Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	court_n	great_a	king_n	5,532	5	3.9831	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	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.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

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 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 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 3. He was never legally arraigned and brought to tryall in Parliament for his life 4. T is 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 because Domestick Tyrants are chiefly to be represt was the opinion of Pareus in his Commentary on Judges 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 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. T is 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 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 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 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 t is true Dudly Fennor hath some such words in his Sacra Theolog. cap. 13. 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 absque legitimâ ratione rapit huic quisque 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

they have prospered and the Church of God have been persecuted and kept under by them 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 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 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 the Crown of Israel 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 I le 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 't was by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience because 't was 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 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. As for the Armies proceedings 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

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. T is true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament 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 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 't was 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 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 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 't is you and your Teacher who hath made you to erre are the shufflers and changelings one while for the King to re-instate to his Throne another while against the King to bring Him to the scaffold 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 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 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 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●● 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 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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

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 In your Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers p. 8. you tel the Souldiers thus You fight for the recovery of the Kings 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 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 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. 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 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 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 Vriah 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 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 't is 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 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

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 T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is 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 as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is 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 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri 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 't is 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 't is 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 So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 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 't is 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. T is 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 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord 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 as in the times of those Kings before mentioned 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 't is 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 T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many 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 Answ. 1. T is 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 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 't is 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 of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against