towards a conclusion we shall briefly vindicate what we sub-joyned in our Plea for the clearing our Averment touching the alterablenesse of that Declaration 1646. viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be so altered as that in the judgement of wise men those who promised or declared ought cannot be thought to have willed the including such or such an event in the promise Here say they is a little missing the marke Answer Not of the marke we aimed at the frame of that objection to which in our Plea we undertooke a reply forcing us to speake both to the Parliaments interpretation of the Covenant in reference to Kingly power and likewise to their Promise that they would maintain the government of the Nation by King Lords and Commons as to the former of these we affirme that no postnate interpretation that may be suppos'd to have more or lesse in it then the letter of a Covenant can be reasonably imposed upon the conscience neither do we see cause to judge that the Parliament by their above named Declaration intended to elucidate or interpret the letter of the Covenant To the latter we say that although such and such things were declared for yet declarations as they here acknowledge are alterable pro re nata and therefore are of no perpetuall obligation Let us hear what they say to our reason or evidence brought to prove this viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be c. after a distinction premised to very little purpose about * Touching their instance in the case of the Gibeonites Jos 9. see Ames Cas consc l. 4. cap. 22. Quest 9. particular and generall willing the inclusion of an event in any promise they come to this conclusion Such events as may make the performing of the promise a sinne in the Promiser infringe the obligation these in the judgements of wise men are deem'd to be excluded to the Promiser but the event brought in by us as falling out in the Parliaments case viz. The Kings implacability and inexoriblenesse as we grosly enough stile it they say is not to be ranged amongst events of that nature they might have performed their promise without sinne and it seemes they did intend to include the Kings persistency thus they mollifie our expression not excepting against it after severall of those addresses made to him divers of them before the Covenant most of them before the Declaration April 17. 1646. so that the greatest part of his persistency was precedent to the making some of those promises c. Ans 1. If after all their experience had of the Kings presistency in a ruining way and all their hopes of bowing him to a complyance with their just desires extinct the House of Lords by their delayes and Negatives in matters of highest moment making it appeare too that they drew the same way with him if after these sad experiences the Parliament had sacrific'd the peace and welfare of the Nation to the interests of King and Lords we cannot but deeme it had been a very sinfull thing a betraying their trust a ruining the Nation a giving us up to a seven-times worse slavery then at their first convention they found us in and we can see nothing here alledged by these Divines though we looke longly for it to perswade us of the contrary they only say it had not been matter of sinne in the Commons to have made good that Declaration of which we are speaking but for this we want evidence 2 The Kings persistency in his way was that very event which put the Commons out of a capacity or possibility of serving the Publique with his advancement an event to be wondred at by all wise men Declar. of March 17. 1648. and therefore in the judgements of wise men not includible in the promise The Commons themselves tell us that upon their making that Declaration they were confident the King would have conformed himselfe to the desires of his people in Parliament and that the Peers who remained with the Parliament would have been a great cause of his so doing and therefore certainly they intended not to include his presistency or the House of Lords declining the publique cause in their promise Si aliquid incautius aliquem jâ—â—â—sse contigerit quod observatum inpejoreÌ„ vergat exitum illud salubri consilio mutandum noverimus c. Soter Epist ad Episc Ital. Charsum Concil Ann. 163 Concil Toler 8. Can. 2. we conceive they were not bound at that instant expresly to except these events they shewed what their exception was very reasonably when after all their fruitlesse endeavours to win the King they voted no more addresses to him peradventure this vote is interpreted one of the Parliaments swervings from their principles which these Ministers minde us of but we cannot so judge of it that principle which respects the Kings Person and Authority having an expresse condition joyned with it ever since the Covenant was entrâ—d into therefore for ought we know they might have voted no more addresses sooner then they did that famous and safe limitation saving the Covenant harmlesse had they done so and the emergency of an event as if confest a warranting the change of Lawes and Declarations may justifie the Commons in receding from what they had declared about governing the Nation by King Lords and Commons yet these assaylants have not done with us but ere they leave us will get betwixt the joynts of our harnesse by a pretty sleight blow a pure subtilty the Kings inexorablenesse was not any change say they but a going on in the way he was when the promise was made and therefore cannot be urged truly as a change of a person or thing to release the Parliament of their promise in his behalfe truly this is subtile nihil for we must tell them that as to our case in the judgement of wise men there is not any imaginable difference betwixt the failing of an event fully and confidently expected and the failing out of an event utterly unexpected the Kings flexiblenesse was the event confidently presumed and made the ground of what was declared concerning him by the Parliament and his not changing to their minde together with the House of Peers changing from their mindes viz. their sence may be tollerably called a change of Persons subverting the foundation of that promise the one not doing what was expected the other doing what was not expected but the King was not so stiffe as is pretended it seemes for he did not hold out after seaven addresses We suppose say they that Treaty at Newport was one of the seaven no Sirs it was the eighth Declar. March 17. 