An ANSWER TO THE City's Representation Set forth by some Ministers of the Gospel, within the Province of London. Concerning The Proceed of the ARMY. BY A Presbyterian Patriot, that hath Covenanted TO Preserve the Rights and Privileges of Parliaments, and the King's Majesty's person and Authority; In the preservation, and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms; and not otherwise.  Acts 5.38. 
If this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought.  Ver. 39 
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest happily ye be found even to fight against God.  
February 7. 1648.  
Imprimatur  
Gilbert Mabbott.  
LONDON Printed by Robert Ibbitson, in Smithfield, near the Queenes-head Tavern, 1649.   

AN ANSWER To the late REPRESENTATION OF THE Ministers of LONDON.  
I Desire not to make the breach wider betwixt the ministry and the Army, it's an ill time to have the word and the sword of the Lord to differ, when both should help him against the mighty. That which is subtly fastened upon the Army and their Counsels, to wit, that they are Jesuited, I wish it were not applicable to all sorts of opposers in this age, who have too little of Jesus and too much of the Jesuit in their transactions, savouring too much of calumny and policy.  
Not to take up every thing, but to touch upon those that are of most weight and concernment in this Representative, which coming from a College of Divines, may therefore carry credit to the discrediting the good work in hand, of settling the Kingdom in safety and peace, hitherto so vainly promised and contrarily endeavoured, that the hearts and hands of those concerned in it, and by it, may be upheld, and the Kingdom no more rendered miserable, with vain hopes, nor peace impossible, which were a work worthy of a Jesuit indeed.  
These London Ministers first relate upon what terms they would have consented to a conference, and tell us what opinions they would have delivered on the case, it seems what reasons soever might appear to the contrary, for a conference supposed, the result is conclusive, that the Armies courses are unwarrantable, pag. 2. against the direct rule of the word, and as they conceive, out of their sphere, p. 3. wherein they speak as if never any thing had been or could be spoken in the Army's justification, where as such reasons have been already given, and such authorities shown, both humane and divin, in treatises to that purpose, that are not satisfyingly refelled with bare affections, though from never so many; nor never so worthy men, whose disjunctions from the Army are not of yesterday, procured indeed by the Armies unadvised encroachments upon their calling, and some disparagements cast thereupon, which were just provocations, but not to be had in everlasting remembrance, 2 Cor. 14.20 specially when the public peace is concerned in their love and union.  
Then they reckon up the several late proceed of the Army, against (as they say) lawful authority, especially by their Remonstrance (a sober, rational, and convincing piece, not answerable by abrationall man, for I count Mr. William Sedgwicke none) imprisoning the King without consent of Parliament (meaning the secluded Members) and the late unparaleld violence offered to the Members. Had these Divines condemned the Londoners, for imprisoning the Parliament (not some Members) making a prison of the Parliament House, and driving the Speaker etc. thence; they might then with much more candour have blamed the Army now, but some may better steal a horse than others look over the hedge, if that was not a crime (as I never heard it laid to their charge) than this is no error. Many of which Members they say, are known to be men of eminent worth and integrity, and have given ample testimony of their real affections to the good of this Kingdom. It had been well they had always continued of that mind; then had they been neither imprisoned nor hindered, but if they be so good, and bear so good affection to the public; they will take it the less ill, to be hindered from doing so ill offices, as to hazard the Kingdom in the hands of the King in freedom, honour, and safety, whose hands they could not bind by restraint. Next thing is, the Armies contriving of a new model of Laws and Government, and the Representative. It's much, such men should stumble at Reformation, only for alteration sake, as if old things, because old, were faultless; whereas our Laws are (as they are made) our greatest burdens, insomuch as a man had as good take wrong, as seek right, and our Government serving for little other then to furnish the times with news, by doing and undoing, tossing the poor people between hopes and fears. Why may not alterations of Government be as necessary in State as Church: Bishops were too old to be good, and so may many things else, and therefore not for that reason to be insisted on. All which