CERTAIN QUERIES CONCERNING The lawfulness of imposing, and taking of the NEGATIVE OATH; Propounded by some MINISTERS under restraint in the Garrison of WEYMOUTH.  
AND ANSWERED By E. B. and P. I. Ministers of Weymouth, and Melcomb-regis.  
LONDON Printed for Rich. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy Lane, M DC XLVII.   

The Negative Oath.  
I A. B. Do swear from my heart, that I will not directly, nor indirectly, adhere unto, or willingly assist the King in this War, or in this Cause, against the Parliament, nor any Forces raised without the consent of the two houses of Parliament, in this Cause or War: And I do likewise swear, that my coming and submitting myself under the Power and protection of the Parliament, is without any manner of Design whatsoever, to the prejudice of the proceed of this present Parliament, and without the direction, privity, or advice of the King, or any of his Council, or Officers, other then what I have now made known, So help me God, and the contents of this Book.   

To the Reader.  
THese Queries were privately propounded, by men pretending a sober desire of satisfaction, and this Answer (whose contrivement was not the expense of full 24. hours) as privately returned. The men were so fare from having their Consciences unscrupled by any thing here said, that we were constrained to offer them a dispute, o'er tenus, which (after time, and place, and Moderator, agreed upon, and all parties met) was prudently declined, since which time (as I have been assured by some godly Ministers, and others) it hath been given out, by one or more of the Parties themselves, how little could be said for the Parliaments practise, and some aspersions cast upon myself in particular; whereby I am necessitated to own these Papers, and to make them public, that the world may see, that what I have here said, was enough to cast me by choice upon that side I ever was, since these differences began, though not enough to fetch those men off, who are not willing they should now end.  
Thine in the Cause of Christ, and the Kingdom. EDWARD BUCKLER.   

Certain Queries concerning the imposing and taking the Negative Oath, etc.  

1. Quere.  
SInce Faith, (that is, an assurance of the warrantableness of any particular undertaking) must be the ground of a Christians action, and such Faith can rest on nothing but God's word, We demand, what warrant there is in the Gospel, (which restrains the use of Oaths) for the contriving, and imposing an Oath, (which is a solemn Act of Religion) in order to politic ends? This the rather we desire to be satisfied in, because our experience teacheth us, that this Oath is made use of as an Engine of State, since it is not urged generally on all, but pressed upon some, not without Design upon their estates, and liberties.  
Ans. Your first Quere is, what warrant there is in the Gospel for the contriving and imposing of an Oath, in order to Politic Ends?  
1. An assurance from God's word of the warrantableness of any particular undertaking, must be a Christians ground of that undertaking.  
2. The Negative Oath is in order to Politic ends, being an Engine of State. For  

1. It is not urged generally on all, but only on some.  
2. On those some, not without design upon their 

1 States.  
2 Liberties     
1. we observe,  
1. An ill Omen: viz. a stumbling at the threshold, you demand what warrant there is in the Gospel, etc. and the reason of your demand is, because there ought to be a warrant in the word. We hope God's word, and the Gospel, are not with you terms contemptible, so that if we find warrant in the word, it will be enough.  
2. That you demand not whether it be lawful to take, but whether it be lawful to contrive, and impose an Oath, in order to Politic ends, and so this can be no scruple of your Consciences; for whether lawful or not, you are not concerned in it.  

2. We answer,  
1. To your Quere. viz. What warrant there is in the word, (for that must be the sense of your Quere) for the contriving and imposing of an Oath in order to Politic ends?  
We desire you to look into these following Scriptures; where you shall find,  

1. An Oath, in order to politic ends, both in 

1. Precept, Exod. 22. 8. 11.  
2. Practice, 1 Reg. 8. 31. Gen. 24. 2. 3. Neh. 5. 12. (2 Chron. 36. 13. compared with Ez●k. 17. 13. 16.)     
2. A negative Oath▪ 1 Reg. 2. 42. 43. Gen. 24. 3. judg. 21. 7  
3. An Oath not urged on all, but some, as when an Oath is explanatory, or cautionary (as in the case in hand) it is only pressed upon the suspected, not urged on all. Num. 5. 19 Exod. 22. 11. the man suspected, not all the men in the neighbourhood. Ezr. 10. 15.  
4. An Oath not without influence (〈◊〉 without Design) upon their  

1. Estates, Neh. 5. 12.  
2. Liberties. 1. Reg. 2. 42.   
O●j. These texts are all in V T. But the Gospel restrains the use of Oaths.  

