11. sets upon those that despise Dominion, and speak evill of Digni­ties (it must be those that are present then) woe unto them, faith he, for they are gone in the way of Cain &c. You know likewise the sad effect of Corah, [...]athan, and Abirams unjust rebellion against Moses and. Aaron, appointed by God over them; as also how I have pro­ved the lawfulnesse of this present Parliament, and their proceedings which you accuse, and how the same judgement remains for the disobedient in their degree; let this therefore be a meanes to reclaim you, surely, else the judgement of God is according to truth against those that commit such things, who will render to every man according to his deeds: For there is no re­spect of [...]rsous with God, Rom. 2.2, 6, 11.

But whereas you feare, Lest Iesuits should have too great an Influence upon the Armies late transactions, especially against the King; I shall not insist upon this, but tender you conceptions, that it is inconsistent with reason, to think that Iesuits should so much destroy their own interest of [...]opery, as to foment and prosecute such an act of justice upon the late King. But h [...]wever, suppose it were so, yet all I [...]le say, as to this, is, That the justnesse of the things managed, not the managers, is to be respected: Therefore as to other the Armies proceedings, let the equity of them acquit them from any such Jesuiticall influence (as you feare to be) upon them. And seeing no party can cleare themselves of such a concurrence and influence in their own way, let them have a care of making it heynous in others, especi­ally knowing, that where God sowes his Word, there the Devill will sow Tares, and such a mixture is so farre from disparaging and clouding the word of God, as that it makes it more splendent.

But I proceed to your 12. page, wherein you disswade the Army (as being the But you aim at, because the greatest impediment to the advancement of your interest) from too much [Page 21]confidence in former successes. The which advice indeed literally is good, not to respect blessings and m [...]s above th [...] God that gives them; but in your sense, is directly to di­gresses [...]o [...]n that excellent Rule, Deut. 3 27. to 15. To remember the dayes of old, &c. not onely [...] praise God for them, but make them incouragements in greater straits to trust to Gods providence for d [...]nce. This use David made of his former successe against the Lion and the Beare, therefore (saith he, 1 Sam. 17.3.) this uncircumcised Philistin (Go­liah) shall [...]c as one [...]h [...]m &c.

And is not the Army obliged to s [...]ck out the like incouragements from former successes, in so good a caus [...] to prosecute the and thereof, viz. the liberties of the people? it being the will and [...]nd of God th [...] they [...]ould live free from the molestation and oppression of any, much lesse their servants: in the which way likewise God had fo greatly blest them. And (as you say) though S [...]omon saith, Eccles. 8.14 7.1. that there be sometimes just men to who [...] [...] happ [...]neth according to the worke of the wicked; and to wicked men according to the work of the righteous: And, that there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousnesse, &c. yet this is no argument for a godly man to forgoe his integrity, or a wicked man to persist in his wickednes. The Benjamites twice good successe lessened not the evill of their cause, or the Israelites bad successe the goodnesse of theirs, who at last had victory, Iudg. 20. Though God walk in the Sanctuary, yet we are not to decline the Sanctuary: can we do good unlesse we have a providence to effect it? And though we should perish in it, yet were it not a sinne to omit such a providence. David. in such necessity are the Shew-bread, though in it selfe unlawfull. In civill affaires the providence of God rules, where his Word doth not medle; the which then is a safe rule to walk by, especially in such acts that pro­mote freedome, judgement and righteousnesse, which the word of God justifies: As when a man is in slavery, having a providence, (it is a ground for him) to escape: which if he should neglect, his perpetuall bondage would be but just.

Now then, it being before clearly proved both from the word of God, the law of Na­ture and Reason, that the late transactions of the Parliament and Army (for which you ac­cuse them) are just and g [...]od: it as clearly followes, that the end of those actions in it self, is just and good; the which therefore to pursue, providence and the necessity of impro­ving the same when offered, besides what the good end it selfe requires, and what evill the neglect thereof may produce, as likewise impulses of spirit thereunto, all which concur­ring in the self same act, to promote the selfe same end, must needs be not onely an incita­tion, but a Rule for the Army to walk by, especially in those wayes which the word of God justifies, as well as in th [...]se with which it meddles not. For we must thus farre conclude, that the word of God directs not in the ordering of a civill State, and that neither the law of the land (it not being civilly perfect) comprehends all things rationally requisite therunto. Whether then it can be imputed irregular, and so transgression, that hath both the light of reason, providence, necessity, and an impulse of spirit (which you say is no rule without the word of God) assisting the establishment of what (as beforesaid) the word of God di­rects not, and the law of the land is defective in? Nay surely, since that which is need­full at one time, may be hurtfull at another, and the mending cannot be esteemed the brea­king of the Rule, likewise, that the making the law more impartiall, cannot be thought to be an abrogating of it.