1648 p. 12. if they keep a true account who declare it so to the whole world neither was he then inexorable but contrarily yeelded to more then had been desired of him in former
the Parliaments declaring the People to be the originall of all lawfull power To this indeed they say nothing not reckoning it happily amongst the essentials or executive act of the change 2 Touching their laying aside the House of Lords which in effect they had done seven yeares before in declaring That if their Lordships refused to joyne with them in setling the Militia they would proceed to doe it without them To this their Reply is 1 That they are not cleare in the truth of this Report and if they be not we say there are severall of their corresponding friends the Ministers of London who after conference had with them by some of the Members touching that businesse did approve of it as a thing lawfull and necessary to be done these men we doubt not will abundantly cleare them 2 But thence we cannot inferre the justnesse of an act viz. because it was done many yeares since 'T is truth we confesse in case there was nothing else to justifie the thing but only the doing of it but it was accounted an wholsome resolve and justified then therefore the same thing cannot in it selfe be unjustifiable now 3 But supposing it to have been done and just in the doing yet as their last and surest hold they difference what the Parliament did in laying the Lords aside then from their laying them by now by this distinction Co-ordinates may exercise say they a cumulative or suppletive power upon the defectivenesse of one another but they cannot put forth a privative power to take away one the other which was done in this case Answ Nobis non licet esse tam acutis We cannot possibly divide the haire betwixt that suppletive act which the Commons did put forth and that privative act which they tell us is not allowed them to put forth we thinke them tantamount or equipolent and cannot but so judge of them till these distinguishers or some other shew us a difference betwixt co-ordinals acting without and against the consent of those that stand in an equality of power with them this the Commons did and their putting forth a privative power against them if it be said This was but once or twice done and in case of necessity too we say if the same necessity revert over and over the Lords might be laid aside againe and againe and if by their delayes and Negatives they continue to shew their implacable bent as they did doe against the sense of the Commons upon that account they were laid aside temporarily or at such a season upon the same account they may be laid aside for ever To their illustration we say that the Lords were not TRVSTEES but sate in Parliament for their owne interests and as Prerogative-supporters thus much we are told by such as understand Parliaments better then we doe in the Declaration March 17. 1648. 2 But what if the Lords laid themselves aside as some say they did by not meeting upon the period of their adjournment then they have no injury if they receded from their owne right what are we concerned in their being unhoused 3 Lastly supposing there has been injury done unto the Lords for we make not our selves Judges of their Priviledges and Rights yet we understand not how that injury can take away a Right from the Commons or absolve us of our subjection 3 Touching their bringing the late King to a Triall sentencing him and taking him away this we mention as approveable by consciencious men and instance in Knox c. but for the rendring this approveable they say our sole reason is Fiat justitia ruat coelum God is no accepter of persons he hath strictly commanded that we take no satisfaction for the life of a Murtherer Numb 35.30 31 33. c. Who hath he commanded say they all those who are called to execute wrath upon evill doers say we and it stands every man in hand to see that they doe it for at the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of man saith the Lord Gen. 9.5 After some preparatives of this nature they come to state the point in debate the question betwixt us will be say they not whether some are exempt from the sentence of the Law or no this it seems must needs be granted but who they are who sitting in the highest chair of Magistracy amongst us have none placed by God above them to take cognizance of and unsheath the sword of Authority against their offences upon this seat they would prove the King to be set from the Oath of Supremacy and the words of both Houses of Parliament thus declaring Exact Collat. Pag. 727. We did and doe say that the Soveraigne Power doth reside in the King and both Houses of Parliament Answ 1. It would be knowne indeed who they be that are elevated to such a seat of eminency as that no hand may touch them or whether there be any such menin the World or no what they here alledge lookes another way they