Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	king_n	religion_n	see_v	2,235	5	3.6602	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88565	Illumination to Sion Colledge. Wherein, their calling to the Ministery (the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ) is dissipated, their arrogancy hereupon manifested, the extent of magistrates power in generall defined; the execution of the late King, and the seculusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified; the former declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite, explained; their objections from the Covenant, removed in the grammaticall sense thereof; and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated. Being for answer, to the representation of their judgments, in a letter to the Generall, January 18. last: serves also to their vindication: and in part to a pamphlet intituled, Essex Watchmens watch-word: likewise in effect to a later libell (supposed Mr. Loves, intituled, A vindication of the ministers from the aspersions (alias the Etymologies) of Mr. Price, in his Clerico Classicum, &c. To which latter pamphlet, is annexed a briefe answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers. / By J.L. as cordiall and fervent a thirster after the nations prosperity, as any.	J. L.	1649 (1649)	Wing L31; Thomason E558_4; ESTC R205842	44,054	37

sick yet is in order to the health of the Parliament in acting up to the fountain of their Priviledges let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceedings since our cies have been witnesse of the justnes of them and the rather because they acted not alone very lawfull to do justly should none other appear thereto but contributed their assistance unto their solely lawfull authority which though for quantity the least yet for quality the best being in the right a minor Vote was then ●ver-powred by might a major Vote and yet this doth nor did not extenuate or lessen the equity of the minor part which to maintain as being bound in dutie thereunto the then appearance of the Armic must needs be justified in as much likewise as chusing the good and eschewing the evill is justifiable and therefore for farther confirmation hereof though the premises considered there needs none from Junius Brutus in as much as such reliques chiefely appear upon some upon the same subject cited by Mr Prinne in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 198. line 1. to the 18 from whom I gather them viz The King swears that he will seek the safety of the Realm the Nobles swe●r every one the same by himself whether therefore the King or most of the Nobles neglecting their Oath shall either destroy the Common-weale or desert it being in danger ought the rest therefore to desert the Republique or at least but rather then especially they ought to shews their fidelity when as others neglect it be lesse bound to defend it as if they were observed from their Oath Especially since they were principally instituted for that end like the Epho●● and every thing may then be reputed just when it attaines its end whether truly if many have promised the same thing is the obligation of the one dissolved by the perjury of the other whether if many be guilty of the same sinne are the rest freed by the fraud of one whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupill shall one good man be lesse bound with the burthen of the wardship through their default but rather neither can those avoyd the infamy of perjury unlesse they ende ●●our to satisfie their trust as much as in them lieth neither can those exempt themselves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianship ill administred unlesse they implead the other Guardians suspected when as verily one guardian may not ●uely implead the rest suspected and take care of those to bee removed but also remove them The application of this passage I need not insert seeing the words themselves are clear and easie to be understood and that in generall it holds forth thus much That a minor party are bound in duty to discharge their trust though in opposition to the major party neglecting or falsifying it And although you would seem to take off an objection from the Parliaments own example in opposing the late King by th●se your words And although both Houses of Parliament who are joyntly together with the King intrusted with the supream authority of the Kingdome saw cause to take up Armes for their owne defence against the attempts made upon them by the King and his evill Counsellors and for some other ends which you cite though doubtlesse experience will produce sufficient testimony of better effected yet it hath been amply and satisfactorily proved that the Army have not acted as private persons since they assisted the lawfull authority though the least part of the Nobles yet the Kings superiour and so supream it being most unsafe to leave the supremacy undetermined as is largely demonstrated by that Author Iunius Brutus quoted by Mr. Prinne in the 196 197. pages of that his prenominated Booke in prosecution of the end of their ingagements the peoples libertie since likewise they were not instituted the Parliaments servants to pursue their end but the peoples good in as much as the Parliament represents and are but servants thereunto also And therefore whereas when the Parliament first took up Armes you would page the 7. plead their intentions then was not thereby to doe violence to the person of the King c. yet I answer that this was not binding either to the Army or to themselves in case of greater enormities committed by him for I had thought you had known the distinction between intentions and illimited determinations or conclusions because a man at the same time when he intends a thing may prescribe to himselfe the intervening of some other thing that shall divert his intended act therefore intention cannot proceed so farte as determination or resolution could the Parliament then intend should the late King have acted never so high in tyranny to exempt him from accounting and so collude as the precited Author hath it and not be reputed in the