A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.

A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.

A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.

Table of contents

Title page

To the Reverend and learned Ministers of the Gospel within the Province of London, subscribers of the Serious Representation and late Vindication.

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

[Page]

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

John Price,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page] 2. Notwithstanding your slanders, 'tis well known what submissive and christian respects to Authority, especially the Parliament, the Ministers of the Presbyterian judgment have expressed; yea if the Lords and Commons should sit full and free in Parliament, though in some things God might leave them to act sinfully, yet would the Ministers live quietly and submissively, if not in doing what they command, yet in patient suffering what they inflict; and not expresse such a spirit of Turbulency, as many have done in the imprisoning of the chief Magistrates, altering of our Laws, and putting the whole Land into a conflagration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. For the extraordinary necessity the Army pleaded for, I have but three things to say in way of answer. 1. Tis apparent by what was mentioned before, that the end the Army aimed at, were no more justifiable then the means they used, now what can be more unreasonable, then to make necessity a plea to justifie not only irregular actions, but corrupt ends also? 2. The godly in former ages had a more conscientious tendernesse, then to make necessity a plea and patron of impiety; they thought it better to suffer the greatest evill then to commit the least sin;Aug. in Ps. 73. Ferenda est magis omnis necessitas, duam perpe [...]randa est aliqua iniquitas, said Aug. in Ps. 73. yea it was a Maxime among the primitive Christiane,Tertul. Apol. Nulla est necessitas delinquendi, quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi. 3. I am of the same mind with the subscribers,The serious Representat. of the London Ministers, p. 14. viz. that the necessity pleaded for, is either meerly pretended, or else contracted by their own misscarriages. And this I am induced to beleeve, because at one time they plead a necessity, for treating with the King (as they confest in a Letter to the House of Common [...], July 18. 1647.) And at another time plead a necessity for their violence [...] the Parliament, because they did [...] with the King, must not this be a pretended necessity? In one Remonstrance, in June 23. 1647, they say, There can be no peace in this Kingdome [...] and lasting, without a provision for the Rights, Quiet; and [...] of His Majesties Royall family. And in mother Remonstrance of November, [Page]16, 1648. they declare, that it can neither be just before God, nor safe for the Kingdom to have any accommodation with the King upon any terms at all, that shall imply His Restitution, &c. but that he must be brought to tryall and judgment, for treason and blood he was guilty of. Is not this ground sufficient to suspect that the necessity pleaded for, is but pretended or contracted, when they have done the quite contrary this year, to what they did the last, yet plead a necessity for doing of both, though never so contrariant the one to the other. So much at present to this plea of necessity; I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more to this point.

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

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

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

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

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

Malignants all beleeve this thing,

Sectarians would destroy the King,

Yea they do wish there might be none

For to succeed him on the Throne.

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

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

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

[Page] 2. As for the other part of your charge, that another while the Ministers did stirre up the People against the Parliament, and for the King; this is so manifest a falsity, that the very mention is a sufficient confutation of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Immedicabile vulnus

Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trabatur.

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

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

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

Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trabatur:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page] 3. He was never legally arraigned and brought to tryall in Parliament for his life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page] 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion, I need say nothing in his vindication, he is alive, and now among us, more able then I to vindicate himself; 'tis true, in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes, he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes. Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so; yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D [...]cemb. 4. 1648.M. Prynnes speech in the House of Common, Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. he saith expresly, that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments, deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home & in foraign parts, in an extraordinary way, by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose, or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad, whether Protestants or Pap [...]sts, &c. [...] I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind, nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page] 3. You think that you have a shift that will help you out, by saying, that successes with their circumstances, as praying, and solemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God. To this evasion of yours, I shal say but this, Successe may not alwaies fal to that side (though just) which doth pray and appeal to God, but on that side which is unjust, and doth neither. As is clear in the case of the men of Judah, Judg. 20. 18. 23. they sought unto God, and askt Counsell of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin, yet for all that they lost in two battails 40000 men; yet their cause was good, their prayers and appeals to heaven were solemn and serious.

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

—Careat successihus opto,

Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

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

His King-killing Doctrine is confuted.

The Authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared.

