of God in executing justice especially since the people are the root of the Kings and all other Authority and he their servant to act for their good and therefore accountable put in trust by them and therefore their Steward and so required to give an account of his Stewardsh as to God in the things he hides from men so to his people in publick neglect of his trust I need not further amplifie the disparity of our Covenant with his since it is cleare that therein we had an end above the preservation of King or Parliament which to endeavour can be no violation of the tye of the Covenant of which Zedekiah was guilty and therefore I believe as to the merit of such a sinne we shall not partake of his judgements Now then my serious and therefore let it not be rejected advice to you is That you would consider and conferre you covenant with what I have dilated thereupon and confesse and revoke your mistakes and breaches thereof in those severall particulars whereof and as I have cleared you are guilty in our publick assemblies that through your hearty sorrow for the same and such a reall testimony of your illumination the Parliament and Army may be again induced to invite you to their Consultations And whereas you have been instruments of sedition you may be so now of inlightning and composing the spirits of those you have seduced and incensed against the publick good and that hereby you may redisplay what excellencies hath been all this while under a cloud of self-interest in you that so you may recover our hearts helps and prayers that the blessing of God may be upon you and that you may relinquish revilings and invectives with mixtures of self esteem in your preachings that so the Gospel in the simplicity purity and truth thereof may be dispensed by you to the comfort of all those whom now you undeservedly oppose and that by your serious and cordiall application of this matter you may become their professed friends in one day to the terrifying of both your enemies that yet rejoyce in your dissention But in your tenth page you still brand the Army as being your greatest eye-sore and heart-sore with Disobedience to Magistrates which indeed were a great sinne as by the examples of Gods judgements which you cite upon it did you rightly apply it But because your particular designes are obstructed and prevented therefore you will unpreach what ever formerly with vehemency you have conjured the people unto I cannot but reply since you are conscious of the frequent commands in Gods word to yeeld obedience to Magistrates doth not include tyrannicall Magistrates or lawfull ones in all cases which hath been sufficiently proved yet the example of Jehu remaining for our instruction in the like case doth more confirm who though a private person yet was commanded from God 2 Kings 9.7 to avenge the blood of the Prophets upon the House of Ahab by whose authority or connivance they were destroyed which accordingly he executed as in the 24 verse upon Jehoram that had an hereditary right to the Crown and succeeded in his stead You know the word of God frequently enjoynes universall and unpartiall justice without exemption and respect of persons and yet you speak contrary to your knowledge by seeking to impell totall obedience in the Army to Magistrates when through some defaults from Scripture-warrant they may be exposed to a condition of punishment and then very incapable either to command or be obeyed And then you practise otherwise then you speak when your own interest is uppermost and obstructed by the Magistrates as now none more forward to oppose them and excite others thereunto then your selves as witnesse your resolution against tyranny in the King in the seventh page of that your Book and your groundlesse impudent opposition to the Parliament now But to your exhortation page your 11. and 12. for the Army to examine themselves whether they should not have opposed those proceedings there largely recited by you in others if done by them which they did approve of and esteeme as a vertue in themselves I answer that one and the selfe same act done by distinct persons may become just or unjust according to the cause or end thereof for which the party acts it Now then 't is just and unjust to seclude a Major part of Parliament just in them that secluded your party their trust when they were apparently acting against the end thereof the good of thoâ—e that intrusted them and therefore I cannot but remember how when the Army was first before the Citie they voted in the King and proclaimed to make humble addresses to him for peace without any conditions and how easily if excepted against at all by them in the treaty with the late King they let slip his negative voyce though the chiefest ground of so long a warre if I am not mistaken Again it would have been uâ—just in your party from their principles of self-interest to have secluded any other though a minor part in Parliament endeavouring onely their own liberties not prejudiciall to others when indeed they might as now they doe better extend freedome to the whole Nation And lastly it would have been more unjust in malignants from their superlative principles of tyranny to have attempted the seclusion of either It was Ichu's unjust end in his act not the â—ct it selfe which was just that brought a judgement upon his posterity And in 2 Chron. 25.2 Amaziah did those things that were upright in the sight of the Lord but not with a perfect heirs Hypocrisie in a duty makes the manner of its performance become abominable in the sight of God it makes the manner which God most respects in a duty become the object of his hatred and greatly inferiour to the matter of the duty Now then the reproofs in Scripture that you alledge against the Army as disobedient to Authority may most fitly and deservedly be replâ—ed upon your selves Therefore give me leave a little to urge your own interpretation of the Scriptures upon your selves The first is Tit. 3.1 Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers and to obey Magistrates You knâ—w Sirs where the Powers are since you make Pulpit-confessions of them though not as a Parliament most intolerable contempt in you of no lesse thâ—n the ordinance of God waving the justnesse thereof as from Man because largâ—ly pâ—â—dâ—mâ—nstâ—ated for that the Apostle Rom. 13.1 2. commands Let every souâ—e of yoâ— be subject to the higher powers for there is no powers but of God Here are the reasons of your obeâ—iâ—nce The power that be are ordained of God and they thu râ—sist râ—siâ—â— the Ordinance of God c. Mark Sirs the Apostle speakes it in the present tense or time The powers that be are ordained of God as being the word of God that is everlasting yesterday and to day and the same forever firm and effectuall in all generations
Illumination to Sion Colledge WHEREIN Their calling to the Ministery the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ is dissipated their arrogancy hereupon manifested the extent of Magistrates power in generall defined the execution of the late King and the seclusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified the former Declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite explained their Objections from the Covenant removed in the grammaticall sense thereof and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated Being for answer to the Representation of their judgments in a Letter to the Generall January 18. last Serves also to their Vindication And in part to a Pamphlet intituled Essex Watchmens watch-word Likewise in effect to a later Libell supposed Mr. Loves intituled A Vindication of the Ministers from the aspersions alias the Etymologies of Mr. Price in his Clerico Classicum c. To which latter Pamphlet is annexed a briefe answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers By J. L. as cordiall and fervent a thirster after the Nations prosperity as any Fâ—â—k 22.25 There is a conspiracy of her Prophets in the mids thereof like a roaring Lyon ravening the prey they have devoured souls they have taken the riches and precious things c. Micah 3.6 Therefore night shall be unto you for a Vision and darknes shall be unto you for a divination and the sun shall go down over the Prophets and the day shall be dark over them 2 Colloss 8. Beware lest there be any man that spoile you through Phylosophy and vain deceit through the traditions of men according to the rudiments of the world and not after Christ Mr. Will. Prinne pag. 201. Soveraign power of Parliaments c. To that Objection that Kings are of divâ—ne institution and therefore impunishable His second answer viz. All Ministers of the Gospel are as much if not more jure divino and by Godâ— own ordination as Kings are as our Kings Writs to Bishops in the words rex eadem gratia episcopo attest but they for their offences and misdemeanours contrary to their function may be both forcibly resisted censured deprived degraded yea and executed notwithstanding their divine right and institution as the Cannons of most Councels the practise of all ages yea the expresse letter of the 26. Article of the Church of England with all our Episcopall Cannous and Cannonists arrest therefore tyrannicall degenerating Kings may be so too by the self same reason in some cases LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons and are to be sold by Giles Calvert at the Black-spread Eagle at the West end of Pauls June 1. 