number of Prevaricators or connive of desertors or not vindicate the Republick from his tyranny and not be traytors Now then 't is resolved upon the question That the intentions of the Parliament then could extend onely unto that present time wherein had he return'd they were willing to remit without as you term it violence to his person what he had then offended in viz. attempts upon their priviledges but the measure of his iniquity not being then full not unto that time wherein he prosecuted those attempts not onely on their priviledges but on the very foundation of Government the peoples liberties in the blood of thousands seeing they adjudged him by that their declaration you have precited no lesse then a publick enemy for practising such attempts might have justly proceeded accordingly but I say if then much more now are they to be justified in that justice o● frequently enjoyned in Scripture to be executed without respect of persons and so far from violence wherein therefore your accusation is very scandals us Again neither could the Parliaments intentions then as you affirm page 7. extend to the continuance of that government now for the constitution thereof must be considered either as good or bad if as good in the positive though the negative may be proved which I wave because the affirmative is indurable yet better or best is to be preferred before it Now then could the Parliament then intend or should they yet were it binding either to themselves or us the establishment of that or any other government when greater light in reference to the end for which government should be constituted viz. the peoples safety should be manifested nay could the accomplishment of such purposes be esteemed otherwise then a rejecting of the light and a loving of darknesse rather then light To instance this in one particular Episcopall government then constituted it 's likely in the greatest measure of light they had had it been binding either to future yeares or ages then your abolishing of it was illegall but through pretence of a greater light and so lawfully you have ex●irpated it therefore

obligation is void since he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us as Subjects which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book where he saith There is every where between the Prince and People a mutuall and reciprocall obligation be promiseth that he will be a just Prince They that they will obey him if be shall be such a one therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition the Prince purely to the People therefore if the condition be not fulfilled the People are unbound the contrast void the obligation null in law is selfe therefore the King is perfidious if be Raigns unjustly the People perfideous if they obey not him who Raigns justly To which I add that the Magistrate being but a servant in duty cannot call them to account for their perfidiousnes God properly being the avenger of that in them but they him since the wrong and hurt is cheifly done unto themselves not unto him who dischargeth his duty in gentle perswasion and admonition But the People are free from all crime of perfidiousnesse if they publikely renounce him who raigne unjustly or if they endeavour to evict him with Armes who desires to retaine the kingdome unlawfully Again as to the defence of his Person the Army is clear as to that time the Oath being then the same since he was out of their power and in the possession of others and might if he would have destroyed himself there is this limitation to it likewise to justifie the Army in their late proceedings against him that our defence to his Person must needs be understood to be in just waies else such would be partakers in his sin and become liable to the same punishment as the justly executed * Hamll●ton Lords were Holland and Capell And then as to the latter particular in that Oath viz. The defence of the power and Priviledges of the Parliament the Armies refining their House cannot be reputed a breach of that Priviledges no more then the rectifying of one crooked line to the Center may be esteemed the disordering of the circumference since likewise that the convening or assembling of the Parliament is not but their representing the People not onely in their Persons but in their qualifications which doth distinguish them from Slaves is the originall of their power and Priviledges the which therefore can be no longer reputed theirs then they are the peoples and the endeavours of the Armie to repossesse them of their own can be no breach of Covenant Again concerning the Vow and Covenant taken to unite us against those conspiracies and designes that were practised against the Parliament you are likewise guilty of a breach though herein you have acted yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own by disjunction of what tended to unity and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every respect as we to you notwithstanding your labour hath been spent to hale others to Conformity to your way In which laying aside their endeavours to free themselves from your oppression they are clear towards you But now your last and greatest seeming prop upon which you build all your arguments as to your sense upon it will prove as invalid as all the rest and those scriptures you cite for proofe thereof misapplied You cite the Covenant thus That you will sircerely really and constantly in your severall Vocations endeavour to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments and preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdomes Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant I shall not here farther inlarge because before insisted upon and proved that they have though you exempt conditions understood as limits and bounds to our defence and preservation of them Therefore I shall onely commemorate you a little of the conclusion The Independent part as to temporals of this Covenant which when first instituted was intended for a generall good therefore that party that hath sought to over reach any other thereby and designe it only for their own good must