practices they judge to be against Authority (so are Pulpits too when they are disposed) Oaths and Covenants, though they are sworn absolutely to the safety and liberties of Religion, and the Kingdom and to the Parliam and King, but relatively and in order to these; So that these Divines should either have forborn to cite those words of the Covenant, as the Scots were wont to do or have demonstrated how Religion and Liberty could have been preserved without taking these courses: If they think the Treaty sufficient, let them speak out; and show how a man of that perfidy and policy the King is off, could with safety to either, have been restored to freedom, honour and safety, that notwithstanding all bonds of Morality and duty, hath from time to time thrust at them, and hazarded them, as he hath done: If we must have yielded ourselves to slavery and ruin, better have done it at first then at last, we should have had more mercy than now we can look for. To let a Bear lose from the stake with his chain hanging on him, such lose restraint is the way to make him the more fierce; If the Army should surcease, as they advise, the Members be restored, and peace settled, as was voted, and the King restored, (neither Episcopacy abolished, nor Delinquents punished) were the Covenant kept, and the Kingdom secured? These Divines would then be unsatisfied with themselves, when by their means, such horrid effects would follow, as would make both their ears to tingle, I would gladly know how the Army, into whose hands God hath put the power of prevention, could without breach of Covenant, have suffered all to go to ruin (which they are sworn to preserve) by preserving those things (King and Privileges) which inavoydably conduced thereunto, and were become inconsistent therewith. Besides, their own safeties, who else must always have been fight, or sure of hanging: Besides infinite honest men, who probably ere this had been crying woe worth the Parliament, if not these Divines themselves, considering the party in the Kingdom, that waited for the King's Freedom, Honour, and Safety. Giving out, that what he granted in restraint, he might lawfully break at liberty.  
In the next place, page 4. are several Scriptures cited, which are all true in a Scripture sense, but misapplyed, like that in the frontise-peece, Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain. Such wrest of Scripture from Innocents' to nocents, will make Ministers in as bad a name as Lawyers.  
After the naming of which Scriptures, they say, they are afraid of meddling with those who without any colour of legal Authority shall attempt such changes. We have had too much colourable authority, under the cloak whereof hath been acted so much wrong and injustice to the public, and infinite particulars so that its high time to see it native, and naked. With what colourable Authority did the Divines in Scotland take part with the Minor against the Major part of the Parliament there, and protest against the Acts of Parliament, but because they saw them fraudulent and destructive, notwithstanding all the specious Declarations of the Parliament to the contrary, and wherein do the proceed of the Army towards our Parliament differ from theirs; whose service in protecting the Minor, and enabling them against the Major was in Scotland counted a virtue, and commendable, and the selfsame thing in England, to the selfsame purpose counted a vice and damnable; How Doctors differ? Put case his Excellency the Lord Fairfax having power in his hands, should have attempted to have set up the King in freedom honour and safety, and a considerable part of his Army should have opposed it, knowing they were raised to a quite other end. I doubt not these Divines would have thought well of and commended this their opposition to such a design, though acted by those under Authority against their chief Commander, without colour of Authority, only upon the equity of their intentions and justness of their cause. Such is the case of the Army towards the Parliament, who not contrary to their trust as is after asserted, but in discharge of their trust and engagements have against their wills taken these courses, for though they were raised by the Parliament, yet for the Kingdom, and its safety, His Excellency's Commission is the Card and Compass that he must sail by, and not be turned out of his course, by every wind of Parliamentary Doctrine, for so he should not have been the servant of the Parliament, but of this or that Faction, and wrought about at last, by turning round, to fight for those he was Commissioned to fight against, and against those he was commissioned to fight for, well knowing that those of the Parliament which were against the Armies raising, were for its destroying, though with the ruin of the Kingdom and restoring of the King, which was therefore laboured as the aptest means for it.  
