unto the manner of this defence while the King was in Person against the Parliament we were by this Protestation to defend the Parliament and People though with the â—azard of the King if the King and Parliament should ingagâ— against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the â—azard of both Answ. 1. I told you but even now both Houses of Parliament did hold themselves bound by the Protestation to preserve the Kings Person as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned even after the King had ingaged in person against the Parliament as wel as before so that your limitation of the Protestation to such a period of time is invalid 2. T is true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament as if they could not legally withstand any Forces to be raised by the King against Parliament Kingdom but only by it they were bound up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Person of the King yea to manifest that they had no evill intention to His Majâ—sties Person when they chose the Lord of Essex to be General raised an Army under his conduct before any blow was given they sent a humble Petition to the King to be presented by the Lord Generall That His Majesty would not put His Royall Person in danger but remove Himself from His Army and come in person to His Parliament where he should be sure to remain in honour and safety So that if the King would indanger His Person in being in the head of his Army 't was He that put himself upon hazard the Parliament stil declared their hands should not be upon Him to offer Him any violenâ—e 3. And whereas you say in the last place that if the King and Parliament should ingage against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the hazard of bâ—â—h Certainly your speech bewraies you you that once utterd language of Loyalâ—y in your Snapsack can speak nothing but Levelling language now you are not a friend either to King or Parliament unlesse they will patronize your party and favour your faction though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome besides But I would ask you and pray resolve me in the next Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good or what for the hurt of the people if you say King and Parliament why did you not acquiesce in their judgments in their late transactions of the Treaty tending to the settlement of the Kingdome but if you say your Soveraign Lords the People then why doe you not give them their power and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole if you would leave them to bee Judges there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army Alas what tyrannicall Usurpers are you a few Members in the House of Commonâ— when 200 are forc't away must rule King and Lords the people must rule the House of Commons and the Army must rule the people have not you brought the Kingdom to a fine passe that in stead of having it governed by the Lawes which should administer an equall right to all the Land should be overruled by the sword which wil give right to none neither King Parliament or People Have you neitâ—er for hope or fear nor other respect relinquisht this Protestation How is it thâ—n that you are so shuffâ—ing changing and uncertain for the King and against the King for the Parliament and against the Parliament for the Army and against the Army for justice and against justice c Answ. 1. The Reverend Ministers are stil the same they were 't is you and your Teacher who hath made you to erre are the shufflers and changelings one while for the King to re-instate to his Throne another while against the King to bring Him to the scaffold one while that it is the just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and theâ—r lives to he as consecrated corn meet to be reapt gathered only by the hand of God Yet at another time that the axe of the Executioner must cut off the King or cut down this consecrated corn let the world judge who are shufflers or changelings the Ministers or you 2. I grant that Ministers were for the King and against the King but in this sense for the Person of the King never against it and against the forces of the King never for them I hope this will not make them Changelings 3. I yeild the subscribers are for the Parliament and against the Parliament but clearly in this sense for the Parliament when they sit free and ful although they should expresse frailty as men yet would the subscribers live submissively as becomeâ— Ministers And if you mean nothing but this when you say the Ministers are against the Parliament viz. that they cannot in their Consciences beleeve that the Members sitting at Westminster are a free Parliament seeing they are under the power of the sword nor a full Parliament in regard above 200 Members of it are forc't away nor a compleat Parliament when two States are aboliâ—ht viz. King and Lords if only in this sense you say they are against the Parliament I shall not contend with you 4. I grant further that the Ministers were for the Army and against the Army yet only in this sense for the Army whilest obedient to the Parliaments commands and followed their directions but against them when they did dispute the Parliaments Authority and disobey their commands for the Army whiles they used the sword to subdue Malignants in arms but against them when they used the sword to cut off the King and force the Parliament And have not the Ministers cause to be against them in regard they go against those ends for which they were first raised For that Ordinance by which this new Modâ—ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the defâ—nce of the King and Parliament the true Protestant Religion the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome and to be from time to time subject to such orders and directions as they shall receive from both Houses of Parliament 5 I yeild in the last place that the Ministers are for justice and against justice for justice on chiefe delinquents that they may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judicatories of both kingdomes respectively or others having power from for that effect shall judge convenient yea are they against the trying condemning and ekecuting the King which is that
which you call justice this kinde of justice the Ministers are against and had they not reason because the Parliament declared to the whole world that one end of the warre was to bring Delinquents to condigne punishment yet to preserve the person of the King And thus I have given you an answer touching the Protestation as you conclude about it so will I Now let the World judge who it is that doth violate this Protestation so as you dâ—e I come in the next place to examine whether the Vow and Covenant speaks for the Ministers or against them Where as you mention the Vow and Covenant you might have indeed shewed your ingenuity and candor becoming Ministers of the Gospeâ—â— to have taken notice of that which was the maine end of that Vow and Covenant contained in those words that I will according to my power and vocation assist the forces raised and continued by both houses of Parliament against the force raised by the King without their conseâ—t have you performed this vow Answ. â— The Ministers have not been wanting in that ingenuity which becomes Ministers of the Gospell even in the main end of the Vow and Covenant for they have according to their power and vocation assisted the forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament against the Forces raised by the King without their consent Now because the Subscribers will not assist the said Forces against the Parliament as they did once assist them against the Forces raised by the King must they be accounted transgressâ—urs or breakers of their vow 2 You might have shewed that ingenulty that becomes a Christian to have taken notice of the grounds or motives why the Vow and Covenant was made viz. because there was a horrid and treacherous designe to surprize the Cities of London and Westâ—inster with the Suburbs and by arms to force the Parliament therefore the Lords and Commons thought fit that all who are true hearted and lovers of their Country should bind themselves each to other in a sacred Vow and Covenant wherein we declared our abhorrency and detestation of the said wicked and treacherous designe and that according to our power and vocation would oppose and resist the same and all other of the like nature So that by the Vow and Covenant it appeares the Ministers were bound according to their power and vocation to oppose and resist the Armies forcing the Parliament as well as the former attempt of Malignants by arms to force the Parliament they being both of the like nature 3 Yea you would have shewed your ingenuity to have taken notice that the Vow bindes to assist onely such Forces as are raised and câ—ntinued by both Houses of Parliament not such Forces as are raised by both Houses but continue longer then both Houses would have them Now the Forces I mean the Army raised by the Parliament are continued longer then