PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

Illumination to Sion Colledge.

WHEREIN, Their calling to the Miniſtery (the foundation whereof not be­ing built upon Chriſt) is diſſipated, their arrogancy hereupon manifeſted, the extent of Magiſtrates power in generall defined; the exe­cution of the late King, and the ſecluſion of the late members of Parlia­ment farther juſtified; the former Declarations of Parliament and Scri­ptures which they cite, explained; their Objections from the Covenant, removed in the grammaticall ſenſe thereof; and the Parliament and Army from their aſperſions in all vindicated. Being for anſwer, to the Repreſentation of their judg­ments, in a Letter to the Generall, January 18. laſt: Serves alſo to their Vindication: And in part to a Pamphlet intituled, Eſſex Watchmens watch-word: Likewiſe in effect to a later Libell (ſuppoſed Mr. Loves, intituled, A Vindication of the Miniſters from the aſperſions (alias the Etymologies) of Mr. Price, in his Clerico Claſſicum, &c. To which latter Pamphlet, is an­nexed a briefe anſwer to what is not ſo fully hinted in that to the Miniſters.

By J. L. as cordiall and fervent a thirſter after the Nations proſperity, as any.

F••k. 22.25.

There is a conſpiracy of her Prophets in the mids thereof like a roaring Lyon, rave­ning the prey; they have devoured ſouls, they have taken the riches and precious things, &c.

Micah 3.6

Therefore night ſhall be unto you for a Viſion, and darknes ſhall be unto you for a divina­tion, and the ſun ſhall go down over the Prophets, and the day ſhall be dark over them.

2 Colloſſ 8.

Beware leſt there be any man that ſpoile you through Phyloſophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Chriſt

Mr. Will. Prinne pag. 201.

Soveraign power of Parliaments, &c. To that Objection that Kings are of divne inſtitution, and therefore impuniſhable: His ſecond anſwer, viz. All Miniſters of the Goſpel are as much, if not more jure divino, and by Godown ordination as Kings are; as our Kings Writs to Biſhops in the words, rex eadem gratia, epiſcopo, at­teſt. but they for their offences and miſdemeanours contrary to their function, may be both for­cibly reſiſted, cenſured, deprived, degraded; yea, and executed, notwithſtanding their divine right and inſtitution; as the Cannons of moſt Councels, the practiſe of all ages; yea, the expreſſe letter of the 26. Article of the Church of England, with all our Epiſcopall Can­nous and Cannoniſts arreſt: therefore tyrannicall, degenerating Kings may be ſo too, by the ſelf ſame reaſon, in ſome caſes.

LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, and are to be ſold by Giles Calvert at the Black-ſpread Eagle at the Weſt end of Pauls. June 1. 1649.

To the Reader.


ACcording to my promiſe in a former Book (intituled The Execution of the late King juſtified) be­ing a chiefe cauſe hereof) I now tender thee this enſuing diſcourſe, deſiring (ac­cording to the Title) the intended effect there­of: which if, through obſtinacie, diverted and repelled; yet I ſhall patiently acquieſce in its truth; knowing, that light and truth are ſo e­ven when rejected of thoſe they are offered to (as ſome more Orthodox aſſertions hereof have been, though their labour is not in vain in the Lord;) However, whilſt thou readeſt it, ſhake off the inclination of thy opinion, doe it impar­tially, and let truth and reaſon take impreſsion upon thy heart, where ever they be, according to the deſire of thy affectionate friend herein,

J. L.


PAge 9. line 42. for leſt read leaſt, p. 11. l. 39. for appear r. operate, and p. 11. l. 45. is in the place of 46. and 46. in the place of 45. p. 12. l. 46. for o frequently, r. ſo fre­quently, p. 13. l. 29. for a Covenant r. the Covenant, p. 14. l. 21. for the ſame end r. to the ſame end. p. 15. l. 17. for raign r. raignes, p. 21. l. 37. for imputed r. reputed, p. 22. l. 41. for dutty r. duety, p. 24. l. 2. for a cupting, r. attempting, p. 25. l. 47. for band r. brand, p. 27. l. 24. for this r. thy, and l. 43 for did reprove, r. did then reprove, p. 28. l. 7 for that r. that, p. 30. l. 41 for his law r. the law, p. 31. l. 7. for out r. ought, and l. 11. for when r. where, and l. 30. for overaigne r. ſoveraigne, p. 32. l. 7. for ſatisfie r. ſatisfie.


Illumination TO SION-COLLEDGE.

O yee (ſelf terming, and ſo impoſing) Miniſters of the Goſpel:

It is not (or at leaſt ſhould not be) unknown to you; what ſelfe Interet appears, in your aſſuming ſo great a power, onely by virtue of that Title: through which you exceed the ſounds of miniſteriall liberty; and many of you, being blinded with ſelf (by whom the reſt may be ſpur don, or elſe the ſame luſt will appear uppermoſt in all) are ſo furious, that you tranſ­greſſe the law of Chriſtian meekneſſe; which I ſhall proceed more clearly to diſcover (avoiding a long Preamble) in the ſubſequent Anſwer: to the ſubject matter of your Letter.

And therefore in the Preamble to the following matter in your Letter, you con­feſſe,divers applications have been made, as well in writing, as by verball meſſages; inviting the Miniſters of London, or ſome of them, to meet with the Officers of the Army, in their conſultations about matters of Religion; which you ſay is moſt ſui­table to you Profeſſion.And a delay in the propagation whereof, your ſelves hath often decryed, as a ſin in others; and yet now are guilty of the ſame: by ur­ging civill (though groundleſſe) reaſons, as will appear in that your concurrence, (which amongſt the reſt, you make one ground of this your writing) with your quoted Brethren in their diſlike (which you ſay, you were willed to ſignifie) of thoſe mentioned proceedings of the Army.] For your refuſall of ſuch meetings: which refuſall had it indeed, proceeded from right principles of fore-ſight, that ſuch a meeting would have inevitably (through your own buſie diſpoſitions) pro­duced2 a controverſie about civill government (with which authoritatively, you are not to meddle) and ſo have fruſtrated the end of your meeting, viz to conſult a­bout matters of Religion: or from inſight to your own unworthines [of ſo in­dulgent an invitation in preference of what you profeſſe, viz. Miniſters of the Go­ſpel, [though your calling thereunto is unwarrantable] men of parts and the like] through thoſe many unjuſt, and publique contradictions, and Pulpit aſperſions (many of you chuſing ſubjects for that very purpoſe) that you have caſt upon their proceedings: upon theſe grounds, it had been acceptable, and laudable in you to have refuſed a meeting; but on the contrary, not being contented with that pre­aſſu••d title; but ſoaring to be Miniſters of the State likewiſe, to which your ambition, the Army having put a ſtop, or at leaſt, becauſe they would not depend upon your fallible judgements, and ſo limit the ſpirit of God and their own rea­ſon, and conſciences to your way of government and interpretation of the ſcripture thereto: for theſe reaſons, which are the main, to refuſe a meeting was contem­ptible.

But that your matter might ſeem the ſtronger, you aſcribe your ſelves a large cir­cuit viz. the Miniſters of London, in defence of this your peremptory refuſall un­der that ſtile: when thee are as many ſound, holy, conſcientious, and (almoſt if not quite as many) learned, and yet contrary minded men [whoſe title is as good to the Minitery] as your ſelves therein. But being carryed on with that luſt of ſelf eſteem, and continuance in the kingdome, you convert the reproofs in ſcripture unto wicked men, to thoſe that oppoſe and reſiſt this luſt as a ſin in you: and whereas you ſhould lift up your voices as trumpets, to ſhew the people their tranſ­greſſions, as ſwearing drunkeneſſe, whoredome, pride and the like; and againſt the Magiſtrates for bearing the ſword in vain herein; you excite the people to more ſin, which is fle••ly contention, and oppoſition, being far diſtant from your aſſu­med title, Miniſers of the Goſpel, and ſo ſhould be of peace. But juſtly may that wo be pronounced againſt you; Woe be unto them that ſpeak good of evill, and evill of good;Iſ 1.5. 0. which put darknes for light, and light for darknes; that put bitter, for ſweet, and ſweet for ſowre.

But in your 2 page, you diſcover that ſo openly, of your ſelves, that needs not be diſcovered to you, for your words arehad a conference beene deſired with〈◊〉o••h, to have g••eyou reſolution, whether the wayes wherein at preſent you are walking, are agreeable to the word of God; we ſhould have delivered our judge­ments, &c.

There needs no farther teſtimony of your ambition, or diſcovery of thoſe ends, for which you firſt engaged and complyed in depoſing the Biſhops [though you yet continue your Ordination from them] and conjunction, would ſupply their places: then theſe your own aſpiring words, whereby you demonſtrate, that you would be (as claiming a ſole right thereunto) the Armies counſellors, as if the ſpirit of God reſted upon you onely, that none could diſcern what is agree­able to Gods word, or what is rationall, and eſſentiall to the peace and freedome of the kingdome, in the eſtabliſhment of a civill government (the word of God not preſcribing every particular expedient therein) but your ſelves: and as if there were no Miniſters, that had the ſame title, to the preaching of the Goſpel, that ſi­ded with the Army, and that you are the onely men to be enquired off, concerning the minde of God in his word: but your conjunction herein may well be com­pared3 to theirs in Ezek. 22.25. there is a conſpiracy of her Prophets in the middeſt thereof, like a roaring lion, raving the prey: they have devoured ſouls, &c. Many poor ſouls have been allured to depend upon your doctrine as infallible, (and ſo are deceived) through your uſurping and maintaining ſuch a ſole right, to explicate the ſcriptures, eſpecially upon mens traditions, humane grounds, degrees in lea­ning; which if any expedient at all, as receiving it by tradition, yet one of the leaſt,1 Cor. 1.26. when the Apoſtle ſaith expreſſely, not many wiſe men after the fleſh, &c. but God hath choſn the fooliſh things of the world, to confound the wiſe (that are ſo eſteemed by the world) and vile things of the world, and things which are deſpiſed:Verſe 28. [ſuch as Coblers, and Tinkers; let their outward calling be never ſo mean, by reaſon whereof, they are contemned by the world, and thought unworthy, as to the expo­ſition of the ſcriptures; yet theſe] hath God choſen of the world, and things which are not [in the worlds apprhnſion, and their own likewiſe, capable of ſuch pre­ferment] to bring to nought [to render vain and unprofitable, not onely to them­ſelves, but thoſe alſo,John 9.41. by whom they were eſteemed] things that are [and none elſe beſides them, in their own eſtimation, and the worlds likewiſe; which ſay they ſco, but therefore their ſin remaineth:] Nay, unto babes, ſhall the hidden mi­ſteryes of the kingdome of heaven be revealed, to men of ſmall capacities,Matth 11.25. in the eſteem of ſuch as have fle••y wiſdome; ſuch babes, [for that the ſpirit of God is powerfulleſt, pureſt, ſimpleſt, and diſcernably ſo where leaſt of humane helps are ajoyned] in Chriſts accompt, have ſuitable ſpirits, for Goſpel revellations. But remember, you ſelf conceited and ſo aſcribing men, that, Wo unto them that are wiſe in their own eyes,Iſa. 5.21. and prudent in their own ſight.