1649. To the Reader Reader ACcording to my promise in a former Book intituled The Execution of the late King justified being a chiefe cause hereof I now tender thee this ensuing discourse desiring according to the Title the intended effect thereof which if through obstinacie diverted and repelled yet I shall patiently acquiesce in its truth knowing that light and truth are so even when rejected of those they are offered to as some more Orthodox assertions hereof have been though their labour is not in vain in the Lord However whilst thou readest it shake off the inclination of thy opinion doe it impartially and let truth and reason take impression upon thy heart where ever they be according to the desire of thy affectionate friend herein J. L. Errata PAge 9. line 42. for lest read least p. 11. l. 39. for appear r. operate and p. 11. l. 45. is in the place of 46. and 46. in the place of 45. p. 12. l. 46. for o frequently r. so frequently p. 13. l. 29. for a Covenant r. the Covenant p. 14. l. 21. for the same end r. to the same end p. 15. l. 17. for raign r. raignes p. 21. l. 37. for imputed r. reputed p. 22. l. 41. for dutty r. duety p. 24. l. 2. for a cupting r. attempting p. 25. l. 47. for band r. brand p. 27. l. 24. for this r. thy and l. 43 for did reprove r. did then reprove p. 28. l. 7 for that r. that p. 30. l. 41 for his law r. the law p. 31. l. 7. for out r. ought and l. 11. for when r. where and l. 30. for overaigne r. soveraigne p. 32. l. 7. for satisfie r. satisfie Illumination TO SION-COLLEDGE O yee self terming and so imposing Ministers of the Gospel It is not or at least should not be unknown to you what selfe Intereâ—t appears in your assuming so great a power onely by virtue of that Title through which you exceed the sounds of ministeriall liberty and many of you being blinded with self by whom the rest may be spur don or else the same lust will appear uppermost in all are so furious that you transgresse the law of Christian meeknesse which I shall proceed more clearly to discover avoiding a long Preamble in the subsequent Answer to the subject matter of your Letter And therefore in the Preamble to the following matter in your Letter you confesse divers applications have been made as well in writing as by verball messages inviting the Ministers of London or some of them to meet with the Officers of the Army in their consultations about matters of Religion which you say is most suitable to you Profession And a delay in the propagation whereof your selves hath often decryed as a sin in others and yet now are guilty of the same by urging civill though groundlesse reasons as will appear in that your concurrence which amongst the rest you make one ground of this your writing with your quoted Brethren in their dislike which you say you were willed to signifie of those mentioned proceedings of the Army For your refusall of such meetings which refusall had it indeed proceeded from right principles of fore-sight that such a meeting would have inevitably through your own busie dispositions produced a controversie about civill government with which authoritatively you are not to meddle and so have frustrated the end of your meeting viz to consult about matters of Religion or from insight to your own unworthines of so indulgent an invitation in preference of what you professe viz. Ministers of the Gospel though your calling thereunto is unwarrantable men of parts and the like through those many unjust and publique contradictions and Pulpit aspersions many of you chusing subjects for that very purpose that you have cast upon their proceedings upon these grounds it had been acceptable and laudable in you to have refused a meeting but on the contrary not being contented with that preassuâ—â—d title but soaring to be Ministers of the State likewise to which your ambition the Army having put a stop or at least because they would not depend upon your fallible judgements and so limit the spirit of God and their own reason and consciences to your way of government and interpretation of the scripture thereto for these reasons which are the main to
Now though from hence you would injoyn the Army obedience to them which I have before shewed is no plea yet pray know thus much more in answer thereto that in just dissents viz. for the good of the people the minor part in Parliament because so cease not to be a power but are the onely power in adhearing to their charge intrusted because the pâ—wer of the other party is extâ—nct throuâ—h their abuse thereof by managing it to a wrong end which your party was doing â—â—edy for advantage to their own faction therefore in discharge of those bâ—nds both of God and men which lay upon the minor part in Parliament being then the only just power they could not but improve as they did theâ—â— utmost indeavouâ—s to perform their trust viz. the peoples Liberties though against when they saw the digression of â—â—a major party therefore the opposition that you make against this present Parliament the onely just power in beâ—â—â— is practicall attempt against lawfull authority which according to your own words â—ou are bound by the laws of God aâ—â—mâ—n and manifold Oaths and Covenants to oâ—ey Now â—hâ—â—â— the Parliament being then diâ—â—ded into lawfull magistrates and 〈…〉 â—hey were magistrates let reasonable not obstinate men judge whether the Army deserve â—â—â—et to be acquitted of your accusation and justiâ—â—â— in those proceedings since the word of God commands them to abbâ—â—â— that which is â—â—â—ll and cleaâ—e to that which is goâ—d Rom. 12.9 But that you might confirm your matter you proceed to quote scriptures which as from God are purely spirituall no contradiction in them all together righteous but thâ—ough mens various and corrupt interpretations they are put as t' were at civill wars scripture against scripture and made a cloak for most lustfull errours therefore the first text you cite runs thus in the advice to Solomon Fear thou the Lord and the King Pâ—â—â— 24 21. and medle not with them that are given to change I shall by way of answer in these words denote that the fear which Solomon enjoyns to the King in which title is comprehended all supream Offices in power therefore the same text commands fear to a Parliament or to the authority of any other way of government else what the Apostle saith should bee for instruction to all is made uselesse and of no force to many nations that have no King Rom. 15.4 but are governed by States someone way and some another this fear I say to the King is conditionall from the precedent fear with which it s coupled that is the fear of the Lord Fear thou the Lord and the King implying that we are not to fear the King when it is disjoyned and much more when it will prejudice and extinguish the fear of the Lord I would be as clear yet as brief as I can because my time is streightned therefore Secondly when he saith Feare the King without doubt he means a lawfull King a King quallified for the Office and then the text injâ—yned not fear to the late King as will more amply appear in my prenominated book Thirdly He means it not in all ciâ—ill cases for then we shall come under that his reproof it is not good that is 't is a â—â—n to have â—espect of persons in judgment but now Vose 23. to respect Kings in judgement through that former injunction to fear notwithstanding punisâ—able offences in them is to respect persons in judgement and so this latter text becomes ineffectual but now that this latter may comply with the former verse the latter must be expounded thus It is not good or it is a sin to have respect of persons in judgement that is a King inclusively though lawfull in his calling in caâ—e of â—â—ansgression should be so far from being feared as that judgement withâ—ut partiality should be executed on him Luke 12.28 and this is according to Christs own rule that to whom much is given much shall be required therfore the same laws that upon breach of trust or any other offences are or should be prosecuted against subordinate officers or a Kings should be brethren subjects the same should be prosecuted against a King or superiour magistrates so much the heavier by how much his or their trust and gifts being the more his or their offences are the greater Now then it is clear that Solomon enjoyns fear to Kings or where none are to other superiour Magistrates onely upon these grounds viz. that they arâ— lawfull Magistrates and as our fear to them may consist with our fear to God and this can be onely in the execution of justice and judgement which he commands then lastly the wiseman speaks this not to those that have authority and power above the King as before shewed the agents in these transactions hath from the people but to those that are private persons without any interest in publiquâ— affairs as to trust now in this sense I comply with the text that private persons are to fear the higher powers all such whether Parliament or others being included in this title King but besides all these I shall recite one pâ—oof more though the least for justification of the Army herein and that is your own examples in complying against the late King which I wave because before hinted Now the application to what hath been said in reference to this your first quoted text I leave because so easie to be understood and proceed onely hinting thus much that seeing Solomon bids us meddle not with those that are given to change or in other translations that are seditious which is most fitly applied to your selves and for the Army to observe towards you that instead of preaching peace the glad tidings of the Gospel preach contention and debate yet your selves are examples of a change else many of you would have had but smal communion with light and the reason why you are in such obscurity iâ— because you are not so throughly changed as you should be there are yet too many episcopall principles in you which particularly to survay is from the purpose in hand therefore I leave them as best known to God and your own consciences yet in part to the Kingdom but only this there are blessed changes To the next text you quote and that is Withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly and not according to the traditions which you have received froâ—â— us 2 Thess 3.6 Though you wave the particular end in that Saint Paul in these instructions intendeâ— them to that particular act of inordinacy vers 8. from which he clears himself by administring to his own necessities which he urgeth Actâ— 18.34 as a motive for every man to work from his own example though hee had authority to have received maintenance from them yet he saw it more expedient to preach the gospel freely since himself among other reasons was able to work now though from this sense of that place you very