needs be guilty as of fraud so of a breach thereof but I leave this to your own Consciences if not dead to apply and proceed to recite the ingagement viz. We will c. indeacour to preserve and defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Kings Person c. But how In the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms that is so far as the two former doth concur and incur to the preservation of this latter so far as the maintenance of the Rights Privileges of the Parliament do and as the Person Honor and safety of the late King did Center in the safety preservation defence and propagation of the true Religion and the liberties of the Kingdome but now should the Parliament as your party therein the late King did usurp Privileges and Pr●●ogat●ves as to establish themselves in the government so likewise forcibly what form thereof they please upon others and turn enemies to the liberties the very spring of all their most as and actings as lawfull Magistrates of the Kingdoms By this Covenant we are not only disobliged from obedience to them but also ingaged to oppose them as enemies to the true Religion it being free and to the Liberties of the Kingdomes Furthermore we are the more firmly obliged hereunto by that relation union this oath hath with the former wherein both you and we supposing my self had I been through age capable to have taken the Covenant equivalently did ingage against those conspitacies that were after should be contrived against the Parliament but now was not our conjunction colligation against such confederacies more with respect unto or for that they were designed against the publike good of the Kingdoms then meerly or principally for the defence preservation of the Parliament therein who were onely as an assembly of men without qualifications accordingly Now then this being granted as necessarily it must unless you will be unnaturall and irrationall to prefer so few singly before the safety of the Kingdom wherein your selves likewise are interested I say this being granted it undeniably follows that if the Parliament as is sufficiently proved your party thereof did should turn enemies to the good of the Kingdomes which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance and them no otherwise then they shall concur herewith we are bound by those precited Covenants as to oppose them so to inflict without respect of persons the same if not greater because their trust aggravates their fault punishment upon them as upon others in the like offences provided that right take place But now I shall proceed to speak a little to these two particulars in the end of the Covenant We swore to defend the Person of the King and the Priviledges of

much hurtfull to the commonwealth to what effect was their convening and sitting what profit would insue therefrom or how could they discharge their trust to the Kingdome since also the laws if rightly constituted are usually prescribed by them Now then upon these considerations the Parliament had power to erect the Court of Justice which in answer to your first of those objections when constituted and invested with p●wer had the King pleaded oathes were ready to be administred But I cannot but observe how punctuall you would be in every tittle of the law of the Land that serves your turn and yet so partiall in the law of God and our law likewise For can the law be justly administred when a King is known to break such and such points thereof and yet be exempted the penalty because a King Would not this make his Authority or Office which simply is just and good become a protection to the vice of his person Can you not as soon make good to have communion and fellowship with evill Again do you not hereby frustrate all the force that lies upon the example of a King to induce his subjects likewise to yeeld obedience to his law And is it not a meanes to make him live more carelesly and licentiously without so weighty an argument against the appearance of evill when he is tolerated to live uncontrollably And doe you not make partiall the law of God when thereby you will take liberty to restrain and oppose yet leave unpunished when you may as lawfully punish the ill manners of a King But rather may not the law take hold of a King if murderer adulterer or offender in any other poynt thereof according to the penalty of it and yet be no attempt or prejudice to his authority or Office when indeed it appeares purest when impartially executed opon his owne person Of this le●●easonable men judge But not to leave it altogether upon my self I shall confirm it with the opinion of others and therefore take what Mr. Prinne cites of Mariana in the 59 p. of his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes viz. That all Kings and Princes among others the Kings of Spaine are and ought to be bound by laws and are not exempted from them that this doctrine out to be inculcated into the mindes of Princes from their infancy and to be believed yea oft considered of them that they are more strictly obliged to observe their laws thou Subjects because they are sworn to do it they are the conservators of the laws the avengers of those that infringe them and their example are the best means to draw Subjects to obey them When he likewise affirms that the whole Kingdome is above the King and may not onely binde him by laws but question him for the breach of them Again the same Author likewise argues there against succession if any wayes defective f●r the Office but more particularly in the 55. pag. lin 5. he saith thus much That if the King degeuerate into a tyrant by subverting Religion Laws ●iberties oppressing murthering ●r d●●●ouring his Subjects the whole kingdome may not onely question admonish and reprehend him but in case he prove incorrigible after admonition deprive him and substitute another in his place which saith he hath been done more then once in Spaine and there instenceth many Kings that have been thus dealt with and for a conclusion he adds That such a tyrannicall King continuing incorrigible after publick admonitions of the whole state if there be no hopes of amendement may