should prove the King to be unaccountable and they prove him only the supreame Officer of State Ignoratio Elenchi unaccountablenesse is not a necessary adjunct of Supremacy the highest in the world doe or should Minister to others as Trustees for the Publique and this implyes their accountablenesse the wise King doth not say Princes may not be stricken but it is not good to strike them for equity Prov. 17.26 2 Upon this ground they give us for the-the-Kings impunity if it hold good both the Houses of Parliament and every individuall Member of both come under a necessary unaccountablenesse and impunity likewise as having confessedly all of them a share in the Supreame Power if the residence of Soveraigne Authority in any person or persons makes them Justice-proofe and this Authority resides where we heard in the Houses as well as the King then we understand not the legality of questioning and condemning Strafford Laud Hotham c. or how any the Members of either Houses during their Membership should be questioned by any persons whatsoever and so the Houses of Parliament might become Cities of refuge or Sanctuaries to the vilest of men who could get within those walls as well as to the King Who can take away his Priviledge or Prerogative that is chosen to a share in the supreame Authority This is well argued Sirs and if any one say the Major part of either House may question the Minor we conceive not if the residence of supreame Authority in that part conjunctly with the other renders it unaccountable as we are taught it doth and as it must needs doe if any man whatsoever by reason of his share in Supremacy becomes invulnerable as annointed with the soveraigne Oyle of impunity therefore we contend that no man whatsoever is thus placed above the reach of Justice and consequently that such as are impowred by a call to judiciall Authority may and ought as the case may be to execute Gods Judgements
but surely no man can be so irrationall as to deny the latent veine of a ‖ Vide Ames Cas Cons l. 4. cap. 22. Quest 8. condition running through every promise or Covenant where the contrary is not exprest if therefore we Covenanted for the preservation of his person conditionally 't is all one as if we had not covenanted at all the condition proving apparently impossible and inconsistent with what we promised streines upon the promise and revokes it if absolutely and in expresse termes excluding all condition as surely we never did the Covenant were unlawfull setting man up above Gods Ordinance and so has no obligatory power at all in it but enough of this seeing these Ministers in this page call the Kings death an impertinency we shal now be content to let it passe for one after this forreigne velitation anent it which we could have wav'd likewise very contentedly had we not been charg'd as having said little in our Plea to render it approveable besides fiat justitia ruat coelum They tell us pag. 26. That they will only touch upon what we say is and they judge it not to be approv'd in order to the change of Government yet here forgetting themselves surely they bring in somewhat as introductory to it and charge the maintaining of it as approveable upon us which we neither grant properly introductory but forinsecum quid being not done by those who chang'd the Government nor yet that we touch upon it as approveable for the contrary might be seene in the page immediatly preceding where we presume that the Parliament end Army might doe some things in order to the change which themselves hold only justifyable upon the plea of necessity this it seems could put no stop to their fury but they will needs have the Engagement from what cogency of Reason we cannot see to draw in the Engagers to a necessary approbation of the supposed miscarriage viz. The breach of Parliaments priviledges by forcing the House excluding the Members c. for that which I promise to be true and faithfull to I must needs suppose and avow to be just and good but we say that by this rule all our forefathers that sware Allegiance to the Conquerour must be supposed to avow his Authority just and good which these Gentlemen will implead unlesse their consent made it so 2 That the authority may be owned as just and good the Lord himselfe owning it we have prov'd before notwithstanding the meanes of attaining it as to mans acting in them be justly disavow'd and abhorâ—'d a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys we can distinguish the Powers that be from the sinfulnesse of their introduction therefore fupposing the truth of what followes That our present Rulers entrance into and continuance in power depends upon these two con-causes their owne and the Armies force what is this to the submitting conscience who knowes of no other powers that be however these came to be and therefore concludes If he resists the power he resists the Ordinance of God unlawfull introductions neither taking away the being of the Powers nor dis-obliging conscience from obedience But let us examine their assertion a little 't is strange that the Parliament and Army should act as they did without the consent and concurrence of any men besides themselves if their Authority depends meerly upon their owne and the Armies force it should needs be thus but we can tell them of a great number that concurr'd with and consented to what they did antecedentià and of many more that gave their subsequent consent which was sufficient they say to make Leah Jacobs Wife to the change of Government and so espoused the present Authority Peradventure few did or doe consent to it in Lancashire what then sure the Classis of Ministers there is not like the Frogge who thought