In the next place these Ministers compare the Act of the King in relation to the five Members, and this of the Army, in relation to the Secluded Members together, page 5. A comparison ill beseeming the candour of such and so many worthy Divines, knowing the different Actors, and their different ends, they may as well compare the Execution Phinehas did, with the Murders Joab committed, or Moses his zeal, in slaying those of the family of Ahab, for his own ends.  
Next they say p. 6. both Houses of Parliament (who are jointly together with the King, entrusted with the supreme Authority of the Kingdom) an observable Parenthesis at the latter end of a seven year's war betwixt the King and Parliament, though they saw cause to take up Arms against the King, yet that does not justify the Army to usurp an authority over King and Parliament. If either the defence of themselves or the preservation of the Kingdom, or both, justified the Parliament, then do they also justify the Army in what they do, for they have both those apparently on their side; the Plots and practices of the King and secluded Members being above all things to levelly this Army, and so to make way for the King's restoration, or the King's restoration to ruin the army: The consequence of which two is undisputably the Kingdoms (I mean all the well-affected) destruction, and if defence be allowed to a private man in behalf of himself, it is much more allowable to a considerable community of men, lawfully put into arms in behalf of the whole whereof they themselves are a part.  
In the next place they say page 7. the Parliament when they took up arms did not intent to divest the King of his authority, as appears by their Declarations, much less to overthrow the frame of Government. The Parliaments chief intention was, according to their trust, to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the people, and that in an orderly and unaltered course, if it were possible, and therefore did they make so many supplications to the King to return to them, and rule by their advice according as he ought to do, and accompanied them (the more to move him) with those Declarations, all which hardened, in stead of softened him towards them, and thereby thinking them to doubt their cause, and himself to be unresponsible: sets up his standard and commences first one War, proclaims them Traitors (the insolentest and treasonablest act that ever was committed by a King of England) yet they offer again and again, to be friends upon conditions of peace and safety tendered, he refuses and will have no friendship but upon his own terms, so ended the first war, by a defeat of his purposes and restraint of his Person; and then began a second, after which never issued out any more of those Declarations spoken of, but seeing him incorrigible, they resolve in pursuance of their trust and discharge of their Consciences to the Public weal, to settle the Peace of the Kingdom without him, which they saw could never be settled with him:  
In order whereunto they vote no more addresses, as a necessary expedient thereunto, which upon a recruit of Lords, and secluded Members was unvoted again, and all new to seek, the King as bad as he was, and had been, must be trusted, and his own terms granted, against Covenant, and Publick-Faith, to ground a Peace upon in order to his restoration, as the only probable means to ruin the Army, by putting him into a capacity to raise another against them, an attempt of that nature having been put in practice at London, but not effected for want of the King, and thus is necessity brought home to our doors of doing what is done, both to the King and present government, by Lords, and secluded Members. These things considered, it shows how well they by this their Representation, do appear for maintenance of Liberties, as they say they do against malignant designs of an arbitrary tyrannical power in the King, and introduction of Anarchy by private persons; but it is not enough to say so, it is not wise men's parts to cry up the ends, and decry the means, how to suppress tyranny, and not Tyrants is a hard lesson. The most excellent Mathematicians are to seek when they go to Sea; Theory and Practice are two things, one may better make a Utopia, then manage a Commonwealth: Book learned men are apt to think it as easy for others to do, as for them to think. But Statesmen and Soldiers know better than Students what belongs to settlement, and find it not so easy to bring both ends together, as these Divines imagine, and therefore are forced to do like Alexander, cut the knot when they cannot unlose it, for the peace and safety of the Kingdom, must not always hang in the briers. It is to be hoped, that though the House be pulled down, there will be provision made we shall not lie out of doors, but a mean be found out betwixt Tyranny and Anarchy, and more than mere private persons to bear rule.  
