Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	place_n	scripture_n	word_n	9,705	5	4.5641	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85396	Hybristodikai. The obstructours of justice. Or a defence of the honourable sentence passed upon the late King, by the High Court of Justice. Opposed chiefly to the serious and faithfull representation and vindication of some of the ministers of London. As also to, The humble addresse of Dr. Hamond, to His Excellencie and Councel of warre. Wherein the justice, and equitie of the said sentence is demonstratively asserted, as well upon clear texts of Scripture, as principles of reason, grounds of law, authorities, presidents, as well forreign, as domestique. Together with, a brief reply to Mr. John Geree's book, intituled, Might overcoming right: wherein the act of the Armie in garbling the Parliament, is further cleared. As also, some further reckonings between thesaid [sic] Dr. Hamond and the authour, made straight. / By John Goodwin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1170; Thomason E557_2; ESTC R12380	138,495	164

for the punishing of shoe-makers or taylours with death in case any of these vocations shall be found guilty of murther though there be no particular expression of either of their professions in the Law which sentenceth murtherers with death why should not the same Law be conceived to lie as clear for the p●nishing of Kings with death in case they murther though there be no expresse insertion of their Office or calling in the Law to signifie their inclusion in it considering that there is no more intimation neither for their exemption than for the other To say that the Law we speak of was never extended unto or Sect. 6. understood of Kings and therefore neither ought now to be extended unto or understood of them would be to say some what but what is next to nothing For 1. who is able to give any sufficient account that it was never in no age by no person understood of Kings That in point of execution it was never extended unto Kings is but a slippery proof that it was never understood of them Very possibly it was never in such a sence extended unto musitians or moris-dancers yet this if it could be proved would be no proof that therefore it was never understood or meant of them Besides if the Law we speak of never extended unto Kings in the execution of it it is no great wonder considering 1. That there being but one King at a time in the whole nation it can be no matter of wonder that he should not be a murtherer which supposed I mean that never any King of England heretofore was or was known to be a murderer there was no possibilitie that the said Law should formerly have bin extended unto Kings in point of execution 2. In case it could be proved that some former King one or more were guiltie of murther yet probably those who were intrusted with the execution of the Law we speak of might connive either through fear favour flatterie or the like In such cases as these there was no opportunitie of extending this law in the execution of it unto Kings Upon the same account it may well be that however the Law ought in reason equity and according to the import of the letter and words of it be understood as well of Kings as of meaner men yet it might never be publickly and Authoritatively declared that it ought to be so understood But 2 What if it can no more be proved that the said Law was ●●●t 7. never yet understood of Kings than it can be proved to have but executed upon Kings Doth it therefore follow that neither now it ought so to be understood especially considering 1 That the expresse letter and tenour of the Law will fairly bear such a sence 2 That such an understanding and interpretation of it will well stand with all principles of reason and equitie 3. That the pulick interest peace and safety of the Nation requires such an Interpretation 4 and lastly that the contrarie can never be proved I meane that it was never understood inclusively of Kings Suppose there were such a sence or interpretation of some text or sentence of Scripture lately given which every waies comports with the letter and gramaticall sence of the words fully agrees with the Analogie of Faith or the received principles of Christian Religion falls in very genuinely with the context or scope of the place perfectly accords with the clear sence of the like phrase and expression in Scripture elswhere c. were such an interpretation to be rejected meerly upon such a pretence as this That it cannot be proved that ever it was given or received by Christians heretofore Nor is that colour lesse washie or fading wherein to the exemption of Kings from humane Judicatories is commonly put to give it some semblance or shadow of a Truth that the King is Supreme and above all persons in his Kindom and in this respect there can be no competent or lawfull Authoritie on Earth