Sol. 

1. You either were not able, or not willing, to give us any sense of this parenthesis, at our first meeting.  
2. You show us where the Gospel restrains the use of Oaths in any sense that will serve your purpose.  
3. Oaths are in the Gospel, 

1. mentioned with approbation, Heb. 6. 16.  
2. used Rom 9 1. 2 Cor. 11. 31. 2 Cor. 1. 23       
2. To the reasons of your Quere, to the  
1. V●z. An assurance from G●ds word of the warrantableness of any particular undertaking, must be a Christians ground of that undertaking.  
This we acknowledge to be a truth, 
Ans.  and a necessary ground of Quere, when we do indeed doubt of the warrantableness of any thing that is required of us. But we do not think ourselves, or others, bound to suffer, till we can satisfy ourselves of a warrant for what is done by others; as in the case of this Quere, viz. of a ground for contriving and imposing of oaths— To the  
2. The Negative oath is in order to Politic ends, etc.  
See in order to what end those oaths were contrived and imposed, 
Ans.  which you saw in the texts above cited.— To the grounds of this viz.  

1. This oath is not urged on all.  
If by (all) you mean 

1. All the Subjects of this Kingdom (oaths not being either to be multiplied or extended beyond necessity) we say that the State need not engage their own party, by any other way, having sufficient assurance of their good affection already. 
Ans.   
2. All of a kind. viz. Of such as have adhered to the King in this war; we believe (and have been informed) that the Ordinance intends all, and the non-execution of it, is to be written down, among the Errata of their Instruments.  
2. On some, not without design upon their 

1. Estates.  
2. Liberties       
We might find here some incongruity between this, 
Ans.  and what went immediately before, viz. (not urged on all.) Why not, if this be the design? 'tis possible that other men upon whom this oath is not urged, may have estates and liberties, of equal consequence with such as speak this by experience. We could say much of the animosity, etc. that is descended in such expressions, but we remember the point.   

3. We demand whether  
1. There be less ground in the Gospel for the negative Oath, then for the Oaths of Allegiance, of Canonical obedience, the Protestation mentioned in the fourth Quere, etc.  
2. All, or most of those oaths be not in order to politic ends, and so engines of State?  
3. In relation to a ground in the Gospel, there be not as much reason to question their legality of contrivement and imposition, as of this?  
4. Such as are not able to show more warrant in the Gospel for those, than this, may not lawfully take this, or must not necessarily repent for taking those?    

2. Quere.  
We desire to know what ground there is in God's word, for a Christian by Oath to oblige himself in future contingents? Or whether such obligations concerning mutable affairs of State, not under our power, may not prove pernicious snares to Conscience: and therefore to be in christian prudence prevented, since one exception against the Popish Vow of continency, is, that it is a snare to conscience?  
Your second Quere is, what ground there is in God's word for a Christian to oblige himself by oath, concerning mutable affairs of State, not under his power, this being to oblige himself by Oath in future contingents?  
Reasons of this Quere are,  

1. Such obligations may prove pernicious snares to conscience.  
2. One exception against the Popish Vow of continency, is, that it is a snare to conscience.   

1. We observe,  
1. That by mutable affairs of State, must be meant the uncertain success of this War, or else it is not pertinent to the business in hand.  
2. That the uncertainty which side will finally prevail, doth oblige us in point of conscience, not to engage in either, without providing for a retreat.   

2. We answer.  
1. To your Quere, what ground there is in God's word, for a Christian, etc.  
1. We refer you to those texts cited above in answer to your first Quere.  
2. All promissory oaths are obligations to future contingents, for how necessary soever any thing may be in its causes, & to God, yet if it be not present, it is contingent to us, who knows what a day may bring forth? vide jam. 4. ver. 14.  
To your reasons of your Quere,— to the  
1. Such obligatious may prove pernicious snares to consciences.  
Ans. Never the sooner for the contingency of the thing concerning which they are obliged, for  

1. Then so many promissory oaths as are made, so many snares to conscience are made, and so David 119. Psal. 1. 6, and josuah, and the Princes of Israel, jos. 9 15. Cum multis aliis, made snares for their Consciences.  
2. If the contingency of the thing about which we swear, impose upon us a real impossibility of performance, the obligation is Ipso facto, made null.   
2. One exception against the Popish Vow of continency, is, that it is a snare to Conscience.  
Ans. The case is not like, for  

1. That Vow is of something not in our power, Mat. 19 11. not so this oath.  
2. That Vow is of that which is nullo jure, necessary, Heb. 13. 4. 1. Tim. 4 3. not so this oath. vid. infra.    