Again, as to what the word of God enjoynes in generall, as in that command generally without exceptions, To execute justice and judgement, it prescribes not every particular act of justice and judgement, but leaves it to an impulse of his Spirit, to our understandings, the necessity of it, and his providence together: all which in this case, must needs be a rule [Page 22]to walk by. Again, (to touch upon what before promised) if two commands should come in competition (as in this case they doe not) yet the greatest is to be first respected and o­beyed. There was a command not to eat the Shew bread, but David had a greater com­mand, Not to murder, least of all himselfe, when there was such sustenance before him, which he rather obeyed. If then universall obedience were (as it is not) enjoyned to all Magist [...]ates, yet the execution of judgement and justice, as a greater command, more force in it, must be preferred before it, without respect of persons; and this from an im­pulse of Spirit in those impowred for the office: and that there are such, the very command [...]mplies as much, [...]e that a people cannot execute judgement and justice, without illimi­ted power to doe it.

Moreover, to your objection of an Impulse of spirit falling upon multitudes at the same time, patting them all at once [...]pon performances, contrary to morall precepts (as you say) or whe­ther those that have such an impulse of spirit, can command others that have it not? I partly an­swer, that if the transactions of the Army (that you speak of,) were contrary to morall precepts (as you peremptorily conclude they are) then they must be contrary to Gods word: but it is before clearly proved, that they are in generall and so in particular, agree­ble to Gods word, therefore they cannot be contrary to morall precepts. Now then, for fuller resolution to this your Question, we must consider whether the things thus impul­sed by the Spirit, be against a command greater or lesser, whether against a greater com­mand that is absolute, and will in no case admit of a breach: or whether against a lesser command, as in some cases (as that a greater may not be violated) will admit of a breach of the letter of i [...], thus the fifth Commandement is subordinate to the first, viz. to own God, though in the deniall of our parents. Thus likewise in two necessities, the greater is to be p [...]efer [...]d before the lesse [...].

We read that the rigor of the punishment due to theft under the Law, was mitigated when committed meerly to preserve life. The fourth Commandement likewise dispenseth with needfull acts, it holds good likewise in the example of David which you instance, wherewith I thus far comply, that for David in revenge of his own private cause; being e­specially a private person, to have improved those providences he had to have killed Saul, might have been a sin, as in the case of Nabal; that also being no ground for any to take away another mans life, because he would have taken away his: but now had it thus happened, that Saul in pursuit of Dauid had so st [...]ai [...]ned him, that either he must have kil­led Sa [...]d, or by him have been killed himself; in this case I believe the law of Reason and Nature affords a man all means to preserve his own life. Upon the aforesaid limitation, the Margin (upon that providence given David) hath it to the same effect, and for proof in­stanceth the example of Ichu.

Now then, much more the impulses of Spirit [upon (though not the multitude, yet) such that have the command of them, unto the execution of absolute commands, free from all exceptions, which ten is not likewise to the breach of others qualified with condi­tions, as (hath been amply shewed) our subjection to Magistrates is] are to be followed. And seeing it lies as a dutty upon all to act in obedience to these commands, especially such that are convinced of the justnesse of them, and much more those that are incited by the Spirit to obey them. It is cleare that the persons that have this impulse of Spirit, may incite, and (especially in that they have authority over the multitude, as you call the Army) command those others that want such an impulse of spirit (though they were never yet com­peld) to act in discharge of that their duty; seeing likewise we are to perform duties, though we want that spirituall quickning that is most acceptable in them.

Again, towards a conclusion (though I needed not thus largely to have proceeded up on the last part of your matter, which depends upon concession; that those actions of the Army were illega [...]l, since I have proved the contrary, that they were lawfull and just; and therfore all your discourse of providences, impulses of spirit, & no necessity to sin, hath been to no purpose, but, because I would as f [...]lly satisfie as I may: I shal speak a little to that your last objection viz That there is no necessity can oblige a man to sin, from whence it clearly follows that, to what a man is obliged by necessity, that is no sin: now then, the Armies necessity unto those transactions was absolute (besides what expedition the good­nesse it self of them required) in th [...]t they aff [...]ied other means in vain, when reason would allow them no other then the stric [...]nesse of justice: their necessity was likewise present, be­cause post est occasio calva, opportunity once neglected is not their own to recall; and also clear (though you say onely to themselves) since the truth is onely discern'd of those that have it; therefore the means they have used being clearly good, it cannot consist with your charity, to fear their ends aimed at lesse justifiable.

