A CLEAR ANSWER To the ARMIES late REMONSTRANCE AGAINST ACCOMMODATION: So far as to justify their former Remonstrances, for Accommodation.  1 SAM. 24.5. 
David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saules skirt.  1 SAM. 26.9. 
And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed, and be guiltless?  CICERO. 
Omnia misera in bello civili, nihilque ipsâ victoriâ miserius.  
Printed in the Year, 1648.   

A Clear ANSWER, to the ARMIES late REMONSTRANCE against Accommodation, etc.  
HAving, out of a tender respect of my dear Country, wherein I have enjoyed many comforts in this life, and care of the honour of that Religion whereby I hope to attain a crown in the life to come, represented, with a Letter, an abstract of the Armies formerly published overtures for accommodation, to their Officers assembled in Council. And being uncertain, whether the said Paper were delivered according to my directions, or if it were, being certain that it was not regarded, but instead of pursuing their former offers for Peace, we meet with an over-ly acknowledgement of their error therein, and an high attempt to frustrate this Treaty; first presented to the Parliament, and after to the people in Print: I thought it my duty, to compare their former pretences for Peace, with their present propositions for disturbance, to see which in the balance of reason, and Scripture, may seem more ponderous, to weigh down the judgement of an indifferent observer.  
And first of all it is to be observed, how apparently contrary their present is, to former Remonstrances. The former clearly declaring no Peace probable to be firm, and lasting, without provision for the quiet, safety, and Honour of the King, and His Royal Family, and indulgence likewise to His Party. This is iterated to be the way to conquer hearts, to remove seeds of feuds, and future War. But the latter, like the Laws of Draco, is writ in blood, breathing out Trial or Execution against the King, Prince, and Duke of York, and and all rigour to their partakers. The former was well made out to us by a double experience: for first, while these things were held out by the Army, all hearts were quiet, and expectations fixed to see whether such fair proposals would not put a happy period to our miserable distractions.  
But when all these overtures proved but empty flashes▪ or golden dreams: and instead of happy Peace, with some satisfaction to all interests, to make it lasting; Behold the King first immured in a remote Castle, afterwards laid aside with Votes of no more Addresses, and those that erewhile (when they needed Him) interposed so gloriously for Him, voluntarily engaging to bear out those Votes against Him, and all others: what followed, but heart Land, and Sea commotions, whence such a dangerous flame, that if God had not wonderfully interposed, to try us with one more lucidum intervallum, to see whether we would be wiser, and honester actum esset: there had been an end of our hopes, whether of Reformation or contended for Liberty, if the King be so minded as they afterwards represent Him. And though the Land be now quieted, yet Sea, and hearts remain still troubled. The Parliament awakened by this, plainly saw that the state of the Nation would not be settled without the King, nor the hearts of the Nation quiet, without the Kingdom be settled: for till settling, the Husbandman, Grazier, and Tradesman, the support of a Nation for subsistence, and wealth, live in fear, and labour in vain. And though the disease be quashed, the cause not being removed, a little time must of necessity bring a relapse, and the danger of relapses natural, or civil, Physicians and Statesmen very well know. The Parliament finding by sad experience the error of the Vote for no more Addresses, resolved upon a Personal Treaty with the King. And though backward to it, while all was in combustion: yet after God had cleared the coasts, they proceed with more celerity, and alacrity, and things are very far, and fair for a good issue: And yet in Treaty all things are proposed, that both Nations thought requisite for the freedom, and happiness of both Kingdoms; for which they had engaged so deeply. And it is very observable that during the late second War, rumours were spread abroad (whether true, or ad faciendum populum to please the people, let God judge) that the. Officers of the Army had seen their errors too, and if things were quieted, it should appear, that they would hereafter know their sphere and acquiesce in the Parliaments determinations: Yet now when upon so good terms peace is at our doors, Behold a thundering Declaration against His Majesty, and His Royal Family, to break Treaty, and alter the form of present government, with other things, which bided nothing but perpetual distractions, to necessitate a perpetual Army, knowing they must be the men, and so still be in a circumstance to over-awe all that shall dare to cross their designs, wills and humours. And now a query put upon all Treaty, especially this present Treaty, resolved to be neither just nor safe: but upon what grounds comes now to be examined.  