both Houses of Parliament thought fit to continue them For they would have disbanded them unless 9000 in May 1647. they are continued untill March 1649. and God knowes how much longer yet they may continue to be an oppression to the people To conclude this I would aske you whether in case the Earle of Essex his Army the Lord of Manchester's Sir William Waller's and Major Generall Massie's Souldiers who were all raised by the Parliament had refused to disband when the Parliament did command them and had continued in arms together longer then the Parliament thought fit to continue them I pray resolve me in your next whether the Vow and Covenant did oblige those that had taken it to assist and defend those Forces if not then how can you accuse Ministers that they have broken their Vow in not assisting the Army who though they were raised by both Houses yet have continued longer in arms then both Houses were willing to continue them 4 Wee were all bound by the Vow and Covenant to assist the Forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament against the Forces raised by the King but not against the person of the King the priviledges of the Parliament c. Now to assist any Forces whatsoever in opposition unto those just ends for which they were first raised would have involved us in the guilt of the greatest perjury imaginable And that the Army raised by the Parliament went directly contrary to those just ends for which they were first raised is easily demonstrable For â— the Army was raised for the defence of the Kings person and they have destroyed his person 2. For the preservation and defence of Religion and they have endangered Religion by pleading for a licentious toleration 3. For the priviledges of Parliament and they have offered such an unparalleld violation of their Priviledges as the like hath not been heard And now tell me whether the Protestation and Vow be not as Aegyptian reeds to runne into your sides when you leane on them I come in the third place to examine whether the Solemne League and Covenant will stand you in any better stead then the Protestant Vow and Covenant hath done You say When Scripture reason civility justice and honesty leave you you make the Solemne League and Covenant to goe along with you using it as you do the holy Scriptures themselves dispossessing them of their true naturall and genuine meaning and as Satan once assumed Satans body to dâ—ceive you spirit them with your owne opinion Answ. 1. Is it not enough for you to walke in the Counsell of the ungodly and stand in the way of sinners but will you sit in the seat of the scornfull also what contemptuous and contumelious calumnies are these which you cast on the grave godly and learned Ministers of London could it not suffice your scornfull and revengefull heart to say that scripture justice and reason had left them but impudently to affirme that civility and common honesty had left them also The Lord rebuke thee thou false and deceitfull tongue 2 Whereas you say they do dispossesse the Scriptures of their true naturall and genuine meaning all that I shall say is this if you had named the men who the place where the time when and what particular part of the Scripture that is which they have dispossessed of its true naturall and genuine meaning I should then have been ready to have given you a fuller answer but 't is your manner to raise a generall slander when you have no particular proofe 3 You say further that they use the Covenant as they do the holy Scriptures viâ— pervert the true naturall and genuine meaning of it but how or wherein or against whom can you evidence this they do not as you do lay the Covenant on the racke of a tortured misinterpretation forcing it to speake what it never meane The Ministers did formerly declare that neither the Covenant nor any other Oâ—th is otherwise to be interpreted then according to the common plaine and true
by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu That is the blood of Ahabs 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death would consider whether a Politicall design rather then a conscientious respect to justice was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt 4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings although wicked did not dye a naturall death but came to an untimely end T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is said in the very next verse the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon Againe Elah King of Israel was slaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is said Zimri went in and smote him and killed him But what became of Zimri Jezabel could ask had Zimri peace that slew his master 2 King 9. 31. No he had not for when 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings house put the house on fire about his ears and was there burnt to ashes that was the end that Zimri came to Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoash King of Iudah 't is said his servants arose and made a conspiracy and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo But what became of these men that slew Iehoash 't is said expresly 2 King 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 2 King 15. 10 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel and soon after he himselfe was killed by Hoshea as 't is recorded 2 King 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might bee alledged if I should exactly looke over the Histories of the Kings of Israel but these may suffice 5. T is to be observed that Omri who did succeed Zimri who came to so untimely an end was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Israel and was he better then the rest no he was rather worse 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord and did worse then all that were before him It is my wiâ—h that those Rulers or Representatives or cal them what you wil who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands and have gotten it by the power of an Army doe not worse then all the Kings that ever went before that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins 6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah the last which was about 480 yeares were never under such intolerable oppression and misery as in the times of those Kings before mentioned who were so put to death such violent removalls of their Kings made such strange alterations and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel that the people had not peace or settlement but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the Kings house then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession or claime to the Kingdome upon this 't is said the people of Israel were divided into two parts half to make Tibni King another halfe followed Omri to have him King upon which a bloody war followed for three years and upward T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many I shall mention no more It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King c. then a little after the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport which by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland acquiesced in would destroy both Religion and Covenant Answ. 1. T is no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors should make no more of speaking falshood and that not only against the Ministers but against the Parliament also you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the Kings concessions which they did not yea they did wholly wave that question Whether the Kings Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory and like men of wisdome honor and conscience they voted only this That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome 2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the Kings concessions I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them the Ministers did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom 3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland did not say that the Parliament did or would acquiesce in the Kings concessions as satisfactory but only they gave a timely caution that if they should be acquiesced in it would bee dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant Look back into your former course of life and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time over and over c. And how have you directly for sworn your selves against the light and sense of your own judgment and conscience have wee not cause to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves c. Answ. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity vain-glory malignity but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also 2. Suppose any of them I am sure all did not did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops and to the book of Common-prayer for 't is of that you speak and should now renounce them yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against