And then lastly, your exhortation, pag. 15. to the army, to recede from these evill waies, as your words are; is altogether uselesse, and which if followed would prove very prejudi­ciall, since the justnesse of these wayes is clearly manifested, and as far as the omission thereof, and receding therefrom would be prejudiciall; and therefore to what you would incite the Army from Iohn Baptists lesson to Souldiers Luke 3.14. viz. Doe violence to no man, &c. is already practized by them, since that command forbids not, but that they should doe justice to all men; or may run thus, doe violence to no man, but legally try, and let justice take place upon all men (as the f [...]llowing words shews) not accusing any man falsty, and be content with your wages: this last clause likewise is so candi [...]ly observed by the Army, that the whole Nation can bear witnesse to their patience and cententednesse, with what little they have received, notwithstanding the great arrears due to them, and their necessities f [...]r the same: but in your conclu [...]i [...]n though you have so boldly proceeded hi­therto you cenf [...]sle and confine your fear of the Armies theatnings (for so it seems they are interpreted by you, which were onely brotherly premonitions, what would be the con­sequence of your seditious doctrine should you persist therein) unto their generall return, unto that which is only conceived by you to be their duty: truly this is very disagreeable to your Profession, to desire and perswade men to return from what is so clearly manifest­ed to be enjoyned by the word of God, viz. to execute justice and judgement, and the e­stablishment of the Peoples liberties, for which they have Covenanted; and from which (the prayers of honest men will be) Lord let them never digress▪ but persevere in the truth: though occasionally thereby men be scandalized and offended never so much; but being m [...]re willing of your conviction, then forcible suppression, I intreat you to apply your s [...]l [...]es more sincerely to discharge your own duty, before you presume to censure wher­in you conceive others fail; and labour after more charity towards your brethren, cea­sing to be any longer like children, whose hearts are big, but▪ dare not cry because the [...]d of the patent is over them. It is a sad thing when you that pretend to have the keeping of the Oracles of God, and to receive (as it were) the law at his mouth; should walk so irregu­larly, as to deserve to have laws prescribed by authority to keep you within your own sphear, to direct you how far the liberty of your profession will extend: I say, like chil­dren not for innocency; but you are no longer quiet then the rod of the Army is over you, nor then neither; but you must be sobbing and sighing, you must have dry slings at them; my what would you not speak if you durst, since you dare to speak so much as you doe: and therefore, whereas (in case of sufferings for your deserts) you seem to extract [Page 24]comfort from more peculiar servants of God, that suffered for clear infallible t [...]ths, with­out a [...]empting to compell others to conform thereunto: yet I am confident, that if (through your own all tri [...]pi [...]copall spirits meddling in matters impertinent as to your selves) you acquire to your selves sufferings; you suffer not for Christ, but as busie bo­dies, and your comfort will advene accordingly. What instrumentall good you have been f [...]erly unto any in the due exercise of your calling, cannot but be acknowledged as by o [...], so by my self, that hath had a share therein: but this is no argument to ju­s [...]ey you in you [...] late and present exorbitancy: That smal [...] esteem that many formerly, wh [...]n des [...]ved, respective you [...] hath now of you, hath been the product of your own mis­carriages, [...]s [...]rde [...]y walking, beyond the line of your profession, both in words and acti­ons: you have and d [...]e endeavour to powre contempt upon the lawfull authority of this Kingdome; some of you actually disobeying them, others baulking the observation of then commands notwithstanding the severall places of scripture, which your selves have qu [...]ted, f [...] [...]proof to such disobedient ones herein) and all this being aggravated with s [...]lt respect, d [...]th render your proceedings the more odious, and your Pulpit contra­dictions, your d [...]t [...]m [...] more lame and invalid: yea, very unprofitable; giving just cause to fear, that the slender returns to all your Pastings and Prayers, hath been, because you have performed th [...]se and other duties to a wrong end: Like to those which the Prp­ph [...] Isa [...]th speaks to: Isa. 58.3.4. Behold, in the day of your fast, you will seek your will, and require all your del [...]s. Behold, yee fast to strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wh [...]le [...]nesse, &c. How often upon such daies have you in your Prayers spread abread general [...] sins, seeming to include your selves in them; and yet it hath appeared by after expressions, that you have intended them onely for others, to cast reproach upon your brethren, that have so little deserved at from you, and patiently forborn to (though just­ly they might) inflict the due punishment of your opposition upon you; and what them­selves might have expected from (it they had but lawfully opposed) your party in the like power, (though more unjustly) to have been executed upon them; but taking more pleasure in your reversion then in your rejection: I minde you of this as your duty, viz. That you meddle lesse with the State, and more in the word of God, most agreeable to your profession, lesse to divide and interpret it to your own ends, and more to reconcile and declare the truths thereof; lesse in Self, and more in advancing the Scepter of Christ; not in tyranny but truth, that hereby you may regain the hearts you have lost, more glory to God, and comfort both to your own and hearers souls.

Before I proceeded thus farre, I perceived a pamphlet abroad, supposed to be Mr. Loves, in vindication of the Ministers Letter, being an Answer to Mr. John Price, and being wil­ling (had I found it any thing satisfactory) that it should have prevented my labour to fi­nen this, in wel-nigh a period: upon survey, I find all the subject matter thereof in effect (though not so formally as a particular Reply) before answered, and being willing fully to satisfie, I sub [...]ex a very briefe Reply, to what I think is not so fully before hinted.