not onely be deposed but put to death and m●rthered by the whole State or any particular persons by their appointment yea without it if be be declared a publisk enemy by the whole State he proceeds likewise to justifie the act in a private person which I need not cite seeing this serves my purpose now that the lawfullest part of this Nations authority though Junius Br●●us extends this power to one single person in●usted in a Kingdom against both King and the rest of the Nobles deserting it commanded what hath been executed upon the late King hath been sufficiently proved and not so much to be their command as Gods therefore I shall proceed to cite what Mr. Prinne himself saith upon this point in his So●●raign power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 130.3 Position viz. That the Kings of Judah and Israel were no absolute overaign Princes ●●●●●●ke their Crown with and upon such divine conditions For breach whereof they and their posterities were often times by Gods command just judgement and speciall approbation deposed de inberited destroyed and the Crown translated to other familyes For this he quotes Iunius Brutus though you would so much vilifie the same as from a Jesuit being quoted by Mr. Price as likewise divers scriptures and Iosephus upon one text to the same ●slect but especially in the conclusion of this his Position he cites that Swinglius with B. Dilson expressely resolves that the People were bound to refist question and depose their Kings for Idolatry and breach of those conditions as before demonstrated and that God himselfe jusily punished them viz. the People for Manassahs sins and wickednesse because they re●i●●ed and punished him not for them as they were obliged to doe where he affirms likewise pag. 136. that the children of Israel their Rulers Kings and People did joymly make a Covenant frequently to serve the Lord and the violators thereof to dye the death where he saith the King and the Queen not excepted in six or seven of those pages he treat● of the same subject but I know this is sufficient testimony to this truth and therefore shall for bear to insert more of his authors hereupon Therefore lastly to your objection which I sinde thrice asserted litterally and oftner to the same effect viz. That it the Murderer should be put to death which you grant is a known precept why then were not Goring Owen say you with the rest of the Kings party that in a military way have shed blood put to death To this I answer that as the killing of one Zimri Cozbi heads of their Families appeased the wrath and Law of God though doubtlesse had Moses proceeded to the condemnation and execution of some of the rest guilty of the same fact it would have been just as neither his omission thereof through mercy could be no neglect of the Lawes injunction so likewise may the execution of such persons as are found principall causes and most of all the chiefest of blood-shed in a military way satisfie the Law though themselves might not actually shed blood when such that as we say hab nab might act therein through the others seductions may justly mercifully be remitted even as the seducers are usually punished when the seduced though both in the same fact are through the mercy of justice absolved Many instances of this might be produced but finding the scope of your matter fully answered I shall wind up all in this advice to you viz. That if you be Mr. Love or of his profession you would according to your calling meddle more in your study and lesse in the State more in tuition and lesse in sedition then shall the Nation be lesse disturbed Authority more obeyed and your Parishioners better instructed FINIS

up●n authority and your words are these It is already suffi●ien●● known besides all former ●is●●arriages what attempts of late have been put in practise against lawfull authority especially by your late Remonstrance and Declaration published in opposition to the proceedings of Parliament The practiz'd attempts you speak off are laying aside the common enemy who in this ca●c are not to be our Judges and indeed have forfeited so much as nomination only discerned by your faction of unifo●mists and consequently the lawfull authority you speak it can be but alike opinionated prevailing faction in the Pa●liament which upon just grounds being oppos'd is accounted an unparrallel'd attempt against authority by you when as such a faction is but joyntly int●usted by the Kingdome with the ●est now for them by vi●tue of a maj●● vote to ass●me irresponsible and incontrolea●le power to themselves is no l●sse usurpation ●h●● that of the late Kings was which is amply manifested in a book en●ituled the●●●●tion of the late King justified c. already published by m●● to the Crown by ve●tue of succession and therefore no l●sse but rather more because their trust is greater offensive and accordingly punishable which I shall further illustrate from your owne parties example in the Parliament when united with these from whom they and you now dissent both joyntly taking occasion in discharge of that trust was reposed in them by the Kingdome to exempt the Malignant party upon that forfeiture of trust they made from partaking in the priviledges of Parliament and likewise to exclude them the House And yet after this your faction in the Parliament which you call the only lawfull authority shall recede and indeavour to resigne up that into the Malignants power which themselves joyntly condemned as breach of trust in them for attempting viz. an i●thr●lling of the peoples liberties and therefore dispossessed them let reason the world judg whether the minor part in Parliament may not lawfully prosecute the samd forfeiture upon them though the major part breach of trust being the same in any only the higher the persons the greater their offence therein in cashiering them their trust which they conco●ded should be in the same case upon the first Malignants therefore what you charge the Army the interest of the minor party for attempt against the authority of your interest was only the same advantage necessarily and justly improv'd by them for the