you say the Army may be judges which is most inequitable for them to be judges in their own Cause then why may not any other 20000 men in the Kingdome plead necessity to oppose the Army as they did to oppose the Parliament should any party whose principles are not consistent with but contrariant to the Armies proceedings plead a necessity for their appearing for the interest of Religion laws of the land Priviledges of the Parliament and Liberties of the People c. how can you justifie the Army yet blame them 3. If the necessity pleaded for was so clear present and absolute as you pretend how it comes to pass that it can be discerned by none but by the Army themselves their own party This makes me of the same mind with the subscribers that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended or else contracted by their own miscarriages the Army that prevailed against the sharpest weapons of their enemies were overcome by this own poor dart of pretended necessity true is that Proverb durum telum necessitas could the Army have overcome their groundlesse fears and jealousies they would never have done what they did yea could they have trusted God they wonld have been of Austins mind Ferenda est magis omnis iniquitas quam perpeiranda est aliqua iniquitas viz. to endure the greatest evil rather then commit the least sin If your Temple work goes on slowly then the City is set on work the Country is excited the Apprentices encouraged to offer violence upon the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote at pleasure and encouraged by some of your Tribe and subscribers as shall be made good if occasion bee Answ. 1. It will turn to your reproach that you are builders of Babel but to their renown that they are imployed about Temple work which though it go on slowly yet safely you have no cause to despise the day of small things hee that hath laid the foundation stone will rear up the top of the building that all the people may cry Grace grace unto it 2. And whereas you say that they had excited men to offer violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote c. I answer you measure other mens corn by your own Bushell and other mens hearts by your own practices you and your faction have offered violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Unvote at your pleasure and yet you do the evill and other men must beare the blame 3. As to that you say that it shall be made good if occasion bee that some of the subscribers did encourage the Apprentices to offer violence to the Houses I shall give you but this answer viz. to give you a challenge and offer you an occasion to make it good if you can that you have not done it all this while I impute not to your lenity but their innocency And thus I have returned you an answer to the most materiall passages in your book I shall not meddle with those fond Queries you propose in the latter end thereof I know one fool can ask more questions in a day then twenty wise men can answer in a year You conclude your book with a prophane descant on a serious and savoury Sermon of Mr. Calamies you who were once when you wrote your Snapsack so humble as to say you were neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet are now so proud as to become a Lord judg of the Prophets yet those that know you will count your tongue to be no slander Mr. Calamies person is so well esteemed and his Ministry so approved that all your revilings will turn to his glory and your shame Mr. Calamy only affirmed that Anarchy Perjury Toleration c. are such deeps able to sink a Kingdome if you say the contrary you will shew your selfe a simple and shallow fellow To conclude all the counsell I shall give you is this that you would be more in the shop lesse in the pulpit more in your dwelling house lesse in the Printing-house then will the Church be less disturbed and your family better provided for FINIS Mâ—â—i quidem sufficit conscientia mea vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat in â—â—em Serm. 53. * Alluding to a bookâ— entituled Honey out of the Rock made by â—ohn Price * See a Spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers by Iohn Price p. 8. lin. 32 Pag. 2. lin 14. In Spiritual 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 17. Pag. 2. l. 24. Epist. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax p. 1. p. 1. l. 30. Pag. 2. l. 3â— Pag. 3. l. 5. Pag. 3. l. 16. Spiritual Snapsack by John Price p. 6. â— 17. Pag. 3. l. 36. Young â—â—ng elder by John Goodwin p. 25. Pag. 4. l. 19. Pag 4. l. 35. * Armies Râ—mon June 23. 164â— Pag. 5. l. 33. Pag. 6. lin. 22. Pag 7. l. 34. Pag. 8. l. 20. Declar. Ian. 17. 1641. Pag. 9. l. â— I. Goodwin in his Antiâ—aval p. 10. l. 31. I. P. p. 9. l. 16. I. P. pag. 9. l 24. â— P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12. Pag. 12. lin. 10. Pag. 14. l. 26. Pag 15. l. 7. P. 15. l. 31. Aug. in Ps. 73. Tertul. Apol. The serious Representat of the London Ministers p. 14. I. P. pag. 18. l 9. I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10. â— P. p. 19. l. 8. I. P. p. 20. l. 34. I. P. p. 21. l. 6. â—â—ad the Oath of Allegiance Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879. Exact Collect. p. 2â—8 695. 657. 991. I. P. p. 22. l. 12. The King confest it in His 〈◊〉 Answer to the 19 Propositions of Iune 1642. that there is power legally in the two Houses of Parliament to restrain Him from Tyranny I. P. p. 24 l. 6. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 6. Vid. the Ord of Pâ—rl 15. of Febr. 1644. as the first raising the Army under Sir T. Fairfax Pag. 23. lin. 3. I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14. I. P. p. 26. l. 3. See Testimony to the trâ—â—hâ— of Christ by the Ministers of London p. 28. I. P. p. 27. l. 1â— I. P. pag. 28. l. 8. I. P. p. 28. l. 37. â—â—hn Goodwin Anticav p. 11. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. I. P. p. 30. â— 17. 1 Sam. 26. 9. Rom. 13. 4. Pareus on Gen. 9. 6. I. P. pa. 31. l. 27. See a Booke â—ntituled the image of both Churches Ierusalâ—m and Babylon by P. D. M. I. P. p. 31. l. 31. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper c. pag. 16. Ibid. p. 19. I. P. p. 31. l. 35. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper p. 23. I. P. pag. 32. l. 3. I. P p. 32. l. 11. I. P. p. 32. l. 25. I. P. p. 32. l. 38. See a short Treati se of Polit. Power by Dr. Iâ—â—n Pennet â— 6. pag. 49. See Dr. Pâ—nnets Treatise of Polit. Power cap. 6. I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30. See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82. Beza lib. confes. Christianae fidei cap. 5. Ecclesia circa finem Beza in confess fidei Christianae c. 5. Sect. 45. I. P. p. 34. l. 29. I. P. pa. 34. l. 31. I. P. p. 35. l. 3. In casu necesstatis licita est defensio per magistratum infeâ—â—oorem 〈◊〉 superiorem D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262. Christianes 〈◊〉 minus quam alios quosâ—unque potestaâ—â— subjectâ—â— esse debere non tantum fide â—lus sed etiam infidelibus sed c D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1. Vide Paraeum in explic dubiorum in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262. I. P. pa. 35. l. 8. Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor c. 13. de Politeiae-civili p. 80. I. P. p. 35. l. 15. Quum Consensu suffragiâ—s totius anâ— certe 〈◊〉 is multitudinis Tyrâ—annus tolâ—ituâ—r deo fit auspice Zuingl in explanatione Articuli 42. p. 85. Tom. 1. Zuinglâ—â—â—… exp. Arnâ— 42 p. 84. Tom 1. 1. P. p. 35 l. 17. Lex Rex quest 31. p. 330. Il. p. 104 105. Quest 14. Ib. p. 233. qu. 26 M. Prynnes speech in the House of Common Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 10 11. See the Armies Remonstrance of Iune 23. 1647. p. 12. See the Armies Proposalls Aug. 1. 1647. I. P. p. 37. l. 25. Judg. 20. See a Letter from Sir Tho. Fairfax to both Houses of Parliament Dated from Redding Iuly 6. 1647. which he declared to be the generall sense of all or most part of the Officer in the Army 2. 1 Sam. 24. 6 7. 13. 1 Sam. 26. 8 9. 1 Sam. 26. 10 11. Mr. Prynnes third part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms p. 95. 2 King 9. 7. 2 Kings 10. 6. Hosea 1. 4. 2 Kings 21. 23 24. 1 Kings 16. 8 9. 1 Kings 16. 16. 1 Kings 16. 18. 2 Kings 12. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 14. 5. 2 Kings 15. 10. 14. 1 King 16. 25. Micah 6. 16. 2 King 16. 21. Mr. Arth. I ackson in his pious and learned Annotations hath a good observation It seems saith hee the people misliking the King the Souldiers chose this Tiâ—ni to be their K. between whom there was continuall war for three years and upwards c. I. P. p. 38. l. 34. I. P. pa. 40. l. 16. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. All the godly learned conscientious Ministers are for defensive arms few there are of the contrary judgment but Papists Atheists Prelates Delinquents and prophane wretches I. P. p. 41. â— 24. I. P. pa. 42. l. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 10. I. P. p. 44. l. â—2 p. 45 46. Mal. 3. 15. Eccl. 7. 15. Judg. 20. 18. 23. I. P. pa. 49. l. 8. Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12 c. I. P. p. 50. l. 1. I. P. p. 55 l. 8.