A brief answer in what may not be fully prehinted to a late Pamphlet intituled, a mo­dest (immodest) and clear (obscure, unsatisfactory) vindication of the serious re­presentation, and late vindication of the Ministers of London, &c (so termed for distin­ctions sake) in answer to Mr. I [...]hn Price his late book entituled, clerico class [...]cun [...], &c. but the said answer not subscribed, yet supposed to be Chri [...]lopher Loves, one of the same pro­fession, and that's all.

I shall not undertake to speak to every impertinent passage in the aforesaid pamphlet: but chiefly to what is objected therein, to justi [...]e the representation of the Ministers; a little hinting likewise at his groundlesse carps, upon some particulars, in former of Mr. Price his Books; and therefore (waving his great uncharitablenes in his epistle Dedica­ted to the Ministers, where he calls all that oppose them sons of Belzebub, though they are known to be as godly, and some, in every respect, as able as themselves.

I proceed to his second page, where upon this ground onely; Mr. Love, or the right author whoever it be, is induced to believe Mr. Price, not to be himself, when he made his late book: viz. that he justifies the l [...]te act of justice upon the King, and in a former book some yeers since speaks thus (as the said Authour) cites it: You sight, (speaking to the souldie [...]s) for th [...]recovery of the Kings royall Person, out of the hands of those miscreant; and reinstate him in his royall throne and dignity, that both he and his Posterity (if God will) may yet flourish in their royally; so that notwithstanding all contradictions, you sight for your King: Now Mr. Love, let any reasonable man Judge, whether this passage tends in the least, in case of demerit, to exempt the King from death; for was Mr. Price to cha [...] ­table and sober spirited (as you say) as (when nothing from the King appeared to the con­trary) to believe that he was seduced and withdrawn by evill Counsell? (though an or­dinary man should suffer to obey that) and can it consist with your charity to judge, that the same spirit is not in him, and that he is besides himself, to justifie what the word of God justifies: viz. the late act of justice upon the King (notwithstanding his former words were they in themselves absolute) when sufficient testimony was given to the whole Nation, that the King instead of being seduced was the seducer, and evill councellour; and as the Load stone to draw all the rest after him: Therefore it is no argument, that because Mr. Love professeth to be a Minister of the Gospel now, and thereupon some think him to be so; that therefore they should believe so, if he should turn a Prelate or a Jesuit: Again, Mr. Love, if you mark the same words, and turn your self when you read them, there is a limitation in them, thus and thus, they fight for the King (if God will) but it being clear, that the will of God is executed upon the King in his death: are you angry and in your judgement, others besides themselves, if they repine and resist not the w [...]ll of God? now then, the onely ground of this your beliefe, being taken a way; it follows from your own words, that you were not your self, when you read Mr. Price his said book. In the next place, you are offended that Mr Price questions the truth of the Ministers cal­ling; and therefore minde him of another passage in the same book, where (you say) he cals them learned and conscientious Ministers, Orthodox and godly Divines? to this I an­swer (though he might not ascribe that to the letter Writers) that though the Ministers, as to their actings, then (seeming pure in opposition to the Bishops) might deserve that which was before attributed them, yet (as a Saint can no longer be reputed so, when in the state of Apostacy, but a Iudas) so neither are these men worthy of that predicted charity, now it appears, that what they acted to subvert the Bishops, was to instate them­selves, under a new notion, in the same power: but pray remember, that those you now band for Hereticks, were your example to oppose the Bishops, though not for the same cod. [Page 26]Again, you are touched with the manner of his argument: viz. that we have nothing, but their own sayings to prove that they are Ministers, and would Mr. Love make this a foun­dation? Indeed it's just like thei [...] own argument n the beginning of their vindication, tiz. that Paul was counted a seditious pestilent fellow. And here lies the force of their Argument, that because (upon good grounds) they are counted seditious pestilent fellows, therefore they are Pauls. Upon the same grounds every seditious person is a Paul, and that is the way to make Paul sediti [...]us indeed. You see now the weight of your argument, and that for want of better proof then words, and th [...]se onely to affirm it, your calling is built upon a sandy foundation, which your selfe more clearly discovers, page 3. where you count any man unworthy to speak to you in confutation of your Doctrine, that hath not a smell of the University; which truly in your sense stinks, and would keep men from comming thi­ther as much as th [...]y can. Again, in the same page you find fault with Mr. Price that he should question the Ministers divine origination, but you neither assert nor prove it. Tru­ly, this gives more cause to feare that it is weak, and affords you no such liberty as you take from it, viz. Ministers of the Gostel, Embassadours of Christ, Stewards of the Ordiuances, and that you are in Gods right hand, and he will hold you fast, you shall not be removed. But you were best make better use of your liberty then you have done, or I am confident your faith herein will faile you. Indeed you scoffingly summon a testimony of his calling, when your own is more ridiculous, and lesse justifiable then a Coblers from the stall Doe you not remember the calling of Peter, Andrew, James and John? for they were Fishers, Mat. 4.18. Again, neither can you conclude from those Mr. Price his words, viz. that they are judicious, learned, gra [...]e, wise and good men, that therefore they are able for the Ministery: For then you will confine judgement, gravity, learning, wisdome, and godlinesse to them onely: or allow thousands besides them, as great a right and title to the Ministery, (and yet not from the University) as themselves, but that you will never doe Again, judgement, wisdom, gravity, &c. will not serve, but there must be such a degree of each, that must ren­der th [...] capable of the Ministery; or else still more are fit for it then themselves. We read of Apollos an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, yet more perfectly instructed in the way of God by Aquila & Pris [...]lla, Acts 18.24.26. Again, as nothing doth justifie honest words so much as honest actions, so nothing the true Ministers of the Gospel, so much as qualifications accordingly. Now true Ministers of the Gospel (as they are rightly or­dained (not by such whom themselves have deposed as unjust) and elected, so likewise) they are qualified with graces thereunto, the peculiar free gift of Gods Spirit, but not com­mon. But now these present Ministers professe their chiefe qualification to be the Univer­sity, wherein the worst and most of men may attain to as much, if not more learning, as being common to all, and from thence plead the same priviledge to preach the Gospel, as themselves, and so not from the Spirit, and therefore not true Ministers of the Gospel. Indeed wee had need pray for better, or a more speciall gift of the Spirit, or for all these, we are like to be in darknesse in reference to many truths. I am sure of late their doctrine hath been very unprofitable: they taile against heresies in generall, but very sel­dome confute any one in particular; and they fix that as heresie upon others, which (if it came to tryall, they cannot confute by argument.