deposing of your Parties authority which both united took against the common ●ne●y for in that your party in the Parliament waving their late complying with the late King did only seek the advancement of their own Interest with pretence of good to the Kingdome when it could be so only to themselves and their complices they forf●●ted their trust by which they were ingag'd to indeavour the good of such that then assisted them in that cause as much as their own which good cannot extend to all that so ingaged with the Parliament unlesse established from common princi●les which were and are very wide of their and your ten●nts th●t est●em not that liberty which consists not in others opp●ession the Army and their party therefore being as greatly intrusted for and in er●ssed in the good of the Kingdome as those of yours finding their liberties to be infringed by them could not but in discharge of their duty to the Kingdome clip their prevalency and obstruct their resolute prosecution of such an interest meerly satisfactory to their own party and therefore far from a ge●●rall good which to effect in the establishment of such a government whereunder as to your selves you may partake of as great benefit and freedome as the present prosecu●ors thereof the indeavours of the Army can be no oppression and therefore not unlawfull but expedient for them to attempt wherein your accusation of them is impertinent and scandalous Yet you still persist pag. 4. after severall attempts recited and esteem'd so by you which I have allready clearly prov'd in the negative to justifie your faction in the Parliament ●s the only authority and therefore condemn the Army though therein likewise you include the minor part of parliament for opposing them saying All 〈◊〉 sr●ilues we cannot but judge to be manifestly opposite to the lawf●ll authority of those Magistrates which God hath set over us and to that duty and obedience which by the loves of God and man and by our manifold Oaths and Covenants we stand obliged to render to them To which I answer that if God had immediately which your words would seem to imply instituted and appointed y●u● party in the Parliament to be sole with●ut others co●joyn'd Magistrates over us and had injoyn'd us universall in all cases for which we have neither precept nor president in Gods word obedience to them it would have been sin in the Army in resisting them but since God sets not all Magistrates in that h● sets not tyrants over us otherwise then by permission those are neer●st unto Gods ordination that receive their authority by his rule which is now only through free election and that not to an absolute power to govern as they list for then the people looseth their end viz. th●ir own good in their choice but to walk according to the rule that shall be prescrib'd them a great defect through the usurpation of predecessing Magstrates till of late days in our laws to discharge the end of their respective offices and to perform the conditions upon which they are chosen or at least for which they are intended Magistrates but now those that usurp authority respects none of these rules and therefore not lawfull Magistrates for a lawfull Magistrate cannot and knows not how to govern well in that every particular expedient for the peoples good in civill government is not written in his heart without a rule which the people only are best able to prescribe seeing they know best their own wants Now then in what yon charge the Army of disobedience as universal without exceptions to any your selves are guilty in the same by complying which I urge against you allowing it in your selves and yet reproving it in them as an example unto though just in hem but unjust in you in that you now all●dge universall ●bedienc● not to ye●ld obedience to all Magistrates Against the late King let your pretence be what it will viz. that you ingaged against his evill councell or the like in your then ingaging against them you ingag'd against him abetting and inducing of them thereto which is clearly testined by his approof in which he dyed as to all outward appearance of them therein and therefore to what you accuse the Army for opposing lawfull authority I ans●er that besides that preci●ed your own example they have the reason and righteousnesse of the act it self to justifie them in their opposition to your party which had then the major Vote in Parliament and by v●tu● whereof you call them lawful authority

the peoples liberties tending to subvert the end and cause of their trust an offence in any sole power much more in them who were but joyntly intrusted the feare of God did oblige them though the minor part as a happy and most desirable civill change from darknesse unto light communion wherewith we should most cover to enjoy free from discontent since we should rather secondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army then trustfully to adhere to their authority The first man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. L●●●try last being then Fast-day when there was the lest yet lawfullest part thereof which I have shewed we must rather obey appearing to discharge their duty Now then that can be no plea though asserted by one of your * Brethren upon that subject of universall obedience to Magistrates seeing he made no exceptions the effect of it viz. that magistrates are of divine institution that they bear Gods image that God himself cals them Gods and therefore disobedience to them is an eternall dan mage whereas to disappoint the peoples safetie is but a temporall losse and so to be lesse esteemed then an eternall I say this can be no plea craving leave a little to digresse from your matter for satisfaction sake more formally though this is effectually already answered since that the office or duty of the Magistrate not his own person is onely of divine institution in the execution of which office viz. 1 Kings 10.9 to do equitie and righteousnesse in as much as therein consists holines he bears Gods image but when Magistrates shall act quite contrary to the cause which take away and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being