the peoples liberties tending to subvert the end and cause of their trust an offence in any sole power much more in them who were but joyntly intrusted the feare of God did oblige them though the minor part as a happy and most desirable civill change from darknesse unto light communion wherewith we should most cover to enjoy free from discontent since we should rather secondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army then trustfully to adhere to their authority The first man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. Lâ—â—â—try last being then Fast-day when there was the lest yet lawfullest part thereof which I have shewed we must rather obey appearing to discharge their duty Now then that can be no plea though asserted by one of your * Brethren upon that subject of universall obedience to Magistrates seeing he made no exceptions the effect of it viz. that magistrates are of divine institution that they bear Gods image that God himself cals them Gods and therefore disobedience to them is an eternall dan mage whereas to disappoint the peoples safetie is but a temporall losse and so to be lesse esteemed then an eternall I say this can be no plea craving leave a little to digresse from your matter for satisfaction sake more formally though this is effectually already answered since that the office or duty of the Magistrate not his own person is onely of divine institution in the execution of which office viz. 1 Kings 10.9 to do equitie and righteousnesse in as much as therein consists holines he bears Gods image but when Magistrates shall act quite contrary to the cause which take away and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being by oppression injustice Covenant-breaking exaltation above their brethren subjects and all this with that great aggravation of self respect herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holinesse so unto dominion which is to rule in righteousnes meeknes and mercy in which defect they cease to be either the ordinance of God or man and the people are disobliged from obedience to them and so by consequence and contrary may lawfully resist their evil practices Nay lawfull magistrates enjoining things that may ordinarily in themselves be lawfull in all extraordinary cases may sometimes erre and lawfully be resisted therein in as much as they obstruct a greater good let all remember therefore that as of two evils the least so of two goods the greatest is to be chosen but the example of David may more fitly insert hereafter at present I therefore wave it and proceed to your fifth page and there your words are Wee have not forgotten those declared grounds and principles upon which the Parliament first took up Arms and upon which we were induced to joyne with them c. Which though you say you have not declined yet will prove the contrary for the grounds that the Parliament first did or at least should have done take up arms upon was not so much their own priviledges as the peoples liberties and therefore their * Iaintry 17 1â—â—1 Declaration which you instance for confirmation will prove the confutation of all your matter upon that attempt which the King made upon their Priviledges putteth such an assault as an offence against the liberty of the Subject before a breach of their own priviledges whose priviledges to preserve indeed were the instrumentall cause of our first taking up Armes but we not you unlesse you confirm this truth rested not here this was not our end the onely thing we aimed at but we had respect to some thing beyond and yet then through the priviledges of Parliament viz. the Peoples liberties the very end wherefore they sit and the grounds of our assistance to them was not so much though our liberties were apparently because we had no other power to appear for us and whose miscarriage would have been ours not subordinately wrapt up in their Privileges as our own liberties therefore consonant to this is the conclusion of the precited Declaration wherein they declare the Person that shall so Arrest any member or members of Parliament to be a Publique enemie to the Common-wealth which clearly shews that such members must be acting for the good of the common wealth or else the Person or Persons so arresting them will be so far from enemies as that they will bee friends to the Common-wealth in so doing therefore from hence this flows clearly by way of use that those are no Priviledges but usurped of Parliament that are inconsistent with the Peoples lâ—borties As likewise this undeniable conclusion that to arrest or seclude as was then endeavoured by the late King any Person or Persons in the Parliament acting for the peoples liberties is contrary thereunto and a breach of the priviledges of Parliament But the Army with the consent of those onely lawfull ones and so the house left behinde secluded the late members of Parliament for infringing the peoples liberties Therefoâ—â— it was no breath of their Priviledges But it is most manifest by all your precedent arguments and quotations that you would make the people the Packhorse to all your imposed burthens and slaves to no lesse then three powers the King his Honour and Prerogative the Parliament their Priviledges which you make distinct from though if they are so they must concuâ— in the peoples liberties above them and you your Ecclesiasticall government above all but your complying with the two former from all evidences is onely that they may assist in advancing yours when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all cases at all times upon all occasion all three would center in the peoples liberties they being ordained for the people and not the people for them but herein you preferre the Box before the Ointment the Raiment before the body and you are blinded with self yet confidently you say you see but therefore your blindenes remaineth and no wonder if you occasion your own falâ— Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting because in your 6 page 25. line you say that in reference to the power of Magistracy they are but private Persons it seems strange that you should so forget the priviledge that both you and we when united in a then thought just cause against the King by suing out our liberties took notwithstanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the kingdom to esteem our selves the kingdom as witnes your own words in the 5 p. of your pamphlet line 12. upon the attempt of the late King destructive to the good of the Kingdom and shall the Army and their party which in comparison to yours are more numerous then both of us then were to the Kings be esteemed as private Persons and lesse justifiable in the prosecution of the same end against the proceedings of your Party onely and can this be a breach of the Priviledges being onely a Purge which though it makes
the constitution of what government you mean was conditionall not upon yours but our own light and so not binding to us But whereas in the same page you say you apprehend your selves obliged thus to appeare for the maintenance of your Religion Lawes c. as against those that would introduce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King so on the other hand against the irregular proceedings of private persons as you terme them though I have shewed they are publick to introduce anarchy irreligion c. the former of which justifies the Army in that opposition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing by tolerating if not tyranny yet such a power in the King whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people and the cause of your obligation to the latter is taken away since you may enjoy under the government to be set led laying aside your principles of oppression as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any whereunder likewise as may be because the best way continued love and amity so in stead of irreligion a free religion most sutable to the Gospel not compulsive or constrictive may be introduced But now that your former matter might seem infallible you reinforce it with a Covenant though never intended for such an abuse you include the Army making them â—nparaleld Covenant-breakers as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such as you instance from Scripture who violated an absolute pure simple Covenant whereas ours was limited conditional only the bond or rye of both being alike the breach whereof was the cause that God powred down his judgements upon them In this therefore your hold-fast will prove as infirm as in the rest and according to the literali sense of it not to mention here your omission of the end your selves will be found more guilty of perjury then any and so your texts are misapplied You say then page 7. That you are the more strongly ingaged to adhere to your former just principles â—y reason of the severall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641 wherein as your words are We do in the presence of Almighty God promise vow protest according to the duty of our Allegeance to maintain and defend with our lives powers and estates his Majesties Royall person honour and estate and the power and priviledges of Parliament To this I answer first That your first ingagement upon these precedent principles as if they were independent and the peoples sole happinesse did consist in them as you positively cite was unjust and without understanding For mark you how the former particular in the oath doth depend upon the latter you did not sweare give me leave a little to inlighten lighten you it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance but a greater to continue ignorant of it to maintain and defend the late Kings Majesties person c. in case he should with his person make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and priviledges of Parliament which unlesse you be turned malignants obstinate you cannot but confesse is a limitation to the former clause in that oath and indeed with which you complied against the late King and never violated the oath as to that particular because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other as experience hath witnessed by cleaving to one and forsaking the other we break the oath unlesse we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other which was the late Kings case the Parliament being more