Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	kingdom_n	law_n	parliament_n	3,975	5	6.2994	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

unto the manner of this defence while the King was in Person against the Parliament we were by this Protestation to defend the Parliament and People though with the ●azard of the King if the King and Parliament should ingag● against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the ●azard of both Answ. 1. I told you but even now both Houses of Parliament did hold themselves bound by the Protestation to preserve the Kings Person as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned even after the King had ingaged in person against the Parliament as wel as before so that your limitation of the Protestation to such a period of time is invalid 2. T is true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament as if they could not legally withstand any Forces to be raised by the King against Parliament Kingdom but only by it they were bound up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Person of the King yea to manifest that they had no evill intention to His Maj●sties Person when they chose the Lord of Essex to be General raised an Army under his conduct before any blow was given they sent a humble Petition to the King to be presented by the Lord Generall That His Majesty would not put His Royall Person in danger but remove Himself from His Army and come in person to His Parliament where he should be sure to remain in honour and safety So that if the King would indanger His Person in being in the head of his Army 't was He that put himself upon hazard the Parliament stil declared their hands should not be upon Him to offer Him any violen●e 3. And whereas you say in the last place that if the King and Parliament should ingage against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the hazard of b●●h Certainly your speech bewraies you you that once utterd language of Loyal●y in your Snapsack can speak nothing but Levelling language now you are not a friend either to King or Parliament unlesse they will patronize your party and favour your faction though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome besides But I would ask you and pray resolve me in the next Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good or what for the hurt of the people if you say King and Parliament why did you not acquiesce in their judgments in their late transactions of the Treaty tending to the settlement of the Kingdome but if you say your Soveraign Lords the People then why doe you not give them their power and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole if you would leave them to bee Judges there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army Alas what tyrannicall Usurpers are you a few Members in the House of Common● when 200 are forc't away must rule King and Lords the people must rule the House of Commons and the Army must rule the people have not you brought the Kingdom to a fine passe that in stead of having it governed by the Lawes which should administer an equall right to all the Land should be overruled by the sword which wil give right to none neither King Parliament or People Have you neit●er for hope or fear nor other respect relinquisht this Protestation How is it th●n that you are so shuff●ing changing and uncertain for the King and against the King for the Parliament and against the Parliament for the Army and against the Army for justice and against justice c Answ. 1. The Reverend Ministers are stil the same they were 't is you and your Teacher who hath made you to erre are the shufflers and changelings one while for the King to re-instate to his Throne another while against the King to bring Him to the scaffold one while that it is the just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and the●r lives to he as consecrated corn meet to be reapt gathered only by the hand of God Yet at another time that the axe of the Executioner must cut off the King or cut down this consecrated corn let the world judge who are shufflers or changelings the Ministers or you 2. I grant that Ministers were for the King and against the King but in this sense for the Person of the King never against it and against the forces of the King never for them I hope this will not make them Changelings 3. I yeild the subscribers are for the Parliament and against the Parliament but clearly in this sense for the Parliament when they sit free and ful although they should expresse frailty as men yet would the subscribers live submissively as become● Ministers And if you mean nothing but this when you say the Ministers are against the Parliament viz. that they cannot in their Consciences beleeve that the Members sitting at Westminster are a free Parliament seeing they are under the power of the sword nor a full Parliament in regard above 200 Members of it are forc't away nor a compleat Parliament when two States are aboli●ht viz. King and Lords if only in this sense you say they are against the Parliament I shall not contend with you 4. I grant further that the Ministers were for the Army and