But I proceed to your sixth page, where you insert the good effect of the Ministers preach­ings, as being likewise acknowledged by some of our own party: To this I answer, That we are not disputing what good they have done formerly; but of late dayes: whether most of their Doctrine (since the consciences of many could not comply in their way) hath not tended more to distention, and making the breach wider, then lesser, or to edification? Or [Page 27]whether the good they have done formerly in their pretended places, be any support to their Callings? since by the same Argument many of the Bishops, whose doctrine hath been profitable, should yet have been continued in their offices: But though many of us cannot but acknowledge the power of God, even through darknesse to bring light unto us, and reach our good to our soules, through such weak instruments as the Ministers; yet this is no ground unto us to suppresse the illumination of Gods Spirit, If he please to afford us (not to boast but to his glory) as much if not more then themselves; neither is it for want of more holy and spirituall performances in those whom you count perverters of the truth (if few are converted) but rather through the opposition of the contentious preaching of the Ministers you so much esteem

As to the dayes of union you speak of, it is confest, in the Bishops dayes, we were under the p [...]wer of such conformity, that the truth could hardly appear, but be suddenly supprest with some reproach or other upon it; at which time likewise there were daily declinings from that little light there was; if these be your dayes (for other I know none) of union, and so desirable, the mercy of God in freeing us from them, is ill requited by you; otherwise you much degenerate from that generall duty (Doe as you would be done to) to endeavour a compulsive conformity by others unto your way; since you so much pleaded for (and a­gainst the restr [...]nt of) liberty in the worship and service of God, when attempted to be [...] imposed on you, under the Prelaticall prevalency. Neither therefore can our separation be reputed Schisme or Faction criminall, since (upon the same grounds as your selves did) we avoid the continuall flashings of conscience in our faces, that attend a compulsive worship.

As to that forced interpretation you make of Mr. Price his words, viz. Which is all the benefit thou hast received by the exchange of this late Diocesse for the Province of London, that therefore he would rather have London a Diocesse then a Province. I say, this interpretation is meerly forced; seeing the words are only the result of a discovery of what little benefit hath accrued by that change, from which (had the conditions thereof been rightly mana­ged) we did expect and might accordingly have enjoyed our hearts content, the benefit in­tended. In a word, he mislikes the ill use of the change, not the thing it self; but should I yeeld to what you would imply in them, I tell you, we should never have been so willing (had we known your intentions before hand) to have assisted with our temporall estates, to depose a coercive power in the Bishops, to exalt it in you, and so more irksom, from whom we expected better, (as David from his friends) it (indeed) not being worth a tythe of se­ven yeares such expense, warre, and trouble, only in name (and not in nature) the pro­vince of London for its Diocesse.

Again, to your exceptions against his quotation of Gregory, viz. That it is the language of the Beast, and therefore makes it incogitable that he should study it. I answer, that in Mr Loves sense, if he will avoid the language of the Beast, then he must avoid preaching and praying, with many other good words and deeds that they both speak and do. But secondly, as there is the greatest motive upon Christians to perform some good duties, lest they should come short of Heathen that doe the same; so doth this reproofe lye heavier upon the Ministers that are found seeking to themselves names of vanity, which even the Beast (as you call him) did reprove.