3. We demand whether,  
1. That which is sworn to in the Negative Oath, hath more of contingency in it, than what is sworn to in the Oath of Allegiance, Canonical obedience, etc.  
2. That which is ind●●d a snare to Conscience, be a greater evil, then that which is a wound to Conscience?  
3. Those persons may (in any charity) be supposed to act purely, according to the light and dictates of conscience, in one thing, th●t do not discover any Conscience at all in other things?  
4. To pretend Conscience for what we act from other principles, be not a great sin?    

3. Quere.  
Whereas the wisdom of Parliament looked upon an Oath, for the never consenting to the alteration of the Discipline by Law established, as Tyrannical, and prevented the general imposing of it, by the declaring the illegality of all Oaths not imposed by Act of Parliament. We desire to know, how the imposing of this Oath, of not adhering to the King, can scape a hard construction?  
Your Third Quere, is, How the imposing of this Oath, of not adhering to the King, can escape a hard construction? Reasons of this Quere, are  

1. The Parliament looked upon the &c. Oath, as tyrannical.  
2. They declared all Oaths illegal, not imposed by Act of Parliament.   

1. We Observe,  

1. That you dwell in generals Vbi fraus latet) and cannot tell what you do indeed mean by a hard construction.  
2. That laying your Quere and its grounds together, this must rationally be presumed to be your meaning, viz. that this oath of not adhering, is 

1. Tyrannical.  
2. Not imposed by Act of Parliament.     
You must own it in this sense, or discharge the Parliaments looking upon the etc. Oath as tyrannical, and their declaring the illegality of all Oaths, not imposed by Act of Parliament, from being reasons of this Quere,— and so   

2. We answer,  

1. To your Quere, how this oath can escape the construction of being 

1. Tyrannical.  
2. Not imposed by Act of Parliament.     
You will be satisfied (we hope) upon the making good of these two things, viz.  
That the imposition of this Oath  

1. Is not tyrannical.  
2. Is imposed by an authority equivalent to an Act of Parl.   

1. It is not tyrannical, because not contra 

1. aquum.  
2. bonum.  
3. leges.     

1. aquum, 

1. There is jus regni, in all that by the Parliament is in this War contended for.  
2. It's all equity in the world, that those persons who will live in the Parliaments Quarters, should declare themselves, at least, not to be their enemies.  
2. Bonum esse, you prejudice the State, in giving (as we remember you confessed yourselves ready to do) any other assurance, not to adhere etc. beside an oath.  
3. Leges, vide infra (26. &c.     
2. It is imposed by an authority equivalent to an Act of Parliament, we shall offer unto you, (as to ingenuous men,) these Propositions. viz.  
1. That the King wilfully absenting himself, or dissenting, it's in the Power of Parliament to make laws (which do bind the Subject) for the safety of the Kingdom— which we thus prove.  
If the Parliament have not this power, it is either, because of the King's dissent, or because of something else— but etc. ergo.   

The minor is proved thus,  
If the King's dissent can hinder a Law, the Parliament assenting, than the King's assent can make a Law, the Parliament dissenting,— but, etc. ergo.   

The major is proved thus,  
If there be an equal Power in the King to do both, than he may as well do the one as the other.— but, etc. ergo.   

The minor is proved thus.  
If the doing of both do equally concern the Kingdoms good, then there is an equal power in the King to both, [for whatsoever the King▪ quatenus King, is or hath, he is, and hath it for the Kingdoms good, as the means is for the end, Rom. 13. 4.] but the doing of both, doth equally concern the Kingdoms good, [the Kingdom is as much concerned, that (good) laws be made, as that (evil) laws be hindered] — ergo.  
2. Not to allow Ordinances (ut supra) equivalent to Acts, (which at lest Sedente curiâ was never questioned) is to necessitate the continuance of old Laws, though never so prejudicial, & to impossibilitate the making of a new, though never so necessary, if the King will; contrary to that known rule in Politics, Lex debet Reipub▪ accommodari, non respub. legi.  
3 It makes the King absolute, and his government arbitrary, it being all one to rule without a Law, and to rule by a Law of his own making, and which could not be made without him.   