The next thing insisted on, is the obligation that lies upon us by Oath and Covenant, Pag. 8. To preserve the Rights and privileges of Parliaments, the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdom. This last conditional clause, In preservation of Religion and Liberties, is made to serve but as a cipher in the Covenant, the Scots Commissioners were wont to leave it out, the better to blind the people, and cite the preceding part without it: These Divines do tant', amount, for though they cite them jointly, yet they urge the other abstractly, and as superior to this, never telling us how these may be provided for, in case the other should not be granted, notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency of them both. For the King (in whom the present Government of Lords and secluded Members are involved, they voting a settlement upon his non-concessions, and refusing that of non-addresses, and bringing him to justice; thereby to put a period to delays) both in liberty and restraint, hath twice put Religion and Liberties to such an hazard, as had not God miraculously preserved them, they had perished irrecoverably, and we with them in lives and estates, and no better can be expected from him, justifying his ways now at his Trial, at last, as at first, labouring to confront, and not to relent, which is a mercy of God, that he retains his nature without dissembling it, lest the hypocrite should reign, and so the people be ensnared.  
These Oaths were never intended by maker or taker against the Laws and duty of God and Nature, which indeed no oaths can violate: The reason is rendered why we swore the preservation of his person, to wit, to express our Loyalty, that those wars were not undertaken upon any rebellious or personal purposes, but of necessity in respect of Religion and Liberty, upon the point to be utterly subverted, and that we were ready to lay down Arms, and receive him with those respects belonged to him, whensoever it did appear that those might be secured, which never did yet since those oaths were taken, and therefore notwithstanding them, the Parliament went on to fight him, to the just hazard of his person, and now judicially to proceed against him, as not otherwise able to discharge that great trust that lies upon them, touching the welfare of this, and succeeding generations.  
Page 9 They say, They dare not by the violation of this oath provoke the wrath of God. But put case your advice should be followed as to the King and Parliament privileges, dare you thereupon affirm the oath to be kept, if Religion and Liberties should suffer, and the Kingdom be undone thereby, our Oath is not categorical, but hypothetical, so that if the keeping of the one part, be the breaking of the other (for so is our case) than the question is, which must be kept, and which must be broken; whether to satisfy you we should keep it on the King's part, or to satisfy our own reason and conscience, we should keep it on the Commonwealths part; and if in your sense, it do bind so strictly for the King's preservation: why did you suffer war to be made upon him without like advice, wherein his person might have perished, nay did perish as to the oath, he running the like hazard with other men, without difference or distinction, so that rationally in the use of means (though not actually) his person was destroyed, notwithstanding the Parliament itself had sworn to preserve him, and no fault found.  
In the same Page, they dehort the Army from proceeding any further (I will not say a Jesuit is in it) and tell them they were once Honourable with them and others, whilst they kept in God's way, and within their sphere (there lay their fault indeed) but they have eclipsed their own glory, & brought a cloud over all their excellencies. It seems these Divine thinks the Country to be spirited towards the Army like the City: Indeed the Malignants and Newters think as hardly of them for this, as they can wish; but the godly and sincere (I mean those of no faction, and without bias) who in conscience to God, and with public spirits, undertook this cause for Religion, Liberty, and to bring Delinquents to condign punishment; do bless them in the Name of the Lord in this, and for this, as a deliverance equal to the first or second War, and are not a little afflicted in spirit to see you to be become the rejoicing of the Cavaliers, and the lifter up of the heads of those profane wretches, in the day that God hath humbled them, and glorified himself upon them. God keep your own glory, and the Gospel engaged in you, from being eclipsed, and your excellency from being beclouded in the ways of contradiction that you are in, neither helping the Lord, nor strengthening them that do. Be more sensible of the City sins, overlook not their faults that are under you, their defection and backsliding from public principles, setting up the worst men in the best places, pressing the Parliament with clamorous, and menacing Petitions to destructive purposes, imprisoning the whole House in the House, till they had voted the King to London, and threatening worse things if they came again, forcing away the Speaker, and the faithfullest Members, refusing to aid their honest Major General against the common Enemy, though as it were at Town's end, and scoffing those few that did, barely looking on, and worse at the siege of Colchester. Why then beholdest thou the more that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye: Are these and such like venial in your own Parishioners, and mortal in the Army, judge with righteous judgement.  
