THE Northern Subscribers Plea, Vindicated FROM The Exceptions laid against it by the Nonsubscribing Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire, AND REINFORCED  
By J. DREW.  ACT. 5.38, 39 
If this Counsel, or if this Work be of men it will come to nought, but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it, least happily ye be found even to fight against God.  GAL. 2.18. 
If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor,  

Dic quibus in terris, & eris mihi magnus Apollo  
Nascantur flores inscripti nomina Regum?   Virg. Eclog. 
Published according to Order.  
LONDON Printed by R.I. to be sold by John Wright at the King's head in the Old Bayley.  
MDCLI.   

ERRATA.  
BEsides some literal Errors and false pointings in these Sheets, Page 2. line 2. read by these, l. 22. r. have. Pag. 3. l. 4. r flowing. Pag. 4. l. 12. r. pouring. Pag. 6. l. 15. put out some. Pag. 7. l. 13. r. as to the means etc. pag. 15. l. 7. put out or a natural existence. Pag. 19 l. 15. r. exultations, l. 19 r. ejulation. Pag. 20. l, 18. put out they have. l. 33. r. notify. l. 38. r. prepossessions. Pag. 29. l. 24. r. What they non-will, they never understand, Pag. 30. l. 22. r. dispossessed power. l. 35. r. charge. Pag. 32. l. 5. r. our. Pag. 44. l. 19 for vainly r. unjustly. Pag. 54. l. 29. for nothing r. not King. Pag. 59 l. 1. put out not. Pag. 67. l. 26. r. falling out.   

TO THE Truly Religious and publique-spirited Patriot, Sir James Harington Knight, A Member of PARLIAMENT, and of the Council of STATE.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Honoured Sir,  
IT might be judged my folly, should I here take upon me to inform you; My forgetfulness if I should mind you, that it is the commendation of those stars fixed in the Heavens of the Nations, (in the most anomalous times) to know no Eccentricks, nor any motion but what is direct. As the fining pot for silver, 
Prov. 17.21  and the furnace for gold, so is a man to his praise. To be upright in a warping Generation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phil. 2.15. Numb. 4.24.  and to follow the Lord wholly, argues that nature and spirit in the subject which act's few of Adam's children, and indulgeth no compliance with those interests, which draw men aside from serving the counsel of God in difficult and critical seasons. There is an hour of temptation now come upon the world to try them that dwell upon the earth, and what with the divine providences, really disserving the ends of some men, and the pretences of others, to conscientious dissatisfactions, such a number have shrunk from their high callings, 
Psal. 90.17  that could not the mighty God do his own work by a few as well as by many, we might sit down and despair the establishing what by his presence for many years with our counsels and Armies, he had in mercy wrought for us, 
1 Sam. 12, 22.  but the Lord will not forsake his people for his great names sake, because it hath pleased him to make them his people.  
Sir,  
That this God would continue you [among the rest of his called, and chosen, and faithful Ones] a blessing to this poor Nation, that he would make you an honour to your honourable family, and accepted of the multitude of your Brethren, 
Esth. 10.3.  as he, who sought the wealth of his people, and spoke peace to all his seed, that he would perfect your joy, and crown, and enable you to stand complete in all his will, that an entrance may be ministered to you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is that which he strives for at the Throne of Grace, who is  
Sir, Your servant indeed, J. DREW.   

The Northern Subscribers Plea, reinforced.  