the Ditch hee liv'd in was all the World thus the fire-edge of their assertion is taken off 3 Suppose a man gets that which he hath a right to and keeps possession of it by force does this denude him of his title Is it unjust in him after this force which before he used any force he had a just claime to especially if it be no otherwise recoverable as it is usually with publique liberties where Prerogative has once fastned its clawes in them making that its free-hold or inheritance which was originally in the peoples power to dispose of now let us minde you of a pretty Allusion Two Sons of a loving Mother heare her cry out in her Bed-chamber as likely to be abused by vile Fellowes one of these Sons strives to unlocke the doore and cannot the key having contracted a seaven yeares rust the other unhinges or breakes open the doore and comes in timely to rescue her is be justifiable yea or no certainly though force he not the arbitor of right yet it followes not that whatsoever is gotten by force is vainely gotten the possession of our powers may depend upon force and their cause be never the worse for all this 3 It would be knowne what these men meane by that which they terme their owne force If the prevalency of our present Rulers Judgements it is an allowable force but an improper one if we indulge them not the liberty of Voting their sence they must be all as the Lord Faulkland said of Finch silent Speakers if we allow thus much to them then what is this force still A power or competency for the managing and carrying on their Votes and Orders if we gratifie them not with this force the freest Parliament that ever shall sit in England will be Vox praeterea nihil therefore 4 It must needs be the Armies Force which adnuls or makes our present Authority base-borne if any force doe it the former force say they could give no just title See the Declarâ—t Febr. 17. 1648. pag 15. Declarat March 17. 1648. pag. 22. and without this could not availe to their advancement But Sirs if the Army acted gratis or without command in this heavie businesse of secluding some Members this being an extrinsicall force could not possibly denude the remaining numbers of a right to act authoritatively the Kings routing of five Members did not breake the House and if five doe it not an hundred and fifty will not if the Army in this doing acted the Houses pleasure or by the call of the House they acted as servants and is this that which unauthorized the House Suppose the Parliament had called Sir William Waller Stapleton or Balfore to their doore upon the refusall of many to swear the vow 1643. and had commanded them to seculde those who then were secluded for disgusting that Engagement and their renitency to the worke of that season would this have vacated the power of that remnant Surely no the House it is granted may prescribe conditions to it selfe and the Members which refuse them are ipso facto unmembred so that the outing or
secluding them is at most but aggravated by the Souldiers interposition it is not made another thing such the case may be therefore as that men may enable themselves by force to act anthoritatively and possesse themselves of Authority by force and be justified such we insist was that our case in debate but upon supposall it was not so we say againe that sinfull meanes or introductories render not an authority uncapable of a consciencious mans owning yet it should seeme by what followes that those Ministers Boanerges like out of a pretended zeale to the Covenant could willingly sound an alarme to the undertaking Nimium placet ipse Catonâ— Si bellum civile placet Lucan viz. the dis-possession of our present Powers a good minde they have that Warre should be raised in behalfe of those who remaine yet Confessors for the Covenant in a certaine sence and they would not stick to call it an * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Adm. ad Gentes holy Warre what else meanes this Divinity of theirs A present impediment or privation of the act creates not an impossibility in the thing and so dissolves no Oath some the Covenant bindes to counsell command pray and pay others to hand force for the remedying the breaches of it halfe an eye may see the drift of these insinuations But it would be canvassed a little whether the Covenant gives them a call to endeavour the subverting our present Parliament to redeeme Parliament priviledges yea or no this they must needs plead for here otherwise they beate the ayre their argument is dissolute and does them no service at all if it indeed gives them a Call and Commissions them to this worke viz. the breaking our present establishment this Commission is convey'd to them by some Mediativa for the Covenant hath Warre in it but vertually and therefore is no formall warrant for the raising of Armes now we cannot thinke that the Parliament as we call it will thus mediate or Commission any persons to such a Project or that the King as they call him can doe it of himselfe unlesse he must be a Sultan Mogull or ‖ Though in Scotland an Ahenian royalty serves his turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. de regno absolute Lord over us his Fathers Commissions of this nature during our late Warres used not to be much own'd in Lancâ—shire nor his Commands obey'd being solitary personall and Anti-parliamentary but peradventure they may expect a call in its season from the Scots Kings Divan or a confluence of those Attoms which were swept out of the Commons House for making such a dust in the yeare 1648. from some Juncto or other of hot Covenanteirs called by the name of a Parliament if so they exclude these in place and null their Commissions