Your ingenuity and â—andor appears by your submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament and as at all times so chiefly when they contend not though with the ruine of all for your greatnesse and interest then your Ministeriall ingenuity and candor appears calling them an Apostatizing Parliament a Covenant-breaking Parliament Answ. 1. Generall accusations are no certain proofes si sufciat accusare quiâ— erit innocent if you mention the time when the place where and the Ministers who did call the Parliament an Apostatizing Covenant-breaking Parliament for I know none did so I shal then blame them and acquit you therein 2. Notwithstanding your slanders 't is well known what submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament the Ministers of the Presbyterian judgment have expressed yea if the Lords and Commons should sit full and free in Parliament though in some things God might leave them to act sinfully yet would the Ministers live quietly and submissively if not in doing what they command yet in patient suffering what they inflict and not expresse such a spirit of Turbulency as many have done in the imprisoning of the chief Magistrates altering of our Laws and putting the whole Land into a conflagration 3. If the Ministers will not with you cry up a faction must they therefore needs be charged by you to cry down a Parliament suppose they should not acknowleg 60 members of the House of Commons now under the power of the Sword to be a free Parliament when above two hundred Members are forc't away or the Supream Authority of the Nation are they therefore disingenuous and unsubmissive to all Authority Doth not your ingenuity and candor further appear by your abetting countenancing and encouraging violence and force upon the two Houses by company of loose prophane and wicked fellows at one time is some of you did falling in with the disâ—ffected delinquent and malignant party and at another time crying out and exclaiming against the Army c Answ. 1. It would make more for your honor and their shame had you named those Ministers that did abet and encourage the violence and force upon the two Houses Yea it would more have advantaged you if in stead of a perempory and naked assertion you had given in some plain and evident demonstration that any of the Ministers had done so 2. I can truly say that those Ministers with whom I have had most occasion to converse have exprest their utter abhorrency of that force and violence Yea to my knowledge many of them did declare against it in their Pulpits 3. For the other part of your accusation that they fell in with the disaffected delingquent and malignant party that 's most notoriously false as well as the rest 'T is well known the Ministers have never been friends to Malignants nor they to the Ministers 4. Whereas you say they did at another time declare against the Army for Sâ—izing on the Members of the Commons House I grant they did so and had they not cause to do it considering that the Parliament had long before declared that if any person should offer to arrest or detain any member of Parliament that it was against the libeâ—ties of the Subject and a breach of the Priviledges of Parliament and such a person is declared a publick enemy of the Common-wealth And considering also the Vow and Covenant when the Lords and Commons declared a horrid design to surprise the City and by armes to force the Parliament they did then vow and covenant to resist the same and all other of the like nature so the Ministers have dealt most impartially in blaming the violence offered the Houses as well in the one as in the other Indeed it may be said of you that you are the most partiall judge in this matter that can bee in the world to countenance and encourage the Armies forcing the Parliament at one time yet condemn it in the Apprentices at another for my own part I must professe I condemn it in both The ingenuity and candâ—r of London Preachers in famâ—us throughout the whole Kingdome doth not it further appear by setting the people at first against the King and his party And now having raised mens spirits to a resolution of requiring just and scripturall satisfaction that blood may be avenged in cry out in your pulpits of staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King c Answ. 1. You did once count it a vertue in the Ministers to excite the people against the King and His party and doe you now esteem it a vice are you turned malignant after so many turnings 2. 'T is true the Ministers did excite the people to cleave to the two Houses of Parliament who were necessitated to take up defensive arms against the forces of the King but never against the person of the King 3. But did they ever stirre up any to bring the King to a judiciall Tryal and to take away his life The Ministers understood themselves better then for they know 't was lawfull in David to take up defensive arms to fortifie Ziglag and other places of strength against Sauls fury yet that it was unlawfull for David to kill Saul when he had him in his hands yea though hee were a most bloody and tyrannicall King The Ministers doe well consider that it is one thing to take away the life of a King and another thing to withstand the violent execution of the unjust commands of a King And this distinction your Mr. Goodwin did well know when hee wrote his Anticavalierisme pag. 10. 'T is one thing saith he to offer violence to the person of a King or to attempt the taking away of his life another to secure a mans own life or the life of another whom we know to be innocent and much more the publick safety by strengthning a mans selfe towithstand the violent execution of any unjust Command from a King Mâ—. Goodwin justified the withstanding the violence of the King yet condemned all attempts of taking away the life of the King The Ministers are still of this mind though he be revolted from these his first Principles 4. Whereas you say the Ministers cry out against staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King had they not cause to do so considering that people of the Protestant Religion did never take away the life of their King till now Blessed be God and blessed be they that it was in their hearts to vindicate themselves to the world to bee clear in this matter If you deny this I shall shew you severall of your owne Bookes and Sermons preaching the one and the other and for a tast at present take one instance of Mr. Chr. Love Pastor of Anne Aldersgate c. Answ. 1. I deny it absolutely that any of the subscribers did ever stirre up the people to take away the life of the King for ought I could
ever yet understand You pretend you can shew their books and Sermons for it but I am very confident you can shew none 2. I observe you promise in your book more then you make good you promise as if you would shew severall bookes and Sermons of the subscribers yet you quote but one viz. Mr. Loves Sermon at Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no lesse then ten times in your Clerico-Classicum yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cause for bringing the King to Capitall punishment his words you quote are these Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with til all the guilt of blood be expiated avenged either by the sword of the Law or the law of the Sword else a peace can neither be safe nor just Chr. Love in his Englands distemper pag. 37. Answ. To which I have four things to say 1. There is no mention at all of the King either in that passage or any other part of his Sermon that Hee should be cut off 2. Mr. Love doth clearly expresse himselfe whom he means by those men of blood viz. not the King but as he saith pag. 32. of Englands distemper Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed 3. T is true Mr. Love then was and still is of that mind that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace or if not reach them that way by the law of the sword in the time of war and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after according to the fourth Article of the Covenant wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve or the supream Iudicatories respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judg convenient Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider that in that very part of the Covenant where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment we promise to preserve the person of the King as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condigne punishment whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evill instruments viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion divide the King from his people and have not you done that or one of the Kingdomes from another or that make any factions or parties among the people of all which your selfe and the men you plead for have been most notoriously guilty as wel as the malignant therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they As for that other passage of Mr. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote It will search to the quick to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would earâ—h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed and by whom It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Mr. Love in his Englands Distemper pag. 23. To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication viz. Mr. Loves desire is that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest he often wisht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henrys death if they did come to an untimely end might be found out 2. I demand of you is there any clause in that Sermon or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King which he did not yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon that you should bring the King to Capitall punishment Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly against cutting off the King I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print against that horrid attempt Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to assert several notorious falsities and untruths as to instance pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin where you say the Agreement of the people was the same for substance with that of the Armies and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth again you say that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting it this is first a most notorious untruth and secondly a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man the man that was shot to death was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement but being sent with his Company by the Generall to New-castle did with others make a mutiny resisted and beat their Officers tooke away the Colours from their Ensigne beat him with his own Colours for which this fellow that was shâ—t to death was condemned c. Answ. 1. You who are so pragmaticall as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers will shew your self to be I say not the father of lies yet a son of falsehood 2. It seems you are put to your shifts in searching out any accusation against the subscribers for from their Representation you run to their Vindication and leap as far as the sixth page at once and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book that you are forc't to pitch upon a small marginal note which I need not answer yet I shall and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly but you falsly for you say it is said in the marginall note that the Agreement of the People is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army I affirm 't is true though you say 't is false I have compared the one and the other together and find them for substance the same only I must confesse the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament 9. November 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome And afterwards in December 17. 1647.