But secondly, Mr. Love is very captious, to comment so much upon an errour in prin­ting, viz. 323. for 32. and I cannot but think himselfe believes to be a mistake therein: and yet inlargeth halfe a side upon it. Truly, it's a signe he wanted good matter enough, when he causlesly insists so much upon circumstances, neither can he keep himselfe close [Page 28]to this, but upon the mistake growes very pastionate, and tels us. (though directed onely to Mr. Price, yet we must all expect the same since) that if we persist to justifie the ki [...]ling the King, (as h [...] calls it, &c.) Gregory (the Executioner) may not mistake our necks to be more then we have. Who would have thought that Mr Loves Nature should differ so much from his Name? What a bitter spirit doth he here discover? He tels us plainly what we might expect (se [...]dice) if he were our judge; at least that we should despaire of him as an ad [...]ocate, though it came to that extremity by his own party; but blessed be God that we are not as yet fallen into your hands, neither rewarded you evill for evill, though ( [...]bstra [...]tively considered) it is no evill to render you impartially according to your deserts. But I rather desire concord.

Th [...]n thirdly, Mr. Love would fain justifie his brethren and himselfe likewise from seek­i [...]g those names of vanity that Gregory there reproves, as universall Bishop, and the like; but all this will not serve: for in seeking the same authority that is denominated by those names, (though for shame of the world you omit the names thmeselves, yet) you are liable to the same reproof, it being intended to the sought for arrogant authority, not so much the name of the person. Again, what though you should not seek after the same names and substance (though in comparison there is none in it) of vanity, yet in seeking others really vain, you are as culpable. For Christ never allowed a sole power to his Apostles to preach the Gospel and unfold the Scriptures, them onely, and none besides them; but the Mi­nisters (though they come not in by the doore, yet) assume this power. And though you say that they seek no other names but what Christ gives, viz. Ministers of the Gospel, Prea­chers of the Word, Embassadours of Christ, (but I am sure they want his commission) yet Christ never ascribed these names to an Academicall University calling, to a vain calling: And therefore as to the unclean all things are unclean; so for the Ministers, upon so vain a title to assume these names, is absolute vanity; and one act hereof (by the way) I shall mind you of, and that is, because Ministers, you shall see some young boyes, with hardly a haire in then faces, take the wall of some that are thrice better both in estate and age, but if you mend not, you'l work out your selves.

To conclude this answer, I cannot but take notice how Mr. Love hath all this while laboured to vindicate the Ministers, left they should fall under that Pope Gregories reproof; and the [...]efore cannot but grant 'tis just, and yet in his first answer thereto, calls it the lan­guage of the [...]st. This is a plain contradiction in his own words, and is the mark of a [...]aw no [...]e, then any thing he can fix upon the person he would reproach there­with.

Again, to what he chargeth the Army [page 8.] for kindling the flames of a second warre, and therefore alledgeth these reasons, viz. That one while they erred up the King, closed with the Maligna [...], &c. And at another time forced the Parliament (as he calleth it) to Non­ad trasse [...], &c. these did irritate the Malignants to now insurrections &c. To this I answer, That this s [...]lenesse in the Army, as you call it, is no lesse justifiable then that of a wise and tender he [...]ed Father towards an obstinate disobedient child: the Father will first assay all meanes, as mild pe [...]wa [...]ions and gifts; and if that will not doe, then threatnings, and long fo [...]b [...]a ance, and stripes before he delivers up his child to the Judge to be stoned. Thus, wh [...] [...]ll m [...]anes would not prevaile with the King, there was no way but one. But it may be you will object, That the Army it selfe in their last Remonstrance, confest this [...] col [...]ing to be a miscarriage: Then I answer, the more shame for you, so to neglect your duty, in forgiving and forgetting, as to upbraid them with it. But, if your words be [...], that this was a cause of a second warte, how comes it that so many of your owne [Page 29]party are found guilty? I shall proceed little further to answer circumstances, and indeed had I [...]une, it would be ill spent justly to aggravate your folly in them, it being more easie to judge of the rest by what is already spoken; therefore I passe over to your 32. page, where I wave that Ordinance of Parliament you cite, to speak further to it then before, seeing likewise the expresse ends, as the conditions of the Armies service therein is demon­strated: as likewise in the Covenant to be in the Grammaticall sense thereof as limits to their defence either of King or Parliament, both being servants, and to command the Ar­my in nothing derogatory from the peoples liberties; and therefore that your objection, that we are but a party of the people, is invalid, since you can dee no lesse then allow us as much power as your selves, and in number we are more; yet you a [...]ume the power of the people to your selves in the 16. page, where you seem to make the Malignants and us e [...]ill Instruments, and therefore as well to be brought to condigne punishment as they. Surely there is none left their to be Executioners but your selves: and me thinks you should not offer to blame the Armies party for assuming a power as the people, when more interested therein then your selves, who was likewise their example. But to your Concession in the 32 page, viz. that the Ministers are for justice, and that according to the Covenant, on the chiefe delinquents. For answer then, Mr. Love with all his Divinity cannot (it being no part thereof, to) exempt the King from justice, since none was so great a Delinquent as himselfe, the rest had not been so but for him countenancing and abetting them therein; else they could not have subsisted so long unpuni [...]ed as they did: And did not the late exe­cuted Lords plead his authority for their actions? that what they did, was in obedience to him their Master? Doth it not appeare by this, that he was their evill counsellour, they not his? And might not this be a reason why he so much insisted to have them indemp [...] ­ed, because he know himselfe to be their chiefe seducer? And yet Mr. Love from the Co­venant would have the King exempted, when it runs expresly to bring chiefe Delin­quents to punishment, and the King so in the superlative degree, and yet freed: Were not this indeed to make the Covenant a contradictious thing? But now this being granted, that the King was the cause of all that opposition and bloodshed in the Kingdome; that your supposition page 16. to clear Mr. Love, that if he had laid the guilt of the blood­shed upon the King, yet that there was nothing in that his Sermon touching his punish­ment. I say this supposition is fully answered by your own words (th [...]ugh you declare not your intentions whether to the King or no) That men of blood are not meet persons to be at [...]ene with till all the guilt of blood be exp [...]ated and avenged, either by the sword of the law or the [...] of the sword, &c. Chr Love in his Englands distemper, page 37. Their it followes from these words, that it the King were guilty of blood, the expiation thereof by the sword of the law was just upon him. But this point being largely discussed in that late Book, The ex [...]tion of the King justified, I shall for hea [...]e to speak much (yet a little) more, (because so much opposed by you) unto it, and therefore proceed to your 39. page, where you say, First, that one end of the warre was to preserve the iugsperson. Answ. But conditional­ly, to be in our protection, and to act nothing against his trust, being to give an account thereof, as any subordinate officer. Secondly, in defence of the Kings person, you say many ful sequent oathes of the Parliament, &c. for the preservation of his person. Answ. These oathes could not extend to greater deserts of his, as in the precedent answer to your brethren is largely demonstrated. But further, if in all cases they swore to maintain his person then in sinfull ones likewise, and so they would have become preservers of sin, and p [...]ably a constant course of sin, even the introducing of Popery it selfe, by him. Your third aggravation of his death is, That he was the first Protestant King (as you say, though [Page 30]in the former page you were uncertain whether he was so or no; but suppose it, that he were so, the first) so put to death of his own subjects, yet you mean in such a regular way; and would you find fault with that? but rather have more condemned them, had they literally and directly followed the example of Iehu: for so farre as judiciall proceeds by way of lega [...]ll are prefer'd before immediate execution, are they not the rather justifiable th [...]r [...]m?