3. We demand whether,  

1. Ius gladii (if the Parliament were pleased, or had need to plead it) doth not entitle them to power enough to impose this Oath?  
2. The King had any more, for imposing his Protestation, in places under his power?  
3. The imposition of that Protestation (being not by Act of Parliament, nor by any power equivalent) be tyrannical, and capable of a hard construction?     

4. Quere.  
Since there is a natural all allegiance due to the person of King Charles from all his Subjects born (so that it is a declared treason to distinguish between the natural, and politic capacity of the King, as it is evident in Cook's Report of calvin's case) which the founders of our Government have thought fit to ratify, by Oaths of fealty and allegiance, which oblige all Subjects to adhere unto, and assist King Charles in time of War, as well as in time of Peace: and since by a late Protestation, taken at the instinct of Parliament, we have obliged ourselves in our several places, and callings, to maintain with our lives and fortunes, the King's person, honour and estate, and to endeavour to bring to condign punishment all those who oppose them, we desire to know, how any power on earth (without being Antichristian) can absolve us from this allegiance, or disengage us from our vows of adherence to the King, in maintenance of his right, such as is the power of the Militia, acknowledged by the Parliaments Petition at Windsor, to be a flower of the Crown.  
Your fourth Quereiss, what power on earth, (without being Antichristian) can absolve us from our oath of Allegiance, or disengage us from a late Protestation taken by instinct of Parliament, obliging us to maintain the King's person, honour, and estate, and to adhere to him in the maintenance of his right, such as is the power of the Militia, etc.  
Reasons of this Quere, are,  

1. There is a natural allegiance due to the person of King Charles, from all his Subjects born.  
2. This natural allegiance, the founders of our Government, have thought fit to ratify by Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance.  
3. These Oaths oblige all Subjects to adhere unto, and assist King Charles in time of War, as well as in time of Peace.  
4. 'tis a declared Treason to distinguish between the natural and politic capacity of the King, as is evident in Cooks Report of C●lvins case, vid. 11. Hen. 7. 1.   

1. We observe.  

1. That you insinuate a power to be claimed by the Parliament of absolving men from Oaths, and disingaging them from Protestations.  
2 That you insinuate this power to be Antichristian.  
3. That it is exercised in imposing the Negative Oath.    

2. We Answer.  
1. To your Quere, what power on earth? etc. That by the Negative Oath you bind yourselves from nothing, which you are bound unto by the oath of Allegiance, or the late Protestation taken by instinct of Parliament. For the clearing of this, we shall premise  
That neither Oath nor Protestation oblige us to any new duty, but only bind us, (in the sacred Bond of an Oath) to perform that which was ever due. This truth we have from the Series of your own arguments, there is (as you call it) a natural allegiance, which is (you say) ratifyed (not added unto) by Oaths of Fealty and allegiance.— Thus then  
If the Negative Oath bind you from nothing, which is (by your natural allegiance) the King's due, than it binds you from nothing, which you are bound unto by the Oath of Allegiance, or the late Protestation.— But, etc.— ergo.  
Ob. It binds us from adhering unto, or assisting the King in this War.  
Sol. This is not the King's due.— We prove it thus.  
Nothing is the King's due, but what he can claim, either by the Law, or by his Prerogative; [we never heard of a third title, and his Majesty seems in one of his Declarations, to reduce all to one, in this acknowledgement, The Law is the measure of our power. And we conceive that the measure, and the thing measured are not greater, nor less one then another. But for your good, you shall have in the Prerogative to boot]— etc. but the King cannot claim assistance in this war, either by Law, or by his Prerogative. Ergo.  
1. He cannot claim it by Law; for  

1. The sense of the Law is to be judged of, by the mind of the Lawgiver, and we cannot yet think that the Parliaments mind was to give the King a power to cut their own throats.  
2. The King seems to allow the Parliaments sense of the law to be authentic, though directly opposite to his own sense of it, as in Strafords' case.  
3. Then the Law binds you to endeavour the destruction of all those godly persons in the Kingdom, who are of the contrary party, and this we have found was (as long as they appeared) at lest finis operis.  
4. 'tTwere good that Law were produced which inables the King to claim your assistance in a War against his two houses of Parliament, [his Majesty himself saw so little of Law in it, that he himself protested himself as ready to War against his own Children]   
Obj. We have directed you in the Margin, to the Statute of 11. Hen. 7. Chap. 1.  
Sol. And we direct you to the Parliaments exposition of, and Declaration upon that Statute, printed above three years since.  
Obj. The Parliament acknowledged the power of the Militia to be a flower of the Crown.  
Sol. To use for, not against the Kingdom, according to Law, not will, vid. supra (26) ●t infra (42.)  
2. The King cannot claim your assistance in this War by his Prerogative, we shall endeavour to hold you ou● what Prerogative  

1. is not.  
2. is. 