grammaticall sense of it By your example are all contrary parties taught to plead the Coâ—enant those you call Sectaries Schismaticks c. plead the Covenant engâ—ging each to go before others in matters of Reformation the Presbytâ—rian pleads Covenant engaging conformity with the Church of Scotland the Parliamenteer pleads Covenant engaging to preâ—erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament the Royalist pleads Covenant engaging to defend the Kings Majesties person and authority the Armists plead Covenant engaging to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdome c. So that you have made the Covenant a meere contradiâ—â—ious thing c. Answ. 1. I wish all contrary parties would plead Covenant and keep Covenant according to the good example of the Ministers 2. Because all contrary parties do plead the Covenant to different ends must it needs be charged on the Subscribers that they make the Covenant a contradictious thing because Prebyterian plead Scripture to warrant Presbyteriall Government and Papiâ—â—s Prelates Erastians Seekers and Independents plead Scripture too to warrant quite contrary wayes must the Presbyterians beare all the blame that they make the Scripture a contradictious thing 3. 'T is you and your party not the Ministers who make the Covenant a contradictious thing the Covenant tyes to preserve the Kings person yet you plead Covenant to destroy his person the Covenant bindes to preserve the priviledges of Parliament yet you plead Covenant to destroy their priviledges the Covenant engageth to extirpate Heresie and Schisme and you plead Covenant to tolerate them the Covenant binds to preserve the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland and you plead Covenant to cry up your owne kinde of Discipline and Government and câ—ie downe theirs the Covenant ties us to endeavour after an Uniformity in Religion and forme of Church Government and you plead Covenant to allow men to be what Religion they list and set up what forme of Church Government they please Now let the world judge who makes the Covenant a contradictious thing or to use your owne phrase like unto one of the Diabolicall Oracles of the Heathens to speake nothing certain but ambiguiâ—ies 4. I wish you would consider that the Malignants and you are equally partiall in the Covenant they cry out against Sâ—hisme and Heresie but not so zealous against Prophanenesse and Prelacy they cry up the preservation of the Kings person but not a word for the priviledges of Parliament and are not you altogether as partiall you cry out against malignity but not a word against Schism and Heresie though the Covenant is expresly against both you cry up the Liberties of the people but not a word for the preservation of the Kings person and the priviledges of the Parliament though engaged by the Covenant to the one as well as to the other But the Godly Ministers were impartiall in the Covenant of their God they held themselves bound in their places and callings to oppose Malignity as well as Heresie to defend the Kings person and the Parliaments priviledges as well as the Peoples Liberties in fine they hold themselves engaged to one thing in the Covenant as to another But you goe on The obligation say you is for the preservation of His person and Authority Not for his person simply but his person and Authority if both come in competition then the greater is to bee preferd before the lesse that is his authority before his person Answ. I have answered this cavil when I cleared the Protestation from your grosse mistakes I shall say therefore the lesse here I have but three things to say by way of answer viz. 1. T is to be observed when the Covenant was made not before the King had done acts contrary to his just authority but long after the King had set up His standard declared both Houses Traitors and engaged in person in the head of His Army yet I say after all this the Parliament thought fit to make this Covenant to preserve his person that all the world might bear witnesse with their Consciences of their Loyalty and that they had no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majâ—sties just power and greatnesse 2. I would asâ— why would you take the Covenant to preserve the Kings person even then when His person authority stood more in competition then afterward they did for then He was in the Head of an Army but since cast himself on His people then unwilling to yeeld to any reasonable terms but since offred more for the Parliaments safety peoples good though I wisht hee had yeelded to more then ever any Prince that sate upon the English Throne 3 Is it not most inequitable that you shouldâ— take away the life of the King because His person and authority stood in competition and yet you and your faction the only men that hindred the Kings person and authority from a conjunction with His two Houses of Parliament The truth is the Kings person and the Armies designes stood both in competition and therefore they must destroy the one to carry on the other If the King in person would have had ingaged in a combination or conjunction with the Armies Counsels all the blood that had been spilt or the evills that Hee had done would have been forgotten you would not once have muttered that his person and authority had then stood in any â— Competition But you plead that the Covenant binds us to preserve His Person in the preservation and defence of the true Religion true Religion doth not say if the Subject do kill and murder c. he shall be â—o and â—o punisht but if the King do these thingsâ— he must not be medled withall by any but God alone true Religion saith he that shed mans blood by man shall his blood be shed the murderer shall surely be put to death if then the King be a murderer true Religion commands that hâ—e bee put to death Answ. 1. Was the Kings person and Religions preservation so inconsistent that there was no way to preserve the one but by destroying the other I am suâ—e the death of the King was a stain to Religion I am not so sure that his life would have been such a wound to it whether purposes were in his heart to alter it I know not yet if power were not in his hands how could Religion be indangered 2. If true Religion doth not say if the King kill or steal c he must not be medled withall by any but by God alone then surely John Goodwin must be of a false Religion for he said T is the just Preregative of the Persons of the Kings in WHAT CASE SOEVER to he secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reapt and gatâ—ered ONLY by the band of God himselfe 3. The King had spilt much blood by His Forces for I know of none kill'd by His own hands at Edgehill and many
other places long before you made your Spirituall Snapsaâ—k yet you told the Souldiers that without Contradiction they did fight for the King to rescue his Royal Person out of the hands of Malignants and re-instate Him in His Royal Throne and dignity if true Religion commands that the King should be put to death what Religion then were you of when you said the contrary 4. Whereas you afâ—irm that if the King be a murderer true Religion commands that Hee be put to death To this I have 3 things to say 1. T is unknown to mee that ever the King murdered any in His own Person what blood was spilt was in a Military way wherein he did contest for His seeming right 2. The word of God which is the rule and standard of true Religion doth not afford one instance that ever any King was judicially tryed or put to death for the spilling of blood 3. If you stand so precisely upon this that the murderer shal surely be put to death thâ—n are you bound to put every man to death that bore Arms for the King they were guilty of blood as well as Hee yea was not the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen guilty of death if so according to your Principles did not true Religion command you to put them to death as well as the King If Kings may be dealt withall in a judiciary way why are they so angry that the late King was brought to condigne punishment if they say no Court by the Lawes of the Land had any authâ—rity to judge Him then it would he worth our enquiring whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his hands upon him for the murtherer must not be suffered to live but must surely be put to death the land must not be defiled and polluted with blood Answ. 1. If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way c. here you beg the question taking that for granted which was denyed by the subscribers had you produced any one instance in the Word that any Kings were judicially tryed and put to death by their Subjects or that there is any known Law of this lâ—nd that the Kings of England should be arraigned and executed it would the more advantage your cause 2. Because you ask why were the Ministers so angry that the late King what brought to condignpunishmâ—nt I must answer you they exprest no anger but a holy indignation against so horrid a fact and had they not reason Considering 1. That oâ—e end of the War was to preserve the Kings person 2. Many sâ—bsequent Oâ—thâ— Protestations and Declarations of the Parlâ—ament for the preservation of His person also 3. He was the fâ—st Protesâ—ant King in the world so put to death by His own Sâ—â—jectâ— 4. That you could not put to death the King of England