intrusted and so more supream then himselfe This your selves have granted herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant Again as to that latter clause to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Parliament I answer that this likewise doth relye and depend upon something which though you insert not and if neither exprest in the oath yet is consequently and necessarily understood to be the top and end of both For in what you did ingage against an unquestionable and tyrannicall power in the King to set it up in a major vote of Parliament you did it voyd of understanding and a great deale of blood was shed to no purpose which upon such an ingagement for ought I know may as soon lie upon your account as elsewhere But to be short because before insisted on the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in such force above a Kings whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted and from whom the same end both did and doe receive their power which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdome particularly these words Iunius Brutus p. 154. A King exists by and for the people and cannot consist without the people and that all Officers are chosen by the people Severall other Authors to the same purpose he quotes but desirous to hasten to a conclusion I wave and proceed to discover how palpably your selves are guilty of the breach of this oath First as to that particular which you did sweare to defend the late Kings person c. you are guilty of perjuty for that you never ventured your lives persons and estates to preserve his person many times perhaps not intentionally yet accidentally in jeopardy from the Parliaments Forces against whom according to this clause in your oath with your temporall All you should have defended him Secondly as to the maintenance of his Honour you faile likewise since you have complied with the Parliament aâ— least by silence to detract from his honour by intending to diminiâ—h that Authority which formerly though unlawfully he had in the Kingdome I hirdly to be briefe by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament in depriving him of his because possest of it though it were and is the peoples former estate M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes in his seventh Observation his words are That Emperours Kings Princes are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands Revenues Forts Castles Ships Iewels Ammunition Treasure of their Empires Kingdomes to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures but onely the Guardians Trustees Stewards or Supervisors of them for their Kingdoms use and benefit from whom they cannot alien them nor may without their consents or privities lawfully dispose of them or any of them to the publick prejudice which if they doc their Grants are void and revocable Now as to this first clause in that oath in which I have shewed you are guilty of a breach the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant the peoples safety which they are principally to endeavour though against other subordinate inclusions that prove prejudiciall thereto as to the Oaths of Allegiance the
much hurtfull to the commonwealth to what effect was their convening and sitting what profit would insue therefrom or how could they discharge their trust to the Kingdome since also the laws if rightly constituted are usually prescribed by them Now then upon these considerations the Parliament had power to erect the Court of Justice which in answer to your first of those objections when constituted and invested with pâ—wer had the King pleaded oathes were ready to be administred But I cannot but observe how punctuall you would be in every tittle of the law of the Land that serves your turn and yet so partiall in the law of God and our law likewise For can the law be justly administred when a King is known to break such and such points thereof and yet be exempted the penalty because a King Would not this make his Authority or Office which simply is just and good become a protection to the vice of his person Can you not as soon make good to have communion and fellowship with evill Again do you not hereby frustrate all the force that lies upon the example of a King to induce his subjects likewise to yeeld obedience to his law And is it not a meanes to make him live more carelesly and licentiously without so weighty an argument against the appearance of evill when he is tolerated to live uncontrollably And doe you not make partiall the law of God when thereby you will take liberty to restrain and oppose yet leave unpunished when you may as lawfully punish the ill manners of a King But rather may not the law take hold of a King if murderer adulterer or offender in any other poynt thereof according to the penalty of it and yet be no attempt or prejudice to his authority or Office when indeed it appeares purest when impartially executed opon his owne person Of this leâ—â—easonable men judge But not to leave it altogether upon my self I shall confirm it with the opinion of others and therefore take what Mr. Prinne cites of Mariana in the 59 p. of his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes viz. That all Kings and Princes among others the Kings of Spaine are and ought to be bound by laws and are not exempted from them that this doctrine out to be inculcated into the mindes of Princes from their infancy and to be believed yea oft considered of them that they are more strictly obliged to observe their laws thou Subjects because they are sworn to do it they are the conservators of the laws the avengers of those that infringe them and their example are the best means to draw Subjects to obey them When he likewise affirms that the whole Kingdome is above the King and may not onely binde him by laws but question him for the breach of them Again the same Author likewise argues there against succession if any wayes defective fâ—r the Office but more particularly in the 55. pag. lin 5. he saith thus much That if the King degeuerate into a tyrant by subverting Religion Laws â—iberties oppressing murthering â—r dâ—â—â—ouring his Subjects the whole kingdome may not onely question admonish and reprehend him but in case he prove incorrigible after admonition deprive him and substitute another in his place which saith he hath been done more then once in Spaine and there instenceth many Kings that have been thus dealt with and for a conclusion he adds That such a tyrannicall King continuing incorrigible after publick admonitions of the whole state if there be no hopes of amendement may not onely be deposed but put to death and mâ—rthered by the whole State or any particular persons by their appointment yea without it if be be declared a publisk enemy by the whole State he proceeds likewise to justifie the act in a private person which I need not cite seeing this serves my purpose now that the lawfullest part of this Nations authority though Junius Brâ—â—us extends this power to one single person inâ—usted in a Kingdom against both King and the rest of the Nobles deserting it commanded what hath been executed upon the late King hath been sufficiently proved and not so much to be their command as Gods therefore I shall proceed to cite what Mr. Prinne himself saith upon this point in his Soâ—â—raign power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 130.3 Position viz. That the Kings of Judah and Israel were no absolute overaign Princes â—â—â—â—â—â—ke their Crown with and upon such divine conditions For breach whereof they and their posterities were often times by Gods command just judgement and speciall approbation deposed de inberited destroyed and the Crown translated to other familyes For this he quotes Iunius Brutus though you would so much vilifie the same as from a Jesuit being quoted by Mr. Price as likewise divers scriptures and Iosephus upon one text to the same â—slect but especially in the conclusion of this his Position he cites that Swinglius with B. Dilson expressely resolves that the People were bound to refist question and depose their Kings for Idolatry and breach of those conditions as before demonstrated and that God himselfe jusily punished them viz. the People for Manassahs sins and wickednesse because they reâ—iâ—â—ed and punished him not for them as they were obliged to doe where he affirms likewise pag. 136. that the children of Israel their Rulers Kings and People did joymly make a Covenant frequently to serve the Lord and the violators thereof to dye the death where he saith the King and the Queen not excepted in six or seven of those pages he treatâ— of the same subject but I know this is sufficient testimony to this truth and therefore shall for bear to insert more of his authors hereupon Therefore lastly to your objection which I sinde thrice asserted litterally and oftner to the same effect viz. That it the Murderer should be put to death which you grant is a known precept why then were not Goring Owen say you with the rest of the Kings party that in a military way have shed blood put to death To this I answer that as the killing of one Zimri Cozbi heads of their Families appeased the wrath and Law of God though doubtlesse had Moses proceeded to the condemnation and execution of some of the rest guilty of the same fact it would have been just as neither his omission thereof through mercy could be no neglect of the Lawes injunction so likewise may the execution of such persons as are found principall causes and most of all the chiefest of blood-shed in a military way satisfie the Law though themselves might not actually shed blood when such that as we say hab nab might act therein through the others seductions may justly mercifully be remitted even as the seducers are usually punished when the seduced though both in the same fact are through the mercy of justice absolved Many instances of this might be produced but finding the scope of your matter fully answered I shall wind up all in this advice to you viz. That if you be Mr. Love or of his profession you would according to your calling meddle more in your study and lesse in the State more in tuition and lesse in sedition then shall the Nation be lesse disturbed Authority more obeyed and your Parishioners better instructed FINIS