And first after many tedious circumlocutions, apt not to instruct, but to distract the Reader, They grate upon the House, the ingrate remembrance of the Vote of no more Addresses. But the Houses have learned that secundae cogitationes meliores, second thoughts are wiser: but our wise Ancestors left us no proverb for third thoughts. That were indeed to manifest that instability, that is inconsistent with solid sagacity. After this as tedious pains is taken to make it seem probable, that the Parliament went not into this Treaty voluntarily, but enforced: But all that can in truth be asserted in this particular will I believe but amount to this.  
That the discontent and danger that did arise from the Vote of [no Addresses] did convince them, that that was not the way to settle the Nation in assured peace, and quiet: And so that a Personal Treaty was more for the Public good, than the Vote of no Addresses: for, had the Parliament entertained the motion of a Personal Treaty through fear only, then would they have Treated, where those they feared, desired it; that is, in, or about London. But they would not condescend to it any where but in the Isle of Wight: Whence we gather but that the Parliament were free from force in the thing, because they overruled the place: And that the People were free from design, otherways then for settledness by Treaty, because they did acquiesce in a Treaty any where.  
After our Remonstrants, proceed pag. 14, 15. to dispute the Justice and Safety of this Treaty: But usher it in with the state of the Question. And first, because the Safety in question relates to Public interest, they set down the sum of the public interest of a Nation, in relation to common Right, and Freedom; and therein first, lay down, that for all matters of Supreme trust, they have a Common and supreme Council, to consist of Deputies, or Representees freely chosen by themselves, etc. But here's a great stumble at the threshold, and essential error in the very entrance: for they are not to set down (if they will speak to purpose) the interest of an Utopia, an imaginary People; but what is the Public interest of this Nation, as it now stands, having a supreme Council, partly of Commons Elect, partly of Lords Hereditary: and by the continued constitution of our Parliaments, the Power, and Privileges of the House of Peers, is superior to that of the Commons: and those Rights and Privileges of both Houses they have protested, sworn, and covenanted to maintain in general. And particularly, (and that if I mistake not, to draw on their consent to the Votes of no Addresses) the Army, by some of their Officers, did declare to the Lords at their Bar, (and after to all the world) that they would maintain and defend the Privileges of the Peers of England. It's apparent then, that the state of the Question which these have drawn, will not consist with the fundamental constitution of the Government of England, which the Parliament have often declared, and all have protested not to alter; and therefore, how impertinent their Arguments must needs be on such a false foundation, the intelligent Reader will easily judge: For the same error runs along, in all the particulars of the state of the Question, that are given of an Imaginary people, not of this People of England, under that frame of Government which is already established amongst them.  
In the application of this to the state of our National affairs, they ascribe to the King an endeavour by several Wars to maintain an Absolute interest in Himself, against that Public interest laid down by them, which they say was asserted by the Parliament: which two particulars, both King, and Parliament have publicly disavowed. The King in His Answers to the 19 Propositions delivered at Beverly, clearly acknowledging this Monarchy not to be pa●e, but mixed with Aristocracy, and Democracy; the wisdom of Our Ancestors, having in Our constitution, gathered what was good, avoided what was evil, in all the three. And further, that the Monarchy was not absolute, but Regular in its administration. And the Parliament all along declaring, that they would not violate the just Right or Greatness of the King, nor alter the frame of Government established. And how can it be imagined, that the Lords should engage for such an Interest, as despoiles them of all part in the Supreme trust, wherein they have the largest engagement, and an Hereditary right?  