by the heinous sin of our present Rulers usurpation yea if ever they command they must be enabled to it by some force too still worse if force when it serveth mens turnes have not the happinesse as it usually hath to passe for no force or else to be adjudged Orthodox necessary and legall could we but see therefore how the Covenant-Commissions run it is ten to one but wee should finde them capable of some exceptions In the next Paragraph we finde what we last spake to verified by the Judgements of these Ministers touching a certaine force upon the Scotch Parliament when time was viz. Force when it * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tatian Assyr befriends us and our interests is no force You tell us say they of a force in Scotland by which the Power there in being was brought in which was greater then ever our Parliament groaned under here they say It is not congruous to conclude others by those presidents which we our selves will not receive a bound from cannot we mention such a thing then without concluding others by that president farre be it from us to conclude this Classis by a Scotch president though we thinke it would goe farther then a better argument and doe more toward the concluding of very many amongst us who doate upon Scottish modes exceedingly and hang upon the lips of their Mufti and oricular Consistorians but these Gentlemen are not cleare in the matter of the Fact there We tell them say they of a force and truly we conceive they need not be told any more of it yet they doe not beleeve that we can alledge that the Parliament there was called chofen and conveened or hath sate and acted under or been dismembred by any force nor that we have heard of any actuall force upon any Parliament in Scotland since the Covenant here was first taken Ans These words are very warily packt together here are creepes â—now if ever they should be put to a start and it concernes them in this point not to lye too open not an actuall force but what if we can tell them of a force which wrought as strongly Per contactum virtualem as that force of the rude Apprentices did upon our Speaker in 1645 not upon any Parliament what if it was upon the Committee of safety their Parliament contracted will not this serve the turne this is a force in Scotland sure and that is it we undertake to tell them of now to the thing in question they cannot beleeve that there was ever a forc't or dismembred Parliament in Scotland since c. what thinke they of the Parliament which sent Hambleton into Lancashire in England resolv'd into a Committee of safety routed head and tayle branch and rash by Arguile with some other unauthoriz'd persons This was the only Nationall Authority then in being and if that be a force in Scotland which is accounted so in England out of doubt this was a force the Notoreity whereof gives not any latitude of dis-beleefe true this assembly was not dis-membred it was utterly unbodied and the Parliament next surrogated or succeeding was chosen by Rules framed and prescribed by the prevailing Arguile and his Party countenanc'd and manag'd herein by the power of an English Army that this was not only a force but a greater force then ever our Parliament groan'd under will appeare by this Parallel 1 Scotland had none of those who were Members of the old Parliament not garbled but routed sitting and retaining their Authority after the force England had a Parliamentary number 2 We called not in a Forreigne Power to disband our Authority but it is very well knowne Scotland did 3 Our Parliament Members which sate and acted after the force were all chosen by ancient rules and that long before the force too those in Scotland who then stept into the Seat of Authority were not only chosen De novo but chosen by rules newly framed the very framing of which was so arbitrary and violent a fact that in England those who had come in upon such a score should never have been acknowledged the Ordinance of God 4 Their routed Members were dis-enabled from sitting
addresses to him Did he so well but did he grant enough peradventure those who treated with him had no minde to aske what they should have ask'd so we are told those Members proceeded to make such Propositions to the King at the Isle of Wight for a safe and well-grounded peace Dâ—clar Jan. 15. 1648. as if they had been granted and kept of which there was no probability would have returned the people againe to their former slavery c. yea this Treaty was entertained upon such Propositions as the King himselfe also should make which was formerly held to be so destructive to any well setled peace as neither the Houses of Parliament nor the Commissioners for the Kingdome of Scotland did thinke fitting to admit when he was in his greatest height of power whether now is here seene the Kings bounty to the Treaters or their prodigality to him he never would yeeld to recall Ormonds Commission as we are informed granted in the time of the Treaty nor that Episcopacy should be abolished only suspended Oh! royall bounty nor lastly that any one Delinquent should be capitally punished one only according to the Covenant no doubt being offered unto him namely poore David Jenkins in the meane time the worthy Treaters let him alone with his negative voyce and Booke of Common Prayer c. brave daubing so that the Scottish Consistories had cause to lift up their voyces against acquiessing in the Kings Concessions at Newport as being destructive to Religion and Covenant But the House voted these Concessions a ground to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome Ans We have heard of such a Vote indeed but 't was to us a mysterious Caball we could