upâ—n authority and your words are these It is already suffiâ—ienâ—â— known besides all former â—isâ—â—arriages what attempts of late have been put in practise against lawfull authority especially by your late Remonstrance and Declaration published in opposition to the proceedings of Parliament The practiz'd attempts you speak off are laying aside the common enemy who in this caâ—c are not to be our Judges and indeed have forfeited so much as nomination only discerned by your faction of unifoâ—mists and consequently the lawfull authority you speak it can be but alike opinionated prevailing faction in the Paâ—liament which upon just grounds being oppos'd is accounted an unparrallel'd attempt against authority by you when as such a faction is but joyntly intâ—usted by the Kingdome with the â—est now for them by viâ—tue of a majâ—â— vote to assâ—me irresponsible and incontroleaâ—le power to themselves is no lâ—sse usurpation â—hâ—â— that of the late Kings was which is amply manifested in a book enâ—ituled theâ—â—â—â—tion of the late King justified c. already published by mâ—â— to the Crown by veâ—tue of succession and therefore no lâ—sse but rather more because their trust is greater offensive and accordingly punishable which I shall further illustrate from your owne parties example in the Parliament when united with these from whom they and you now dissent both joyntly taking occasion in discharge of that trust was reposed in them by the Kingdome to exempt the Malignant party upon that forfeiture of trust they made from partaking in the priviledges of Parliament and likewise to exclude them the House And yet after this your faction in the Parliament which you call the only lawfull authority shall recede and indeavour to resigne up that into the Malignants power which themselves joyntly condemned as breach of trust in them for attempting viz. an iâ—thrâ—lling of the peoples liberties and therefore dispossessed them let reason the world judg whether the minor part in Parliament may not lawfully prosecute the samd forfeiture upon them though the major part breach of trust being the same in any only the higher the persons the greater their offence therein in cashiering them their trust which they concoâ—ded should be in the same case upon the first Malignants therefore what you charge the Army the interest of the minor party for attempt against the authority of your interest was only the same advantage necessarily and justly improv'd by them for the deposing of your Parties authority which both united took against the common â—neâ—y for in that your party in the Parliament waving their late complying with the late King did only seek the advancement of their own Interest with pretence of good to the Kingdome when it could be so only to themselves and their complices they forfâ—â—ted their trust by which they were ingag'd to indeavour the good of such that then assisted them in that cause as much as their own which good cannot extend to all that so ingaged with the Parliament unlesse established from common princiâ—les which were and are very wide of their and your tenâ—nts thâ—t estâ—em not that liberty which consists not in others oppâ—ession the Army and their party therefore being as greatly intrusted for and in erâ—ssed in the good of the Kingdome as those of yours finding their liberties to be infringed by them could not but in discharge of their duty to the Kingdome clip their prevalency and obstruct their resolute prosecution of such an interest meerly satisfactory to their own party and therefore far from a geâ—â—rall good which to effect in the establishment of such a government whereunder as to your selves you may partake of as great benefit and freedome as the present prosecuâ—ors thereof the indeavours of the Army can be no oppression and therefore not unlawfull but expedient for them to attempt wherein your accusation of them is impertinent and scandalous Yet you still persist pag. 4. after severall attempts recited and esteem'd so by you which I have allready clearly prov'd in the negative to justifie your faction in the Parliament â—s the only authority and therefore condemn the Army though therein likewise you include the minor part of parliament for opposing them saying All 〈◊〉 srâ—ilues we cannot but judge to be manifestly opposite to the lawfâ—ll authority of those Magistrates which God hath set over us and to that duty and obedience which by the loves of God and man and by our manifold Oaths and Covenants we stand obliged to render to them To which I answer that if God had immediately which your words would seem to imply instituted and appointed yâ—uâ— party in the Parliament to be sole withâ—ut others coâ—joyn'd Magistrates over us and had injoyn'd us universall in all cases for which we have neither precept nor president in Gods word obedience to them it would have been sin in the Army in resisting them but since God sets not all Magistrates in that hâ— sets not tyrants over us otherwise then by permission those are neerâ—st unto Gods ordination that receive their authority by his rule which is now only through free election and that not to an absolute power to govern as they list for then the people looseth their end viz. thâ—ir own good in their choice but to walk according to the rule that shall be prescrib'd them a great defect through the usurpation of predecessing Magstrates till of late days in our laws to discharge the end of their respective offices and to perform the conditions upon which they are chosen or at least for which they are intended Magistrates but now those that usurp authority respects none of these rules and therefore not lawfull Magistrates for a lawfull Magistrate cannot and knows not how to govern well in that every particular expedient for the peoples good in civill government is not written in his heart without a rule which the people only are best able to prescribe seeing they know best their own wants Now then in what yon charge the Army of disobedience as universal without exceptions to any your selves are guilty in the same by complying which I urge against you allowing it in your selves and yet reproving it in them as an example unto though just in hem but unjust in you in that you now allâ—dge universall â—bediencâ— not to yeâ—ld obedience to all Magistrates Against the late King let your pretence be what it will viz. that you ingaged against his evill councell or the like in your then ingaging against them you ingag'd against him abetting and inducing of them thereto which is clearly testined by his approof in which he dyed as to all outward appearance of them therein and therefore to what you accuse the Army for opposing lawfull authority I ansâ—er that besides that preciâ—ed your own example they have the reason and righteousnesse of the act it self to justifie them in their opposition to your party which had then the major Vote in Parliament and by vâ—tuâ— whereof you call them lawful authority
sick yet is in order to the health of the Parliament in acting up to the fountain of their Priviledges let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceedings since our cies have been witnesse of the justnes of them and the rather because they acted not alone very lawfull to do justly should none other appear thereto but contributed their assistance unto their solely lawfull authority which though for quantity the least yet for quality the best being in the right a minor Vote was then â—ver-powred by might a major Vote and yet this doth nor did not extenuate or lessen the equity of the minor part which to maintain as being bound in dutie thereunto the then appearance of the Armic must needs be justified in as much likewise as chusing the good and eschewing the evill is justifiable and therefore for farther confirmation hereof though the premises considered there needs none from Junius Brutus in as much as such reliques chiefely appear upon some upon the same subject cited by Mr Prinne in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 198. line 1. to the 18 from whom I gather them viz The King swears that he will seek the safety of the Realm the Nobles sweâ—r every one the same by himself whether therefore the King or most of the Nobles neglecting their Oath shall either destroy the Common-weale or desert it being in danger ought the rest therefore to desert the Republique or at least but rather then especially they ought to shews their fidelity when as others neglect it be lesse bound to defend it as if they were observed from their Oath Especially since they were principally instituted for that end like the Ephoâ—â— and every thing may then be reputed just when it attaines its end whether truly if many have promised the same thing is the obligation of the one dissolved by the perjury of the other whether if many be guilty of the same sinne are the rest freed by the fraud of one whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupill shall one good man be lesse bound with the burthen of the wardship through their default but rather neither can those avoyd the infamy of perjury unlesse they ende â—â—our to satisfie their trust as much as in them lieth neither can those exempt themselves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianship ill administred unlesse they implead the other Guardians suspected when as verily one guardian may not â—uely implead the rest suspected and take care of those to bee removed but also remove them The application of this passage I need not insert seeing the words themselves are clear and easie to be understood and that in generall it holds forth thus much That a minor party are bound in duty to discharge their trust though in opposition to the major party neglecting or falsifying it And although you would seem to take off an objection from the Parliaments own example in opposing the late King by thâ—se your words And although both Houses of Parliament who are joyntly together with the King intrusted with the supream authority of the Kingdome saw cause to take up Armes for their owne defence against the attempts made upon