After, pag. 20. they tell us of some particular Interests incident with the general, both to King and Parliament: wherein in my judgement, they are as much mistaken in what is said in reference to the King, as they were in the general, for they say, it was His interest to suppress the power of Godliness, or any thing of Conscience obliging, above, or against humane constitutions, etc. for, what is the interest of a King, but to get the people's hearts? and how is that better gotten then by countenancing Godliness? And a King that hath a Nation engaged to him by Oath upon Oath, the greatest tie to Conscience. And a King that pretends but to be a Regular Monarch, what can more advance His interest, then to countenance conscientiousness? So many plain precepts lying obvious in God's word, for Christians to be obedient and subject to such for conscience sake. But to let that alone, and come to the dispute, where two things are supposed, 1. That where a Person is trusted with a Limited tower, and obliged by Oath, to rule according to Laws, and breaks that Oath and trust, etc. He doth thereby forfeit all that power and trust he had, and sets the People free to take their best advantage, and to proceed in judgement against him. But first of all, this supposition, that abuse of Power is in this case a forfeiture, must not be assented unto. There is a Limited power, that is delegatory, sub poena, under pain of forfeiture: and there is a Limited power Hereditary, which descends absolutely, but is not to be exercised without limits, and those confirmed by Oath. Our King's trust is of the latter sort, He is King, and so proclaimed, that is Heir, assoon as His Predecessor is dead, and exercises all Regal power, and other Officers their inferior powers under Him, some years sometimes before Coronation, and so before His Oath. Besides, in the Oath of Allegiance, we absolutely swear to maintain the King in His Regality, and His Heirs after Him. Though therefore because He is to be regulated, we may tie His hands to prevent future Tyranny, yet we cannot strip Him of His just Regal power, because he holds not on condition of forfeiture.  
The second supposition is, of a King breaking His trust, and failing in His attempt, brought to quit His claim to absoluteness, but afterwards shall endeavour by force to overthrow all again, and so raise War, etc. Then he must be guilty of the highest Treason, at least of all the bloodshed in the unjust War, pag. 22.23. And then it is inferred that all this the King hath done, etc. But here I desire candour to be used, and consideration to be had, to what His Majesty held forth, and what probability there might be of His sincerity therein.  
First, in all the late business He never pretended to absoluteness, but only to maintain the Laws, and Legal Rights of Himself and Subjects.  
2. The Oath that He had taken at Coronation for the protection of His people, and in special the Clergy, did carry a very probable show to make him hold fast the Militia, without which He could not protect them; and to engage Him to use His power for protection of Bishops, whose standing He thought lawful, and whose immunities He had sworn to maintain.  
3. As the Parliament had Jealousies of Him, so was He not without fair colours of Jealousies from them, of their intendment to overthrow Monarchy, which such courses as are in this Remonstrance, may more confirm Him in.  
These things considered, He wants a great deal of charity, yea justice, that shall not acquit the King of any wilful murder: Gods knows His heart, but His pretences were fair, and He had very probable grounds to lead him to these pretences, to stand on His Guard, to maintain His legal Rights, and the Rights of those His Subjects, that were afraid of too much alteration in Religion; which I believe were the greater part for number.  
As therefore if He had conquered, though the letter of the Law had made His Opposites, Traitors; yet because the Law had proved them to have been Traitors only in action, not in intention, they might have expected favour, and it had been unjust to have dealt with them, as in a case uncontroverted, where there had been wilful transgression.  
So should it now be considered in the case of the KING, and His Party: and therefore in laying the case, the KING is not only unjustly, but uncharitably used.  
Neither so fare as my reason extends is it truly said, that a few of those many evils that our King hath acted were judged capital in several of His Predecessors.  
We read indeed of some of His Predecessors basely, and wickedly murdered, but never any suffering death as the result of any judgement passed upon Him. From this mistaken supposition ariseth that want of change or remorse, which they complain of in the King.  
The fault they here lay to His charge, He will confess, were He guilty of it, He hath cause to abhor Himself in dust, and ashes. But He will deny their supposition, and that He intended no slavery in people, nor absoluteness in Himself, but defence of Himself and those of His People, that craved His protection in their Legal Rights. And His error was to be jealous of those that He should have confided in: And from this error hath grown these sad consequences. But so long as the Army go on with such Declarations, they will free Him from errors, justify His jealousies, countenance His defence.  