by oppression injustice Covenant-breaking exaltation above their brethren subjects and all this with that great aggravation of self respect herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holinesse so unto dominion which is to rule in righteousnes meeknes and mercy in which defect they cease to be either the ordinance of God or man and the people are disobliged from obedience to them and so by consequence and contrary may lawfully resist their evil practices Nay lawfull magistrates enjoining things that may ordinarily in themselves be lawfull in all extraordinary cases may sometimes erre and lawfully be resisted therein in as much as they obstruct a greater good let all remember therefore that as of two evils the least so of two goods the greatest is to be chosen but the example of David may more fitly insert hereafter at present I therefore wave it and proceed to your fifth page and there your words are Wee have not forgotten those declared grounds and principles upon which the Parliament first took up Arms and upon which we were induced to joyne with them c. Which though you say you have not declined yet will prove the contrary for the grounds that the Parliament first did or at least should have done take up arms upon was not so much their own priviledges as the peoples liberties and therefore their * Iaintry 17 1●●1 Declaration which you instance for confirmation will prove the confutation of all your matter upon that attempt which the King made upon their Priviledges putteth such an assault as an offence against the liberty of the Subject before a breach of their own priviledges whose priviledges to preserve indeed were the instrumentall cause of our first taking up Armes but we not you unlesse you confirm this truth rested not here this was not our end the onely thing we aimed at but we had respect to some thing beyond and yet then through the priviledges of Parliament viz. the Peoples liberties the very end wherefore they sit and the grounds of our assistance to them was not so much though our liberties were apparently because we had no other power to appear for us and whose miscarriage would have been ours not subordinately wrapt up in their Privileges as our own liberties therefore consonant to this is the conclusion of the precited Declaration wherein they declare the Person that shall so Arrest any member or members of Parliament to be a Publique enemie to the Common-wealth which clearly shews that such members must be acting for the good of the common wealth or else the Person or Persons so arresting them will be so far from enemies as that they will bee friends to the Common-wealth in so doing therefore from hence this flows clearly by way of use that those are no Priviledges but usurped of Parliament that are inconsistent with the Peoples l●borties As likewise this undeniable conclusion that to arrest or seclude as was then endeavoured by the late King any Person or Persons in the Parliament acting for the peoples liberties is contrary thereunto and a breach of the priviledges of Parliament But the Army with the consent of those onely lawfull ones and so the house left behinde secluded the late members of Parliament for infringing the peoples liberties Therefo●● it was no breath of their Priviledges But it is most manifest by all your precedent arguments and quotations that you would make the people the Packhorse to all your imposed burthens and slaves to no lesse then three powers the King his Honour and Prerogative the Parliament their Priviledges which you make distinct from though if they are so they must concu● in the peoples liberties above them and you your Ecclesiasticall government above all but your complying with the two former from all evidences is onely that they may assist in advancing yours when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all cases at all times upon all occasion all three would center in the peoples liberties they being ordained for the people and not the people for them but herein you preferre the Box before the Ointment the Raiment before the body and you are blinded with self yet confidently you say you see but therefore your blindenes remaineth and no wonder if you occasion your own fal● Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting because in your 6 page 25. line you say that in reference to the power of Magistracy they are but private Persons it seems strange that you should so forget the priviledge that both you and we when united in a then thought just cause against the King by suing out our liberties took notwithstanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the kingdom to esteem our selves the kingdom as witnes your own words in the 5 p. of your pamphlet line 12. upon the attempt of the late King destructive to the good of the Kingdom and shall the Army and their party which in comparison to yours are more numerous then both of us then were to the Kings be esteemed as private Persons and lesse justifiable in the prosecution of the same end against the proceedings of your Party onely and can this be a breach of the Priviledges being onely a Purge which though it makes

the constitution of what government you mean was conditionall not upon yours but our own light and so not binding to us But whereas in the same page you say you apprehend your selves obliged thus to appeare for the maintenance of your Religion Lawes c. as against those that would introduce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King so on the other hand against the irregular proceedings of private persons as you terme them though I have shewed they are publick to introduce anarchy irreligion c. the former of which justifies the Army in that opposition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing by tolerating if not tyranny yet such a power in the King whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people and the cause of your obligation to the latter is taken away since you may enjoy under the government to be set led laying aside your principles of oppression as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any whereunder