THese Conscientious Non-subscribers, who in the Title Page of their Plea bear the World in hand that they much desire satisfaction, and in the entry of their Appendix seem to be very eager of it, by pointing out an expedite way to those who may please to undertake the business; That it may yet further appear it was not a desire to contend, but a care to proceed upon a clear ground, which put them to a stand about the Engagement; yet these very men tell us betwixt their 
* Fronti nulla fides Juv.  Title and the Appendix, viz. Pag. 68 That now it would be construable those courses (even all endeavours after their satisfaction) are held to defend themselves who are pre-engaged, and to decoy others into the same trap with them, rather than to satisfy Conscience, dashing down at once by this profession of their thoughts, all their pretences to satisfaction, as men resolved to fasten the design of deceiving, as an odious Vizard, upon the most brotherly and Christian intendments and essays that can be drawn from any man to that end, like those Prisoners who passionately desiring a release, yet out of a sullen or a jealous temper do avowedly interpret every man's endeavour to that purpose as a design upon them, to make them greater slaves. Prepossession is a very tough and intractable humour, and Apologies sometimes harden and enrage the persecutors of innocency; Why, what evil hath he done saith Pilate? and they cried out the more exceedingly, crucify him, Mark 15.14. Now although upon this account it may be thought too late, or to little purpose to emit any Plea for the satisfaction of dissenting Consciences in point of submission to the powers in being over us, yet that we may not be wanting to our own Consciences, or the submitting Consciences of our friends, in justifying their submission as conscionable indeed, we think ourselves bound to take the weight of those exceptions laid against our Plea, by those Classical Authors, as turning the balance clearly (in their esteem) against that obedience which we contended for, as due from us to the present Authority; we than professed not to undertake the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan.  satisfying of Consciences, Pag. 13. our end was to acquit ourselves from the imputations of time-serving, and 
‖ Nil-bonum nisi quod rationabiliter bonum, Jo. 13.17.  blind obedience, in owning or taking part with those few heads and stays of our Tribes, kept together by the Providence of God for our support in this straight of time, those few grains not 
‖ Amos 9.9.  fallen to the earth in this season of our Nations sifting, that it might not be presumed, or concluded (as commonly it useth to be) that there is little conscience in any, saving in those who put themselves on the suffering side, seeing men generally at a loss, we made search after our duties, and then made 
* Intellecta licet pro re, pro tempore fari. Mant.  known to the world, that we found upon search to have influence on our Consciences; how fare these undertakers have weakened our Plea, as to its essentials, who think they have driven conscience and reason out of every line of it, scarce leaving one rag to cover the Subscribers nakedness, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 5.14.  after examination we shall cheerfully submit to the judgements of all those, who by reason of use, leave their senses exercised to discern both good and evil; sometimes we are charged as senseless, other times as religionlesse, but to us it is a very 
‖ 1 Cor. 4.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes.  small thing that we should be judged of man's judgement, we must stand or fall to another Master; if we bear not the same respect and conscience to the truth in this our defence, which these Ministers pretend to, in making up their judgement against us, and if we labour not to approve our hearts and ways to God in our present obedience to the Powers that be, 
Job 11.11:  as much as others do in dis-obliging themselves at this season, he, who is the discerner of all hearts shall not he judge, and he who knows vain man, shall not be consider it? We shall begin our reply where their first exceptions are commenced, and that is against our first Argument; here we must take notice of what they grant, which is our Argument in terminis, and what they deny, which is our sense of it, they grant the being of these present Powers over us from God, and the proposition likewise upon which this is built, viz. That all constitutions of Government have their making and marring, their standing and falling from God: This they say proves our assertion, in a right acceptation, but not in that sense which serves for our turn. Therefore they distinguish betwixt events following from God's decree, concourse, or providence, and those events which are authorized and approved of by God, we receive the distinction, and if it be made appear, that both those senses, or distinct notions of events are at the service of our assertion, than our turns shall surely be served, but the latter sense (say they) concerns your purpose, therefore our assertion shall proceed in these terms, That the powers in being are from God by way of Authorization, or that he approves their being over us, that the Lord appropriates changes of Government and Governors to himself, we proved in our Plea from these Scriptures, Ezek. 21.27. Zech. 11.8. Hos: 13.11. And Acts 13.20, 21, 22. which these Gentlemen are content to wave as impertinent to what we should prove:  
But Sirs, if you be content that the Lord should approve of what he appropriates to himself, they serve clearly for the proof of our proposition, form to your own sense, and evince the being of our Authority over us by way of Authorization from God, if the Lord commands the diadem off men's heads, removes the Crown, sets up or exalts him that is low, and abases him that is high; if he cuts off those who were given for Shepherds, gives his people Judges, raiseth them up Kings; grant that he never entitles himself to the thing he disowns, and then all these things are from him by way of Authorization, when God saith, I exalt this man, shall we say; he approves not of his exaltation? 