to question ar●aign or judge him it being a received Maxime in politiques that ●ar in parem non habet potestatem multò minùs inferior in superiorem .i. that no man hath any right of Authoritie over his equall much lesse an inferiour over his superiour For to this we Answer 1. That the Scripture cannot be dissolved by the authoritie of Sect. 8. any Politick Rule or Maxime whatsoever of humane sanction If God in the Scripture saith that who so sheddeth mans bloud by man shall his bloud be shed men must not reply to him say we are content to put this Law in execution when Kings are not the transgressours but herein we must be pardoned we have no Authority nor Know we how to create any by which to punish Kings according to the exigencie of this Law when they offend against it We have a Canon sacred and inviolable amongst us which prohibits any man or numbers of men to execute this Law of thine upon Kings Will that God whose name is jealous suffer the Divine Authoritie of his Law to be trodden under foot by men for the salving of the credit of a Law or Principle of their own But 2 It was never yet proved nor I beleeve ever will be Sect. 9. either by any Scripture or sufficient Reason that the King especially under a Delinquencie or crime deserving death is either Par equall viz in power much lesse superiour to the body of his people or their Representative Master Rutherford whom these Ministers may well look upon as Praesidium dulce decus suum the chariot of Presbyterie and the hors-men thereof teacheth them another lesson over and over in his book intituled Lex Rex For the subject of Royall power saith he we affirm the first and native subject of all power to be in the communitie * 〈…〉 p. 5● Again There is not like reason to grant so much to the King as to Parliaments because certainly PARLIAMENTS who make Kings under God ARE ABOVE ANY ONE MAN and THEY MUST HAVE MORE AUTHORITIE and wisedom TH●N ANY ONE KING except Solomon as base flatterers say should return to the thrones of the Earth * I●●● p ●● Yet again wherever there is a covenant and oath betwixt equalls yea or superiours and inferiours the one hath some coactive power over the other which position he clearly proveth ● I●●● p. ●9 by a case immediatly subjoyned presently after Though therefore the King should stand simply superiour to his Kingdoms and Estates which I SHALL NEVER GRANT yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom as I have proved at length c. 13. he must by that same come under some coactive power to fullfill his covenant * Ibl●●m Again unanswerably I have proved that the Kingdom is superiour to the King * I●●● p 46. Yet over again If we consider the fountain power the King is subordinate to the Parliament and not coordinate for the

ingageth to a duty that ought to take place before this Commandment for order amongst men This is one of the most substantiall passages I meet with in the whole discourse I trust that the heyres of M r Gerees judgement and I agree perfectly in this that the necessity of saving a Kingdom from eminent apparent danger of ruin or misery ingageth to a duty that ought to take place before the duty of following or keeping precisely within the accustomed limits of mens ordinary and particular callings Whereas I say by way of Answer to an objection that Sect. 10 Law-givers when in their right minds may give out Laws against mad men which may be put in execution against themselves when they are mad c. he tels me p. 8. that this is a wild Answer I confesse that my answers are not so tame or tractable as his but his reasons to prove the wildnesse of my Answer is far more wandring then my Answer is wild For the excluded Parliament men saith he are in the same way and in the same Principles in which they first gave out Commissions How far this is out of the way of Truth is visible enough by the light of those passages cited Sect. 7. of this discourse from one of the Parliaments own Declarations which light notwithstanding we shall strengthen and increase in good time In the mean time I judged M r Geree to be a man of a more Sect. 11 steady pen than to write that a Justice of Peace may usurp and be punishable in reference to an Act though it be never so just Yet this is his Divinity p. 9. But me-thinks he playes at the smallest game of all when he taxeth me p. 10 for citing Thomas Aquinas in my margent as holding this position that in case of extream necessity all things are Common falling foul likewise upon the Authour calling him a Popish writer and a fit Patron for a false position I confesse the man ware the Livery of the times wherein he lived upon his judgement and was Romish But I wish that many who please themselves with the honour of a better profession of Religion for which notwithstanding I fear they are greater debters to the State and times wherein they live than to their own choyce or studies were not