Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	king_n	lord_n	parliament_n	20,596	5	6.9552	4	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

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

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 Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his 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. T is 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 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 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 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 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 't is true though you say 't is 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.

Your ingenuity and ●andor appears by your submissive and christian respects to Authority 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 2. Notwithstanding your slanders 't is 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 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 'T is well known the 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 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 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. 'T is 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 't was lawfull in David to 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 when hee wrote his Anticavalierisme pag. 10. 'T is 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 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

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 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 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 't is 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 't was 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 disobeyes a petty Councell of Warre or they that disobey the Parliament the great Councell of State 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 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 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 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 Vzzah 1 Chr. 13.

other places 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. T is 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 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 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 the 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 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 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 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 He that sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Vt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem non sane quemvis sed gladio divinitus armatum 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● t is 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 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 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 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 t is 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 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 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 Vxbri●ge is true but that hee spake therein of the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 who in his book● called the Appellation c. affirms say you that the people may depose their Princes and punish him c. Answ. 'T is 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

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 't is 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 moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and Royall family 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 T is 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. 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 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 c. and said he to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against him and 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 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 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 to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets 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 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 therefore the Lord

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 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 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 Vnvote 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 Vnvote 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 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 M●●i quidem sufficit conscientia mea vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat in ●●em Serm. 53. * Alluding to a book● entituled Honey out of the Rock made by ●ohn Price * See a Spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers by Iohn Price p. 8. lin. 32 Pag. 2. lin 14. In Spiritual 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 17. Pag. 2. l. 24. Epist. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax p. 1. p. 1. l. 30. Pag. 2. l. 3● Pag. 3. l. 5. Pag. 3. l. 16. Spiritual Snapsack by John Price p. 6. ● 17. Pag. 3. l. 36. Young ●●ng elder by John Goodwin p. 25. Pag. 4. l. 19. Pag 4. l. 35. * Armies R●mon June 23. 164● Pag. 5. l. 33. Pag. 6. lin. 22. Pag 7. l. 34. Pag. 8. l. 20. Declar. Ian. 17. 1641. Pag. 9. l. ● I. Goodwin in his Anti●aval p. 10. l. 31. I. P. p. 9. l. 16. I. P. pag. 9. l 24. ● P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12. Pag. 12. lin. 10. Pag. 14. l. 26. Pag 15. l. 7. P. 15. l. 31. Aug. in Ps. 73. Tertul. Apol. The serious Representat of the London Ministers p. 14. I. P. pag. 18. l 9. I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10. ● P. p. 19. l. 8. I. P. p. 20. l. 34. I. P. p. 21. l. 6. ●●ad the Oath of Allegiance Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879. Exact Collect. p. 2●8 695. 657. 991. I. P. p. 22. l. 12. 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 I. P. p. 24 l. 6. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 6. Vid. the Ord of P●rl 15. of Febr. 1644. as the first raising the Army under Sir T. Fairfax Pag. 23. lin. 3. I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14. I. P. p. 26. l. 3. See Testimony to the tr●●h● of Christ by the Ministers of London p. 28. I. P. p. 27. l. 1● I. P. pag. 28. l. 8. I. P. p. 28. l. 37. ●●hn Goodwin Anticav p. 11. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. I. P. p. 30. ● 17. 1 Sam. 26. 9. Rom. 13. 4. Pareus on Gen. 9. 6. I. P. pa. 31. l. 27. See a Booke ●ntituled the image of both Churches Ierusal●m and Babylon by P. D. M. I. P. p. 31. l. 31. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper c. pag. 16. Ibid. p. 19. I. P. p. 31. l. 35. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper p. 23. I. P. pag. 32. l. 3. I. P p. 32. l. 11. I. P. p. 32. l. 25. I. P. p. 32. l. 38. See a short Treati se of Polit. Power by Dr. I●●n Pennet ● 6. pag. 49. See Dr. P●nnets Treatise of Polit. Power cap. 6. I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30. See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82. Beza lib. confes. Christianae fidei cap. 5. Ecclesia circa finem Beza in confess fidei Christianae c. 5. Sect. 45. I. P. p. 34. l. 29. I. P. pa. 34. l. 31. I. P. p. 35. l. 3. In casu necesstatis licita est defensio per magistratum infe●●oorem 〈◊〉 superiorem D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262. Christianes 〈◊〉 minus quam alios quos●unque potesta●● subject●● esse debere non tantum fide ●lus sed etiam infidelibus sed c D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1. Vide Paraeum in explic dubiorum in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262. I. P. pa. 35. l. 8. Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor c. 13. de Politeiae-civili p. 80. I. P. p. 35. l. 15. 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. Zuingl●●●… exp. Arn● 42 p. 84. Tom 1. 1. P. p. 35 l. 17. Lex Rex quest 31. p. 330. Il. p. 104 105. Quest 14. Ib. p. 233. qu. 26 M. Prynnes speech in the House of Common Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 10 11. See the Armies Remonstrance of Iune 23. 1647. p. 12. See the Armies Proposalls Aug. 1. 1647. I. P. p. 37. l. 25. Judg. 20. 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 2. 1 Sam. 24. 6 7. 13. 1 Sam. 26. 8 9. 1 Sam. 26. 10 11. Mr. Prynnes third part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms p. 95. 2 King 9. 7. 2 Kings 10. 6. Hosea 1. 4. 2 Kings 21. 23 24. 1 Kings 16. 8 9. 1 Kings 16. 16. 1 Kings 16. 18. 2 Kings 12. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 14. 5. 2 Kings 15. 10. 14. 1 King 16. 25. Micah 6. 16. 2 King 16. 21. 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. I. P. p. 38. l. 34. I. P. pa. 40. l. 16. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. 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 I. P. p. 41. ● 24. I. P. pa. 42. l. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 10. I. P. p. 44. l. ●2 p. 45 46. Mal. 3. 15. Eccl. 7. 15. Judg. 20. 18. 23. I. P. pa. 49. l. 8. Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12 c. I. P. p. 50. l. 1. I. P. p. 55 l. 8.