1. Prerogative is not 

1 A power in the King to do what he pleaseth, not a power by any instruments of his to take away the life, or estate, of any Subject, to break the privilege (much less the necks) of Parliaments, etc. ['tis not (we hope) for this cause, we pay Tribute, Rom. 13. 6.]— this is not Prerogative.  
For 

1. The King every where disclaims it.  
2. To what purpose laws, if a Sic ●olo, were enough? 

2. A power to do what he pleaseth, in cases, not provided for by Law— We shall again resume his Majesty's acknowledgement: The Law is the measure of Our Power, where 

1. Is not meant our power drawn into a Law, that is not elegant enough, for a Penner of his Majesty's Declarations. but here  
2. Is meant our power, left free, and undeter minate, the Law is the measure of this, (i. e.) our Prerogative will enable us to do whatsoever the Law may be presumed would have allowed us to do, if there had been a Law made.        
2. Prerogative is 

A power in the King, to do the Kingdom good, in cases not provided for by Law.— Prerogative is not a jot more than this. 

1. If the wisdom of a State, could foresee every thing that would need a Law, they would make a Law for it, and leave no Prerogative at all.  
2. We see that there is still more and more of the King's power drawn out of his Prerogative into his Laws, as inconveniencies not foreseen, do immerge.  
3. That the King should (as the necessity of the Kingdom calls for it) thus empty his Prerogative into his Laws, not left Arbitrary, but it is his duty, vid. supra (26) 27)           
2. To the Reasons of the Quere, to  
There is a natural Allegiance due to the person of K. Charles.  
Ans. This doth no more bind you to assist the King in any thing that is evil, than the natural Allegiance of either of you to a Father doth bind you to help kill a man, (only ●o nomine) because your Father calls for your assistance.  
2. This natural Allegiance, the Founders of our Government, etc.  

Ans. We shall note, that 

1. The Parliament are the Founders of our government.  
2. They may contrive, and impose oaths, in order to politic ends.  
3. What influence the King's assent or dissent hath, you have heard above (26.)     
3. These oaths oblige all Subjects to adhere unto, and assist King Charles, etc.  

Ans. That 

1. They oblige us to no new duty supra 30.  
2. What is premised in the oath of Allegiance, is in opposition to that usurped power of Potentates, etc. abroad, not to the lawful power of the Kingdom at home, (vid. 3. Jacob. 4.)  
3. This oath must receive its exposition, from whence it did its composition, viz. from the Parliament of England.  
4. There is (at least virtually) as much of the King's Power in the Negative Oath, as in the oath of Allegiance.     
4. 'tis a declared Treason to distinguish between the natural and politic capacity of the King, as is evident in Cooks Reports.  

Ans. 

1. From the authority of Cooks Reports, we refer you to the Reports of Finch, Barcley, etc. in the case of Ship-money, Monopolies, etc.  
2. Parliaments are not tied to the reports of Judges but have power to araign and condemn both Reports and Reporters.      

3. We demand, whether  
1. Our natural Allegiance to the person of King Charles, be due to the person of that person, quatenus Charles (i e.) such a determinate, individuum, or quatenus King (i. e.) a person invested with such a power, or quateum both?  
2. If any person (by conquest or otherwise) should be established King of France, as William the Normand was of England, (the present French King yet living) to which of these two is the natural allegiance of the subjects borne of that Kingdom, due?  
3. If a King be non compos mentis, any Oath of Allegiance to him, when he was sanae memoria, doth bind his subjects to assist him (by virtue of his verbal or written precept) in war and peace?  
4. We of this generation (unsw●rne) be bound to make good those ●athes of Fealty and Allegiance which were taken by our Progenitors, upon pain of perjury?  
5. A Prince having (as an acknowledged Flower of the Crown) the power of the Militia, and going about with any part of that Militia to destroy himself or his children, aught to be assisted in it?— This to your Queries.— Your   

5. and last is a Proposition,— viz.  
All Oaths being to be taken in the common grammatical sense, this oath ties the taker from all manner of assistance to the King during this war. Now since the violence of battle may be directed against the sacred person of the King, and the misguided fury of the common soldiers, hath bend itself against, and may hereafter attempt the life of our gracious Sovereign, we cannot safely abjure all, succours to the preservation of him, whose life is worth ten thousand of us.  
5. Your Proposition is,— This Oath ties the taker from all manner of assistance to the King, during this War; and the taking of it, were to abjure all succours for the saving of his life.   