further behind him in ingenuity and fairnesse of Spirit than they are before him in an e●ternall Religious Denomination Besides it is very well known that many Popish writers in such points which are eccentricall to the Controversies on foot between them and the Protestants and where they have their judgements at liberty are as acute solid and sound as Protestant writers themselves And for the position which asserts the commonnesse of all things in case of extream necessity which M r Geree brands with falshood he should have done well to have disabled the grounds upon which the said Authour maintains it for a Truth before he had done that severe execution upon it The Truth is that this position in the sence of the Authour from whom and wherein I cite it is an Orthodox saying and nothing more than what very learned Protestant writers themselves assert and hold at least in principles and grounds if not in plainnesse of terms also as I could readily prove if it were a prize worth the running for upon this occasion What I argue touching the sence and import of that Scripture Sect. 12 Rom. 13. 1 2. both from the context and from the expresse words themselves of the Holy Ghost besides the concurrence of severall Authors of his own beloved Interest he pag. 37 c. balanceth and opposeth partly with the conceits and words of men upon the place partly with uncivill and s●●●derous imputations partly with importune and inpertinent suggestions First he is not ashamed to say that the conclusion I inferre is point blank to the word of God whereas the conclusion he speaks of is built upon the clear pregnant and und●niable sense and signification of the expresse words themselves and indeed none other than what his own friends and party the Ministers of Scotland inferred from thence before me But the reason by which he would prove this his assertion is in his own terms as wild as the assertion it self unworthy The conclusion I inferre from the said Scripture is point-blank to the word of God why Because the Apostle Peter directs servants to be subject not onely to the good and gentle but to the froward c. Was there ever any man pretending to learning and sobernesse of Judgement that ever reasoned at such a forlorn rate as this unlesse happly it were his neighbour M r. Jenkin For doth not the strength of his arguing lie in such a principle or notion as this what the word of God saith in one place it must needs say in every place Because Peter saith so or so in such a place therefore Paul also saith the same thing in such a place My Conclusion is that in that place Rom. 13. there is no subjection commanded of God to any higher Power further or otherwise than they a●t and quit themselves in due proportion to the good of men This Conclusion cries M r Geree is point blank to the word of God because Peter saith so and so If Peter had said that God in the said place of Paul Rom 13. had commanded subjection to any higher power upon other terms than those expressed by me M● Geree had said somewhat But this is the man and this is the line of his arguing stretched over his clear Answer from the one end of it unto the other Besides what point-blanknesse as he calls it is there between that Conclusion of mine he speaks of and that exhortation of Peter which he representeth God may command servants to be subject to their Masters not onely when they are good but even to such as are froward and yet not command subjects or communities of men to subject themselves to Magistrates or the Higher Powers when they act otherwise than in due order and proportion to the good of men For 1. that great Light in the Firmament of Presbytery M r. Rutherford expresly informs us that the King much lesse any inferiour Magistrate hath no proper masterly or herile Dominion over his Subjects his Dominion is rather fiduciary and ministeriall than masterly which assertion he proves by four pregnant reasons * L●● R●● pag. 116. So that as a trustee or pupill doth not ow the same Subjection or Subjection upon the same terms to his Trustee or Guardian which a servant or slave oweth to his Master so neither doth a Subject or a free-born person to a Civil Magistrate or King 2. Where the prejudice or inconvenience of a mans Subjection or yielding in any kind can redound onely to himself a man may stand bound for the honour of the Gospel and in Conscience towards God to subject and yield which is the case of a servants Subjection