The Ministers go on in the same Paragraph, and say, We fear you are opening a door to desperate and damnable Errors and Heresies: Truly I doubt so too, but never the more for suppressing the King, and secluding the Members: one thing I am confident of, that it will not be a crime to be an honest man as it was heretofore, when the King was King, and would have been so, had he been so again.  
Next they tell the Army, Pag. 10. What threaten are in Scripture against contemners of Magistrates, and judgements denounced on the opposers of this Ordinance of God.  
But they should distinguish betwixt Magistrates and Magistracy, the one may be disobeyed, and the other not contemned, nor opposed; the first being the Ordinance of man, the other of God, and who are merely men, and not Magistrates in those things wherein they prevaricate.  
I question whether they did greater contempt in secluding the Members, or they that own not the remainder (out of a sullen humour) for the House of Commons, which the Army do with all respect, which shows them not to be against Magistracy, though against corrupted and seduced Magistrates, that by falsifying their trust have justly forfeited it.  
But for to strike the greater stroke, they afterwards vouch the terrible examples of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, upon their mutiny against Moses and Aaron, comparing the act of these rake-hells who in ambition and envy against God's faithful Ministers and Servants, merely for their horour and preferment sake, into those offices wherein God himself had set them, and miraculously confirmed them, mutinied against them, not for any miscarriages of injustice, or impiety in the execution of those their places, who no doubt might lawfully have opposed Aaron, when at Horeb he made the golden Calf, this act I say, they compare to the Armies secluding the noxious members (as will shortly appear to those without, and which hath long been known to them within the walls of the House of Commons) and the bringing the King to trial in order to the Kingdom's settlement. It is wonderful to see so lose and unweighed a passage drop from the pen of so many learned Divines: But nothing is strange in this age, but an Orthodox Independent, and a Presbyterian Patriot.  
Afterwards they protest against (pag. 11.) these practices of the Army in opposing Magistrates and murdering the King (so they call their bringing him to justice) as concurrent with Jesuitical Principles, it is strange that Jesuits should be of the plot against the King and Queen, they have deserved better from them, and no doubt would have done had they been in power, or against the secluded Members, the best friends to Bishops next to Cavaliers in arms. jesuits are not wont to be so good English men as to go against the interest of Rome, nor to forsake their adherents, a Son and Daughter of his holiness to strike hands with another party. But doubtless there is great difference betwixt murderous massacring of Protestant Princess eo nomine, and just arraignment of Delinquent Kings before the Senate and people. Had the Army killed the King in fight, would you have abhorred it as a murderous act, under a specious pretence? and is it more lawful to kill him violently then judicially?  
Then in the same page they advise the Army to consult themselves (and so do you yourselves of the affirmative) if some other party, whose principles had not been concurrent with theirs, should have attempted the seizeing of the King's person, how they would have construed it, and so for securing and prohibiting the Members. If the party meant by non concurence of principles be Cavalerish Londoners, doubtless the Army would have thought very ill of it, or for any to have done it, that had done it to those public ends they do it for, fearing whioh, therefore they did it; knowing what desire there was to set him at liberty to begin the wars again, but if any confiding men would have eased them of this work for public purposes, I dare answer for them, it would have been thankfully taken, as you saw it was when they so cheerfully and humbly, seconded the votes of settling peace without him, seeing it could not be done with him.  
For securing and inhibiting Members, others have done that as well as they, I mean the Citizens when they drive the Speaker, etc. from the Parliament to the Army, who indeed restored him, without damnifying the City the worth of one gold chain.  