But had the Army queſtioned the lawfulneſſe of their wayes [in which they are as confident pro, that they are good, as your ſelves cont. ] and hereupon had in­vited you to a conference, you ſhould have met:And have given in this as your advice, that inſtead of proceeding further in ſuch unwarrantable courſes, they ſhould have teſtified their timely and godly ſorrow, for which [ſo clearly againſt the direct rule of the word] they have already acted. Who would have thought, that ſuch ſelf confident men, [in that you peremptorily conclude, the Armies wayes are againſt the word of God, though your interpretation thereupon (as hereafter ap­pears) makes the ſcriptures irreconcileable] ſhould at a conference ſeek ſo much advantage from men, as to deſire they ſhould ſo much as queſtion, much leſſe de­ny the juſtneſſe of their wayes, about which they were to conferr: for thoſe that queſtion the legality of their proceedings, may eaſily be perſwaded that they are il­legall. But you ſtill page 3. finde fault with your invitationAs iſ (ſay you) your wayes were already granted by us; we were onely invited to contribute our aſ­ſiſtance in proſecution of what you had undertaken, which we conceive to be out of your Spheare.

Whe would think that men [that would ſeem to be ſo conſcientious as you do] ſhould grumble that the Army (by their invitation) did repute you better then you were; yet I believe you miſtae them in it, for they could not be ignorant of the publique impertinent and ſeditious oppoſition you made, and ſtill make againſt them: therefore it would be folly to thinke, they ſhould invite you to contribute aſſiſtance to their proceedings, which they know, you ſo greatly did and doe (though undeſervedly) vilifie; and all this from a meer conception, that they act out of their Sphear, gives more juſt ground to believe, that you are excee­dingly4 tranſported with ſome affianced luſt, thus inconſiderately to act out of your ſheer, even to the reproach of your profeſſion, by contending for ſuch a power, which the word of God, allowes not in any, and wherein to comply with you,〈◊〉.1 is to contradict the Apoſtles rule, that bids us have no fellowſhip with the un­ſruifull wrks of••rkneſſe but reprove them rather.

You proceed now more particularly [though inconſiderately in that you for­get the**The〈…〉the〈…〉 faſt preſident of attempt againſt lawfull autority, countenanced and•••tted (if not by verball juſtification, yet in ſilence by you) to demonſtrate the (by you ſo conceived) unjuſtneſſe of the Armys ways, by their (by you called) late attempts upn authority: and your words are theſe. It is already ſuffi­ien••known (beſides all formeriſ••arriages) what attempts of late have been put in practiſe againſt lawfull authority: eſpecially by your late Remonſtrance and Declaration publiſhed in oppoſition to the proceedings of Parliament.

The practiz'd attempts you ſpeak off are [laying aſide the common enemy, who in this cac are not to be our Judges, and indeed have forfeited ſo much as nomination] only diſcerned by your faction of unifomiſts, and conſequently, the lawfull authority you ſpeak it, can be but alike opinionated prevailing facti­on in the Paliament, which upon juſt grounds being oppoſ'd, is accounted an unparrallel'd attempt againſt authority by you; when as ſuch a faction is but joyntly intuſted, by the Kingdome with theeſt; now for them, by vitue of a maj••vote, to aſſme irreſponſible and incontroleale power to themſelves, is no lſſe uſurpation:h••that of the late Kings was [which is amply manifeſted in a book, enituled, the••••tion of the late King juſtified &c. already publiſhed by m••to the Crown, by vetue of ſucceſſion: and therefore no lſſe [but ra­ther more becauſe their truſt is greater] offenſive, and accordingly puniſhable, which I ſhall further illuſtrate, from your owne parties example in the Parliament, when united with theſe, from whom they and you now diſſent; both joyntly taking occaſion [in diſcharge of that truſt was repoſed in them by the Kingdome] to exempt the Malignant party [upon that forfeiture of truſt they made] from par­taking in the priviledges of Parliament, and likewiſe to exclude them the Houſe: And yet after this, your faction in the Parliament (which you call the only law­full authority) ſhall recede and indeavour to reſigne up, that into the Malignants power, which themſelves joyntly condemned, as breach of truſt in them for at­tempting [viz. an ithrlling of the peoples liberties] and therefore diſpoſſeſſed them, let reaſon & the world judg, whether the minor part in Parliament may not lawfully proſecute the ſamd forfeiture upon them, though the major part [breach of truſt being the ſame in any, only the higher the perſons the greater their offence therein] in caſhiering them their truſt, which they concoded ſhould be, in the ſame caſe, upon the firſt Malignants, therefore what you charge the Army (the intereſt of the minor party) for attempt againſt the authority of your intereſt, was only the ſame advantage neceſſarily and juſtly improv'd by them, for the de­poſing of your Parties authority, which both united, took againſt the commonney; for, in that, your party in the Parliament [waving their late complying with the late King] did only ſeek the advancement of their own Intereſt, with pretence of good to the Kingdome, when it could be ſo only to themſelves and their complices, they forf••ted their truſt; by which they were ingag'd to indea­vour the good of ſuch that then aſſiſted them in that cauſe, as much as their5 own, which good cannot extend to all that ſo ingaged with the Parliament, un­leſſe eſtabliſhed from common princiles, which were and are very wide of their and your tennts, tht eſtem not that liberty, which conſiſts not in others op­peſſion; the Army and their party, therefore [being as greatly intruſted for and in erſſed in the good of the Kingdome, as thoſe of yours] finding their li­berties to be infringed by them, could not, but (in diſcharge of their duty to the Kingdome) clip their prevalency and obſtruct their reſolute proſecution of ſuch an intereſt, meerly ſatisfactory to their own party: and therefore far from a ge••rall good: which to effect [in the eſtabliſhment of ſuch a government whereunder, as to your ſelves, you may partake of as great benefit and freedome, as the preſent proſecuors thereof] the indeavours of the Army, can be no op­preſſion, and therefore not unlawfull, but expedient for them to attempt; where­in, your accuſation of them is impertinent and ſcandalous. Yet you ſtill perſiſt pag. 4. [after ſeverall attempts recited and eſteem'd ſo by you, which I have all­ready clearly prov'd in the negative] to juſtifie your faction in the Parliaments the only authority, and therefore condemn the Army (though therein likewiſe you include the minor part of parliament) for oppoſing them; ſaying:All〈◊〉ſrilues we cannot but judge, to be manifeſtly oppoſite to the lawfll authority of thoſe Magiſtrates, which God hath ſet over us, and to that duty and obedience, which by the loves of God and man, and by our manifold Oaths and Covenants, we ſtand obliged to render to them.

To which I anſwer, that if God had immediately (which your words would ſeem to imply) inſtituted and appointed yuparty in the Parliament, to be ſole (withut others cojoyn'd) Magiſtrates over us, and had injoyn'd us univerſall, in all caſes, (for which we have neither precept nor preſident in Gods word) obedience to them; it would have been ſin in the Army in reſiſting them; but ſince God ſets not all Magiſtrates (in that hſets not tyrants) over us, otherwiſe then by permiſſion: thoſe are neerſt unto Gods ordination, that receive their authority by his rule, which is now only through free election, and that not to an abſolute power, to govern as they liſt (for then the people looſeth their end, viz. thir own good in their choice) but to walk according to the rule that ſhall be preſcrib'd them [a great defect (through the uſurpation of predeceſſing Magſtrates till of late days) in our laws] to diſcharge the end of their reſpective offices, and to perform the conditions upon which they are choſen (or at leaſt for which they are intended) Magiſtrates; but now thoſe that uſurp authority, reſpects none of theſe rules, and therefore not lawfull Magiſtrates for a lawfull Magiſtrate can­not, and knows not, how to govern well [in that every particular expedient for the peoples good in civill government, is not written in his heart] without a rule, [which the people only are beſt able to preſcribe, ſeeing they know beſt their own wants. Now then, in what yon charge the Army of diſobedience (as univerſal without exceptions to any) your ſelves are guilty in the ſame, by complying which I urge againſt you (allowing it in your ſelves and yet reproving it in them) as an example unto (though juſt in) hem, (but unjuſt in you, in that you now al­ldge univerſallbedienc) not to yeld obedience to all Magiſtrates.) Againſt the late King: let your pretence be what it will, viz. that you ingaged againſt his evill councell or the like; in your then ingaging againſt them, you ingag'd againſt him abetting and inducing of them thereto, which is clearly teſtined by his6 approof (in which he dyed, as to all outward appearance) of them therein: and therefore to what you accuſe the Army, for oppoſing lawfull authority; I anſer, that (beſides that precied, your own example) they have the reaſon, and righteouſ­neſſe of the act it ſelf to juſtifie them, in their oppoſition to your party, which had then the major Vote in Parliament, and by vtuwhereof you call them lawful authority: Now, though from hence, you would injoyn the Army, obedience to them, which I have before ſhewed is no plea, yet pray know thus much more, in an­ſwer thereto; that in juſt diſſents, viz. for the good of the people, the minor part in Parliament (becauſe ſo) ceaſe not to be a power, but are the onely power (in adhearing to their charge) intruſted, becauſe the pwer of the other party is ex­tnct throuh their abuſe thereof, by managing it to a wrong end, which your par­ty was doing••edy for advantage to their own faction: therefore, in diſcharge of thoſe bnds both of God and men, which lay upon the minor part in Parlia­ment, being then the only juſt power; they could not but improve (as they did) the••utmoſt indeavous to perform their truſt, viz. the peoples Liberties, though againſt when they ſaw the digreſſion of••a major party; therefore the oppoſi­tion that you make againſt this preſent Parliament, (the onely juſt power in be­•••is practicall attempt againſt lawfull authority; which according to your own wordsou are bound by the laws of God a••mn, and manifold Oaths and Covenants to oey. Nowh•••the Parliament being then di••ded into lawfull magiſtrates, and〈…〉hey were magiſtrates, let reaſonable (not obſtinate) men judge, whether the Army deſerve•••et to be acquitted of your accuſation, and ju­ſti•••in thoſe proceedings, ſince the word of God commands them, to abb•••that which is•••ll, and cleae to that which is god. Rom. 12.9.

But that you might confirm your matter, you proceed to quote ſcriptures, which as from God, are purely ſpirituall, no contradiction in them, all together righteous; but though mens various and corrupt interpretations, they are put (as t'were) at civill wars, ſcripture againſt ſcripture, and made a cloak for moſt luſtfull errours; therefore the firſt text you cite, runs thus, in the advice to Solo­mon: Fear thou the Lord and the King,P•••. 24 21. and medle not with them that are given to change: I ſhall (by way of anſwer) in theſe words denote, that the fear which So­lomon enjoyns to the King [in which title is comprehended all ſupream Offices in power, therefore the ſame text commands fear, to a Parliament, or to the autho­rity of any other way of government; elſe what the Apoſtle ſaith ſhould bee for inſtruction to all, is made uſeleſſe, and of no force to many nations, that have no King,Rom. 15.4. but are governed by States, ſomeone way and ſome another] this fear I ſay, to the King, is conditionall from the precedent fear, with which its coupled; that is, the fear of the Lord: Fear thou the Lord, and the King; implying that we are not to fear the King, when it is disjoyned, and much more when it will pre­judice and extinguiſh the fear of the Lord; I would be as clear, yet as brief as I can; becauſe my time is ſtreightned: therefore

Secondly, when he ſaith, Feare the King, without doubt, he means a lawfull King, a King quallified for the Office; and then the text, injyned not fear to the late King, as will more amply appear in my prenominated book.