world amongst men in case upon a just and due trial he shall not be found in respect of his wayes actions and administrations in the world every wayes worthy of them For of what other tendencie or import can those words of the Prophet Eliah be supposed to be If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal than follow him * ● King ●● ●● Doth not the Prophet and that by commission from God himself in these words give the people a full liberty to desert the worship and service of God and to turn Proselytes unto Baal in case God hath not or should not in a way of due examination and triall approve himself unto their judgements and consciences to be the true God the omnipotent Jehovah and Baal should do it Sometimes indeed God pleads the prerogative of his will in opposition to the wills or weak conceits of men and so claims a liberty or power to do what he pleaseth but still he accounts for the equity or reason ablenesse of what he willeth or pleaseth to do as we shall God granting life and health demonstrate more at large from the Scriptures in due time Therefore they who would make Kings too great and of too sacred an investiture to account for their wayes and actions unto men make him greater than God himself and crown him with a prerogative if yet a prerogative it be and not a mischievous snare rather or an importune and fullsome attribute which ●e that inhabiteth eternity never judged meet or equitable for himself to claim or exercise over his creature That confessionate strain of David unto God Tibi soli pe●cavi Against thee thee onely have I sinned is too sandy a foundation to bear the weight of such a tower as we now speak of whose top reacheth up not unto but into yea and above Heaven as had been sheewed For 1. It is sencelesse to imagine that David should think that in those sins for which he humbleth himself before God in the Psalm as viz. his adultery with the wife and murther of the Husband he sinned not against his neighbour as well as against God Certainly there is no such thing as sinning against men if such acts as these be not Nor 2. Can it be proved nor is there the least colour of reason for it that David in that clause pleaded any priviledge or exemption for himself from suffering the penalties of those Laws which God himself had enacted against murtherers and Adulterers David at this time was in no case either in respect of the frame or temper of his heart and soul being sorely shaken and afflicted with the sence of the guilt under which he now ●ay or in respect of his obnoxiousnesse unto the heavy displeasure of God to claim priviledges to plead regal prerogatives or to stand upon terms of Royalty with God Therefore 3. Calvin upon the place importeth ●e words thus Lord though the whole world should acquit me yet for me ●● think and ● D●… t●t●…●●s●… ●●●i tamen pl●… sa●● est qu●●●● s●●um ●●dio●● s●… feel that thou alone judgest me or wilt judge me ●● more than I am able to bear This is the Interpretation also of most of the Fathers 4. Lyra glosseth the words as if David should therefore say unto God against thee onely have I sinned because God onely could pardon him Hugo Cardinalis because God onely could wash Sect. 80 him which he asketh in the text Junius and Tremellius upon the place conceive that David in saying that he sinned onely against God meaneth nothing but what the Prophet Nathan chargeth him with 2 King 12. 12. Thou didst it secretly i. thou despisedst the inspection and all-seeing eye of God and because there was none conscious to thy sin but those whom thou supposedst would be secret enough in concealing it therefore thou expectedst to escape the shame and punishment due to it But saith God by his Prophet I wil do this thing 1. punish thee as I have said before all Israel and before the sun This last exposition hath credit and countenance from the words immediately following And done this evill in thy fight As if he should have said unto God so foolish was I above measure and so desperately full of my wickednesse that I took care only to secure my self from the knowledge or sight of men but never remembred that the eyes of thy Holinesse were broad-looking upon me in the whole perpetration In which respect I somewaies honoured men and thou onely wast he whom I despised therein 5. The import of the words in hand may be this Against Sect. 81 thee or unto thee thee only have I sinned 1. I do not value or weigh any trouble shame or sufferings in any kind that may come upon me for my sin from any other hand whatsoever in comparison of the losse of thy favour and displeasure which I have cause to fear is kindled in thy breast against me I can bear the ignominie and reproach or whatsoever punishment it be that men shall or can inflict upon me for my sin onely the sence and dread of thy displeasure is unsupportable unto me But 6 ly And lastly the clearest and best interpretation of the Sect. 82 clause is doubtlesse this Against thee thee only have I sinned i. I am deeply and dreadfully sensible of those many and mighty ingagements wherein I stood obliged in conscience unto thee above all others to walk uprightly and to have not only refrained but even abhorred all such abominations as those whereof I now stand guilty in thy sight So that though the love which thy people my Subjects have expressed unto me and more