them by the King and his evill Counsellors and for some other ends which you cite though doubtlesse experience will produce sufficient testimony of better effected yet it hath been amply and satisfactorily proved that the Army have not acted as private persons since they assisted the lawfull authority though the least part of the Nobles yet the Kings superiour and so supream it being most unsafe to leave the supremacy undetermined as is largely demonstrated by that Author Iunius Brutus quoted by Mr. Prinne in the 196 197. pages of that his prenominated Booke in prosecution of the end of their ingagements the peoples libertie since likewise they were not instituted the Parliaments servants to pursue their end but the peoples good in as much as the Parliament represents and are but servants thereunto also And therefore whereas when the Parliament first took up Armes you would page the 7. plead their intentions then was not thereby to doe violence to the person of the King c. yet I answer that this was not binding either to the Army or to themselves in case of greater enormities committed by him for I had thought you had known the distinction between intentions and illimited determinations or conclusions because a man at the same time when he intends a thing may prescribe to himselfe the intervening of some other thing that shall divert his intended act therefore intention cannot proceed so farte as determination or resolution could the Parliament then intend should the late King have acted never so high in tyranny to exempt him from accounting and so collude as the precited Author hath it and not be reputed in the number of Prevaricators or connive of desertors or not vindicate the Republick from his tyranny and not be traytors Now then 't is resolved upon the question That the intentions of the Parliament then could extend onely unto that present time wherein had he return'd they were willing to remit without as you term it violence to his person what he had then offended in viz. attempts upon their priviledges but the measure of his iniquity not being then full not unto that time wherein he prosecuted those attempts not onely on their priviledges but on the very foundation of Government the peoples liberties in the blood of thousands seeing they adjudged him by that their declaration you have precited no lesse then a publick enemy for practising such attempts might have justly proceeded accordingly but I say if then much more now are they to be justified in that justice oâ— frequently enjoyned in Scripture to be executed without respect of persons and so far from violence wherein therefore your accusation is very scandals us Again neither could the Parliaments intentions then as you affirm page 7. extend to the continuance of that government now for the constitution thereof must be considered either as good or bad if as good in the positive though the negative may be proved which I wave because the affirmative is indurable yet better or best is to be preferred before it Now then could the Parliament then intend or should they yet were it binding either to themselves or us the establishment of that or any other government when greater light in reference to the end for which government should be constituted viz. the peoples safety should be manifested nay could the accomplishment of such purposes be esteemed otherwise then a rejecting of the light and a loving of darknesse rather then light To instance this in one particular Episcopall government then constituted it 's likely in the greatest measure of light they had had it been binding either to future yeares or ages then your abolishing of it was illegall but through pretence of a greater light and so lawfully you have exâ—irpated it therefore
obligation is void since he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us as Subjects which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book where he saith There is every where between the Prince and People a mutuall and reciprocall obligation be promiseth that he will be a just Prince They that they will obey him if be shall be such a one therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition the Prince purely to the People therefore if the condition be not fulfilled the People are unbound the contrast void the obligation null in law is selfe therefore the King is perfidious if be Raigns unjustly the People perfideous if they obey not him who Raigns justly To which I add that the Magistrate being but a servant in duty cannot call them to account for their perfidiousnes God properly being the avenger of that in them but they him since the wrong and hurt is cheifly done unto themselves not unto him who dischargeth his duty in gentle perswasion and admonition But the People are free from all crime of perfidiousnesse if they publikely renounce him who raigne unjustly or if they endeavour to evict him with Armes who desires to retaine the kingdome unlawfully Again as to the defence of his Person the Army is clear as to that time the Oath being then the same since he was out of their power and in the possession of others and might if he would have destroyed himself there is this limitation to it likewise to justifie the Army in their late proceedings against him that our defence to his Person must needs be understood to be in just waies else such would be partakers in his sin and become liable to the same punishment as the justly executed * Hamllâ—ton Lords were Holland and Capell And then as to the latter particular in that Oath viz. The defence of the power and Priviledges of the Parliament the Armies refining their House cannot be reputed a breach of that Priviledges no more then the rectifying of one crooked line to the Center may be esteemed the disordering of the circumference since likewise that the convening or assembling of the Parliament is not but their representing the People not onely in their Persons but in their qualifications which doth distinguish them from Slaves is the originall of their power and Priviledges the which therefore can be no longer reputed theirs then they are the peoples and the endeavours of the Armie to repossesse them of their own can be no breach of Covenant Again concerning the Vow and Covenant taken to unite us against those conspiracies and designes that were practised against the Parliament you are likewise guilty of a breach though herein you have acted yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own by disjunction of what tended to unity and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every respect as we to you notwithstanding your labour hath been spent to hale others to Conformity to your way In which laying aside their endeavours to free themselves from your oppression they are clear towards you But now your last and greatest seeming prop upon which you build all your arguments as to your sense upon it will prove as invalid as all the rest and those scriptures you cite for proofe thereof misapplied You cite the Covenant thus That you will sircerely really and constantly in your severall Vocations endeavour to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments and preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdomes Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant I shall not here farther inlarge because before insisted upon and proved that they have though you exempt conditions understood as limits and bounds to our defence and preservation of them Therefore I shall onely commemorate you a little of the conclusion The Independent part as to temporals of this Covenant which when first instituted was intended for a generall good therefore that party that hath sought to over reach any other thereby and designe it only for their own good must needs be guilty as of fraud so of a breach thereof but I leave this to your own Consciences if not dead to apply and proceed to recite the ingagement viz. We will c. indeacour to preserve and defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Kings Person c. But how In the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms that is so far as the two former doth concur and incur to the preservation of this latter so far as the maintenance of the Rights Privileges of the Parliament do and as the Person Honor and safety of the late King did Center in the safety preservation defence and propagation of the true Religion and the liberties of the Kingdome but now should the Parliament as your party therein the late King did usurp Privileges and Prâ—â—ogatâ—ves as to establish themselves in the government so likewise forcibly what form thereof they please upon others and turn enemies to the liberties the very spring of all their most as and actings as lawfull Magistrates of the Kingdoms By this Covenant we are not only disobliged from obedience to them but also ingaged to oppose them as enemies to the true Religion it being free and to the Liberties of the Kingdomes Furthermore we are the more firmly obliged hereunto by that relation union this oath hath with the former wherein both you and we supposing my self had I been through age capable to have taken the Covenant equivalently did ingage against those conspitacies that were after should be contrived against the Parliament but now was not our conjunction colligation against such confederacies more with respect unto or for that they were designed against the publike good of the Kingdoms then meerly or principally for the defence preservation of the Parliament therein who were onely as an assembly of men without qualifications accordingly Now then this being granted as necessarily it must unless you will be unnaturall and irrationall to prefer so few singly before the safety of the Kingdom wherein your selves likewise are interested I say this being granted it undeniably follows that if the Parliament as is sufficiently proved your party thereof did should turn enemies to the good of the Kingdomes which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance and them no otherwise then they shall concur herewith we are bound by those precited Covenants as to oppose them so to inflict without respect of persons the same if not greater because their trust aggravates their fault punishment upon them as upon others in the like offences provided that right take place But now I shall proceed to speak a little to these two particulars in the end of the Covenant We swore to defend the Person of the King and the Priviledges of