Thirdly, He means it not in all ciill caſes, for then we ſhall come under that his reproof, it is not good, that is, 'tis a••n to haveeſpect of perſons in judgment, but now,Voſe 23. to reſpect Kings in judgement (through that former injunction to fear)7 notwithſtanding puniſable offences in them, is to reſpect perſons in judgement, and ſo this latter text becomes ineffectual: but now that this latter may comply with the former verſe, the latter muſt be expounded thus; It is not good, or it is a ſin, to have reſpect of perſons in judgement; that is, a King incluſively (though lawfull in his calling) in cae of••anſgreſſion, ſhould be ſo far from being feared, as that judgement withut partiality, ſhould be executed on him:Luke 12.28. and this is ac­cording to Chriſts own rule; that to whom much is given, much ſhall be required: therfore the ſame laws that upon breach of truſt, or any other offences, are (or ſhould be) proſecuted againſt ſubordinate officers, or a Kings (ſhould be brethren) ſub­jects: the ſame ſhould be proſecuted againſt a King, or ſuperiour magiſtrates ſo much the heavier, by how much, his or their truſt and gifts being the more, his or their offences are the greater. Now then it is clear, that Solomon enjoyns fear to Kings, or (where none are) to other ſuperiour Magiſtrates, onely upon theſe grounds: viz. that they arlawfull Magiſtrates, and as our fear to them, may con­ſiſt with our fear to God; and this can be onely in the execution of juſtice and judgement, which he commands: then laſtly, the wiſeman ſpeaks this, not to thoſe that have authority and power above the King, [as (before ſhewed,) the agents in theſe tranſactions hath from the people, but to thoſe that are private perſons, with­out any intereſt in publiquaffairs, as to truſt: now in this ſenſe I comply with the text; that private perſons are to fear the higher powers, all ſuch, whether Par­liament or others, being included in this title King: but beſides all theſe, I ſhall recite one poof more, (though the leaſt) for juſtification of the Army herein, and that is your own examples in complying againſt the late King, which I wave, be­cauſe before hinted: Now the application to what hath been ſaid, in reference to this your firſt quoted text, I leave (becauſe ſo eaſie) to be underſtood, and pro­ceed (onely hinting thus much) that ſeeing Solomon bids us meddle not with thoſe that are given to change, (or in other tranſlations, that are ſeditious, which is moſt fitly applied to your ſelves, (and for the Army to obſerve towards you) that inſtead of preaching peace, the glad tidings of the Goſpel, preach contention and debate. ) yet your ſelves are examples of a change, elſe many of you, would have had but ſmal communion with light; and the reaſon why you are in ſuch obſcu­rity, ibecauſe you are not ſo throughly changed, as you ſhould be; there are yet too many epiſcopall principles in you, which particularly to ſurvay, is from the purpoſe in hand; therefore I leave them as beſt known to God, and your own conſciences, yet in part to the Kingdom; but only this, there are bleſſed changes.

To the next text you quote, and that is,Withdraw from every brother, that walketh diſorderly; and not according to the traditions, which you have received fro••us. 2 Theſſ. 3.6.

Though you wave the particular end [in that Saint Paul in theſe inſtructions intendethem, to that particular act of inordinacy, verſ. 8. from which he clears himſelf, by adminiſtring to his own neceſſities, & which he urgeth,Act18.34. as a motive for every man, to work from his own example, though hee had authority to have received maintenance from them, yet he ſaw it more expedient, to preach the go­ſpel freely, ſince himſelf (among other reaſons) was able to work: now though from this ſenſe of that place, you very likely willingly) digreſſe, yet it is too much veritied upon many of you, that make a trade, and pin your livelihoods upon the preching of the Goſpel, notwithſtanding your abilities to the contrary: but if the8 Apoſtles thought it expedient to work; much more may you (whoſe authority is not ſo good) refer your ſelves to the benevolence of your Congregations, or at leaſt, not ungoſpel-like, to contend for a reward] now I ſay, though you wave the particular end of the Apoſtles words; yet I ſhall anſwer a little to them in your own ſenſe: therefore in the next place, you ſay, one of the Apoſtles traditions is,

"Put them inminde to be ſubject to prinipallities, and powers; and to obey ma­g•••; "T••2.1. Fo. 13 1, 2. and to let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher powers, &c.

Theſe te••hth in effect been already anſwered, the leſſe therefore will now ſerve; now thn ſeeing magiſtrates have a power above them: viz. the people, the originall of their authority: it is clear, that the Apoſtle exhorts obedience in the people,D•••8. 6. F•••. 33.2. non cojunction, as they are the center and top of the magiſtrates power, ſed d•••ſ••, as they are private perſons; elſe you will civide the ſcripture, and make the fountain dependant on the ſtreams; and the maſter, on his ſervants.

Again he minded them of this obedience, either as a Church (which I rather believe) or as members of a State; if as a Church (though this interpretation wi••h•••good therein likewiſe) then what you infer, is as wide from the then pre­ſent tranſ•••tions of the Parliament and Army, as ſpirituall things are from tem­po••ll. And if as members of a State, yur application of this text is altogether•••tient, ſeeing it is granted, that private perſons ought to obey lawfull ma­gr••ates in lawfull cauſes.

Buthis〈◊〉txt you quote, ſeems to••ga reaſon of obedience to magiſtrates, yet far from;Rom. 13.1, 2.ur ſenſe; the text ſaith,Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher powers; for there ito poer but of God, the powers thate are ordained of God: whoſe­er therofor••ieth the power, reſiſleth the ordinance of God; and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to theſelves damnation.

Now to open this ſcripture in oppoſition to your ſenſe of it; I ſhall premiſe theſe things. viz. full, that there are powers immediatly ordained of God, or by an immediate particulacommand from God:1 S•••17. 1〈◊〉13. 2〈◊〉3.9.3. that is, when God doth particularly inſtitute ſuch, or ſuch a perſon to be a magiſtrate: thus God commanded Sam••to ſingle our Saul the ſiſt King, and the ſame Prophet afterward, to•••int Davi, the youngeſt of his br••h enin like manner was Jhu (though a ſervant to the ſucceſſive King his maſter) in••ituted; therefre thtext commands not ſub­jection in this ſenſe, thereeing no ſuch ordiation now. But.

Secondly, there are powers mediately ordained of God, that is, God hath committee••t to a people,〈…〉6.1. to conſtitute their own Officers, whethehigh or lo: nw when a people hath thus elected, & with power inveſted their own magiſtrates (upon that generall limitation to their reſpective Offices: viz. to doe equity and righteouſnes in all the particular acts thereof, as far as the p•••la••convinced of them) then that people are injoyned by your precited text,1〈◊〉19 as private perſons, to obey them (in lawfull commands) as the mediate ordinance of Go: but it being clear (as before amply demonſtrated) that the lawfull authrityou ſpeak of, had not this qualification, or at leaſt, acted not up to it; it is〈◊〉, that this text injoyned not obedience to them, but conſequetly oppoſ•••the con­trary of ſubjection: and the Army is to be juſtifica (as upon many o•••r grounds, ſo upon this) therein.

Thirdly and laſtly, in anſwer to the ſame text; there are powers permiſſively ordained by God, that is, ſuch that God doth not prevent or oppoſe, but ſuffer­eth9 to be; and theſe are illegal, tyrannicall, & oppreſſive powers, which God is ſaid to ordain, as he is ſaid to do evil by permitting it to be done:**Amos 3.6. now for any to think that God is the author of evil becauſe he permits it, or that God ordains (otherwiſe then permiſſively) and enjoyns tyrannicall powers, becauſe he doth not appear againſt them: is to charge God with injuſtice; it being againſt his attribute of juſtice to en­joyn obedience to an unjuſt power, it is indeed to make God the author of ſin, ſo far as an unjuſt power is ſinfull; and therefore that the Apoſtle might manifeſt (as I believe) the juſtice of God herein; he limits our ſubjection to a condition, by rendring a reaſon thereof (which though you omit, yet is the very qualification of our ſubjection) the command is, Be ſubject to the higher powers, &c. but why? For, or becauſe he (that is the magiſtrate) is the miniſter of God for thy wealth, &c. this is the very Hinge upon which the power of magiſtracy hangs,Rom. 13.4. but take away the Hinge, and the doore muſt needs be down; that is, if the magiſtrates actings, for the wealth of the people dyes, their power dyes with it: now if omiſſi­ons of, much more commiſſions againſt the common wealths good (by oppreſ­ſions in deſigning ſelf-intereſt and the like) makes the power of Magiſtrates extinct: wherein likewiſe we are bound to reſiſt them; it being the complaint of God, that none are found in a Nation, to oppoſe the exerciſe of an unjuſt po­wer, whether in Princes by ſhedding of blood, or in Prophets by divining lies, or in the people (moſt likely in their Repreſentatives) by oppreſſion. The Lord ſaith, Ezek. 22.30. I ſought for a man among them, that ſhould make up the hedge, and ſtand in the gap before me, for the land, that I ſhould not deſtroy it; but I found none: not onely to ſtand in the gap by Prayer, but make up the hedge, put thorns in their way; and as the Margin hath it, which ſhould ſhew himſelf zealous in my cauſe, by reſiſting vice, & in the like neglect, Iſa. 59.16. God wondred that no man offered himſelf to do judgement; and how acceptably did God take it, Numb. 25.11. that Phineas (though a private man) did execute juſtice upon Zimri and Cosbi, though the chief of their families; and though he had no particular com­mand for what he did, and ſo not a rule (as ſome of you ſay) yet it is a renowned example (approved, by God himſelf) unto us (In caſe of the like neglect in others) to act up to that generall and univerſall command, viz. the execution of judge­ment and juſtice, as he did; and ſuch may expect the ſame bleſſing, if they reſpect the ſame end: therefore the Parliament and Army (that had both equity and po­wer; and were entruſted) unto that oppoſition which they made againſt your (tho the major) partie in Parliament (in their ſought to be eſtabliſhed oppreſſion, and therein to infringe the peoples liberties, tending to ſubvert the end and cauſe of their truſt; an offence in any ſole power, much more in them, who were but joyntly intruſted] the feare of God did oblige them, though the minor part, as a happy and moſt deſirable civill change from darkneſſe unto light, communion wherewith we ſhould moſt cover to enjoy, free from diſcontent, ſince we ſhould rather ſecondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army, then truſt­fully to adhere to their authority,The firſt man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. L•••try laſt, being, then Faſt-day when there was the leſt yet lawfulleſt (part there­of (which I have ſhewed, we muſt rather obey) appearing to diſcharge their duty

Now then, that can be no plea (though aſſerted by one of your * Brethren, upon that ſubject of univerſall obedience to Magiſtrates, ſeeing he made no exceptions) the effect of it [viz. that magiſtrates are of divine inſtitution, that they bear Gods image; that God himſelf cals them Gods; and therefore diſobedience to them10 is an eternall dan mage, whereas to diſappoint the peoples ſafetie, is but a tempo­rall loſſe, and ſo to be leſſe eſteemed then an eternall.] I ſay, this can be no plea (craving leave a little to digreſſe from your matter: for ſatisfaction ſake, more formally, though this is effectually already anſwered ſince that the office or duty of the Magiſtrate not his own perſon) is onely of divine inſtitution; in the execution of which office [viz. 1 Kings 10.9. to do equitie and righteouſneſſe, in as much as therein conſiſts holines] he bears Gods image; but when Magiſtrates ſhall act quite contrary to the cauſe, which take away, and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being, by oppreſſion, injuſtice, Covenant-breaking, exaltation above their (brethren, ſubjects; and all this with that great aggravation of ſelf, reſpect: herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holineſſe, ſo unto dominion which is to rule in righteouſnes, meeknes and mercy) in which de­fect they ceaſe to be either the ordinance of God or man; and the people are diſ­obliged from obedience to them, and ſo by conſequence and contrary, may law­fully reſiſt their evil practices. Nay, lawfull magiſtrates enjoining things (that may ordinarily in themſelves be lawfull) in all extraordinary caſes, may ſome­times erre; and lawfully be reſiſted therein; in as much as they obſtruct a grea­ter good: let all remember therefore, that as of two evils, the leaſt, ſo of two goods the greateſt is to be choſen: but the example of David may more fitly inſert here­after, at preſent I therefore wave it; and proceed to your fifth page, and there your words are:

Wee have not forgotten thoſe declared grounds and principles, upon which the Par­liament firſt took up Arms, and upon which we were induced to joyne with them, &c.