Y [...] fourth objection is, That in killing him, they likewise kil'd the King of Scotland and Irel [...], who had as much right in him as their King, as this kingdome had. For answer, First, w [...] [...] to walk, (especially a Nation) by other mens light, but our own. Secondly, that the [...]ne Rule (upon transgression) by which an Israelite was punished, the same likewise [...]xtended to a stranger inhabiting among them, which the late King was not alto­gether [...] unto us.

Your fifth objection, That he had granted more for the good of the Kingdome, &c. then any before him. Answ. For the people to expose themselves to his grants, is to confesse them­selves slaves, and to yeeld up their rights and liberties into his wil and power, the which like­wise (the [...] he might [...]eca [...] when he pleased.

Your sixt Objection with your eighth in the 43. pag. viz. That the House of Commons if full and free) cannot take away the life of a King, seeing they cannot administer an oath, &c. And your eighth, That the House of Commons▪ if full and free cannot by law erect a new Court to take away the life of any man, much lesse the Kings: I answer the last first, viz. That the Pa [...]ament being full as to the number requisite for their being, and free having no [...]est [...]t upon them) is not limitted unto the law, neither is it obligatory unto them, where d [...]ent: e [...]s [...] they cannot discharge their trust, and their assembling would be to no purpose [...] the chiefest put thereof being to redresse and amend what is amisse or preju­dic [...]all to the Peoples welfare, as to establi [...]h what is good: now then (if neither the law would (as you say and likewise did we the Parliaments hands, that they could not execute justice upon the late King (though his Person acted never so much hurtfull to the com­monwealth) to what effect was their convening and sitting? what profit would insue therefrom. or, how could they discharge their trust to the Kingdome? since also the laws if rightly constituted, are usually prescribed by them.

Now then, upon these considerations, the Parliament had power to erect the Court of Justice, which (in answer to your first of those objections) when constituted and invested with p [...]wer (had the King pleaded) oathes were ready to be administred. But I cannot but observe how punctuall you would be in every tittle of the law of the Land that serves your turn, and yet so partiall in the law of God and our law likewise. For, can the law be justly administred, when a King is known to break such and such points thereof, and yet be exempted the penalty because a King? Would not this make his Authority or Of­fice, which simply is just and good, become a protection to the vice of his person? Can you not as soon make good to have communion and fellowship with evill? Again, do you not hereby frustrate all the force that lies upon the example of a King, to induce his sub­jects likewise to yeeld obedience to his law? And is it not a meanes to make him live more carelesly and licentiously without so weighty an argument against the appearance of evill, when he is tolerated to live uncontrollably? And doe you not make partiall the law of God? when thereby you will take liberty to restrain and oppose, yet leave unpunished (when you may as lawfully punish) the ill manners of a King: But rather may not the law take hold of a King, if murderer, adulterer, or offender in any other poynt thereof, according to the penalty of it, and yet be no attempt or prejudice to his autho­rity [Page 31]or Office? when indeed it appeares purest, when impartially executed opon his owne person? Of this le [...] [...]easonable men judge.