But yet nearer, for the justice of accommodation with the King without trial, or punishment: I think it rests in this, when the Law acquits, civil Judges may acquit; but the Law acquits the Persons of our Kings: Therefore civil Judges may. You confess such maxims as give absolute impunity to Kings, and that the Kings of England can do no wrong, are found in Law-books, (though you say) as Heireloomes of the Conquest. But if they be in our Law-books, books, they are legal Privileges, and preeminences by our Laws, and then those that have taken the Oath of Supremacy, and sworn to maintain all the preeminencies, and Privileges of the Crown, (as all Parliament men have at their admission) cannot punish the Person of the King, because its an infringing of a legal privilege.  
I might add such Judiciary proceeding against, or without Law, will not stand with their Oaths, that have sworn to maintain Law and legal Rights of all.  
But pag. 50. they say, they cannot see how it may stand with justice, to punish the Ministers, and let the Head go free: nay, they further say, what ever grounds may be brought to exempts Kings from humane justice, or excuse them when they wilfully give commission etc. The same reason will serve to absolve, and indempuifie their Ministers, etc. At least, they say, they would feign hear one principle for the one, which would not by rational deduction, extend to the other.  
I Answer, first, it cannot be denied but that in evil things, he that gives the Commission, and command, is deepest in trangression; so on their supposition, a King must deserve more blame and punishment than His Instruments: But than secondly, it is to be considered, that humane Laws and penalties look at safety, as well as demerit; now to punish a King is like to set all on a flame, and so to endanger the Weal public, therefore though their guilt be great, yet they are left to God to avoid inconvenience. But now Ministers deserve punishment though not so much, and the punishment of them, may free the Common wealth from danger for future, for if the King can have no Instruments, He can do no mischief.  
To conclude this point, about the justice of accommodation: let me ask them this Question, have they not read what David did, in his Civil Wars both with Ishbosheth and Absalon? closing them up without any trial, or execution, (though much blond was shed in both.) And if Kings may accommodate with Subjects without any trying, and punishing them, to avoid future Interjections; why may not Subjects for the same reason, & on the same terms, accommodate with their Kings, and be blameless? an Argument from a Scripture example is cogent, where the reason is the same, else our Saviour would not have used it, Mat. 12.3, 4.  
Why did this Army themselves gives pardons to that nest of those in Oxford, whom they accounted the original Delinquents? But to prevent blood, and danger by loss of time: why may not the Parliament then pass by the errors of the King, to prevent the bloodshed, that will inevitably follow, upon rigour, and execution?  
But now to the second question touching the safety of this accommodation; against which they argue: First, from experience, that seldom or never have such accommodations proved ease to the people: for answer, I would demand again, where the rejection of a King, and His posterity, hath not proved the fatal cause of endless civil War? and whether that be not as destructive to public interest as any thing to be feared from accommodation? After the Deposing of Richard the Second, how long did this Nation continue in blood, and how endless was the contention? till an accommodation in the union of the divided Houses by the marriage of their heirs: nor would that serve when there was but a suspicion of an 
* In Perkin Worbeeke.  Heir male of the House of York surviving. And so is it like still to be. They have not now all the seed Royal in their hands, if they would with Athaliah destroy them. Nor are they like to have, sigh they propose such a way of summons to the Prince, and Duke of York, as if it be not intended to discourage Them from returning, yet must it needs have that effect. And they so banished for such a cause, viz. engagement to free their Father from so close Imprisonment: on what heart will not move pity, that hath either the sense of humanity, or the affection of a father, or a son in him? And so draw on Foreign force, to join with a discontented, and oppressed party here, which they confess to be numerous: which is a danger that can neither be avoided, nor paralleled on the other hand.  
Next for their arguing the likelihoods of the King's willingness to break all those concessions, which He shall grant: We may argue with more probability to the contrary. Kings that intent to break, care not what they grant, so it be not of things that disable them from breaking. But our King in the late Treaty, hath been most free, and speedy in passing away His own power, and tenacious only in those things wherein not only conscience was pretended, but without great uncharitableness we cannot question but that he was really scrupled about them. And he that will adventure life and all, rather than grant one thing against conscience, why shall not we hope, that He will be as tender in keeping, when conscience is once engaged in other things?  