of the Ministers you so much esteem As to the dayes of union you speak of it is confest in the Bishops dayes we were under the pâ—wer of such conformity that the truth could hardly appear but be suddenly supprest with some reproach or other upon it at which time likewise there were daily declinings from that little light there was if these be your dayes for other I know none of union and so desirable the mercy of God in freeing us from them is ill requited by you otherwise you much degenerate from that generall duty Doe as you would be done to to endeavour a compulsive conformity by others unto your way since you so much pleaded for and against the restrâ—nt of liberty in the worship and service of God when attempted to beâ— imposed on you under the Prelaticall prevalency Neither therefore can our separation be reputed Schisme or Faction criminall since upon the same grounds as your selves did we avoid the continuall flashings of conscience in our faces that attend a compulsive worship As to that forced interpretation you make of Mr. Price his words viz. Which is all the benefit thou hast received by the exchange of this late Diocesse for the Province of London that therefore he would rather have London a Diocesse then a Province I say this interpretation is meerly forced seeing the words are only the result of a discovery of what little benefit hath accrued by that change from which had the conditions thereof been rightly managed we did expect and might accordingly have enjoyed our hearts content the benefit intended In a word he mislikes the ill use of the change not the thing it self but should I yeeld to what you would imply in them I tell you we should never have been so willing had we known your intentions before hand to have assisted with our temporall estates to depose a coercive power in the Bishops to exalt it in you and so more irksom from whom we expected better as David from his friends it indeed not being worth a tythe of seven yeares such expense warre and trouble only in name and not in nature the province of London for its Diocesse Again to your exceptions against his quotation of Gregory viz. That it is the language of the Beast and therefore makes it incogitable that he should study it I answer that in Mr Loves sense if he will avoid the language of the Beast then he must avoid preaching and praying with many other good words and deeds that they both speak and do But secondly as there is the greatest motive upon Christians to perform some good duties lest they should come short of Heathen that doe the same so doth this reproofe lye heavier upon the Ministers that are found seeking to themselves names of vanity which even the Beast as you call him did reprove But secondly Mr. Love is very captious to comment so much upon an errour in printing viz. 323. for 32. and I cannot but think himselfe believes to be a mistake therein and yet inlargeth halfe a side upon it Truly it 's a signe he wanted good matter enough when he causlesly insists so much upon circumstances neither can he keep himselfe close to this but upon the mistake growes very pastionate and tels us though directed onely to Mr. Price yet we must all expect the same since that if we persist to justifie the kiâ—ling the King as hâ— calls it c. Gregory the Executioner may not mistake our necks to be more then we have Who would have thought that Mr Loves Nature should differ so much from his Name What a bitter spirit doth he here discover He tels us plainly what we might expect seâ—â—dice if he were our judge at least that we should despaire of him as an adâ—ocate though it came to that extremity by his own party but blessed be God that we are not as yet fallen into your hands neither rewarded you evill for evill though â—bstraâ—tively considered it is no evill to render you impartially according to your deserts But I rather desire concord Thâ—n thirdly Mr. Love would fain justifie his brethren and himselfe likewise from seekiâ—g those names of vanity that Gregory there reproves as universall Bishop and the like but all this will not serve for in seeking the same authority that is denominated by those names though for shame of the world you omit the names thmeselves yet you are liable to the same reproof it being intended to the sought for arrogant authority not so much the name of the person Again what though you should not seek after the same names and substance though in comparison there is none in it of vanity yet in seeking others really vain you are as culpable For Christ never allowed a sole power to his Apostles to preach the Gospel and unfold the Scriptures them onely and none besides them but the Ministers though they come not in by the doore yet assume this power And though you say that they seek no other names but what Christ gives viz. Ministers of the Gospel Preachers of the Word Embassadours of Christ but I am sure they want his commission yet Christ never ascribed these names to an Academicall University calling to a vain calling And therefore as to the unclean all things are unclean so for the Ministers upon so vain a title to assume these names is absolute vanity and one act hereof by the way I shall mind you of and that is because Ministers you shall see some young boyes with hardly a haire in then faces take the wall of some that are thrice better both in estate and age but if you mend not you 'l work out your selves To conclude this answer I cannot but take notice how Mr. Love hath all this while laboured to vindicate the Ministers left they should fall under that Pope Gregories reproof and theâ—efore cannot but grant 't is just and yet in his first answer thereto calls it the language of the â—â—â—â—st This is a plain contradiction in his own words and is the mark of a â—aw noâ—â—â—e then any thing he can fix upon the person he would reproach therewith Again to what he chargeth the Army page 8. for kindling the flames of a second warre and therefore alledgeth these reasons viz. That one while they erred up the King closed with the Malignaâ—â—â— c. And at another time forced the Parliament as he calleth it to Nonad trasseâ— c. these did irritate the Malignants to now insurrections c. To this I answer That this sâ—â—lenesse in the Army as you call it is no lesse justifiable then that of a wise and tender he â—â—ed Father towards an obstinate disobedient child the Father will first assay all meanes as mild peâ—â—waâ—ions and gifts and if that will not doe then threatnings and long foâ—bâ—a ance and stripes before he delivers up his child to the Judge to be stoned Thus whâ—â—â—â—ll mâ—anes would not prevaile with the King there was no way
but one But it may be you will object That the Army it selfe in their last Remonstrance confest this 〈◊〉 colâ—â—â—ing to be a miscarriage Then I answer the more shame for you so to neglect your duty in forgiving and forgetting as to upbraid them with it But if your words be 〈◊〉 that this was a cause of a second warte how comes it that so many of your owne party are found guilty I shall proceed little further to answer circumstances and indeed had I â—une it would be ill spent justly to aggravate your folly in them it being more easie to judge of the rest by what is already spoken therefore I passe over to your 32. page where I wave that Ordinance of Parliament you cite to speak further to it then before seeing likewise the expresse ends as the conditions of the Armies service therein is demonstrated as likewise in the Covenant to be in the Grammaticall sense thereof as limits to their defence either of King or Parliament both being servants and to command the Army in nothing derogatory from the peoples liberties and therefore that your objection that we are but a party of the people is invalid since you can dee no lesse then allow us as much power as your selves and in number we are more yet you aâ—â—ume the power of the people to your selves in the 16. page where you seem to make the Malignants and us eâ—ill Instruments and therefore as well to be brought to condigne punishment as they Surely there is none left their to be Executioners but your selves and me thinks you should not offer to blame the Armies party for assuming a power as the people when more interested therein then your selves who was likewise their example But to your Concession in the 32 page viz. that the Ministers are for justice and that according to the Covenant on the chiefe delinquents For answer then Mr. Love with all his Divinity cannot it being no part thereof to exempt the King from justice since none was so great a Delinquent as himselfe the rest had not been so but for him countenancing and abetting them therein else they could not have subsisted so long unpuniâ—â—ed as they did And did not the late executed Lords plead his authority for their actions that what they did was in obedience to him their Master Doth it not appeare by this that he was their evill counsellour they not his And might not this be a reason why he so much insisted to have them indempâ—â—â—â—ed because he know himselfe to be their chiefe seducer And yet Mr. Love from the Covenant would have the King exempted when it runs expresly to bring chiefe Delinquents to punishment and the King so in the superlative degree and yet freed Were not this indeed to make the Covenant a contradictious thing But now this being granted that the King was the cause of all that opposition and bloodshed in the Kingdome that your supposition page 16. to clear Mr. Love that if he had laid the guilt of the bloodshed upon the King yet that there was nothing in that his Sermon touching his punishment I say this supposition is fully answered by your own words thâ—ugh you declare not your intentions whether to the King or no That men of blood are not meet persons to be at â—ene with till all the guilt of blood be expâ—ated and avenged either by the sword of the law or the 〈◊〉 of the sword c. Chr