Which though you ſay, you have not declined, yet will prove the contrary: for the grounds that the Parliament firſt did (or at leaſt ſhould have done) take up arms upon; was not ſo much their own priviledges, as the peoples liberties: and therefore their**Iaintry 17 1••1. Declaration (which you inſtance for confirmation, will prove the confutation of all your matter) upon that attempt which the King made upon their Priviledges; putteth ſuch an aſſault, as an offence againſt the liberty of the Subject, before a breach of their own priviledges: whoſe priviledges to preſerve, indeed were the inſtrumentall cauſe of our firſt taking up Armes; but we (not you, unleſſe you confirm this truth) reſted not here, this was not our end; the onely thing we aimed at: but we had reſpect to ſome thing beyond, and yet then through the priviledges of Parliament: viz. the Peoples liberties, the very end wherefore they ſit: and the grounds of our aſſiſtance to them, was not ſo much [though our liberties were apparently, becauſe we had no other power to appear for us, and whoſe miſcarriage would have been ours not ſubordinately wrapt up in] their Privileges, as our own liberties; therefore conſonant to this, is the conclu­ſion of the precited Declaration; wherein they declare, the Perſon that ſhall ſo Arreſt any member, or members of Parliament, to be a Publique enemie to the Common-wealth; which clearly ſhews, that ſuch members muſt be acting for the good of the common wealth, or elſe the Perſon or Perſons ſo arreſting them, will be ſo far from enemies, as that they will bee friends to the Common-wealth in ſo doing: therefore from hence, this flows clearly, by way of uſe; that thoſe are no Priviledges (but uſurped) of Parliament, that are inconſiſtent with the Peoples lborties.

As likewiſe this undeniable concluſion, that to arreſt or ſeclude (as was then11 endeavoured by the late King) any Perſon or Perſons in the Parliament acting for the peoples liberties, is contrary thereunto; and a breach of the priviledges of Parliament.

But the Army [with the conſent of thoſe onely lawfull ones (and ſo the houſe) left be­hinde] ſecluded the late members of Parliament, for infringing the peoples liberties.

Therefo••it was no breath of their Priviledges.

But it is moſt manifeſt by all your precedent arguments and quotations, that you would make the people the Packhorſe to all your impoſed burthens, and ſlaves to no leſſe then three powers; the King his Honour, and Prerogative; the Parliament their Priviledges which you make diſtinct from, though if they are ſo, they muſt concuin, the peoples liberties) above them; and you your Eccleſiaſticall government above all: but your complying with the two former; from all evidences, is onely that they may aſſiſt in advancing yours; when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all caſes, at all times, upon all occaſion: all three would center in the peoples liberties; they being ordained for the peo­ple, and not the people for them: but herein you preferre the Box before the Ointment, the Raiment before the body: and you are blinded with ſelf, yet confidently you ſay, you ſee; but therefore your blindenes remaineth, and no wonder, if you occaſion your own fal.

Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting, becauſe in your 6 page 25. line: you ſay, that in reference to the power of Magiſtracy, they are but private Per­ſons: it ſeems ſtrange, that you ſhould ſo forget the priviledge, that both you and we, when united (in a then thought juſt cauſe againſt the King, by ſuing out our liberties) took (notwithſtanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the king­dom) to eſteem our ſelves the kingdom: as witnes your own words in the 5 p. of your pam­phlet, line 12. upon the attempt of. the late King (deſtructive to the good of the Kingdom,) and ſhall the Army, and their party (which in compariſon to yours, are more numerous, then both of us then were to the Kings) be eſteemed as private Perſons, and leſſe juſtifi­able, in the proſecution of the ſame end, againſt the proceedings of your Party onely? and can this be a breach of the Priviledges (being onely a Purge, which though it makes ſick, yet is, in order to the health) of the Parliament, in acting up to the fountain of their Priviledges: let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceedings, ſince our cies have been witneſſe of the juſtnes of them; and the rather, becauſe they acted not alone (very lawfull to do juſtly, ſhould none other appear thereto) but contributed their aſſiſtance unto their ſolely lawfull authority, which (though for quantity the leaſt, yet for quality the beſt) being in the right, a minor Vote, was thenver-powred by might, a major Vote; and yet this doth, nor did not extenuate, or leſſen the equity of the minor part, which to maintain (as being bound in dutie thereunto) the then appearance of the Armic muſt needs be juſtified; in as much likewiſe as chuſing the good, and eſchewing the evill is ju­ſtifiable: and therefore for farther confirmation hereof, (though the premiſes conſidered, there needs none) from Junius Brutus (in as much as ſuch reliques chiefely appear upon ſome) upon the ſame ſubject, cited by Mr Prinne [in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments, and Kingdomes. pag. 198. line 1. to the 18,] from whom I gather them, viz

The King ſwears that he will ſeek the ſafety of the Realm, the Nobles ſwer every one the ſame by himſelf: whether therefore the King, or moſt of the Nobles neglecting their Oath, ſhall either deſtroy the Common-weale, or deſert it being in danger, ought the reſt therefore to deſert the Republique; or at leaſt, but rather then eſpecially, they ought to ſhews their fidelity, when as others neglect it, be leſſe bound to defend it, as if they were obſerved from their Oath? Eſpecially, ſince they were principally inſtituted for that end, like the Epho••and every thing12 may then be reputed juſt, when it attaines its end: whether truly if many have promiſed the ſame thing, is the obligation of the one diſſolved by the perjury of the other? whether if many be guilty of the ſame ſinne, are the reſt freed by the fraud of one? whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupill, ſhall one good man be leſſe bound with the burthen of the wardſhip through their de­fault? but rather, neither can thoſe avoyd the infamy of perjury, unleſſe they, ende••our to ſatisfie their truſt as much as in them lieth; neither can thoſe exempt themſelves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianſhip ill adminiſtred, unleſſe they implead the other Guardians ſuſpected; when as verily one guardian may notuely implead the reſt ſuſpected, and take care of thoſe to bee removed, but alſo remove them.

The application of this paſſage I need not inſert, ſeeing the words themſelves are clear and eaſie to be underſtood, and that in generall it holds forth thus much, That a minor party are bound in duty to diſcharge their truſt, though in oppoſition to the major party negle­cting or falſifying it. And although you would ſeem to take off an objection from the Par­liaments own example in oppoſing the late King, by thſe your words.

And although both Houſes of Parliament (who are joyntly together with the King intruſted with the ſupream authority of the Kingdome) ſaw cauſe to take up Armes for their owne defence, againſt the attempts made upon them by the King and his evill Counſellors; and for ſome o­ther ends which you cite, though doubtleſſe experience will produce ſufficient teſtimony of better effected; yet it hath been amply and ſatisfactorily proved, that the Army have not acted as private perſons, ſince they aſſiſted the lawfull authority (though the leaſt part of the Nobles, yet the Kings ſuperiour and ſo ſupream, it being moſt unſafe to leave the ſupremacy undetermined, as is largely demonſtrated by that Author [Iunius Brutus] quo­ted by Mr. Prinne in the 196, 197. pages of that his prenominated Booke) in proſecution of the end of their ingagements, the peoples libertie, ſince likewiſe they were not inſtituted the Parliaments ſervants to purſue their end, but the peoples good, in as much as the Par­liament repreſents, and are but ſervants thereunto alſo. And therefore, whereas, when the Parliament firſt took up Armes, you would [page the 7.] plead their intentions then, was not thereby to doe violence to the perſon of the King, &c. yet I anſwer, that this was not binding either to the Army, or to themſelves, in caſe of greater enormities committed by him; for I had thought you had known the diſtinction, between intentions, and illimited determinations, or concluſions: becauſe a man at the ſame time when he intends a thing; may preſcribe to himſelfe the intervening of ſome other thing that ſhall divert his intended act; therefore intention cannot proceed ſo farte as determination or reſolution, could the Parliament then intend, ſhould the late King have acted never ſo high in tyranny, to ex­empt him from accounting, and ſo collude (as the precited Author hath it) and not be re­puted in the number of Prevaricators; or connive, of deſertors; or not vindicate the Re­publick from his tyranny, and not be traytors?

Now then, 'tis reſolved upon the queſtion, That the intentions of the Parliament then, could extend onely unto that preſent time, wherein had he return'd, they were willing to re­mit (without (as you term it) violence to his perſon) what he had then offended in, viz. attempts upon their priviledges; but the (meaſure of his iniquity not being then full) not unto that time, wherein he proſecuted thoſe attempts (not onely on their priviledges, but on the very foundation of Government, the peoples liberties) in the blood of thouſands; ſeeing they adjudged him by that their declaration, you have precited, no leſſe then a pub­lick enemy, for practiſing ſuch attempts, & might have juſtly proceeded accordingly; but I ſay, if then, much more now are they to be juſtified in that juſtice, ofrequently enjoyned in Scripture, to be executed without reſpect of perſons, and ſo, far from violence, wherein13 therefore your accuſation is very ſcandals us.

Again, neither could the Parliaments intentions then (as you affirm page 7.) extend to the continuance of that government now: for the conſtitution thereof muſt be conſidered either as good or bad; if as good in the poſitive (though the negative may be proved, which I wave, becauſe the affirmative is indurable) yet better, or beſt, is to be preferred before it. Now then, could the Parliament then intend (or ſhould they, yet were it binding either to themſelves or us) the eſtabliſhment of that or any other government? when greater light (in reference to the end for which government ſhould be conſtituted, viz. the peoples ſafety) ſhould be manifeſted; nay, could the accompliſhment of ſuch purpoſes be eſteemed other­wiſe then a rejecting of the light, and a loving of darkneſſe rather then light. To inſtance this in one particular, Epiſcopall government (then conſtituted it's likely in the greateſt meaſure of light they had) had it been binding either to future yeares or ages, then your a­boliſhing of it was illegall; but through pretence of a greater light, and ſo lawfully, you have exirpated it therefore the conſtitution of what government you mean, was conditio­nall (not upon yours, but our own light) and ſo not binding to us.

But whereas, in the ſame page, you ſay you apprehend your ſelves obliged thus to ap­peare for the maintenance of your Religion, Lawes, &c. as againſt thoſe that would intro­duce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King: ſo on the other hand againſt the irregular proceedings of private perſons (as you terme them, though I have ſhewed they are publick) to introduce anarchy, irreligion, &c. the former of which juſtifies the Army in that oppo­ſition they made againſt your major party then in the Parliament introducing, by tolera­ting, if not tyranny, yet ſuch a power in the King, whereby at any time he might contradict and obſtruct the welfare of the people; and the cauſe of your obligation to the latter, is ta­ken away, ſince you may enjoy under the government to be ſet led (laying aſide your prin­ciples of oppreſſion) as much benefit in the exerciſe of your Religion or otherwiſe as any: whereunder likewiſe, as may be (becauſe the beſt way) continued love and amity, ſo in ſtead of irreligion, a free religion moſt ſutable to the Goſpel (not compulſive or conſtri­ctive) may be introduced.