but must kil the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as truâ— right in Him as their King as this Kingdom had 5. That Hee had granted more for the good of the Kingdome then any King that saâ—e upon the English thron 6 The house of Commons if free and full which now they are not have no power to take away the life of any man much lesle the liâ—e of the King if they cannot administer an Oath how can they take away the life of any man seeing no man 〈…〉 but by the oath of two orâ— three witnesses These and such like considerations might stir up a holy indignation in the Ministers against bringing the King to capitall punishment 3. If the Ministers say there is no Court by the laws of the land that hath any authority to judg the King then say you it would he worth our inquiring after whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his handâ— upon him All I shall say to this inquiry of yours is to propose to you 3 other enquiries viz. 1. Whether was every man in Israel even to the last man bound to kill Saul a bloody King if you answer affirmatively I am suâ—e you answer falsly for David said who can stretch forth his hand against him and bee guiltlesse 2. If the Adulterer by the law of God was to bee put to death as well as the murderer and there is no Court by the laws of the Land that hath authority to put him to death whether is every man in the land even to the last bound to lay hands upon the Adulterer if you say yea I am sure some of your greatest Grandees would not be long lived if you say no tell me a reason why you hold your self bound to do so to the one and not unto the other 3. If it be true that it is not the condemnation but the execution of blood-guilty persons that makes satisfaction for the blood they spilt and keeps the land from being defiled then I demand whether every man in the nation according to your principles is not bound to lay their bands upon the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen to put them to death seeing those that are in power will not doe it I might adde a fourth enquiry viz. to know whence you had this notion that if Courts of Judicature will not put a Murderer to death that then every man even to the last man is bound to do itâ— I am sure the Scripture affords you no such notion Paul puts the sword only into the hand of the Magistrate and saith that he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill If this loose Principle of yours should take place that any man may kill a Murderer if the Magistrate doth not I fear there would be a hundred murders committed by private men before one will be legally punisht by the publick Magistrate Pareus hath a good note on those words He that sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Vt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem non sane quemvis sed gladio divinitus armatum hoc est per magistratum alioqui homicidiorum licentia daretur in immensum si intersiciendi homicid as potest as cuivit esset that is that the murderer be put to death by maâ— t is not meant truely by every man but by him that is armed by God with the sword that is by the Magistrate else a Licence of murder would be given beyond all measure if the power were in the hands of any one to kill the Murderer But to end this by what you have here said I do plainly peâ—ceive that if no body would have put King Charles to death you would have been the Executioner You goe on That the people say you ought to punishâ— their King according to their demerits hath been the declared judgment of many Protestant Divines Answ. Before I come to clear those Authours alledged by you in particular I shall give you these advertisements about your quotations in the generall 1.
his government he doth not plead for popular tumults but saith which you have unworthily left out that such a tyrant may be punisht but yet only by them qui ea potete donati sunt who are indued with such an authority now that is most true that if the laws and constitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be such that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant in such a case 't is unquestionably lawfull And if you can shew that the House of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land to condemn and execute any man much lesse the King I shall then be silent When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people fit Deo auspice saith Zuinglius Answ. 1. Here you name the man and mention the words but quote not the place where such a passage is to bee found in Zuinglius his works who hath four large volumes extant I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader 2. T is true there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you yet I must tell you as the Devill did with that scripture he quoted to Christ so do you with Zuinglius words viz. leave out the most considerable clause and grosly pervert the meaning of his words which I shall evidently demonstrate His words are these When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people it is done God disposing it Now you have left out these words of the whole or better part of the people It may be your conscience told you you that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King and therefore you have done it without them never desiring their consent so that what Zuinglius saith will not justifie your practice which was done by the lesser and not the better neither of the people Besides you grosly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant which he was utterly against as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound T is true he was for the deposing of Tyrants so it were done by the whole or better part of the people but yet against the killing of them as he saith expresly Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare non est ut â—umtrucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet quia in pace vocavit nos Deus sed aliis viis res tentanda est c. that is after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture t is not that thou mayst kill him or raise war or tumult against him because God hath called us in peaâ—e but the thing is to be assayed by other wayes c. Yea t is further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant viz. to be such an one qui vi regnum accepit per ambitionem irrumpit who hath gotten a Kingdome by force and breaks it by ambition There is no doubt but such may be deposed yea destroyed too if the people have strength to do it See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland called Lex Rex and especially in Mr. Pryns works c. Answ. 1. You still use your old device name the man but not quote the place I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex yet this I will maintain that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall punishment I am sure in many places he is against it in answering that objection which Royalists made that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be resisted To which he gives this answer David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON and in another place he saith one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right and a little after he saith any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodyer and more tyrannous man then Saul in p. 233. he saith That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others if therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because His Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex Rex Is it like that Mr. Rutherford if hee be the Author of it should plead for putting the King to death in one place yet declare himselfe against it in so many places throughout his book 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion I need say nothing in his vindication he is alive and now among us more able then I to vindicate himself 't is true in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so yea in his speech in the House of Commons on Dâ—cemb 4. 1648. he saith expresly that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home in foraign parts in an extraordinary way by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad whether Protestants or Papâ—sts c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King c. And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted most of them make against you none speak for you I leave the Reader to judge As you quoted some few Authours who seemingly might speak for you but really against you I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation against killing Kings in the generall but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular as the Ministers beyond the Seas the Ministers of Scotland the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire and of many other places of the