Afterwards they compare again the King and his wicked Instruments, subversion of Laws, and dissolving Parliaments, with the Armies laudable endeavours of the peaceful settlement of the Kingdom, in its liberties, and the people in their Rights, extorted from them by the King, and his Creatures, as ecclesiastical rights had of long time been by Bishops.  
What the meaning is of those words in the 12. Page: If through God's permission (for reasons best known to himself) you have had, or may have success in an evil way, etc. I understand not, I hope it neither means their Victories against the King or Soots; and therefore they infer Gods Provide nce is no safe Rule to walk by; and to confirm it, bring the example of David's sparing Saul when he was in his hands. Providence is no Rule to justify any thing that is against the Rule rightly understood; for there may be a misunderstanding of right Rules, according to that of Christ in behalf of his Apostles accused of Sabbath breaking: Have ye not heard what David did when he was an hungry, to wit lawfully, which yet was unlawful by the Rule: So when these Divines quote David's Example towards Saul, they should state the case aright, not of David a private person, taking up Arms for his own defence against Saul (mark that by the way) whom he was not to kill, that he might succeed him; upon which motive they incited him to do it, but to stay God's time, not to snatch the blessing like Jacob before it was ripe: I say they should not put the case of such a David, but they should suppose him in Arms by Authority of the Magistracy, or people against Saul, declared a Violator of his Trust, and Israel's just Liberties, as the King hath been by Parliament, to suppress his exorbitancies, and defend them against him; this is the David that runs patallell with our Army, and the case thus put, the question is, what David would have done against Saul towards bringing him to justice, it providence had favoured him? Who it seems though a private person, would forceably have defended himself (as by taking Arms appears) if he had been put to it by Providence, for all the promise, which notwithstanding he relied upon to the uttermost extremity; but in extremity would not have tempted God by a faith without means: But as I say David was not to come by the Kingdom by King-killing, that would have cut God short of abundance of Glory, and therefore he saith, The Lord forbidden that I (to wit a private person, and saul's Successor) should do this thing unto my Master, the Lords Anointed; that I a servant and subject should for mine own ends and ambition, take away the life of the King, who is anointed and apppointed by God to Reign out his time, notwithstanding the promise made to me of the Kingdom after him: So I may come to lose it, which if I wait God's leisure, I shall be sure of in God's good time: But where do these Divines find that when a wicked King of Israel was by the Magistrates or people for his own wickedness and public good, taken away (though they also were the Lords Anointed) that ever they were blamed for it? I am sure neither for Athaliah, nor Amaziah. nor I do not remember any else; though I know many private persons are condemned for doing so for base and unwarrantable ends.  
And as not by Providence, so nor is it safe they say to be guided by impulses of spirit against the Rule, to wit rightly understood; and they desire the Army to consider whether if there be upon Record any example of an impulse of spirit upon multitudes of persons, putting them to act against moral Precepts: When the Israelites saved Jonathan against their own Vow, and the Authority of Saul, this seems something like one; but whether it will be allowed, I know not: when the Londoners told the Parliament they must take such courses as God and Nature put into their hands: What call you this, and were they blamed for it? Then by the way upon occasion, Page 14. They tell the Army, they themselves confess their ways to be irregular, and not justifiable, wherein the Army's ingenuity is commendable, and their Cause never the worse; for a thing may be irregular, and not justifiable by the Letter of the Law, and formality of Rule, that yet is lawful enough. Have ye not read in the Law, how on the Sabbath days the Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Politics and judicials must yield to morals, municipal Laws to Religion and safety: Order is good till it become disorderly, and then corruptio optimi est pessima, no such oppression as Authority corrupted and abused, when Government is pointed at the Governors, and not at the governed, driving sinister interests by virtue of their Offices, neither fearing God, nor hating covetousness. In matters of real public concernment, as to Politics, God will have mercy and not sacrifice, safety preferred above Forms, and Laws of Nature above those of Art and Policy.  