particularly the friendly respects and faithfulnesse of my servant Uriah towards me were bands and ties upon me sufficient in a way of ingenuitie and humanity it self to have restrained me from those most odious and shamefull practices wherein I have now miscarried yet am I so above measure in my present agony astonished with the consideration of the number and weight of those infinitelygreater bands wherein I stood bound in duty and conscience unto thee all which I have des●ised and trampled upon in these provocations that I am sensible of no wrong no injury I have done to men but onely of that measure of vilenesse and unthankfulnesse which I have measured out unto thee Against thee thee onely c. This interpretation might be confirmed by many reasons as first by considering that the restrictive particle onely is frequently used in Scripture in such a comparative sence as the interpretation given puts upon it in the clause under debate See Psal 71 16. Mat 4. 10 c. Secondly by weighing the sequel of the context in these words That thou mightest be justified c. there being nothing more proper to clear the justice of God in punishing than the vouchsafement of means and motives in abundance to keep men from sinning Thirdly and lastly by considering that nothing

to his Master but where his Subjection or yielding hath a direct tendencie in it to bring evil or inconvenience upon many others no such obligation lieth upon him which frequently is the case of such Subjection that is yielded unto Magistrates in such commands which are destructive to the Peace Liberties and publick Interest of the people 3. And lastly neithe doth Peter injoyn Servants to be subject to their Masters in such commands wherein their Subjection is like to prove injurious or mischievous unto other men but onely to be subject unto them though they be froward i. of harsh and unpleasing tempers or Dispositions And surely M r. Geree doth not find in that Conclusion of mine which he so taxe●h the least intimation of any Denial of Subjection to the Higher Powers upon such an account as this I mean of their frowardnesse or lesse-pleasing dispositions Therefore M r. Geree deals not like a man unlesse it be in malice in affirming my deduction from Rom. 13. to be point-blank contrarie to the word of God Nor doth that which follows presently after savour of any whit a better or more ingenuous spirit where he tells us that the Apostles whom Jesus Christ made the infallible lights of the world were most carefull to warm Christians but new lights tell us that we need not suffer but when we are evil doers A most un-Christian and unworthy calumnie the least jot or title whereof the whole Presbyterian Synagogue is not able to shew in my discourse I shall crave leave of the Reader to shew him the same face Sect. 13 once more in another glasse of the same temper and make with the former And then I shall proceed to examin his grounds for the justification of his clients and so conclude M r. Geree tells me pag. 28. that formerly I made exceptions in the cases of extremity that a man may not lie forswear himself c. Now all bonds must give way to the Law of necessity not onely word but oath giving me for a cloze this Christian fare-well Oportet esse memorem The man it seems was much given to sow discord between friends for all along his discourse he attempts to set variance between such sayings the one whereof is conscious of nothing against the other But is there so much as a face of contradiction between these two A man ought not to lie forswear himself c. for the save-guard of his life and this A man ought not to keep either a Covenant or Oath when the Observation of either is sinfull or contrarie to the Law of nature For the former M r. Geree himself I question not would have admitted it for a truth and to the latter certain I am that our best Protestant writers allow the same honour Let the Commentaries of Calvin Musculus and others upon Matth. 14. 9. 10. determine the case Doubtlesse M r. Geree's Logique had it been onely and meerly naturall was sufficient to teach him this that between such assertions which are both or all true there can be no Contradiction It is no marvail that M r. Geree should dedicate his book to women it might be thought by the tenour and strain of the contents of it that he intended the reading of it likewise onely for women That which follows in the same page is of the same Calculation What he adds saith he touching the intention of the Covenant-makers and the Covenant-takers I referre me to his Conscience whether though they surely he now speaks of the former onely the Covenant-makers did not intend to bind to things against the Law of nature yet they intended that they themselves should be ultimate Judges what was for the weal of the Kingdom and so not against the Law of nature and what not and you know the old rule whatsoever art of words