Jer. 27.6, 7.  I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzer, and all Nations shall serve him, saith the Lord. I, but it is unlawful to serve him, says man, for God doth not approve of this his gift, doth not warrant this man's Authority as a divine Ordinance; thus man becomes more wise and jealous than the holy one his Maker; Well, to our case then, the swaying powers amongst us, are they of Gods lifting up or no? has he given the Kingdom into their hands, or may they say our own hands and power has gotten us this greatness? and laid the foundation of this eminency? not the latter, The holy one will have the living to know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he pleaseth, and setteth up over it the basest of men, Dan. 4.17. If the Lord himself hath raised them up, we dare not think but he approves his own act, they tell us, that God may be entitled to their power, as it is a 
* Pag. 2. and 8.  natural force or inergy, or in respect of its metaphysical existence, and no otherwise, but we take majesterial power or dominion to be a thing of a clear distinct nature and consideration from Physical Energy, and so we believe do the Ministers of Lancashire too; Dominion is a judicial power, or 
‖ Jus imperandi Psa. 72.8. Gen, 1.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jus et dominium ac aeuthoritatem denotat, etc. Mercer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Chrys. in Gen. 1. jus in creaturas Deus homini dedit & stitit illas coram homine ut sisti solent subditi coràm novo principe inaugurando et accipiendis mandatis ejus atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suit figonum dominii et imperii. Polan. Syntag. li. 5. ca 35. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks no less. See Gen. 42.6. with Psal. 105.22.— 144.13 Dan. 7.27. Eceles. 9.19. Psal. 8.6.  moral right to rule; the Lord in translating Throns' and Sceptres, shifting principalities from hand to hand, and poureth supremacy from vessel to vessel, he does more surely than give men a natural power to grow great, this he communicates as the Author of nature, but as that God whose Kingdom ruleth over all, he disposeth of Dominions, models, and breaks again frames of Government, and still continues his Ordinance amongst the sons of men. When God as sovereign of the world, lifted up Nabuchadnezzar over Judah, he did not only enable him with power to conquer that people, but gave him a right of Dominion and rule likewise, we cannot persuade ourselves that he would have commanded the remnant of his people of serve him, or have promised that it should be well with those that did serve him if it had been otherwise; besides this, Nabuchadnezzar made Zedekiah, Jehojachins Uncle King in his stead, 2 King. 14.17. which delegation stood approved, as his act who had royal power 
* Nil dat quod non habet.  to give, for when Zedekiah endeavoured to shake off Nebuchadnezars supremacy, the Holy Ghost styles it, a Rebellion against that King, and Ezek. 17.16. the Lord threatens him severely for it, as I live saith the Lord God, Verse. 20 surely in the place where the King dwelleth, that made him King, whose Oath he despised, and whose Covenant he broke, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die; So that God owns the making men Rulers, as well as the raising of them from the dust, 1 King, 16.2. this was his word to Baasha, I have made thee Prince (or Ruler as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered 2 Sam. 7.8. 1 Chron. 5.2.) over my people Israel, and this is that we contend for touching our present Powers; their right inforo humano, to rule, cannot be less than Baashaes' was, yet he is registered for a King of Israel, and inforo Divino, it is as great, the high Disposer of rule and power having possessed them of dominion, which proceeds from him by way of Authorization (as we have proved) if it be his gift, the sum than is this.  
1 That God approves of what he hath given into the hands of our present Powers, what he hath given he is pleased they should have.  