But than it follows, that no necessity can oblige a man to sin, but when by virtue of necessity it becomes lawful, than it is no sin; as in the foregoing instances of David's eating the shewbread, and the Priests profaning the Sabbath: necessity justified our partaking with the minor against the major in Scotland, which yet was breach of privilege.  
Further, Pag. 15. they say, that if a Precept of God may be dispensed upon a necessity, yet it must be absolute, present, and clear, not doubtful, uncertain, and conjectural, as that which is alleged in your case must needs be, it being discerned only by yourselves, and your own party; it being apparent to us that there was no necessity, the Parliament (till forced by you) being full and free, acting what was covenanted for. Do they mean by absolute necessity, that the Scots must be come as far as Lancashire before we ought to believe they will invade us? or that Wales, Kent, with the adjacent parts, and the ships at sea must Rebel actually, and revolt declaratively before we ought to believe that the King (when in restraint) can do us any harm; when they say it must be present, mean they it must be Acted before it be prevented; in matters of war and business of State, if they stay for present and absolute necessity, it is the way to be deprived of remedy. Though David was hungry and the Apostles, when the one eat the shewbread, and the other rubbed the ears of corn, yet neither of them probably was upon the point of famishing, their necessity was not absolute. Shall the Army never be allowed to be wise, only valiant, still put to play after games, and God to work miracles by our imprudence; know we not yet what manner of men we deal with? hath not the King, and his Parliamentary complices yet made necessity clear? There are none but you and your party (as you say by the Army) that thinks otherwise but what they mean by the Army, and their Party is as little intelligable as are these three foresaid properties of necessity: do they mean by party the Parliament now sitting, of whom this Representation takes no notice, or do they mean the  godly and true hearted Patriots in the Land, for I think their party goes no further? The King and his Members, the Cavaliers, and Londoners, being indeed no Partisans of the Army, nor competent Judges of the Kingdom's necessity, which is absolute enough if thereby be meant important. These Divines themselves looking with London spectacles, say, they saw none: it's well for you you did not, and it's as well that others did, since you'll admit of no necessity to be clear, but what's absolute and present, that's as much as to say you will never see till your eyes be out. I am confident had our State or Army seized on Berwick and Carlisle, and pleaded necessity for it before the Cavaliers and Scots were possessed of them, you would have condemned it as neither absolute, nor present, and so a clear breach of agreement; notwithstanding the overtures of invasion made in Scotland by preparations thereunto. Nor doubtless did you see any prevaricating in the Scotch Commissioners when they were in England, but thought it a mere Artifice to suspect them, in so much as I have seen a book licenced by— that says their memory was sweet for their keeping Covenant, when to others they stunk above ground for breaking it. Nor did you see a need of the Armies refusing to disband, it may be that's it you mean when you say this necessity pleaded is contracted by their own miscarriages: if you do mean so, there are not many out of London of your mind, except some that came from thence and thereabouts; for it is absolutely uncleare to others that are not of the King's party, that the disbanding of the Army is the securing of the Kingdom. In a word, it seems you will allow no Eye of Reason, only that of Sense.  
They say there was no necessity, the Parliament being free (till forced by the Army) and not by the Londoners, and Acting what was Covenanted for; to wit, a settlement of the Kingdom's Peace upon his Majesty's noncon-cessions of abolition of Bishops, and bringing Delinquents to condign punishment: Then they tell the Army they engaged themselves by Oath to preserve His Majestios' person, and the Privileges of Parliament; yea, and the liberties of the people too, but that's not here, and it seems is not worth regarding, compared with the other two; for its apparent their advice tends to break this by keeping those several interests at such a distance, and contrariety being impossible to be preserved; the very preservation of the one being the destruction of the other. Now say they no necessity can justify perjury, or dispense with lawful Oaths, and for example instanceth the judgement which befell Saul and Israel for breach of Covenant with the Gibeonites: But the question is if the Gibeonites had raised a first and second war, or taken parts and shared in Counsels with the Cavalerish Canaanites their enemies, what then Saul and Israel would have done, or might have done for all their Covenant. But to spenke a little to the Position itself, That no necessity can dispense with Lawful Oaths, not to insist upon the forementioned Act of the Israelites in saving Jonathan, I answer two things. 1. That no Oath binds, when through want of foresight, by time or accident it come to cross a moral duty: as if that I am sworn to prove, be against my own, or the publicks preservation, and so a violation of the Laws of nature; nor if it prove an impediment to the proceed of justice, and so prove a violation of the Laws of Righteousness. Nor if it prove (though Lawful in itself) a wrong to another, as that of Saul to Jonathan, for so it is against the Law of Charity. 2. That when the Oath becomes disputable, than the intent of its giving, and the occasion of its taking, is to give light in the solution.  