The Ministers of London vindicated.

The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered.

The Protestation, Vow, and the Covenant explained.

By a friend to a regulated Monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient Army, and a Godly Ministry▪ but an enemy to Tyranny, Malignity, Anarchy and Heresie.

Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake: rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you,

Mat. 5. 11, 12.

You fight for the recovery of the Kings Royall person out of the hands of those misereants, and reinstate Him in His Royal throne and dignity, that both he and His Posterity may yet flourish in their Royalty; so that notwithstanding all contradictions you fight for your King.

John Price in his Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliaments Souldiers, p. 8.

London, Printed for Stephen Bowtell, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Bible in Popes-head-alley. 1649.

To the Reverend and learned Ministers of the Gospel within the Province of London, subscribers of the Serious Representation and late Vindication.

[Page]

[Page]

REVEREND SIRS,

YOu are those whom I honour and love in truth, for the truths sake that dwels in you, and is so faithfully promoted by you. Many besides my selfe rise up and call you blessed, for that Serious Representation of your judgments, &c. and seasonable Vindication of your persons and Ministry, which were lately published in print; Tis true, 'tis your lot, that you who are Embassadors of peace, are now lookt upon as men of contention, they who once counted your feet beautifull, say now the mark of the Beast is on your forehead yea they who would have pulled out their eyes to have done you good, are now so filled with prejudice and passion, that they would pull out your eyes to doe you hurt; this is the best requitall, the more you love, the less you are loved of them; though the people are in such a distempered Phrensie, yet I know this provokes your pity, not your fury. I perceive you are made the But of Satans malice, because you make the glory of God, and good of souls the mark you aim at in the course of your Ministry; the Devill will not let you be at rest, because you will not suffer the sins of the times to be at quiet. Since the publication of your Letter and Vindication, there are many scurr [...]lous Pamphlets spread abroad, which labour to stain the integrity [Page] of your hearts, and the truth of your testimony; among the rest there is one written by John Price, which is stuffe [...] with such falsities, absurdities, tautalogies, calumnies and animosities, with such railings and revilings, as if he were of the race of Rabs [...]ekah, or the linage of Shime [...]: the Lord rebuke him, and clear you. He presents you to the world as guilty of malignity, perjury, hypocrisie, as wanting Ministeriall abilities, and void of the ingenuity that becomes Ministers of the Gospel, as men of falshood, deceit, dissention, and what not? but what you are? It may be your comfort to consider that so persecuted they the Prophets who were before you; Elijah was called a troubler of Israel in the Old Testament, & Paul a mover of sedition in the New. When I considered what August. said,M [...]i quidem sufficit conscientia mea, vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat. in [...]em Serm. 53. that a Ministers good conscience is sufficient for himself, yet his good name is necessary for others: I thought fit to endeavour the Vindication of your names and Ministry from those unjust aspersions cast upon you by many sons of slander; your names, which are as precious oyntment poured forth (spreading the sweet savour of the knowledg of Christ in many places) will not want sons of Belzebub, as so many flies to corrupt them: yet this may be your confidence, that although they make their mouths as open sepulchers to bury your names and reputations in, yet there shall be a resurrection of names as wel as bodies at the last day, at which time all your reproach shall be wiped away, and your Revilers made ashamed, who have fasly accused your good conversation in Christ. This is the prayer and confidence of him who is [...]

CHRIST-LOVER (I) HOPE and a Lover of you in him.

Dated this 13 March, 1648. from my house about the middle way between Whitehall and Whitechappell.

Information about this book

Title statement

A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.

Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.

Edition statement

1649

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A88587

ID [STC]

Wing L3168

ID [STC]

Thomason E549_10

ID [STC]

ESTC R204339

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99863899

ID [PROQUEST]

99863899

ID [VID]

116115

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A88587)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 116115)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 85:E549[10])

Source

— A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie., Love, Christopher, 1618-1651..

Extent

[4], 71, [1] p.

Printed for Stephen Bowtell, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Bible in Popes-head-alley,. London :: 1649.. (A friend to a regulated monarchy = Christopher Love.) (The words "his king-killing .. explained." are bracketed together on title page.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "Aprill 3 d".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.