likewise as may be because the best way continued love and amity so in stead of irreligion a free religion most sutable to the Gospel not compulsive or constrictive may be introduced But now that your former matter might seem infallible you reinforce it with a Covenant though never intended for such an abuse you include the Army making them ●nparaleld Covenant-breakers as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such as you instance from Scripture who violated an absolute pure simple Covenant whereas ours was limited conditional only the bond or rye of both being alike the breach whereof was the cause that God powred down his judgements upon them In this therefore your hold-fast will prove as infirm as in the rest and according to the literali sense of it not to mention here your omission of the end your selves will be found more guilty of perjury then any and so your texts are misapplied You say then page 7. That you are the more strongly ingaged to adhere to your former just principles ●y reason of the severall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641 wherein as your words are We do in the presence of Almighty God promise vow protest according to the duty of our Allegeance to maintain and defend with our lives powers and estates his Majesties Royall person honour and estate and the power and priviledges of Parliament To this I answer first That your first ingagement upon these precedent principles as if they were independent and the peoples sole happinesse did consist in them as you positively cite was unjust and without understanding For mark you how the former particular in the oath doth depend upon the latter you did not sweare give me leave a little to inlighten lighten you it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance but a greater to continue ignorant of it to maintain and defend the late Kings Majesties person c. in case he should with his person make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and priviledges of Parliament which unlesse you be turned malignants obstinate you cannot but confesse is a limitation to the former clause in that oath and indeed with which you complied against the late King and never violated the oath as to that particular because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other as experience hath witnessed by cleaving to one and forsaking the other we break the oath unlesse we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other which was the late Kings case the Parliament being more intrusted and so more supream then himselfe This your selves have granted herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant Again as to that latter clause to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Parliament I answer that this likewise doth relye and depend upon something which though you insert not and if neither exprest in the oath yet is consequently and necessarily understood to be the top and end of both For in what you did ingage against an unquestionable and tyrannicall power in the King to set it up in a major vote of Parliament you did it voyd of understanding and a great deale of blood was shed to no purpose which upon such an ingagement for ought I know may as soon lie upon your account as elsewhere But to be short because before insisted on the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in such force above a Kings whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted and from whom the same end both did and doe receive their power which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdome particularly these words Iunius Brutus p. 154. A King exists by and for the people and cannot consist without the people and that all Officers are chosen by the people Severall other Authors to the same purpose he quotes but desirous to hasten to a conclusion I wave and proceed to discover how palpably your selves are guilty of the breach of this oath First as to that particular which you did sweare to defend the late Kings person c. you are guilty of perjuty for that you never ventured your lives persons and estates to preserve his person many times perhaps not intentionally yet accidentally in jeopardy from the Parliaments Forces against whom according to this clause in your oath with your temporall All you should have defended him Secondly as to the maintenance of his Honour you faile likewise since you have complied with the Parliament a● least by silence to detract from his honour by intending to dimini●h that Authority which formerly though unlawfully he had in the Kingdome I hirdly to be briefe by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament in depriving him of his because possest of it though it were and is the peoples former estate M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes in his seventh Observation his words are That Emperours Kings Princes are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands Revenues Forts Castles Ships Iewels Ammunition Treasure of their Empires Kingdomes to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures but onely the Guardians Trustees Stewards or Supervisors of them for their Kingdoms use and benefit from whom they cannot alien them nor may without their consents or privities lawfully dispose of them or any of them to the publick prejudice which if they doc their Grants are void and revocable Now as to this first clause in that oath in which I have shewed you are guilty of a breach the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant the peoples safety which they are principally to endeavour though against other subordinate inclusions that prove prejudiciall thereto as to the Oaths of Allegiance the