But now, that your former matter might ſeem infallible, you reinforce it with a Cove­nant, though never intended for ſuch an abuſe; you include the Army (making themn­paraleld Covenant-breakers) as liable to thoſe judgements which God inflicted upon ſuch (as you inſtance from Scripture) who violated an abſolute, pure, ſimple Covenant; whereas ours was limited & conditional, only the bond or rye of both being alike, the breach where­of was the cauſe that God powred down his judgements upon them: In this therefore your hold-faſt will prove as infirm as in the reſt, and according to the literali ſenſe of it, (not to mention here your omiſſion of the end) your ſelves will be found more guilty of perjury then any, and ſo your texts are miſapplied.

You ſay then, page 7. That you are the more ſtrongly ingaged to adhere to your former juſt principles,y reaſon of the ſeverall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome; and therefore you inſtance that proteſtation of May 5. 1641, wherein (as your words are) We do in the preſence of Almighty God promiſe, vow & proteſt, according to the duty of our Al­legeance, to maintain and defend with our lives, powers and eſtates, his Majeſties Royall perſon, honour and eſtate, and the power and priviledges of Parliament.

To this I anſwer firſt, That your firſt ingagement upon theſe precedent principles (as if they were independent, and the peoples ſole happineſſe did conſiſt in them, as you poſi­tively cite) was unjuſt and without underſtanding. For mark you how the former particu­lar in the oath doth depend upon the latter; you did not ſweare (give me leave a little to in­lighten14 lighten you, it being a ſin to take an oath in ignorance, but a greater to continue ignorant of it) to maintain and defend the late Kings Majeſties perſon, &c. in caſe he ſhould with his perſon, make uſe of his honour and eſtate to infringe the power and priviledges of Par­liament, which (unleſſe you be turned malignants obſtinate) you cannot but confeſſe is a limitation to the former clauſe in that oath, and indeed with which you complied againſt the late King, and never violated the oath, as to that particular, becauſe otherwiſe when the one is ſet in oppoſition to the other (as experience hath witneſſed) by cleaving to one and forſaking the other: we break the oath unleſſe we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other, which was the late Kings caſe, the Parliament being more intruſted, and ſo more ſupream then himſelfe. This your ſelves have granted: herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant.

Again, as to that latter clauſe [to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Par­liament] I anſwer, that this likewiſe doth relye and depend upon ſomething, which though you inſert not, and if neither expreſt in the oath, yet is conſequently and neceſſarily under­ſtood to be the top and end of both. For in what you did ingage againſt an unqueſtio­nable and tyrannicall power in the King, to ſet it up in a major vote of Parliament, you did it voyd of underſtanding, and a great deale of blood was ſhed to no purpoſe, which (up­on ſuch an ingagement) for ought I know, may as ſoon lie upon your account, as elſe­where But to be ſhort, becauſe before inſiſted on, the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in ſuch force above a Kings, whilſt they act for the good of thoſe for whom both were conſtituted, and from whom the ſame end both did and doe receive their power, which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and King­dome, particularly theſe words, [Iunius Brutus, p. 154.] A King exiſts by and for the people, and cannot conſiſt without the people, and that all Officers are choſen by the peo­ple. Severall other Authors to the ſame purpoſe he quotes: but deſirous to haſten to a concluſion) I wave, and proceed to diſcover how palpably your ſelves are guilty of the breach of this oath.

Firſt, as to that particular which you did ſweare to defend the late Kings perſon, &c. you are guilty of perjuty, for that you never ventured your lives, perſons, and eſtates, to preſerve his perſon, many times (perhaps not intentionally, yet accidentally) in jeopar­dy from the Parliaments Forces, againſt whom according to this clauſe in your oath, with your temporall All you ſhould have defended him.

Secondly, as to the maintenance of his Honour, you faile likewiſe, ſince you have com­plied with the Parliament, aleaſt by ſilence, to detract from his honour, by intending to diminih that Authority which formerly (though unlawfully) he had in the King­dome.

I hirdly, to be briefe, by your ſileatiall complying with the Parliament, in depriving him of his (becauſe poſſeſt of it, though it were and is the peoples) former eſtate. M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and King­domes, in his ſeventh Obſervation, his words are, That Emperours, Kings, Princes, are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands, Revenues, Forts, Caſtles, Ships, Iewels, Am­munition, Treaſure of their Empires, Kingdomes, to alienate or diſpoſe of them at their pleaſures, but onely the Guardians, Truſtees, Stewards, or Superviſors of them, for their Kingdoms uſe and benefit, from whom they cannot alien them, nor may without their conſents or privities, lawfully diſpoſe of them, or any of them, to the publick prejudice, which if they doc, their Grants are void and revocable.

Now, as to this firſt clauſe in that oath, in which I have ſhewed you are guilty of a15 breach) the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant, the peo­ples ſafety, which they are principally to endeavour, though againſt other ſubordinate in­cluſions that prove prejudiciall thereto: as to the Oaths of Allegiance, the obligation is void, ſince he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us, as Subjects; which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book, where he ſaith, There is every where between the Prince and People, a mutuall and reciprocall obliga­tion: be promiſeth that he will be a juſt Prince; They, that they will obey him, if be ſhall be ſuch a one: therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition: the Prince, pure­ly to the People: therefore if the condition be not fulfilled, the People are unbound; the contrast void, the obligation null in law is ſelfe: therefore, the King is perfidious if be Raigns unjuſt­ly: the People perfideous, if they obey not him, who Raigns juſtly.

To which I add, that the Magiſtrate, being but a ſervant in duty cannot call them to ac­count, for their perfidiouſnes (God properly being the avenger of that in them) but they him: ſince the wrong and hurt is cheifly done unto themſelves, not unto him; who diſ­chargeth his duty in gentle perſwaſion and admonition.

But the People are free from all crime of perfidiouſneſſe, if they publikely renounce him who raigne unjuſtly: or if they endeavour to evict him with Armes, who deſires to retaine the kingdome unlawfully.

Again, as to the defence of his Perſon, the Army is clear, as to that time (the Oath be­ing then the ſame) ſince he was out of their power, and in the poſſeſſion of others; and might (if he would) have deſtroyed himſelf: there is this limitation to it, likewiſe to ju­ſtifie the Army in their late proceedings againſt him; that our defence to his Perſon muſt needs be underſtood to be in juſt waies; elſe ſuch would be partakers in his ſin, and be­come liable to the ſame puniſhment, as the juſtly executed**Hamllton Lords were, Holland, and Capell.

And then as to the latter particular in that Oath, viz. The defence of the power and Privi­ledges of the Parliament: the Armies refining their Houſe cannot be reputed a breach of that Priviledges, no more then the rectifying of one crooked line to the Center, may be eſteemed the diſordering of the circumference: ſince likewiſe, that the convening, or aſ­ſembling of the Parliament is not (but their repreſenting the People, not onely in their Perſons, but in their qualifications, which doth diſtinguiſh them from Slaves: is) the originall of their power and Priviledges: the which therefore, can be no longer reputed theirs, then they are the peoples; and the endeavours of the Armie to repoſſeſſe them of their own, can be no breach of Covenant.

Again, concerning the Vow and Covenant, taken to unite us againſt thoſe conſpiracies and deſignes that were practiſed againſt the Parliament; you are likewiſe guilty of a breach, (though herein you have acted, yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own) by disjunction of what tended to unity, and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every reſpect, as we to you; notwithſtanding your labour hath been ſpent to hale others to Conformity to your way: In which (laying aſide their endeavours to free themſelves from your oppreſſion) they are clear towards you.

But now, your laſt and greateſt ſeeming prop, upon which you build all your argu­ments, as to your ſenſe upon it will prove as invalid, as all the reſt; and thoſe ſcriptures you cite for proofe thereof, miſapplied. You cite the Covenant thus:

That you will ſircerely, really, and conſtantly, in your ſeverall Vocations, endeavour to preſerve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments; and preſerve and defend the Kings Majeſties Perſon and Authority, in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdomes.


Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant, I ſhall not here farther inlarge, becauſe before inſiſted upon, and proved that they have (though you exempt) conditions underſtood as limits and bounds to our defence and preſervation of them. Therefore I ſhall onely commemorate you a little of the concluſion: The Independent part (as to tem­porals) of this Covenant, which when firſt inſtituted, was intended for a generall good; therefore that party that hath ſought to over reach any other thereby, and deſigne it only for their own good, muſt needs be guilty, as of fraud, ſo of a breach thereof; but I leave this to your own Conſciences (if not dead) to apply, and proceed to recite the ingagement: viz. We will, &c. indeacour to preſerve and defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and the Kings Perſon, &c. But how? In the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms: that is ſo far, as the two former doth concur and incur, to the preſervation of this latter; ſo far, as the maintenance of the Rights & Privileges of the Parlia­ment do; and as the Perſon, Honor and ſafety of the late King did Center in the ſafety, pre­ſervation, defence, and propagation of the true Religion, and the liberties of the Kingdome: but now ſhould the Parliament, as your party therein, & the late King did) uſurp Privileges and Pr••ogatves, as to eſtabliſh themſelves in the government; ſo likewiſe forcibly what form thereof they pleaſe upon others, and turn enemies to the liberties (the very ſpring of all their moſt as and actings, as lawfull Magiſtrates) of the Kingdoms; By this Cove­nant, we are not only diſobliged from obedience to them, but alſo ingaged to oppoſe them, as enemies to the true Religion: it being free, and to the Liberties of the Kingdomes.

Furthermore, we are the more firmly obliged hereunto, by that relation & union, this oath hath with the former; wherein both you and we [ſuppoſing my ſelf (had I been through age capable) to have taken the Covenant] equivalently did ingage againſt thoſe conſpitacies, that were & after ſhould be contrived againſt the Parliament: but now, was not our, conjunction & colligation againſt ſuch confederacies, more with reſpect unto, or for that they were deſig­ned againſt the publike good of the Kingdoms; then meerly or principally, for the defence & preſervation of the Parliament therein: who were onely, as an aſſembly of men, without qualifications accordingly. Now then, this being granted (as neceſſarily it muſt, unleſs you will be unnaturall, and irrationall, to prefer ſo few ſingly before the ſafety of the Kingdom, wherein your ſelves likewiſe are intereſted) I ſay, this being granted, it undeniably follows, that if the Parliament (as is ſufficiently proved your party thereof did) ſhould turn enemies to the good of the Kingdomes (which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance, and them no otherwiſe then they ſhall concur herewith) we are bound by thoſe precited Cove­nants, as to oppoſe them, ſo to inflict (without reſpect of perſons) the ſame (if not greater, becauſe their truſt aggravates their fault) puniſhment upon them, as upon o­thers in the like offences; provided that right take place.

But now I ſhall proceed to ſpeak a little to theſe two particulars in the end of the Cove­nant; We ſwore to defend the Perſon of the King, and the Priviledges of Parliament, &c. in the defence of the true Religion, &c. becauſe this is one of your main accuſations againſt the Army that (you ſay) they have not endeavoured to preſerve Religion: in as much likewiſe as that it is diſtinct from the Peoples civill liberties, and the firſt thing neceſſary, could it in­fallibly be determined.