against the Army yet only in this sense for the Army whilest obedient to the Parliaments commands and followed their directions but against them when they did dispute the Parliaments Authority and disobey their commands for the Army whiles they used the sword to subdue Malignants in arms but against them when they used the sword to cut off the King and force the Parliament And have not the Ministers cause to be against them in regard they go against those ends for which they were first raised For that Ordinance by which this new Mod●ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the def●nce of the King and Parliament the true Protestant Religion the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome and to be from time to time subject to such orders and directions as they shall receive from both Houses of Parliament 5 I yeild in the last place that the Ministers are for justice and against justice for justice on chiefe delinquents that they may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judicatories of both kingdomes respectively or others having power from for that effect shall judge convenient yea are they against the trying condemning and ekecuting the King which is that

you say the Army may be judges which is most inequitable for them to be judges in their own Cause then why may not any other 20000 men in the Kingdome plead necessity to oppose the Army as they did to oppose the Parliament should any party whose principles are not consistent with but contrariant to the Armies proceedings plead a necessity for their appearing for the interest of Religion laws of the land Priviledges of the Parliament and Liberties of the People c. how can you justifie the Army yet blame them 3. If the necessity pleaded for was so clear present and absolute as you pretend how it comes to pass that it can be discerned by none but by the Army themselves their own party This makes me of the same mind with the subscribers that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended or else contracted by their own miscarriages the Army that prevailed against the sharpest weapons of their enemies were overcome by this own poor dart of pretended necessity true is that Proverb durum telum necessitas could the Army have overcome their groundlesse fears and jealousies they would never have done what they did yea could they have trusted God they wonld have been of Austins mind Ferenda est magis omnis iniquitas quam perpeiranda est aliqua iniquitas viz. to endure the greatest evil rather then commit the least sin If your Temple work goes on slowly then the City is set on work the Country is excited the Apprentices encouraged to offer violence upon the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote at pleasure and encouraged by some of your Tribe and subscribers as shall be made good if occasion bee Answ. 1. It will turn to your reproach that you are builders of Babel but to their renown that they are imployed about Temple work which though it go on slowly yet safely you have no cause to despise the day of small things hee that hath laid the foundation stone will rear up the top of the building that all the people may cry Grace grace unto it 2. And whereas you say that they had excited men to offer violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote c. I answer you measure other mens corn by your own Bushell and other mens hearts by your own practices you and your faction have offered violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Unvote at your pleasure and yet you do the evill and other men must beare the blame 3. As to that you say that it shall be made good if occasion bee that some of the subscribers did encourage the Apprentices to offer violence to the Houses I shall give you but this answer viz. to give you a challenge and offer you an occasion to make it good if you can that you have not done it all this while I impute not to your lenity but their innocency And thus I have returned you an answer to the most materiall passages in your book I shall not meddle with those fond Queries you propose in the latter end thereof I know one fool can ask more questions in a day then twenty wise men can answer in a year You conclude your book with a prophane descant on a serious and savoury Sermon of Mr. Calamies you who were once when you wrote your Snapsack so humble as to say you were neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet are now so proud as to become a Lord judg of the Prophets yet those that know you will count your tongue to be no slander Mr. Calamies person is so well esteemed and his Ministry so approved that all your revilings will turn to his glory and your shame Mr. Calamy only affirmed that Anarchy Perjury Toleration c. are such deeps able to sink a Kingdome if you say the contrary you will shew your selfe a simple and shallow fellow To conclude all the counsell I shall give you is this that you would be more in the shop lesse in the pulpit more in your dwelling house lesse in the Printing-house then will the Church be less disturbed and your family better provided for FINIS M●●i quidem sufficit conscientia mea vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat in ●●em Serm. 53. * Alluding to a book● entituled Honey out of the Rock made by ●ohn Price * See a Spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers by Iohn Price p. 8. lin. 32 Pag. 2. lin 14. In Spiritual 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 17. Pag. 2. l. 24. Epist. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax p. 1. p. 1. l. 30. Pag. 2. l. 3● Pag. 3. l. 5. Pag. 3. l. 16. Spiritual Snapsack by John Price p. 6. ● 17. Pag. 3. l. 36. Young ●●ng elder by John Goodwin p. 25. Pag. 4. l. 19. Pag 4. l. 35. * Armies R●mon June 23. 164● Pag. 5. l. 33. Pag. 6. lin. 22. Pag 7. l. 34. Pag. 8. l. 20. Declar. Ian. 17. 1641. Pag. 9. l. ● I. Goodwin in his Anti●aval p. 10. l. 31. I. P. p. 9. l. 16. I. P. pag. 9. l 24. ● P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12. Pag. 12. lin. 10. Pag. 14. l. 26. Pag 15. l. 7. P. 15. l. 31. Aug. in Ps. 73. Tertul. Apol. The serious Representat of the London Ministers p. 14. I. P. pag. 18. l 9. I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10. ● P. p. 19. l. 8. I. P. p. 20. l. 34. I. P. p. 21. l. 6. ●●ad the Oath of Allegiance Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879. Exact Collect. p. 2●8 695. 657. 991. I. P. p. 22. l. 12. The King confest it in His 〈◊〉 Answer to the 19 Propositions of Iune 1642. that there is power legally in the two Houses of Parliament to restrain Him from Tyranny I. P. p. 24 l. 6. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 6. Vid. the Ord of P●rl 15. of Febr. 1644. as the first raising the Army under Sir T. Fairfax Pag. 23. lin. 3. I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14. I. P. p. 26. l. 3. See Testimony to the tr●●h● of Christ by the Ministers of London p. 28. I. P. p. 27. l. 1● I. P. pag. 28. l. 8. I. P. p. 28. l. 37. ●●hn Goodwin Anticav p. 11. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. I. P. p. 30. ● 17. 1 Sam. 26. 9. Rom. 13. 4. Pareus on Gen. 9. 6. I. P. pa. 31. l. 27. See a Booke ●ntituled the image of both Churches Ierusal●m and Babylon by P. D. M. I. P. p. 31. l. 31. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper c. pag. 16. Ibid. p. 19. I. P. p. 31. l. 35. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper p. 23. I. P. pag. 32. l. 3. I. P p. 32. l. 11. I. P. p. 32. l. 25. I. P. p. 32. l. 38. See a short Treati se of Polit. Power by Dr. I●●n Pennet ● 6. pag. 49. See Dr. P●nnets Treatise of Polit. Power cap. 6. I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30. See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82. Beza lib. confes. Christianae fidei cap. 5. Ecclesia circa finem Beza in confess fidei Christianae c. 5. Sect. 45. I. P. p. 34. l. 29. I. P. pa. 34. l. 31. I. P. p. 35. l. 3. In casu necesstatis licita est defensio per magistratum infe●●oorem 〈◊〉 superiorem D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262. Christianes 〈◊〉 minus quam alios quos●unque potesta●● subject●● esse debere non tantum fide ●lus sed etiam infidelibus sed c D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1. Vide Paraeum in explic dubiorum in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262. I. P. pa. 35. l. 8. Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor c. 13. de Politeiae-civili p. 80. I. P. p. 35. l. 15. Quum Consensu suffragi●s totius an● certe 〈◊〉 is multitudinis Tyr●annus tol●itu●r deo fit auspice Zuingl in explanatione Articuli 42. p. 85. Tom. 1. Zuingl●●●… exp. Arn● 42 p. 84. Tom 1. 1. P. p. 35 l. 17. Lex Rex quest 31. p. 330. Il. p. 104 105. Quest 14. Ib. p. 233. qu. 26 M. Prynnes speech in the House of Common Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 10 11. See the Armies Remonstrance of Iune 23. 1647. p. 12. See the Armies Proposalls Aug. 1. 1647. I. P. p. 37. l. 25. Judg. 20. See a Letter from Sir Tho. Fairfax to both Houses of Parliament Dated from Redding Iuly 6. 1647. which he declared to be the generall sense of all or most part of the Officer in the Army 2. 1 Sam. 24. 6 7. 13. 1 Sam. 26. 8 9. 1 Sam. 26. 10 11. Mr. Prynnes third part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms p. 95. 2 King 9. 7. 2 Kings 10. 6. Hosea 1. 4. 2 Kings 21. 23 24. 1 Kings 16. 8 9. 1 Kings 16. 16. 1 Kings 16. 18. 2 Kings 12. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 14. 5. 2 Kings 15. 10. 14. 1 King 16. 25. Micah 6. 16. 2 King 16. 21. Mr. Arth. I ackson in his pious and learned Annotations hath a good observation It seems saith hee the people misliking the King the Souldiers chose this Ti●ni to be their K. between whom there was continuall war for three years and upwards c. I. P. p. 38. l. 34. I. P. pa. 40. l. 16. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. All the godly learned conscientious Ministers are for defensive arms few there are of the contrary judgment but Papists Atheists Prelates Delinquents and prophane wretches I. P. p. 41. ● 24. I. P. pa. 42. l. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 10. I. P. p. 44. l. ●2 p. 45 46. Mal. 3. 15. Eccl. 7. 15. Judg. 20. 18. 23. I. P. pa. 49. l. 8. Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12 c. I. P. p. 50. l. 1. I. P. p. 55 l. 8.