but one But it may be you will object That the Army it selfe in their last Remonstrance confest this 〈◊〉 col●●●ing to be a miscarriage Then I answer the more shame for you so to neglect your duty in forgiving and forgetting as to upbraid them with it But if your words be 〈◊〉 that this was a cause of a second warte how comes it that so many of your owne party are found guilty I shall proceed little further to answer circumstances and indeed had I ●une it would be ill spent justly to aggravate your folly in them it being more easie to judge of the rest by what is already spoken therefore I passe over to your 32. page where I wave that Ordinance of Parliament you cite to speak further to it then before seeing likewise the expresse ends as the conditions of the Armies service therein is demonstrated as likewise in the Covenant to be in the Grammaticall sense thereof as limits to their defence either of King or Parliament both being servants and to command the Army in nothing derogatory from the peoples liberties and therefore that your objection that we are but a party of the people is invalid since you can dee no lesse then allow us as much power as your selves and in number we are more yet you a●●ume the power of the people to your selves in the 16. page where you seem to make the Malignants and us e●ill Instruments and therefore as well to be brought to condigne punishment as they Surely there is none left their to be Executioners but your selves and me thinks you should not offer to blame the Armies party for assuming a power as the people when more interested therein then your selves who was likewise their example But to your Concession in the 32 page viz. that the Ministers are for justice and that according to the Covenant on the chiefe delinquents For answer then Mr. Love with all his Divinity cannot it being no part thereof to exempt the King from justice since none was so great a Delinquent as himselfe the rest had not been so but for him countenancing and abetting them therein else they could not have subsisted so long unpuni●●ed as they did And did not the late executed Lords plead his authority for their actions that what they did was in obedience to him their Master Doth it not appeare by this that he was their evill counsellour they not his And might not this be a reason why he so much insisted to have them indemp●●●●ed because he know himselfe to be their chiefe seducer And yet Mr. Love from the Covenant would have the King exempted when it runs expresly to bring chiefe Delinquents to punishment and the King so in the superlative degree and yet freed Were not this indeed to make the Covenant a contradictious thing But now this being granted that the King was the cause of all that opposition and bloodshed in the Kingdome that your supposition page 16. to clear Mr. Love that if he had laid the guilt of the bloodshed upon the King yet that there was nothing in that his Sermon touching his punishment I say this supposition is fully answered by your own words th●ugh you declare not your intentions whether to the King or no That men of blood are not meet persons to be at ●ene with till all the guilt of blood be exp●ated and avenged either by the sword of the law or the 〈◊〉 of the sword c. Chr Love in his Englands distemper page 37. Their it followes from these words that it the King were guilty of blood the expiation thereof by the sword of the law was just upon him But this point being largely discussed in that late Book The ex●●●tion of the King justified I shall for hea●e to speak much yet a little more because so much opposed by you unto it and therefore proceed to your 39. page where you say First that one end of the warre was to preserve the iugsperson Answ But conditionally to be in our protection and to act nothing against his trust being to give an account thereof as any subordinate officer Secondly in defence of the Kings person you say many ful sequent oathes of the Parliament c. for the preservation of his person Answ These oathes could not extend to greater deserts of his as in the precedent answer to your brethren is largely demonstrated But further if in all cases they swore to maintain his person then in sinfull ones likewise and so they would have become preservers of sin and p●●●ably a constant course of sin even the introducing of Popery it selfe by him Your third aggravation of his death is That he was the first Protestant King as you say though in the former page you were uncertain whether he was so or no but suppose it that he were so the first so put to death of his own subjects yet you mean in such a regular way and would you find fault with that but rather have more condemned them had they literally and directly followed the example of Iehu for so farre as judiciall proceeds by way of lega●●●●ll are prefer'd before immediate execution are they not the rather justifiable th●r●m Y●●● fourth objection is That in killing him they likewise kil'd the King of Scotland and Irel●●● who had as much right in him as their King as this kingdome had For answer First w● 〈◊〉 to walk especially a Nation by other mens light but our own Secondly that the ●●ne Rule upon transgression by which an Israelite was punished the same likewise ●xtended to a stranger inhabiting among them which the late King was not altogether 〈◊〉 unto us Your fifth objection That he had granted more for the good of the Kingdome c. then any before him Answ For the people to expose themselves to his grants is to confesse themselves slaves and to yeeld up their rights and liberties into his wil and power the which likewise the●● he might ●eca●● when he pleased Your sixt Objection with your eighth in the 43. pag. viz. That the House of Commons if full and free cannot take away the life of a King seeing they cannot administer an oath c. And your eighth That the House of Commons if full and free cannot by law erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the Kings I answer the last first viz. That the Pa●●ament being full as to the number requisite for their being and free having no ●est●●●●t upon them is not limitted unto the law neither is it obligatory unto them where d●●●●●ent e●s● they cannot discharge their trust and their assembling would be to no purpose● the chiefest put thereof being to redresse and amend what is amisse or prejudic●all to the Peoples welfare as to establi●h what is good now then if neither the law would as you say and likewise did we the Parliaments hands that they could not execute justice upon the late King though his Person acted never so