I ſhall propound ſome things to your conſideration, as to clear the Army from your aſperſions herein; ſo likewiſe to illuminate your ſelves and ſtop (if reaſon will) your in­vectives: And

The firſt is this; did we in covenanting to preſerve and defend the true Religion, ſwear to maintain your Religion? Eſpecially, when we were not convinced of the truth of it;17 and then though it were ſo, if we knew it not, how could we keep the Covenant in maintai­ning it as true? And therefore I anſwer in the negative, we did not (weare to defend your way of Government, becauſe this were ſinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it, which your ſelves cannot make out to be Iure Divino, & ſo infallible, and there­fore not to be impoſed upon others. Again, ſuppoſe we had ingag'd to have maintained your Government of Uniformity, as being (to our light) the trueſt way then extant; yet could this ingagement firmly extend to times of greater light, & not ſinfully ſuppreſſe the truth? As for inſtance, Had you in the dayes of Epiſcopacy, taken an Oath (without any limitations expreſt) to maintain and defend it, yet could you think your ſelves obliged to have kept it, when convinced of the way that you are now in, and not forget that a greater light al­wayes extinguiſheth a leſſer, as the light of a Torch that of a Candle? Now then, what I would inferre herefrom, is, That ſeeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true [in that we expect, and doe or ſhould patiently wait (according to Gods promiſes) for a more perfect] Religion, which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man: the beſt way to preſerve this Covenant unviolated, is to tolerate many opinions, or (if you will) religions: For by this meanes there will be a doore opened for the trueſt to have free paſſage, which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph; but otherwiſe, con­ſtrain'd conformity to one way, not the perfecteſt, is to limit and conſine the Spit of God to a generall illumination; which limitation, how ſinfull; and diſpenſation (if at all) how ſeldome, let any reaſonable men judge. Therefore ſuch a predicted toleration endevoured by any, cannot be reputed a breach of covenant.

Now then, the other particular, viz. the peoples liberties, in the end of our Covenant (the firſt, viz. true Religion being yet in obſcurity) doth appeare to be the ſole and viſible end of our engagement, and therefore the Maſter-wheele, upon which the motion of the power and priviledges of Parliament, and the perſon of the King (though by this Oath (waving his Office being the cauſe of his greatneſſe) we are no more tied to his, then a private mans perſon) as being under and leſſer wheeles doth depend. Now therefore thoſe that have complied with the two former, which indeed are but inſtruments, (and as men cannot build without tools, ſo a people cannot rule without ſome elected and compendious form; yet as the inſtrument cannot aſcribe any thing to it ſelf, in the work it is appointed unto, being made, guided, and acted by man; even to, the Parliament or any others〈◊〉whom the people ſhall contract themſelves to govern, and preſcribe them Rules according­ly, cannot aſcribe the good diſcharge of their truſt according to thoſe rules, unto them­ſelves, ſo much as to the people that inſtituted them, ſince likewiſe that the burthen of the ill managing of their power, if not redreſſed by, would moſt of all be laid upon the people) I ſay, theſe that have complied with the two former, that are but as inſtruments in the peo­ples hands, and herein have preferred the ſhell before the kinnell, the effect before the cauſe, their motion before the ſuggeſtion, and this againſt the liberties of the people, the very end of their and our Covenant; thoſe are the onely perſons that have violated their oath.

For in all Obligations (as well temporall in which the liberties of the people, as in this of ours, is principally aimed at: as in ſpirituall, in which the glory of God is or ſhould be chiefly intended;) the end, the thing aimed at, the cauſe of the obligation, is above the bond or tye thereof; becauſe, not endeavouring, or neglecting to attain the end, doth occaſion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant: And therefore the uſe of an oath in this caſe, is onely to incite [in that there is an ingagement lies upon the ſpirit of thoſe that ſweare] firmly and undauntedly to proſecute their end; which they cannot doe, as that18 Oath againſt Conſpiracies teſtifieth; but in oppoſition to all the enemies thereof: there­fore if Parliament, as your faction therein did, and the King not onely deſiſt from en­deavouring that end of the Covenant, viz. The peoples liberties, upon which condition they were included in preſervation; but alſo turn enemies, though intended for the former end, to the good of the ſame: the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of con­nivance and perjury, unleſſe they couragiouſly in proſecution of their cathes end [not­withſtanding all other literall, conditionall, and ſubordinate incloſions therein] oppoſe them as enemies thereunto. But now unto this effect, the Army in their late tranſactions hath manifeſted their oppoſition unto the two former, therefore they have performed the Covenants, inſomuch that the world may beare witneſſe with their conſciences, that they had no thughts [the premiſes conſidered] to diminiſh his Majeſties [juſt] power and greatneſſe.

Now then, your grand objections from the Covenant, being fully anſwered, and the Ar­my from your aſperſions hereupon vindicated, as I hope all reaſonable men will clearly diſcern, it were an eaſie thing to reply all your ſubſequent quotations of examples of Gods judgements upon Covenant-breakers, upon your ſelves, ſince you have neglected the end, and ſo are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant; but I wave this, and ſhall with more brevity and leſſer pains, prove the ſaid quotations miſapplied and impertinent.

And therefore to the firſt of them, viz that oath of Zedekiah [Ezek. 17.14, 15, 16, 19] King of Jeruſalem, of obedience to the King of Babylon; I anſwer, that his oath was abſolute, and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylons part, ſo is not ours, as hath been amply proved. Againe, the end of his Covenant was perfect obe­dience as to civill affaires; ours, limited to the peoples liberties; his attempt of the peoples freedome (or perhaps his own rather then theirs) being againſt the will of God, in that his oath was inconditionall, and he had no ſuch ſuperiour relation and power above the King of Babylon, and ſo expoſed the people more unto his tyrannicall will and power then before; ours, being agreeable to the will of God, in executing juſtice, eſpecially ſince the people are the root of the Kings and all other Authority: and he, their ſervant to act for their good, and therefore accountable; put in truſt by them, and therefore their Steward, and ſo required to give an account of his Stewardſh: as to God in the things he hides from men, ſo to his people in publick neglect of his truſt. I need not further amplifie the diſpa­rity of our Covenant with his, ſince it is cleare, that therein we had an end above the preſer­vation of King or Parliament; which to endeavour, can be no violation of the tye of the Covenant (of which Zedekiah was guilty) and therefore I believe (as to the merit of ſuch a ſinne) we ſhall not partake of his judgements.

Now then, my ſerious (and therefore let it not be rejected) advice to you is, That you would conſider and conferre you covenant with what I have dilated thereupon, and confeſſe and revoke your miſtakes and breaches thereof in thoſe ſeverall particulars where­of (and as I have cleared you are guilty, in our publick aſſemblies, that through your hearty ſorrow for the ſame, and ſuch a reall teſtimony of your illumination, the Parlia­ment and Army may be again induced to invite you to their Conſultations. And whereas you have been inſtruments of ſedition, you may be ſo now of inlightning and compoſing the ſpirits of thoſe you have ſeduced and incenſed againſt the publick good; and that hereby you may rediſplay what excellencies hath been all this while under a cloud of ſelf-intereſt in you, that ſo you may recover our hearts, helps, and prayers, that the bleſſing of God may be upon you, and that you may relinquiſh revilings and invectives with mixtures of19 ſelf eſteem in your preachings, that ſo the Goſpel in the ſimplicity, purity, and truth thereof, may be diſpenſed by you, to the comfort of all thoſe whom now you (undeſerved­ly) oppoſe, and that by your ſerious and cordiall application of this matter, you may be­come their profeſſed friends in one day, to the terrifying of both your enemies, that yet re­joyce in your diſſention. But in your tenth page you ſtill brand the Army, (as being your greateſt eye-ſore and heart-ſore) with Diſobedience to Magiſtrates, which indeed were a great ſinne, as by the examples of Gods judgements (which you cite) upon it, did you rightly apply it. But becauſe your particular deſignes are obſtructed, and prevented, there­fore you will unpreach what ever formerly with vehemency you have conjured the people unto: I cannot but reply (ſince you are conſcious of the frequent commands in Gods word to yeeld obedience to Magiſtrates, doth not include tyrannicall Magiſtrates, or law­full ones in all caſes, which hath been ſufficiently proved, yet the example of Jehu, re­maining for our inſtruction in the like caſe, doth more confirm, who (though a private perſon, yet was commanded from God [2 Kings 9.7. ] to avenge the blood of the Prophets upon the Houſe of Ahab, by whoſe authority or connivance they were deſtroyed, which accordingly he executed, as in the 24 verſe upon Jehoram, that had an hereditary right to the Crown, and ſucceeded in his ſtead.) You know the word of God frequently enjoynes univerſall and unpartiall juſtice, without exemption and reſpect of perſons; and yet you ſpeak contrary to your knowledge, by ſeeking to impell totall obedience in the Army to Magiſtrates, when through ſome defaults from Scripture-warrant, they may be expoſed to a condition of puniſhment, and then very incapable either to command or be obeyed. And then you practiſe otherwiſe then you ſpeak, when your own intereſt is uppermoſt, and ob­ſtructed by the Magiſtrates (as now) none more forward to oppoſe them, and excite others thereunto, then your ſelves, as witneſſe your reſolution againſt tyranny in the King, in the ſeventh page of that your Book, and your groundleſſe impudent oppoſition to the Parlia­ment now.

But to your exhortation page your 11. and 12. for the Army to examine themſelves, whether they ſhould not have oppoſed thoſe proceedings (there largely recited by you in o­thers if done by them, which they did approve of and eſteeme as a vertue in themſelves; I anſwer, that one and the ſelfe ſame act done by diſtinct perſons, may become juſt or unjuſt according to the cauſe or end thereof for which the party acts it: Now then, 'tis juſt and unjuſt to ſeclude a Major part of Parliament; juſt in them, that ſecluded your party their truſt, when they were apparently acting againſt the end thereof, the good of thoe that in­truſted them; and therefore I cannot but remember, how when the Army was firſt before the Citie, they voted in the King, and proclaimed to make humble addreſſes to him for peace, without any conditions, and how eaſily, (if excepted againſt at all by them) in the treaty with the late King, they let ſlip his negative voyce (though the chiefeſt ground of ſo long a warre) if I am not miſtaken. Again, it would have been ujuſt in your party from their principles of ſelf-intereſt, to have ſecluded any other (though a minor) part in Par­liament, endeavouring onely their own liberties, not prejudiciall to others, when indeed they might (as now they doe) better extend freedome to the whole Nation. And laſtly, it would have been more unjuſt in malignants from their ſuperlative principles of tyranny, to have attempted the ſecluſion of either. It was Ichu's unjuſt end in his act, not thect it ſelfe which was juſt, that brought a judgement upon his poſterity. And in 2 Chron. 25.2. Amaziah did thoſe things that were upright in the ſight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heirs. Hypocriſie in a duty makes the manner of its performance become abominable in the ſight of God, it makes the manner which God moſt reſpects in a duty, become the ob­ject20 of his hatred, and greatly inferiour to the matter of the duty Now then, the reproofs in Scripture that you alledge againſt the Army, as diſobedient to Authority, may moſt fit­ly and deſervedly be repled upon your ſelves. Therefore give me leave a little to urge your own interpretation of the Scriptures upon your ſelves. The firſt is, Tit. 3.1. Put them in mind to be ſubject to Principalities and Powers, and to obey Magiſtrates. You knw Sirs, where the Powers are, ſince you make Pulpit-confeſſions of them (though not as a Parliament) moſt intolerable contempt in you, of no leſſe thn the ordinance of God, (waving the juſtneſſe thereof as from Man, becauſe largly p••dmnſtated) for that the Apoſtle Rom. 13.1, 2. commands, Let every ſoue of yobe ſubject to the higher powers, for there is no powers but of God. Here are the reaſons of your obeince; The power, that be are ordained of God; and they thu rſiſt, rſi••the Ordinance of God. &c. Mark Sirs, the Apoſtle ſpeakes it in the pre­ſent tenſe, or time, The powers that be are ordained of God, as being the word of God that is everlaſting, yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame forever, firm and effectuall in all generati­ons. Now then, what is the reaſon you ſomuch oppoſe them, and reſiſt the Ordinance of God, by diavwing their authority? Surely this among others, that they are ſo honeſt to ſuer other men to patue what you profeſſe, and not to cauſe them hide their Talent in a Napkin, but as they have received freely, ſo, freely to give (the Spirit of God not being limited in his giſts, oely where ſuch a traditionall and humane calling (as yours) is.) This bnlikewiſe agreeable to Moſthis publick p•••t for Gods glory, that would that all the Lrpeople were Prophets; and I cannot conceive ſo hardly, as that he ſhould with them giſts inf••••in to his own.