Now what was our intent in protesting and covenanting the preservation of the King? Why, to testify to the World that it was for no sinister end, nor to drive no design, that the Wars were undertaken, no lack of Loyalty, but mere necessity to preserve the people, and their Liberties; and therefore was the Wars prosecuted against the King, notwithstanding the Protestation and Covenant for him, which loyalty may be and is still the same in giving him up to justice, the Impulse of necessity, In regard of public safety being the same, woeful experience having made it manifest that he cannot be, and the Kingdom safe, nor the Covenant kept in the main, if not broken in the Branches; and so of Parliament Privilidges and Authority, as we swear not the King's safety to their wrong; so not their preservation to the people's ruin and destruction; but the intent of our swearing to defend them, was, that being jointly asserted by the two Houses, we would maintain them against the King, that then was in Arms against them; but when they come to be contested betwixt the two Houses, and the question be, to which we are to adhere, whether to the Commons affirmative, or the Lords negative? 1. We are not tied to impossibilities, we cannot make good contradictions. 2. We are to consider in our judgements and consciences which is most conducing to the ends for which those Privileges were granted; to wit, the promotion of public good, and accordingly to cast the scales. But 3. Caeteris paribus, the judgement of the Commons is to be adhered to, and preferred above the Lords, they being more, more concerned in the Kingdom's Liberties, the people's creature, and not the Kings, a Representative of trusties, and to be reduced again into a private condition; for though in the formality of Authority the Lords be above the Commons, yet in the material and substantial parts, they are above the Lords  
The next thing insisted upon in this 15 Page, after an exhortation to the Army to recede, is some threats from Mr. Peter's, (not unlike his discretion) in case they persisted to stir up the people to sedition: For so it seems, say they, our bewailing your sins before the Lord is interpreted: It's well you bewail their sins (I hope it is not with a spiteful, but a spiritual sorrow) for too many of your Parishioners bewail their successes; I hope in the Lord you do not so, and yet I perceive not a like spirit of jealousy in you over the sins of your own people (as over the Army;) for I call them sins because you do so: If your cause were good your resolution were commendable in that which follows, when you say, that if you must suffer, yet in the discharge of your duties you will commit the keeping of your souls to the Lord, as to a faithful Creator: But I hope the Army will be as they have been, as eminent for their meekness as their valour, and convince their gainsayers by their own long suffering, and not your suffering; and yet take heed of being the cause of other men's sufferings though you are careless of your own, either by your advice to the Army to recede, who I hope will be twice advised before they take your counsel, or by your instigations, which if it should happen, may more afflict you then any personal sufferings of your own: But I hope God will open your eyes, and restrain the Armies hands.  
I will end with a saying of Queen Elizabeth to her Secretary Walsingham, when in a conspiracy against her, but in part discovered, he advised her for further evidence to delay the seizing on the Conspirators, and to let the business lengthen out itself: But she refused, lest (as she said) in not taking heed of a danger when she might, she should seem more to tempt God then to hope in him.   

Febr. 7. 1648.  
Imprimatur  
Gilbert Mabbot.  
FINIS.