For what is held forth that the King may pretend His non engagement to His concessions, because under force. I Answer as before, if the King had any such thought, He would not care what He granted, because all were nullities. Besides, though there be a dispute in Law, whither promises or obligations, made under restraint, be binding, yet all Divines know, that to a conscientious man its sinful to take the oath he intends not, or is not lawful for him to keep, and if the thing covenanted be lawful, and intended to be kept: he that makes conscience of any thing, will make conscience of such a covenant: by taking whereof though he suffer some damage, yet he purchaseth life, and liberty to himself.  
After there is a long discourse of the advantages the King shall have, to undo all if He have a mind to it. And if the King after all these concessions, (which are more in many things than the far greater part of His people do desire) shall be rejected and fall, will there not be that pity to the suffering, that indignation against the executioner, that will cause more dangerous rising then ever, when any Foreign help is brought by the Princes either to relieve, or revenge their Father's sufferings? Therefore for aught I see, the dangers of accommodation are but probable, and scarce that. The dangers of rejection, and execution inevitable. I would therefore propose it seriously to the consciences of these men, whether it be truly the fear of danger to the public interest of the Nation, that makes them so averse to accommodation, or rather to the private interests of them, and a party in the Nation; and in that, fear not so much of suffering evil, as losing either those great hopes or holds, that by the present distractions they enjoy.  
Afterwards they proceed to their own excuse for formerly being so forward for Accommodation, and Moderation to the King and His Party, which they now so much oppose. And indeed they did then hold forth such good grounds for public interest, as to root out seeds of future war, to conquer hearts, etc. That it will never be believed, but either than they were not real: but did only pretend, to strengthen themselves with his party, which done, they shown themselves in their colours, or else that now private interest doth carry them against that of the public, which they really followed, when their own private was involved with it. But they tell us, they were cleared in their judgements by the Parliaments Votes of No Addresses, and the Reasons of it. As though there were any thing therein now, which had not been known, and murmured long before, even during the time of Addresses.  
But they then come to answer an Objection from the Covenant engaging to a perpetual care to endeavour the preservation of the King's Person and Authority, etc. and so concluding under a necessity of perpetual Addresses. And to this,  
First, they say, the Covenant, as other promissory Oaths, heaping together several distinct interests, which may be inconsistent, and yet engageth positively to them all, may become a snare.  
I would they would consider this in the King's Coronation Oath, wherein mixed interests entangled him, that it might move some pity in them, as looking on him under a snare by his Oath, and not take all in the worst sense, as though all the opposition he made had flowed from wicked principles in him.  
Secondly, they say, the undertaking for the King in the Covenant, was not absolute, but conditional to preserve His Person and Power in maintenance of Religion and Liberties, etc.  
I Answer, Though there be such a clause in the Scotch Covenant, yet in the Protestation, in the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, there was no such condition, for evasion: and I hope our English Oaths are as binding as the Scotch Covenant: I would therefore know how they can answer either for execution or deposition to the obligation of those oaths.  
Secondly, they say, the Covenant, as for the civil part of it, is between man and man; and the King not concurring, we stand not engaged to him.  
This is a grand mistake, for the whole Covenant is to and with God, though in some things in it, we engage to perform duties to man. And though in Covenants between man and man, that are mutual and conditional, one stands not bound, unless the other accept: yet the case was not so in this Covenant, but both Nations to clear themselves from any evil intentions towards the King, and to approve their loyalty, do profess to men, and covenant to God, these things, not with the King, but for the King, and his interest. And therefore an engagement lies before God, though the King never take the Covenant.  
But I would put a question to them upon another branch of this Covenant, and the Protestation, which is against all Popery. And I would know of them, what point of Popery hath been more fully, or clearly opposed by Protestants, English and others, than that Jesuitical one of murdering, and deposing Princes? And I would know of them, how they will excuse their way of deposition, and execution, from symbolising with that point of Popery so condemned? I doubt not then but I may lawfully conclude, that the Army have more cause to repent of their present, then former Remonstrances; and may do well to interpose only for the interest of themselves, and party, to be considered in the closure: but desist from their endeavour of an absolute breach.  