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 wi●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

Your ingenuity and ●andor appears by your submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament and as at all times so chiefly when they contend not though with the ruine of all for your greatnesse and interest then your Ministeriall ingenuity and candor appears calling them an Apostatizing Parliament a Covenant-breaking Parliament Answ. 1. Generall accusations are no certain proofes si sufciat accusare qui● erit innocent if you mention the time when the place where and the Ministers who did call the Parliament an Apostatizing Covenant-breaking Parliament for I know none did so I shal then blame them and acquit you therein 2. Notwithstanding your slanders 't is well known what submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament the Ministers of the Presbyterian judgment have expressed yea if the Lords and Commons should sit full and free in Parliament though in some things God might leave them to act sinfully yet would the Ministers live quietly and submissively if not in doing what they command yet in patient suffering what they inflict and not expresse such a spirit of Turbulency as many have done in the imprisoning of the chief Magistrates altering of our Laws and putting the whole Land into a conflagration 3. If the Ministers will not with you cry up a faction must they therefore needs be charged by you to cry down a Parliament suppose they should not acknowleg 60 members of the House of Commons now under the power of the Sword to be a free Parliament when above two hundred Members are forc't away or the Supream Authority of the Nation are they therefore disingenuous and unsubmissive to all Authority Doth not your ingenuity and candor further appear by your abetting countenancing and encouraging violence and force upon the two Houses by company of loose prophane and wicked fellows at one time is some of you did falling in with the dis●ffected delinquent and malignant party and at another time crying out and exclaiming against the Army c Answ. 1. It would make more for your honor and their shame had you named those Ministers that did abet and encourage the violence and force upon the two Houses Yea it would more have advantaged you if in stead of a perempory and naked assertion you had given in some plain and evident demonstration that any of the Ministers had done so 2. I can truly say that those Ministers with whom I have had most occasion to converse have exprest their utter abhorrency of that force and violence Yea to my knowledge many of them did declare against it in their Pulpits 3. For the other part of your accusation that they fell in with the disaffected delingquent and malignant party that 's most notoriously false as well as the rest 'T is well known the Ministers have never been friends to Malignants nor they to the Ministers 4. Whereas you say they did at another time declare against the Army for S●izing on the Members of the Commons House I grant they did so and had they not cause to do it considering that the Parliament had long before declared that if any person should offer to arrest or detain any member of Parliament that it was against the libe●ties of the Subject and a breach of the Priviledges of Parliament and such a person is declared a publick enemy of the Common-wealth And considering also the Vow and Covenant when the Lords and Commons declared a horrid design to surprise the City and by armes to force the Parliament they did then vow and covenant to resist the same and all other of the like nature so the Ministers have dealt most impartially in blaming the violence offered the Houses as well in the one as in the other Indeed it may be said of you that you are the most partiall judge in this matter that can bee in the world to countenance and encourage the Armies forcing the Parliament at one time yet condemn it in the Apprentices at another for my own part I must professe I condemn it in both The ingenuity and cand●r of London Preachers in fam●us throughout the whole Kingdome doth not it further appear by setting the people at first against the King and his party And now having raised mens spirits to a resolution of requiring just and scripturall satisfaction that blood may be avenged in cry out in your pulpits of staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King c Answ. 1. You did once count it a vertue in the Ministers to excite the people against the King and His party and doe you now esteem it a vice are you turned malignant after so many turnings 2. 'T is true the Ministers did excite the people to cleave to the two Houses of Parliament who were necessitated to take up defensive arms against the forces of the King but never against the person of the King 3. But did they ever stirre up any to bring the King to a judiciall Tryal and to take away his life The Ministers understood themselves better then for they know 't was lawfull in David to take up defensive arms to fortifie Ziglag and other places of strength against Sauls fury yet that it was unlawfull for David to kill Saul when he had him in his hands yea though hee were a most bloody and tyrannicall King The Ministers doe well consider that it is one thing to take away the life of a King and another thing to withstand the violent execution of the unjust commands of a King And this distinction your Mr. Goodwin did well know when hee wrote his Anticavalierisme pag. 10. 'T is one thing saith he to offer violence to the person of a King or to attempt the taking away of his life another to secure a mans own life or the life of another whom we know to be innocent and much more the publick safety by strengthning a mans selfe towithstand the violent execution of any unjust Command from a King M●. Goodwin justified the withstanding the violence of the King yet condemned all attempts of taking away the life of the King The Ministers are still of this mind though he be revolted from these his first Principles 4. Whereas you say the Ministers cry out against staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King had they not cause to do so considering that people of the Protestant Religion did never take away the life of their King till now Blessed be God and blessed be they that it was in their hearts to vindicate themselves to the world to bee clear in this matter If you deny this I shall shew you severall of your owne Bookes and Sermons preaching the one and the other and for a tast at present take one instance of Mr. Chr. Love Pastor of Anne Aldersgate c. Answ. 1. I deny it absolutely that any of the subscribers did ever stirre up the people to take away the life of the King for ought I could

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 d●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 Gospe●● 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 conse●t have you performed this vow Answ. ● 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 transgress●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 West●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 c●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 ● 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 d●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 vi● 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 O●th is otherwise to be interpreted then according to the common plaine and true

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 ●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 pea●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 D●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 Pap●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