But not to leave it altogether upon my self, I shall confirm it with the opinion of others, and therefore take what Mr. Prinne cites of Mariana in the 59 p. of his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes: viz. That all Kings and Princes, among others, the Kings of Spaine, are and ought to be bound by laws, and are not exempted from them: that this do­ctrine out to be inculcated into the mindes of Princes from their infancy, and to be believed; yea, oft considered of them: that they are more strictly obliged to observe their laws thou Sub­jects, because they are sworn to do it, they are the conservators of the laws, the avengers of those that infringe them, and their example are the best means to draw Subjects to obey them: When he likewise affirms that the whole Kingdome is above the King, and may not onely binde him by laws, but question him for the breach of them.

Again, the same Author likewise argues there against succession, if any wayes defective f [...]r the Office, but more particularly in the 55. pag. lin. 5. he saith thus much: That if the King degeuerate into a tyrant by subverting Religion, Laws, [...]iberties, oppressing, murthe­ring, [...]r d [...]ouring his Subjects: the whole kingdome may not onely question, admonish and re­prehend him, but (in case he prove incorrigible after admonition) deprive him, and substitute another in his place; which (saith he) hath been done more then once in Spaine, and there instenceth many Kings that have been thus dealt with: and for a conclusion he adds, That such a tyrannicall King continuing incorrigible after publick admonitions of the whole state (if there be no hopes of amendement) may not onely be deposed, but put to death and m [...]rthered by the whole State, or any particular persons by their appointment; yea, without it, if be be declared a publisk enemy by the whole State: he proceeds likewise to justifie the act in a private per­son, which I need not cite: seeing this serves my purpose, now that the lawfullest part of this Nations authority (though Junius Br [...]us extends this power to one single person in­ [...]usted in a Kingdom, against both King and the rest of the Nobles deserting it comman­ded what hath been executed upon the late King, hath been sufficiently proved; and not so much to be their command as Gods: therefore I shall proceed to cite what Mr. Prinne himself saith upon this point, in his So [...]raign power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, pag. 130.3. Position: viz. That the Kings of Judah and Israel were no absolute overaign Prin­ces; [...]ke their Crown with and upon such divine conditions. For breach whereof, they and their posterities were often times by Gods command, just judgement and speciall approba­tion, deposed, de inberited, destroyed and the Crown translated to other familyes. For this he quotes Iunius Brutus (though you would so much vilifie the same (as from a Jesuit) be­ing quoted by Mr. Price) as likewise divers scriptures; and Iosephus upon one text to the same [...]slect: but especially in the conclusion of this his Position, he cites, that Swing­lius with B. Dilson, expressely resolves, that the People were bound to refist, question and depose their Kings for Idolatry and breach of those conditions, as before demonstrated, and that God himselfe jusily punished them, viz. the People for Manassahs sins and wickednesse, be­cause they re [...]i [...]ed and punished him not for them, as they were obliged to doe: where he affirms likewise pag. 136. that the children of Israel their Rulers, Kings, and People, did joymly make a Covenant frequently to serve the Lord, and the violators thereof to dye the death; where he saith (the King and the Queen not excepted) in six or seven of those pages he treat [...] of the same subject; but I know this is sufficient testimony to this truth: and there­fore shall for bear to insert more of his authors hereupon. Therefore lastly, to your obje­ction which I sinde thrice asserted litterally, and oftner to the same effect: viz. That it the Murderer should be put to death, which you grant is a known precept; why then, were [Page 32]not Goring & Owen, say you, with the rest of the Kings party that in a military way have shed blood, put to death? To this I answer, that as the killing of one Zimri & Cozbi, heads of their Families, appeased the wrath and Law of God; (though doubtlesse had Moses proceeded to the condemnation and execution of some of the rest guilty of the same fact, it would have been just, as neither his omission thereof (through mercy) could be no neglect of the Lawes injunction) so likewise may the execution of such persons as are found principall causes (and most of all the chiefest) of blood-shed in a military way, satisfie the Law, (though themselves might not actually shed blood) when such that (as we say hab nab) might act therein (through the others seductions) may justly & mercifully be remitted, even as the seducers are usually punished when the seduced (though both in the same fact are (through the mercy of justice) absolved. Many instances of this might be produced, but finding the scope of your matter fully answered, I shall wind up all in this advice to you, viz. That (if you be Mr. Love, or of his profession) you would (according to your calling) meddle more in your study, and lesse in the State; more in tuition, and lesse in sedition: then shall the Nation be lesse disturbed, Authority more obeyed, and your Parishioners better instructed.