Love in his Englands distemper page 37. Their it followes from these words that it the King were guilty of blood the expiation thereof by the sword of the law was just upon him But this point being largely discussed in that late Book The exâ—â—â—tion of the King justified I shall for heaâ—e to speak much yet a little more because so much opposed by you unto it and therefore proceed to your 39. page where you say First that one end of the warre was to preserve the iugsperson Answ But conditionally to be in our protection and to act nothing against his trust being to give an account thereof as any subordinate officer Secondly in defence of the Kings person you say many ful sequent oathes of the Parliament c. for the preservation of his person Answ These oathes could not extend to greater deserts of his as in the precedent answer to your brethren is largely demonstrated But further if in all cases they swore to maintain his person then in sinfull ones likewise and so they would have become preservers of sin and pâ—â—â—ably a constant course of sin even the introducing of Popery it selfe by him Your third aggravation of his death is That he was the first Protestant King as you say though in the former page you were uncertain whether he was so or no but suppose it that he were so the first so put to death of his own subjects yet you mean in such a regular way and would you find fault with that but rather have more condemned them had they literally and directly followed the example of Iehu for so farre as judiciall proceeds by way of legaâ—â—â—â—ll are prefer'd before immediate execution are they not the rather justifiable thâ—râ—m Yâ—â—â— fourth objection is That in killing him they likewise kil'd the King of Scotland and Irelâ—â—â— who had as much right in him as their King as this kingdome had For answer First w◠〈◊〉 to walk especially a Nation by other mens light but our own Secondly that the â—â—ne Rule upon transgression by which an Israelite was punished the same likewise â—xtended to a stranger inhabiting among them which the late King was not altogether 〈◊〉 unto us Your fifth objection That he had granted more for the good of the Kingdome c. then any before him Answ For the people to expose themselves to his grants is to confesse themselves slaves and to yeeld up their rights and liberties into his wil and power the which likewise theâ—â— he might â—ecaâ—â— when he pleased Your sixt Objection with your eighth in the 43. pag. viz. That the House of Commons if full and free cannot take away the life of a King seeing they cannot administer an oath c. And your eighth That the House of Commons if full and free cannot by law erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the Kings I answer the last first viz. That the Paâ—â—ament being full as to the number requisite for their being and free having no â—estâ—â—â—â—t upon them is not limitted unto the law neither is it obligatory unto them where dâ—â—â—â—â—ent eâ—sâ— they cannot discharge their trust and their assembling would be to no purposeâ— the chiefest put thereof being to redresse and amend what is amisse or prejudicâ—all to the Peoples welfare as to establiâ—h what is good now then if neither the law would as you say and likewise did we the Parliaments hands that they could not execute justice upon the late King though his Person acted never so
Parliament c. in the defence of the true Religion c. because this is one of your main accusations against the Army that you say they have not endeavoured to preserve Religion in as much likewise as that it is distinct from the Peoples civill liberties and the first thing necessary could it infallibly be determined I shall propound some things to your consideration as to clear the Army from your aspersions herein so likewise to illuminate your selves and stop if reason will your invectives And The first is this did we in covenanting to preserve and defend the true Religion swear to maintain your Religion Especially when we were not convinced of the truth of it and then though it were so if we knew it not how could we keep the Covenant in maintaining it as true And therefore I answer in the negative we did not weare to defend your way of Government because this were sinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it which your selves cannot make out to be Iure Divino so infallible and therefore not to be imposed upon others Again suppose we had ingag'd to have maintained your Government of Uniformity as being to our light the truest way then extant yet could this ingagement firmly extend to times of greater light not sinfully suppresse the truth As for instance Had you in the dayes of Episcopacy taken an Oath without any limitations exprest to maintain and defend it yet could you think your selves obliged to have kept it when convinced of the way that you are now in and not forget that a greater light alwayes extinguisheth a lesser as the light of a Torch that of a Candle Now then what I would inferre herefrom is That seeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true in that we expect and doe or should patiently wait according to Gods promises for a more perfect Religion which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man the best way to preserve this Covenant unviolated is to tolerate many opinions or if you will religions For by this meanes there will be a doore opened for the truest to have free passage which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph but otherwise constrain'd conformity to one way not the perfectest is to limit and consine the Spit of God to a generall illumination which limitation how sinfull and dispensation if at all how seldome let any reasonable men judge Therefore such a predicted toleration endevoured by any cannot be reputed a breach of covenant Now then the other particular viz. the peoples liberties in the end of our Covenant the first viz. true Religion being yet in obscurity doth appeare to be the sole and visible end of our engagement and therefore the Master-wheele upon which the motion of the power and priviledges of Parliament and the person of the King though by this Oath waving his Office being the cause of his greatnesse we are no more tied to his then a private mans person as being under and lesser wheeles doth depend Now therefore those that have complied with the two former which indeed are but instruments and as men cannot build without tools so a people cannot rule without some elected and compendious form yet as the instrument cannot ascribe any thing to it self in the work it is appointed unto being made guided and acted by man even to the Parliament or any others 〈◊〉 whom the people shall contract themselves to govern and prescribe them Rules accordingly cannot ascribe the good discharge of their trust according to those rules unto themselves so much as to the people that instituted them since likewise that the burthen of the ill managing of their power if not redressed by would most of all be laid upon the people I say these that have complied with the two former that are but as instruments in the peoples hands and herein have preferred the shell before the kinnell the effect before the cause their motion before the suggestion and this against the liberties of the people the very end of their and our Covenant those are the onely persons that have violated their oath For in all Obligations as well temporall in which the liberties of the people as in this of ours is principally aimed at as in spirituall in which the glory of God is or should be chiefly intended the end the thing aimed at the cause of the obligation is above the bond or tye thereof because not endeavouring or neglecting to attain the end doth occasion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant And therefore the use of an oath in this case is onely to incite in that there is an ingagement lies upon the spirit of those that sweare firmly and undauntedly to prosecute their end which they cannot doe as that Oath against Conspiracies testifieth but in opposition to all the enemies thereof therefore if Parliament as your faction therein did and the King not onely desist from endeavouring that end of the Covenant viz. The peoples liberties upon which condition they were included in preservation but also turn enemies though intended for the former end to the good of the same the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of connivance and perjury unlesse they couragiously in prosecution of their cathes end notwithstanding all other literall conditionall and subordinate inclosions therein oppose them as enemies thereunto But now unto this effect the Army in their late transactions hath manifested their opposition unto the two former therefore they have performed the Covenants insomuch that the world may beare witnesse with their consciences that they had no thâ—ughts the premises considered to diminish his Majesties just power and greatnesse Now then your grand objections from the Covenant being fully answered and the Army from your aspersions hereupon vindicated as I hope all reasonable men will clearly discern it were an easie thing to reply all your subsequent quotations of examples of Gods judgements upon Covenant-breakers upon your selves since you have neglected the end and so are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant but I wave this and shall with more brevity and lesser pains prove the said quotations misapplied and impertinent And therefore to the first of them viz that oath of Zedekiah Ezek. 17.14 15 16 19 King of Jerusalem of obedience to the King of Babylon I answer that his oath was absolute and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylons part so is not ours as hath been amply proved Againe the end of his Covenant was perfect obedience as to civill affaires ours limited to the peoples liberties his attempt of the peoples freedome or perhaps his own rather then theirs being against the will of God in that his oath was inconditionall and he had no such superiour relation and power above the King of Babylon and so exposed the people more unto his tyrannicall will and power then before ours being agreeable to the will