Reasons of this Proposition are.  

1 This Oath is to be taken in the common grammatical sense.  
2 The violence of battle may be directed against the sacred Person of the King.  
3 The misguided fury of the Common soldiers hath bend itself against the life of our gracious Sovereign.  
4 It may hereafter attempt the like.  
5 The King's life is worth ten thousand of us.    

1. We observe,  
1. That whereas in the other four particulars you were only Quaerentes, here you are Determinantes.  
2. That you would intimate, that the Parliament would bind you by oath from saving the King's life, if it were hazarded.   

2. We answer,  
1. To your Proposition,— This Oath ties the taker, etc.  
1. The Oath hath no such phrase in it, as, during this War, but, in this War or Cause. We do not here call your candour and ingenuity into question.  
2. The oath ties not the taker from all manner of assistance to the King, but only in this war, (i. e.) in relation to this war, Ex. gr. if Cook's Reports were tied from assisting you in this Cause, viz. in proving a distinction between the natural and the politic capacity of the King, Treason: are they thereby tied from all manner of assistance to you, till this controversy be ended? may they not yet assist you in a case of tenure of lands, Quare impedit, & c?  
I. N. and I. S. are in a suit of Law, I A. B. do swear not to adhere unto, nor willingly to assist I. N. in this suit; doth the grammatical sense of my oath tie me from inviting I. N. to dinner, or from pulling of him out of a ditch? etc.   

2. To the Reasons of your Proposition. To  


1. The Oath is to be taken in the common grammatical sense.  
Answ. This sense abjures not all succours, ut supra (45.)  
2. The violence of battle may be directed against the sacred Person of the King.  
Answ. We hold 

1. That the person of the King, and of every supreme Magistrate in any State, is inviolable, and not subject to any penal hand.  
2. That in this War, no Soldier ought willingly to take away the King's life.  
3. That if the King will wilfully adventure his person in battle, the Parliaments Army may and aught to fight, not withstanding the King's presence in the enemy's Army,— because 

1. If his person be in danger, 'tis not the Parl. fault, (who would not have him there) but his own, and his adherents, who prise his life at no higher a rate.  
2. The Parl. are acting within the sphere of their own power, and so doing their duty, not so the King, ut supra, (26, 27.)       

4. That if I see the King's life in danger, (as a soldier striking, or wounding him) I may rescue him, and save his life, the Negative Oath notwithstanding,— for 

1. This is no more an adhering unto, or an assisting of the King in this War, than it is, when a Parliament Captain shall rescue a Cavalier, that he may have Quarter, when his Lieutenant was about to hang him. An usual practice.  
2. This being necessarily understood in the Negative Oath, is contained in the grammatical sense of it. [Show us in what this Rule is false,— Quod necessario intelligitur, non deest.]  
3. In all promissory oaths, something must ever be understood, [as the Casuists resolve, Summ. Angelica in verbo Jurament. 4. Qu. 5.]      
3. The misguided fury of the common soldiers hath bend itself against the life of our gracious Sovereign.  
Answ. This is matter of fact, and if we knew that you spoke upon your knowledge, we would not stick to call it, as you do, misguised fury.  
4. It may hereafter attempt the like.  
Answ. We cannot prophesy, but if the King suffer in his Person by the Parliaments succeedings in this War, it will be his own fault, ut supra (46)  
5. The King's life is worth 10000 of us.  
Answ. We will not dispute the value of His Majesty's life; but if it be worth no more, his will hath cost above twice as much, as his life is worth. 3. We demand, whether  

1. This clause [the Kings life is worth 10000 of us] be to be taken in the sense that all Oaths are?  
2. Cooks declared Treason in calvin's case, must not be pardoned to make this clause good? (40).  
3. A man that hath taken the King's protestation may not (which is some assistance during this War) hold Sir Thomas Fairfax his Horse, without guilt of perjury? Diximus.   
FINIS.