are used in the Oath the Oath is to be interpreted according to his sence that gives it not his that takes it Because M r. Geree refers himself in the particulars of this passage to my Conscience I shall very clearly and faithfully give out the sence of my Conscience upon them 1. If the Covenant-makers intended that themselves should be Sect. 14 the ultimate Judges of what is and what is not against the Law of nature I conceive 1. that such intentions are not justifiable in them and consequently not to be presumed by the Covenant-takers 2. that howsoever there is no intimation of such intentions in them in the Covenant it self so that this might lawfully be taken without any such supposall by them who take it unlesse M r. Geree will say that he that taketh an Oath is bound to take it and so to observe it according to all the possible intentions of him or them that administer i● whether rationably deducible from the words of the Oath or not This latter I suppose is too grosse to be numbered amongst Mr. Geree's notions or conceptions therefore I leave it to shift for it self amongst men of understanding For the former if the Covenant-makers intended that themselves would be the ultimate Judges of what is and what is not against the Law of nature their intentions in this behalf were irregular and unreasonable For if I be either to act or to forbear to act where it is a question with some whether I stand bound b●● the Law of nature either to the one or to the other no man whatsoever ought to be or can be the ultimate J●dge of my conscience in this case as viz. whether I ought to act or ●o forbear but my conscience it self For let whoever will judge conclude and determine that I either ought to doe or not to doe such or such things I stand not presently bound by virtue of their judgement or determination either to the one or to the other but mine own judgement must super●een theirs and interpose either with approbation or dissent between their judgement and my either action or forbearance Nor is the judgement of any person or persons of what abilities or capacities soever any sufficient ground or warrant for me either to act or to forbear action contrary to mine own So that in whatsoever I doe or refrain doing I am to follow ultimately the sence and dictate of mine own judgement not other mens how j●st or regular soever they may be 2. Whereas he adds that an Oath is to be interpreted according Sect. 15 to his sence that gives it not his that takes it I assent but with provis● or explication that his sence ●e either declared before the giving of the Oath or otherwise such which may readily be gathered or inferred from the words of the Oath But if he that administers an Oath to me the 〈◊〉 whereof bears a plain clear and direct sence in one kind shall after my taking of this Oath come and tell me that his sence and meaning of the Oath was quite another thing differing from mine I suppose that I neither stood bound when

the taking away of Episco●acy root and b●anch * 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 a●sw●●●● the 5 〈…〉 pag ●● which the Parliament have ingaged themselves by Covenant and Oath to endeavour to the uttermost nor yet any sufficient provision for matters of Religious concernment † Ib●d pag. ●4 ●● which yet hath alwayes been prescribed and urged upon the Parliament by M● Geree and his party as the Primum quaerite in their accords and closures with the King By the way how shamelesly doth M r. Prynns pen over-lash in affirming that the King by these concessions hath fully and actually performed those two grand Conditions the preservation and defence 1. Of M● Prynne Speech of Declar 4. 1648 pag. ●4 the true Religion 2. Of the liberties of the Kingdom upon which the preservation and defence of his Person and Authority are suspended by the Covenant as himself granteth By the Religion of another Kingdom condemning M r. Gerees Sect. 18 and M● Prynnes judgement about the Concessions of the King I mean the Ministers of the Church and Kingdom of Scotland who in their necessary and seasonable Testimonie against Toleration concerning the Treaty in the Isle of Whight pag. 12. speak thus And doubtlesse the Lord is highly displeased with these proceedings in the Treaty at Newport in reference to Religion and Covenant concerning which they accepted of such concessions from his Majestie as being acqui●sced in were dangerous and destructive unto both This sence of these Ministers touching the said concessions of the King the late Scotch Commissioners in the latter of the two letters sent to the Parliament a little before their departure expresse not onely a● their own but as the sence of their Parliament itself also Their words are the●e Wherefore we do in the Name of the Parliament of Scotland for their vindication from fal●e a persions and calumnies Declare that though they are not satisfied with his