Now therefore I intreat you to conſider, that your centempt of this Gods ordinance, de­pends upon no leſſe then an ternall penalty, viz. damnation, unleſſe you timely recover it by your future and ſincere obedience; which in neglected, you likewiſe come under a brand here, that Iu••verſe 8, 11. ſets upon thoſe that deſpiſe Dominion, and ſpeak evill of Digni­ties (it muſt be thoſe that are preſent then) woe unto them, faith he, for they are gone in the way of Cain &c. You know likewiſe the ſad effect of Corah,athan, and Abirams unjuſt rebellion againſt Moſes and. Aaron, appointed by God over them; as alſo how I have pro­ved the lawfulneſſe of this preſent Parliament, and their proceedings which you accuſe, and how the ſame judgement remains for the diſobedient in their degree; let this therefore be a meanes to reclaim you, ſurely, elſe the judgement of God is according to truth againſt thoſe that commit ſuch things, who will render to every man according to his deeds: For there is no re­ſpect of••rſous with God, Rom. 2.2, 6, 11.

But whereas you feare, Leſt Ieſuits ſhould have too great an Influence upon the Armies late tranſactions, eſpecially againſt the King; I ſhall not inſiſt upon this, but tender you conceptions, that it is inconſiſtent with reaſon, to think that Ieſuits ſhould ſo much deſtroy their own intereſt ofopery, as to foment and proſecute ſuch an act of juſtice upon the late King. But hwever, ſuppoſe it were ſo, yet all Ile ſay, as to this, is, That the juſtneſſe of the things managed, not the managers, is to be reſpected: Therefore as to other the Armies proceedings, let the equity of them acquit them from any ſuch Jeſuiticall influence (as you feare to be) upon them. And ſeeing no party can cleare themſelves of ſuch a concurrence and influence in their own way, let them have a care of making it heynous in others, eſpeci­ally knowing, that where God ſowes his Word, there the Devill will ſow Tares, and ſuch a mixture is ſo farre from diſparaging and clouding the word of God, as that it makes it more ſplendent.

But I proceed to your 12. page, wherein you diſſwade the Army (as being the But you aim at, becauſe the greateſt impediment to the advancement of your intereſt) from too much21 confidence in former ſucceſſes. The which advice indeed literally is good, not to reſpect bleſſings and m••••s above thGod that gives them; but in your ſenſe, is directly to di­greſſeſon that excellent Rule, Deut. 3 27. to 15. To remember the dayes of old, &c. not onely〈◊〉praiſe God for them, but make them incouragements in greater ſtraits to truſt to Gods providence for d••••••nce. This uſe David made of his former ſucceſſe againſt the Lion and the Beare, therefore (ſaith he, 1 Sam. 17.3. ) this uncircumciſed Philiſtin (Go­liah) ſhall••c as one•••hm &c.

And is not the Army obliged to ſck out the like incouragements from former ſucceſſes, in ſo good a cauſto prosecute the and thereof, viz. the liberties of the people? it being the will and••nd of God ththey••ould live free from the moleſtation and oppreſſion of any, much leſſe their ſervants: in the which way likewiſe God had fo greatly bleſt them. And (as you ſay) though S••omon ſaith, Eccleſ. 8.14 7.1. that there be ſometimes juſt men to who〈◊〉happneth according to the worke of the wicked; and to wicked men according to the work of the righteous: And, that there is a juſt man that periſheth in his righteouſneſſe, &c. yet this is no argument for a godly man to forgoe his integrity, or a wicked man to perſiſt in his wickednes. The Benjamites twice good ſucceſſe leſſened not the evill of their cauſe, or the Iſraelites bad ſucceſſe the goodneſſe of theirs, who at laſt had victory, Iudg. 20. Though God walk in the Sanctuary, yet we are not to decline the Sanctuary: can we do good unleſſe we have a providence to effect it? And though we ſhould periſh in it, yet were it not a ſinne to omit ſuch a providence. David. in ſuch neceſſity are the Shew-bread, though in it ſelfe unlawfull. In civill affaires the providence of God rules, where his Word doth not medle; the which then is a ſafe rule to walk by, eſpecially in ſuch acts that pro­mote freedome, judgement and righteouſneſſe, which the word of God juſtifies: As when a man is in ſlavery, having a providence, (it is a ground for him) to eſcape: which if he ſhould neglect, his perpetuall bondage would be but juſt.

Now then, it being before clearly proved both from the word of God, the law of Na­ture and Reaſon, that the late tranſactions of the Parliament and Army (for which you ac­cuſe them) are juſt and god: it as clearly followes, that the end of thoſe actions in it ſelf, is juſt and good; the which therefore to purſue, providence and the neceſſity of impro­ving the ſame when offered, beſides what the good end it ſelfe requires, and what evill the neglect thereof may produce, as likewiſe impulſes of ſpirit thereunto, all which concur­ring in the ſelf ſame act, to promote the ſelfe ſame end, muſt needs be not onely an incita­tion, but a Rule for the Army to walk by, eſpecially in thoſe wayes which the word of God juſtifies, as well as in thſe with which it meddles not. For we muſt thus farre conclude, that the word of God directs not in the ordering of a civill State, and that neither the law of the land (it not being civilly perfect) comprehends all things rationally requiſite therunto. Whether then it can be imputed irregular, and ſo tranſgreſſion, that hath both the light of reaſon, providence, neceſſity, and an impulſe of ſpirit (which you ſay is no rule without the word of God) aſſiſting the eſtabliſhment of what (as beforeſaid) the word of God di­rects not, and the law of the land is defective in? Nay ſurely, ſince that which is need­full at one time, may be hurtfull at another, and the mending cannot be eſteemed the brea­king of the Rule, likewiſe, that the making the law more impartiall, cannot be thought to be an abrogating of it.

Again, as to what the word of God enjoynes in generall, as in that command generally without exceptions, To execute juſtice and judgement, it preſcribes not every particular act of juſtice and judgement, but leaves it to an impulſe of his Spirit, to our underſtandings, the neceſſity of it, and his providence together: all which in this caſe, muſt needs be a rule22 to walk by. Again, (to touch upon what before promiſed) if two commands ſhould come in competition (as in this caſe they doe not) yet the greateſt is to be firſt reſpected and o­beyed. There was a command not to eat the Shew bread, but David had a greater com­mand, Not to murder, leaſt of all himſelfe, when there was ſuch ſuſtenance before him, which he rather obeyed. If then univerſall obedience were (as it is not) enjoyned to all Magiſtates, yet the execution of judgement and juſtice, as a greater command, more force in it, muſt be preferred before it, without reſpect of perſons; and this from an im­pulſe of Spirit in thoſe impowred for the office: and that there are ſuch, the very commandmplies as much,•••e that a people cannot execute judgement and juſtice, without illimi­ted power to doe it.

Moreover, to your objection of an Impulſe of ſpirit falling upon multitudes at the ſame time, patting them all at oncepon performances, contrary to morall precepts (as you ſay) or whe­ther thoſe that have ſuch an impulſe of ſpirit, can command others that have it not? I partly an­ſwer, that if the tranſactions of the Army (that you ſpeak of,) were contrary to morall precepts (as you peremptorily conclude they are) then they muſt be contrary to Gods word: but it is before clearly proved, that they are in generall and ſo in particular, agree­ble to Gods word, therefore they cannot be contrary to morall precepts. Now then, for fuller reſolution to this your Queſtion, we muſt conſider whether the things thus impul­ſed by the Spirit, be againſt a command greater or leſſer, whether againſt a greater com­mand that is abſolute, and will in no caſe admit of a breach: or whether againſt a leſſer command, as in ſome caſes (as that a greater may not be violated) will admit of a breach of the letter of i, thus the fifth Commandement is ſubordinate to the firſt, viz. to own God, though in the deniall of our parents. Thus likewiſe in two neceſſities, the greater is to be peferd before the leſſe.

We read that the rigor of the puniſhment due to theft under the Law, was mitigated when committed meerly to preſerve life. The fourth Commandement likewiſe diſpenſeth with needfull acts, it holds good likewiſe in the example of David which you inſtance, wherewith I thus far comply, that for David in revenge of his own private cauſe; being e­ſpecially a private perſon, to have improved thoſe providences he had to have killed Saul, might have been a ſin, as in the caſe of Nabal; that alſo being no ground for any to take away another mans life, becauſe he would have taken away his: but now had it thus happened, that Saul in purſuit of Dauid had ſo ſtained him, that either he muſt have kil­led Sad, or by him have been killed himſelf; in this caſe I believe the law of Reaſon and Nature affords a man all means to preſerve his own life. Upon the aforeſaid limitation, the Margin (upon that providence given David) hath it to the ſame effect, and for proof in­ſtanceth the example of Ichu.

Now then, much more the impulſes of Spirit [upon (though not the multitude, yet) ſuch that have the command of them, unto the execution of abſolute commands, free from all exceptions, which ten is not likewiſe to the breach of others qualified with condi­tions, as (hath been amply ſhewed) our ſubjection to Magiſtrates is] are to be followed. And ſeeing it lies as a dutty upon all to act in obedience to theſe commands, eſpecially ſuch that are convinced of the juſtneſſe of them, and much more thoſe that are incited by the Spirit to obey them. It is cleare that the perſons that have this impulſe of Spirit, may incite, and (eſpecially in that they have authority over the multitude, as you call the Army) command thoſe others that want ſuch an impulſe of ſpirit (though they were never yet com­peld) to act in diſcharge of that their duty; ſeeing likewiſe we are to perform duties, though we want that ſpirituall quickning that is moſt acceptable in them.


Again, towards a concluſion (though I needed not thus largely to have proceeded up on the laſt part of your matter, which depends upon conceſſion; that thoſe actions of the Army were illegal, ſince I have proved the contrary, that they were lawfull and juſt; and therfore all your diſcourſe of providences, impulſes of ſpirit, & no neceſſity to ſin, hath been to no purpoſe, but, becauſe I would as flly ſatisfie as I may: I ſhal ſpeak a little to that your laſt objection viz That there is no neceſſity can oblige a man to ſin, from whence it clearly follows that, to what a man is obliged by neceſſity, that is no ſin: now then, the Armies neceſſity unto thoſe tranſactions was abſolute (beſides what expedition the good­neſſe it ſelf of them required) in tht they affied other means in vain, when reaſon would allow them no other then the ſtricneſſe of juſtice: their neceſſity was likewiſe preſent, be­cauſe poſt eſt occaſio calva, opportunity once neglected is not their own to recall; and alſo clear (though you ſay onely to themſelves) ſince the truth is onely diſcern'd of thoſe that have it; therefore the means they have uſed being clearly good, it cannot conſiſt with your charity, to fear their ends aimed at leſſe juſtifiable.