Kingdome besides the London Ministers who have unanimously declared their abhorrency of that horrid fact of taking away the life of the King But I forbear quotations only to manifest the levity and inconstancy of you and men of your faction I shall mention some few who have in print declared against the cutting off the King yet have been of late great sticklers for the spilling of His blood I shall begin with your self not that I think you deserve the honour of Priority but that your ownmistake may be the more obvious unto observation In your Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers p. 8. you tel the Souldiers thus You fight for the recovery of the Kings Royall person out of the hands of those Miscreants and re-instate Him in His Royall throne and dignity that both Hee and His Posterity may if the Lord will yet flourish in their Royalty so that without all contradictions you sight for your King By this it appears that since you have separated from the Ministers Churches you are like the vannes of their steeples full of changes one while to bring the King to His Royall throne another while to bring Him to a dolefull scaffold one while that His Posterity may flourish in their Royalty another while for the extirpation of the Royall family root and branch The next I shall quote shall bee your goodly Pastor John Gâ—oâ—win that the world may see you are like people like priest In his Anticavalierisme p. 10 11. he saith As for offering violence to the person of a King or attempting to take away his life we leave the proof of the lawfulnesse of this to those profound disputers the Iesuites who stand ingaged by the tenour of their professed Doctrin and Practice either to make good the lawfulnesse thereof or else to leave themselves and their Religion an abhorring and hissing unto the world As for us who never travailed with any desires or thoughts that way but abhor both mother and daughter doctrine and practice together we conceive it to be a just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himself Davids Conscience smote him when hee came so neer the life of a King as the cuttiag off the lap of his garment notwithstanding these high expressions of his against taking away the life of Kings in any case whatsoever yet had this wretched Apostate a great hand in bringing the King to death It would be endless to mention all that could be found in their books in print to this purpose I shall only quote the Armies judgement touching the preservation of His Person their words are these wee clearly professe wee doe not see how there can be any peace to this Kingdome firm or lasting without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights Quiet and Immunities of His Majesties Royall family and His late Partakers and more fully in their Proposalls of Aug. 1. 1647. they propose that His Majesticâ— person Queen and Royall Issue may be restored to a condition of safety honour and freedome in this Nation without Diminution of their Personall Rights or further limitation to the exerâ—ise of their Regall power then according to the particulars aforegoing Yet there very men in their late Remonstrance desired that the Capitall and grand Author of our troubles the Person of the King may be brought to justice for the treason blood c he was guilty of What lasting settlement can be expected from thâ—â—â— men who at one time desire one thing and at another time the quite contrary If so be the saving of the Kings person being a murderer c. bee the destruction of the Command of true Religion that the murderer shall surely be put to death we must by the obligation that lies upon us from the Solemn League and Covenant cut off the Kings head for the Preservation of true Religion Answ. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and Ands begging the question taking that for granted which was still denyed say not if the saving of the Kings person being a murderer bee the destruction of the Command of true Religion but prove that he was a murderer and that the saving of His person would be a destruction to true Religion a convincing Argument would stand you in more stead then a confident assertion of the one or a naked supposition of the other 2. I would demand of you whether the saving of Davids person who killed Vriah the Hittite and of Sauls who slew 85 of the Priests of the Lord and of Manassehs who made the streets of Jerusalem run down with blood were a destruction of the Commands of true Religion if you say it was are not you a very charitable man to stigmatize the children of Israel that they destroyed the Command of Religion that the land was defiled with blood and that to many generations for not executing all their Kings who had spilt blood if you say no give me one cogent reason why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Israel as wel as the good should live and yet our late King dye 3. You are the first and I hope will be the last that ever I could hear of that pleaded an obligation by the Covenant to cut off the Kings head for the preservation of true Religion unlesse to preserve his person can be interpreted to cut off his head I am sure the Covenant laies upon you no such obligation was the Kings person and Religions preservation so inconsistent that you must needs destroy the one to preserve the other were there no veins to be opened to let out malignant blood from any part of the body but must you cut off the head could no person bee found but the King alone to expiate the guilt of blood I remember indeed you say in p. 23. that the cutting off the Kings head was the most acceptable and fattest sacrifice unto justice that ever was offered in this Kingdome I do verily beleeve it was so fat a sacrifice that it wil overturn your stomacks it may be something else too 4. I grant 't is the Command of God that a murderer should be put to death yet is there a great difference to be put between one that kills another maliciously and between a multitude who shed blood only in a Military way in a time of Civill war as for instance in the bloody war betwixt Judah and Benjamin though the men of Judah who had the best cause lost 40000 men in two battails yet upon a third attempt when God gave them the day over the Tribe of Benjamin though they do slay them in the pursuit and heat of the battle which was lawful smote 25000 of the children of Benjamin yet when the war was ended and a full and finall victory gotten by the men
of Judah they did not bring the residue of the children of Benjamin to a judiciall Tryall nor executed them though they slew of the men of Iudah 40000 but the sword having determined the controversy in the field on their side by a very full and finall conquest the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon and to call peaceably unto them or as it is in the margin to proclaim peace to them yea 't is said that the people even those that slew them repented them for Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Israel c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions they had been bound not to have suffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was ingaged in the war against them especially considering that they had spilt so much blood no lesse then 40000 men slain by the Benjamites I could produce many instances in scripture of the like nature but this may suffice I shall only mention that the Army was not in time past so high flown as to put no difference between shedding blood maliciously and in a Military way else how could they say that tender equitable and moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and Royall family and late party so far as may stand with the safety of the Kingdome and security to our Common rights and liberties is the most hopefull course to take away the seeds of War or future seeds among us for Posterity and to procure a lasting peace and a government in this distracted nation The Army you see became Petitioners for the King and His party yet beleeved them to be guilty of blood if they had beleeved that the Law of God had reacht them they should have petitioned that all might dye not that any might live I am sure you will say the King and His party were murderers if so why would you cut off the King yet spare His Party when they in your esteem are guilty of blood as wel as He doth your Religion teach you to punish the King and spare the Subjects Now in regard I shal meet with but little or no further occasion in the following part of your book to conâ—ute that bloody practice you pleaded for viz. the putting the King to death I shal therefore before I leave this subject give you these 6 scripturall advertisements if it may be to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine 1. That there is no President in all the scripture that the Sanhedrin of the Jews or Rulers of Israel did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Iudah or Israel though many of them were most gross Idolaters and tyrannous Princes who shed much innocent blood and oppressed the people sundry wayes T is true indeed some of the idolatrous Kings of Israel were slain by private conspiracies and popular tumults in an illegall way but none were ever arraigned condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins or generall Assemblies So that in putting the K to death you have done that for which you have no Scripture president 2. The servants of God in scripture did hold it lawful to take up defensive arms to withstand the rage and tyranny of their Kings yet did not count it lawfull to destroy the persons of their Kings thus David did by force of Arms defend himself against the raging and tyrannicall invasion of Saul by possessing many strong holds and fortified places yet thought it not lawfull to kill him God forbid said David that I should do this thing to my master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him c. and said he to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against him and be guiltlesse If many circumstances had been considered David had much to plead why he should take away the life of Saul more I am sure then you had to take away the life of our late King for 1. Saul was in actuall pursuance of David for his life 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Israel 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had lost his governing abilities the spirit of government was departed from Him 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood He slew 85 Priests of the Lord and put to the sword both men women children and sucklings in the City of Nob 1 Sam. 22. 