Majesties Concessions in that late Treaty at New●o●t in the ●●● of 〈◊〉 e●pecially in matters of Religion and are resolved ●ot to crave his Majesties restitution to his Government before satisfaction be given by him to his Kingdoms yet c. Was not M● Geree a substantiall and close Di●putant to take that for granted and as needing no proof the truth whereof two Kingdoms and that in their best capacitie of discerning doe not onely question but positively deny Nor could M● Prynne lightly have uttered any thing more stigmatically and desperately reprochf●ll to the whole species and Order of Kings than in saying that the Kings Concessions were the larg●st safest and beneficiallest ever yet granted by any King to his Subjects since the Creation But Secondly to the Assumption of M r. Geree's first Argument Sect. 19 I answer further that the Parliament men he speaks of were so far from keeping to their Principles Professions and Declarations in their endeavours to settle the Kingdom upon the terms he speak's of that herein they started aside like broken bowes from them The Parliament it self complains of their apparent defection in this kind Yet here again say they We were encountered with unexpected difficulties by the APPARENT DE●ECTION of some of our Members who not regarding the glory of God nor good of the Common-wealth but being carried away by base ava●ice and ambition did labour the bringing in of the King again with all his faults without the least Repentance c. * Declar●● of the ●●●● of J●● 15 ●●●● Again when they endeavoured such a settlement of the Kingdom as M r. Geree speaks of did they keep to their Principle or Vote of no more addresses to the King as being a person uncapable of further Trust or to their profession of indeavo●ring to preserve the liberties of the Subject or of the ●xtirpation of Episcopacy or to that principle by which the● sometimes judged it necessary that some one Proposition at least for t●● honour of the T●eatours and for the security of the things treated for should be premized and assented unto by the King before any Treaty † ●e●●he ●●●● D●●l●● o● J●n ●● ●●48 pag ●1 or did they keep to their principle of bringing Incendiaries and Delinquents to condign Punishment or to their principle concerning the abolishing of the Kings negative Oath The clear truth is that in that attempt of setling the Kingdom which M r. Geree speake of they turned head upon all their Principles Professions and Declarations at once which at any time formerly they either held or made in true Conjunction with the Liberties of the People and Interest of the Kingdom Therefore with this Argument he onely beats the air instead of relieving his Clients Nor doth his second Argument turn to any whit better accommodation Sect. 20 unto them For to passe by the Major Proposition which yet without further explication is not too sacred to be touched the Minor is no Correspondent with the Truth The oppressed Members as his over-compassionate Mus● stileth them did not in that act of settlement he speaks of proceed in a way to which they stood ingaged by many solemn and Religi●us ●ands no he neither doth nor can prove that in the ●aid Act or attempt the Members he speaks of discharged or observed any one solemn or Religious band to which they stood ingaged according to the legitimate and true import and intent thereof For neither did the Oath of Allegiance nor the Oath of Supremacy nor the Protestation nor the Nationall Covenant ingage t●em to preserve the Kings Honour Safety and Greatnesse upon any such terms the performance whereof should clearly involve them in a manifest disobedience to the Law of God as viz. that which inflicts the penalty of death upon the Murtherer and apparantly withall expose the Nation to slavery and misery which the reass●ming of the King into his Throne and Power upon his Concessions m●st need● have done as the Parliament it ●elf hath once and again declared yea and reason it self in con●ort with the experience of all age● abundantly confirms But that the●e Members in their intended settlement of the Kingdom upon the terms magnified by M r. Geree did break many Solemn and Religious bands wherein they stood ingaged unto God and to the Kingdom is a truth ●ic●●r in evidence than to need proof They stood ingaged by such ●ands to the observation of the Law of God as well where it commands the punishment of Murtherers as otherwise to the Preservation and Defence of the liberties of the Subject to the Extirp●●i●n of Epis●●●●cie ●● the bringing of In●endia●ies and Delinquents to condign punishment c. all which bands with many more they b●●●●●●d ●●st from them ●● the●● compliance with the King upon his terms So that M r. Geree's clients are not yet recti in Curiâ He lifts up his hand yet again in their Defence and shews his Sect. 21 good will towards them in this Argument They that walk in a way suteable to