And then laſtly, your exhortation, pag. 15. to the army, to recede from theſe evill waies, as your words are; is altogether uſeleſſe, and which if followed would prove very prejudi­ciall, ſince the juſtneſſe of theſe wayes is clearly manifeſted, and as far as the omiſſion thereof, and receding therefrom would be prejudiciall; and therefore to what you would incite the Army from Iohn Baptiſts leſſon to Souldiers Luke 3.14. viz. Doe violence to no man, &c. is already practized by them, ſince that command forbids not, but that they ſhould doe juſtice to all men; or may run thus, doe violence to no man, but legally try, and let juſtice take place upon all men (as the fllowing words ſhews) not accuſing any man falſty, and be content with your wages: this laſt clauſe likewiſe is ſo candily obſerved by the Army, that the whole Nation can bear witneſſe to their patience and cententedneſſe, with what little they have received, notwithſtanding the great arrears due to them, and their neceſſities fr the ſame: but in your concluin though you have ſo boldly proceeded hi­therto you cenfſle and confine your fear of the Armies theatnings (for ſo it ſeems they are interpreted by you, which were onely brotherly premonitions, what would be the con­ſequence of your ſeditious doctrine ſhould you perſiſt therein) unto their generall return, unto that which is only conceived by you to be their duty: truly this is very diſagreeable to your Profeſſion, to deſire and perſwade men to return from what is ſo clearly manifeſt­ed to be enjoyned by the word of God, viz. to execute juſtice and judgement, and the e­ſtabliſhment of the Peoples liberties, for which they have Covenanted; and from which (the prayers of honeſt men will be) Lord let them never digreſſ but perſevere in the truth: though occaſionally thereby men be ſcandalized and offended never ſo much; but being mre willing of your conviction, then forcible ſuppreſſion, I intreat you to apply your ſles more ſincerely to diſcharge your own duty, before you preſume to cenſure wher­in you conceive others fail; and labour after more charity towards your brethren, cea­ſing to be any longer like children, whoſe hearts are big, but dare not cry becauſe the••d of the patent is over them. It is a ſad thing when you that pretend to have the keeping of the Oracles of God, and to receive (as it were) the law at his mouth; ſhould walk ſo irregu­larly, as to deſerve to have laws preſcribed by authority to keep you within your own ſphear, to direct you how far the liberty of your profeſſion will extend: I ſay, like chil­dren not for innocency; but you are no longer quiet then the rod of the Army is over you, nor then neither; but you muſt be ſobbing and ſighing, you muſt have dry ſlings at them; my what would you not ſpeak if you durſt, ſince you dare to ſpeak ſo much as you doe: and therefore, whereas (in caſe of ſufferings for your deſerts) you ſeem to extract24 comfort from more peculiar ſervants of God, that ſuffered for clear infallible t••ths, with­out aempting to compell others to conform thereunto: yet I am confident, that if (through your own all tripicopall ſpirits meddling in matters impertinent as to your ſelves) you acquire to your ſelves ſufferings; you ſuffer not for Chriſt, but as buſie bo­dies, and your comfort will advene accordingly. What inſtrumentall good you have been f•••erly unto any in the due exerciſe of your calling, cannot but be acknowledged as by o•••, ſo by my ſelf, that hath had a ſhare therein: but this is no argument to ju­ſ•••ey you in youlate and preſent exorbitancy: That ſmaleſteem that many formerly, whn deſ••ved, reſpective you〈◊〉hath now of you, hath been the product of your own miſ­carriages,••ſrdey walking, beyond the line of your profeſſion, both in words and acti­ons: you have and de endeavour to powre contempt upon the lawfull authority of this Kingdome; ſome of you actually diſobeying them, others baulking the obſervation of then commands notwithſtanding the ſeverall places of ſcripture, which your ſelves have quted, f••••proof to ſuch diſobedient ones herein) and all this being aggravated with ſlt reſpect, dth render your proceedings the more odious, and your Pulpit contra­dictions, your d••tmmore lame and invalid: yea, very unprofitable; giving juſt cauſe to fear, that the ſlender returns to all your Paſtings and Prayers, hath been, becauſe you have performed thſe and other duties to a wrong end: Like to thoſe which the Prp­ph••Iſath ſpeaks to: Iſa. 58.3.4. Behold, in the day of your faſt, you will ſeek your will, and require all your dels. Behold, yee faſt to ſtrife and debate, and to ſmite with the fiſt of whleneſſe, &c. How often upon ſuch daies have you in your Prayers ſpread abread generalſins, ſeeming to include your ſelves in them; and yet it hath appeared by after expreſſions, that you have intended them onely for others, to caſt reproach upon your brethren, that have ſo little deſerved at from you, and patiently forborn to (though juſt­ly they might) inflict the due puniſhment of your oppoſition upon you; and what them­ſelves might have expected from (it they had but lawfully oppoſed) your party in the like power, (though more unjuſtly) to have been executed upon them; but taking more pleaſure in your reverſion then in your rejection: I minde you of this as your duty, viz. That you meddle leſſe with the State, and more in the word of God, moſt agreeable to your profeſſion, leſſe to divide and interpret it to your own ends, and more to reconcile and declare the truths thereof; leſſe in Self, and more in advancing the Scepter of Chriſt; not in tyranny but truth, that hereby you may regain the hearts you have loſt, more glory to God, and comfort both to your own and hearers ſouls.

Before I proceeded thus farre, I perceived a pamphlet abroad, ſuppoſed to be Mr. Loves, in vindication of the Miniſters Letter, being an Anſwer to Mr. John Price, and being wil­ling (had I found it any thing ſatisfactory) that it ſhould have prevented my labour to fi­nen this, in wel-nigh a period: upon ſurvey, I find all the ſubject matter thereof in effect (though not ſo formally as a particular Reply) before anſwered, and being willing fully to ſatisfie, I ſubex a very briefe Reply, to what I think is not ſo fully before hinted.


A brief anſwer in what may not be fully prehinted to a late Pamphlet intituled, a mo­deſt (immodeſt) and clear (obſcure, unſatisfactory) vindication of the ſerious re­preſentation, and late vindication of the Miniſters of London, &c (ſo termed for diſtin­ctions ſake) in anſwer to Mr. Ihn Price his late book entituled, clerico claſſcun, &c. but the ſaid anſwer not ſubſcribed, yet ſuppoſed to be Chrilopher Loves, one of the ſame pro­feſſion, and that's all.

I ſhall not undertake to ſpeak to every impertinent paſſage in the aforeſaid pamphlet: but chiefly to what is objected therein, to juſtie the repreſentation of the Miniſters; a little hinting likewiſe at his groundleſſe carps, upon ſome particulars, in former of Mr. Price his Books; and therefore (waving his great uncharitablenes in his epiſtle Dedica­ted to the Miniſters, where he calls all that oppoſe them ſons of Belzebub, though they are known to be as godly, and ſome, in every reſpect, as able as themſelves.

I proceed to his ſecond page, where upon this ground onely; Mr. Love, or the right author whoever it be, is induced to believe Mr. Price, not to be himſelf, when he made his late book: viz. that he juſtifies the lte act of juſtice upon the King, and in a former book ſome yeers ſince ſpeaks thus (as the ſaid Authour) cites it: You ſight, (ſpeaking to the ſouldies) for threcovery of the Kings royall Perſon, out of the hands of thoſe miſcreant; and reinſtate him in his royall throne and dignity, that both he and his Poſterity (if God will) may yet flouriſh in their royally; ſo that notwithſtanding all contradictions, you ſight for your King: Now Mr. Love, let any reaſonable man Judge, whether this paſſage tends in the leaſt, in caſe of demerit, to exempt the King from death; for was Mr. Price to cha­table and ſober ſpirited (as you ſay) as (when nothing from the King appeared to the con­trary) to believe that he was ſeduced and withdrawn by evill Counſell? (though an or­dinary man ſhould ſuffer to obey that) and can it conſiſt with your charity to judge, that the ſame ſpirit is not in him, and that he is beſides himſelf, to juſtifie what the word of God juſtifies: viz. the late act of juſtice upon the King (notwithſtanding his former words were they in themſelves abſolute) when ſufficient teſtimony was given to the whole Nation, that the King inſtead of being ſeduced was the ſeducer, and evill councellour; and as the Load ſtone to draw all the reſt after him: Therefore it is no argument, that becauſe Mr. Love profeſſeth to be a Miniſter of the Goſpel now, and thereupon ſome think him to be ſo; that therefore they ſhould believe ſo, if he ſhould turn a Prelate or a Jeſuit: Again, Mr. Love, if you mark the ſame words, and turn your ſelf when you read them, there is a limitation in them, thus and thus, they fight for the King (if God will) but it being clear, that the will of God is executed upon the King in his death: are you angry and in your judgement, others beſides themſelves, if they repine and reſiſt not the wll of God? now then, the onely ground of this your beliefe, being taken a way; it follows from your own words, that you were not your ſelf, when you read Mr. Price his ſaid book. In the next place, you are offended that Mr Price queſtions the truth of the Miniſters cal­ling; and therefore minde him of another paſſage in the ſame book, where (you ſay) he cals them learned and conſcientious Miniſters, Orthodox and godly Divines? to this I an­ſwer (though he might not aſcribe that to the letter Writers) that though the Miniſters, as to their actings, then (ſeeming pure in oppoſition to the Biſhops) might deſerve that which was before attributed them, yet (as a Saint can no longer be reputed ſo, when in the ſtate of Apoſtacy, but a Iudas) ſo neither are theſe men worthy of that predicted charity, now it appears, that what they acted to ſubvert the Biſhops, was to inſtate them­ſelves, under a new notion, in the ſame power: but pray remember, that thoſe you now band for Hereticks, were your example to oppoſe the Biſhops, though not for the ſame cod. 26Again, you are touched with the manner of his argument: viz. that we have nothing, but their own ſayings to prove that they are Miniſters, and would Mr. Love make this a foun­dation? Indeed it's juſt like theiown argument n the beginning of their vindication, tiz. that Paul was counted a ſeditious peſtilent fellow. And here lies the force of their Argument, that becauſe (upon good grounds) they are counted ſeditious peſtilent fellows, therefore they are Pauls. Upon the ſame grounds every ſeditious perſon is a Paul, and that is the way to make Paul ſeditius indeed. You ſee now the weight of your argument, and that for want of better proof then words, and thſe onely to affirm it, your calling is built upon a ſandy foundation, which your ſelfe more clearly diſcovers, page 3. where you count any man unworthy to ſpeak to you in confutation of your Doctrine, that hath not a ſmell of the Univerſity; which truly in your ſenſe ſtinks, and would keep men from comming thi­ther as much as thy can. Again, in the ſame page you find fault with Mr. Price that he ſhould queſtion the Miniſters divine origination, but you neither aſſert nor prove it. Tru­ly, this gives more cauſe to feare that it is weak, and affords you no ſuch liberty as you take from it, viz. Miniſters of the Goſtel, Embaſſadours of Chriſt, Stewards of the Ordiuances, and that you are in Gods right hand, and he will hold you faſt, you ſhall not be removed. But you were beſt make better uſe of your liberty then you have done, or I am confident your faith herein will faile you. Indeed you ſcoffingly ſummon a teſtimony of his calling, when your own is more ridiculous, and leſſe juſtifiable then a Coblers from the ſtall Doe you not remember the calling of Peter, Andrew, James and John? for they were Fiſhers, Mat. 4.18. Again, neither can you conclude from thoſe Mr.