18 19. 6. Hee was earnestly urged to kil Saul by the men that were about him 1 Sam. 24. 4. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. 7. Saul was the only man that stood between him and his actuall possession of a Kingdome yet all these considerations did not take with David he was still of this mind that none could stretch forth their hands against him and be guiltlesse His day said David shall come to dye or he shall descend into hattail and perish the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against him c. Another scripturall instance that I may give you to name no more you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Ionathan to death the people rose up and rescued Ionathan out of the hands of Saul that he dyed not yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himselfe I shall conclude this advertisement with a good observation Mr. Prynne hath That we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe Conscience thâ—se whom we may not wilfully slay c. The King may not with safe Conscience be wittingly slain by His Subjects but that therefore Hee and His Cavaliers may not bee forcibly resisted for their own defence is a grosse inconsequent c. 3. To spill the blood of any especially Royal blood meerly out of a Political designe is in the account of God murder not justice although the men may deserve to be put to death The scripture affords a pregnant proof of this the Lord commanded Iehu to smite the house of Ahab to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets according to the command of the Lord Iehu caused 70 of the sons of Ahab to be slain by the Rulers of Iezreel God commends him for doing this the Lord said unto Jehu because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the House of Ahab according to all that was in my heart thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel Yet for all this because Iehu had a Politicall design in smiting the House of Ahab viz. the emolument and establishment of his Kingdome not a conscientious respect to the command of God therefore the Lord
the light and sense of their own judgments and consciences in so doing 3. Although the Ministers did subscribe to Bishops and the book of Common prayer yet cannot they justly be accused of Perjury though they did afterwards swear to extirpate them because Bishops and Common-prayer were setled not by a Divine but meerly a Politicall institution in this Kingdome the same power that establisht them might either for a while suspend or totally abolish them without the least shew of Perjury I suppose when you were made free you tooke an oath to maintain the Priviledges and Charter of the City if that Power that made that Charter think fit to abolish or alter it you will not think your selfe under the guilt of Perjury for subscribing to another Charter somewhat different from the former 4. If the subscribers have forsworn themselves then I am sure Iohn Goodwin and the rest of your Independent Teachers if Ministers are as deeply guilty of Perjury as they are the one subscribed to no more then what the others did 3. Whereas you declare that you have cause to judg better of the Prelaticall party who are men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as the Ministers To this I have 2 things to say 1. This malicious and malignant language of yours shews you to be a follower of Pragmaticus or Aulicus rather then a disciple of Anticavalierismâ— 2. It seems the Prelatical party are in your esteem men of learning and conscience but the Presbyterian party are men of neither you say in p. 2. they want Ministeriall abilities and here in pag. 40. that they forswore themselves against conscience c. and if so you account them to be men neither of learning or conscience I am sure you were once of another mind when you reckoned the Prelaticall party among Papists Atheists Delinquents and profane wretches and the Ministers to be learned godly and conscientious c. O quantum mutatus ab illo Surely you are not the man that you were Would one think that you should be the man to cry up the Prelaticall Clergy and cry down the godly Ministry to publish those unto the world to be men of peace but these to be violent disturbers both of Church and State doe not you justifie the wicked and condemn the innocent both which are an abomination to God Alas what wrong have the Ministers done what violence to any have they ever offered it may bee you who wil not be ruled by the golden red of Presbytery may have your neck under the iron yâ—ke of Episcopacy and then you will feel who will be most violent against their opposers whether the Prelaticall party or the godly Ministry The truth is i. e. the Army have spread the sweet savour of Religion abroad throughout this Kingdome more then thousands of those who stile themselves Ministers of the Gospell c. Answ. The truth is the stink of the camp both for their practices and opinions is come up into the nostrills of the Lord of hosts as an abhorring to him as for their practices disobeying the Parliaments commands disputing their authority imprisoning many of their persons using the sword for the destruction of the person of the King priviledges of Parliament which was put into their hands for the preservation of both such practices as these with many others have no sweet savour of religion in them And for their opinions are there not among them multitudes who deny the mystery of the Trinity the Divinity of Christ the Authority of the Scriptures the Immortality of the soul the resurrection of the body such like and is this to spread the sweet savour of Religion throughout the Kingdom If the Jews were banisht out of England for poysoning our fountains springs of water what do such men as these deserve who labour to poyson the pure fountains of the Scriptures Many are of opinion they have done more hurt by their errors then good by their swords Yet are not you ashamed to say they have spread the savour of Religion abroad more then thousands of the Ministers of the Gospell To conclude I shall â—ay but this that many who when they came first into the Army had sweet and savory affections whose gifts are now withered and are but as stinking snuffs As it was a Proverb in Queen Elizabeths time If you would spoyl a Preacher make a Bishop of him so it will become a Proverb in our time If you will spoil a Professor of Religion make a Souldier or an Armyman of him he will then soon turn heady Hereticall and what not Many of your own party being more moderate meek and considerate then your selves have declined you and are ashamed of you c. Answ. I know no moderate meek and considerate men who have declined them indeed some rash passionate inconsiderate men have done to them as Dâ—mas did to Paul forsaken them to imbrace this present evill world they could not get followers and advantage enough in being the Disciples of the Truth and therefore would be Masters of an error to draw disciples after them that so many might follow their pernicious wayes and t is no wonder if such as have declined and are ashamed of the Truth are ashamed also of the Ministers that preach it Why may not they i.e. the Army conclude from successes as well as you c. 2. Though successes are not alwaies infallible testimonies of the goodnesse of the cause on which side they fall yet successes with their circumstances do sometimes most evidently vindicate the mind of God As 1. when both parties appeal solemnly to God c. 2. When thâ—se succâ—sses are carried on in an uniform manner the Lord giving severall years successe upon their appeals unto him 3. When the glorious Majesty power and presence of God doth appeal after such appeals when he shall with a small Army of 16000 men destroy near an 100000 men in Arms as if the Scots Army the Welch Army the Kentish Army the Essex Army were considered it would appear This is the sum of what you say about the point of successe in three pages Answ 1. The Ministers did never conclude successes to bee the infallible testimonies of the goodnesse of the Cause on which side they fall they know that oftentimes they that worke wickednesse are set up and they that tempt God are delivered yea that a just man may perish in his righteousnesse and that a wicked man may prolong his life in his wickednesse 2. In this the Papists and you are not much unlike they make Prosperity a note of the true Church and you make Successe an evidence of a good cause if it were so the Heathen Emperors might plead their Cause to be good and the primitive Christians to be bad yea the Turke and the Pope might borrow an Argument from you that their waies are good because