never get acquainted with the reason of it no more then with their reasons for re-calling those Votes of non-addresses to the King made upon such and so many reasons of great weight unto the least of which there was never any answer given designing Statists use not it seemes to play above board but the reasons of adnulling that Vote for proceeding upon the Kings Concessions are visible Parliament Votes and Parliament reasons doe well together unlesse we should deny the goodnesse of our Cause saith the Parliament which God hath adjudged on our side Declar. Jan. 15 1648. by the gracious blessings of so many signall Victories unlesse we should betray our friends who have engaged with us upon our Votes of Non-addresses to the hazzard of their lives and fortunes unlesse we should value this one man the King above so many Millions of people whom we represent and unlesse we should scorne and contemne any peace which the great God of Heaven and Earth our assured helpe in our greatest distresses hath given us and that we must relye only upon such a peace which the King a Mortall man and our implacable enemy shall allow us unlesse we should give up our selves to the slaughter and suffer our owne Members to undermine the Parliament and Kingdomes Cause unlesse we should stake all to the Kings nothing and Treat with him who hath not any thing to give us c. And lastly unlesse we should value the bloud of so many Innocents and the Army of so many Martyrs who have dyed in this Cause lesse then the bloud of a few guilty persons by what name or title soever stiled we could doe no lesse then repeale those Votes before specified as being highly repugnant to the glory of God greatly dishonourable to the proceedings of Parliament and apparently destructive to the good of this Kingdome And here we should cut off our Web but that for a close we must needs remember what in a margicall note they tell us we forgot viz. That Scripture Job 34.18 and that Morall rule De mortuis nil nisi bonum and why because we call the Kings persistency by no softer a name then inexoriblenesse and implacability plaine dealing is a jewell Sirs the vile person shall be no more called liberall nor the Churle said to be bountifull Isa 32.5 1 Therefore we did not forget that text in Job but these gentle Doctors forgot to take in the 17 vers with the 18. we read them both together and then they expound one another and chide the Classis for putting them asunder Job 34.17 18. Shall even he that hateth right governe and wilt thou condemne him that is most just Is it fit to say to a King thou art wicked and to Princes ye are ungodly If Princes be just God forbid they should be evil spoken of It is not fit to strike Rulers for equity but what if they hate right must no Prophet come within the Princes Chappel must not Kings know their Names Am. 7.13 Thou prophane wicked Prince of Israel saith Ezekiel Thou and thy Fathers house hath troubled Israel saith Elijah Ezek. 21.25 1 King 18.18 2 Chron 16.9 1 Sam. 15. Luk. â—3 32 Herein thou hast done foolishly saith the Seer unto Asa this is plaine dealing Did Samuel spare Saul when he rebelled against the Lord Did our blessed Master the Lord Jesus spare Herod In a word did the generall Assembly of the Kirke of Scotland spare King Charles or might they charge him as a Sabbath-breaker an Idolater a Murtherer and is it a Piaculum or any blasphemy for us poore Mortals to call him an inexorable man the Heathen Lawyer Papinian boldly reproved the Emperour Caracalla for his Parricide and are Kings yet more sacred We are perswaded that sometime within the memory of Man divers Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire though they opened not their mouthes as Papinian did against Caracalla yet have spoken as grosly of King Charles as ever the Northerne Subscribers did Non enim Sacerdotale est quod Sentias non dicere Ambros 2 Neither did we forget that saying De mortuis nil nisi bonum to speake the truth of the dead is to speake what is ‖ Bonum et verum convertuntur good and if we have spoken otherwise let the World beare witnesse of the evill that rule requires Charity but not in dispendium veritatis The names of the wicked shall rot saith the surer Word so did the names of Ahab Omri and Jeroboam though Kings and how unsavoury doth the Spirit of God make the memory of Ahaz by that brand upon his bones that inscription upon his Grave 2 Chron. 28.22 This is that King Ahaz these Ministers we presume are no strangers to Nazianzens invectives where the deceased * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Orat. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 19. Julian is drawn to the life to flatter the dead is to wrong the living and to strengthen the hands of wicked men in evil wayes the great discommode of funerall Panegyricks were it not better that a Spade were called a Spade then to say King Charles of blessed memory unlesse there was cause for it truly this Princes Fate is observeable for many who made no more of him either in Presse or Pulpit when hee was alive then one would doe of a dead Dogge a Panaeb Regis defuncti corpus terrâ condunt caput abscindunt inaurant in sacris collocanâ— Causs Hierogl l. 5 c 58. now can hardly beare a word spoken against him See Prov. 24.24 Suet. in Otho Quiescat Obba parum Mantu but upon all occasions rise up as his compurgators but there is no new thing Thus Suetonius tells us it was with Otho Magna pars hominum incolumem gravissime detestata mortuum laudibus tulit but we shall provoke these Royalists indignation no further Here let our Pitchar stand farewell Now the Lord of peace himselfe give us peace alwayes by all means 2 Thes 3.16 FINIS