I will shut up all with a story in our English Chronicle, which hath often been in mine eye, wishes, and hopes too, mutatis mutandis, since the beginning of our War: Our Henry the third, having first lost the love of his people, and after feign into their power: And being by means of his son delivered, he reflected (warned by smart and danger) on his former errors, reform them: And being exalted, studied not revenge, but the exalting of his throne by righteousness, and thereby made his people happy, and himself glorious. And lived to fashion his 
* Edw. the 1. styled England's Justinian: for though as many awes were made in his, as any other king's time; yet none of his were ever abolished by following Parliaments.  son and successor to make him partner of his own experience and authority, so framed him to affect virtue and glory, that he ever shown himself in all his actions, capable to command not the Realm only, but the whole world. Vid. Sir Rob: Cottons Hist. of Hen. 3. pag. 39 to the end. If we have so much faith and piety to pray, why may we not have so much charity as to hope that our King restored by Accommodation, will apply those incomparable abilities, that in his suffering he hath made demonstration of, so to promote the happiness of His people, as may be a full reparation of Himself in Honour, and them in damages. So prayeth a lover of his Country, a Zealot (only in the way of conscience,) for his King, and a friend to the Army in regard of that piety that many of them profess, and he humbly begs them all to study to practise and honour: and that by avoiding all such courses that may give suspicion, that men that pretend highest to piety, and the public, do yet deviate from the rules of both to uphold themselves and their private interest.  
And thus have I adventured to give my sense of some part of this Declaration so fare as it contradicts their former overtures for accommodation, to the maintenance of which I was somewhat engaged by what I had formerly done.  
And this I hope will not be altogether useless, till some man of more leisure, depth, and insight of state affairs, shall fully show how weak and impolitic they are in their whole Declarat.  
Yet one thing further I cannot but touch, to wit, that Proposal, pag. 66. The sum whereof is this, That it be declared, That such Representatives (that is, of the House of Commons) have, and shall have the Supreme power and trust, as to the making of Laws, Constitutions, and Offices, etc. and as to the altering, and repealing the same, the making of Peace, and War, and to be the highest final judgement, in all civil things without any appeal, etc. And after this, and other Proposals, is this clause added, pag. 67. That ne'er may be capable of any benefit, by the agreement, who shall not consent or subscribe thereunto.  
Here note first, that both King and Lords are excluded from any share in the Supremacy: now I would feign know with what modesty such a thing can be propounded to the House of Commons, and that by divers, themselves Members of that House, when they know, that all the Members of the House of Commons take an Oath of Supremacy to the King, at their admission, and all that have taken either Covenant, or Protestation, are bound by those Oaths to maintain the Privileges of both Houses of Parliament? And who knoweth not that by the present constitution of our Parl. The House of Peers is in many things superior to that of the Commons: will they propose things for civil advantage, which will involve both themselves, and those to whom they propose them in plain perjury the first day? Is this consistent with piety? Nay with common honesty? And yet here is a further mischief still, for if the Major part of them should through fear, or delusion become so vile as to receive, and promote these proposals, than the agreement contained in them must be subscribed by all, and non-subscribers, be excluded from any benefit by the agreement. And then I would know of them in what condition these free people shall be in, that for want of subscribing, shall be excluded the benefit of the agreement? shall they not lose the benefit of Free borne subjects? and what if they cannot in conscience subscribe it? As if they have taken, and make conscience either of Protestation, or Covenant, or Oath of Supremany, (as far as I can see) they cannot, would they impose such a penalty to enforce conscience?  
Sure this makes me remember that which was foretell me many years ago: That if these great pretenders for liberty of conscience, could once be possessed of power, they would be the greatest oppressors of conscience, that ever were in England since the Reformation. And sure the Bishops imposed subscription only on Ministers, and on penalty of losing Ecclesiastical livings only: but these would have a subscription imposed on all, upon penalty of losing the Privilege of Free Denisens'. Doth not this call upon City and Country to awake, and to Petition the Parliament for, and to stand by them in the rejection of such Proposals, as will either engage to the defiling of their consciences by a grievous sin, or expose them to greatest misery, and slavery? or else I may conclude with sorrow. Fuimus Angli.  
THE END.