2 That they have more given them then a natural Power of force from the Divine concourse, viz. Dominion, or power of Rule, therefore both the members of the distinction (as we presumed above) are ready to serve our turns, God having disposed of the Kingdom into their hands, hath in so doing given them dominion, yea though it be acknowledged for to gratify any man (as it might without impeaching their power of right) that by reason of some in-direct and injustifiable actings, or courses in themselves, or those who have been instrumental to their lifting up, that they are not by him, as Hos. 8.4. and that the Lord knew it not, viz. approved not the ways of their exaltation; yet we say, notwithstanding the sinfulness of men as to their agency in the business, Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor from the West, nor from the South, but God is the Judge, be putteth down one, and setteth up another, Psal. 75.6, 7. Discernendum est inter jus Dei quod in res bonas nunquam amittit à quibuscunque & quomodocunque teneantur & inter judicia Dei quibus bona sua sic distribuit, ut in eorum acquisitione & usu, vitium hominis aliquando concurrere permittat sic, igitur de acquisitione quorundam regnorum est judicandum: Pareus.  
And since we perceive the overflowings of your Gall in this controversy fall mainly upon the corrupt interests of persons, and their indirect ways of compassing power and dominion, we shall propound and assert some particulars tending to the clearing and elucidating the matter in debate betwixt us, and which may happily make way for the breaking in of 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Naz. Orat. 12.  convictions upon our Consciences, if you undertake to persuade us, the truth is otherwise.  
1 Our assertion is this, that God may, and oft times does disclaim the interest and aims of persons getting into power, and yet own the power in their hands as his Ordinance. This will be evident from the instance of Nabuchadnezzar, God gives him a charge against an hypocritical Nation, and useth him as a rod in his hand to scourge his people; howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to cut off Nations not a few, Isa. 10.6, 7. God by no means 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synes Ep. 57  approves of that Tyrant's aim or end, nor of the bitterness and hastiness of his people, who came all for violence, Hab. 1.9. yet he approved of the power and dominion in Nebuchadnezars 
* ver. 12, 17. 1 King. 16.  hand, as his Ordinance is clear, Jer. 27. where the people are expressly commanded, to put their necks under his yoke, and to serve him.  
2 We assert, That God may, and often times doth disclaim the means and steps whereby some men are raised into the Seat of Authority, and yet authorise their being there; we have pregnant instances enough to prove this, that of Baasha which we touched upon before may suffice, the Lord approved not of his kill Jeroboam, whereby his way was made unto the Throne, 1 King. 16.7, yet he owned the power in Baashaes' hand as his Ordinance, I have made thee, saith God, Ruler over my people Israel, vers. 2. And hence we might deduce thus much for the information of God's Servants living under such dispensations, that they may lawfully own Magisteriall power in the hands of such intruders, since the Lord himself owns it, and in this our new Annotations, Rom. 13.1. will stand by us, It is just and equal say they that man should approve and tolerate that which God himself approves and tolerates; herein we 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost in Rom: 13.3.  acknowledge Gods supreme right, and yet we deem ourselves acquitted of man's guilt, unless we conclude the sins of Baasha chargeable upon all those that submitted to his power, but of this we suppose the Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire will say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God forbidden.  
3 Those who undertake to prove this, that God disownes the aims and interests of those now in power amongst us, must evidence their ends to be uncapable of divine approval, and Sirs, unless you dwell in their bosoms, your arguments will pass but for presumptions, men's actings seldom making up more than a fallible conjecture of their ends; We have learned for our parts, 
1 Cor. 4.5.  to judge nothing before the time.  
4 Yet further, we conceive, and that upon deliberation too, it will be very hard for these undertakers to find a case paralleling that capacity which our Commons in Parliament stood in before their acting in this solitary Supremacy, for they had then a coequal title, at least to, and a share in that Sovereignty, which now they are vested withal, exclusiuè, and if this parallel be found upon search into some American constitutions or other, it will be as hard a matter then, to clear the divine disapprovall of persons thus acting in the like case, yea, or to lay down any sound rules whence by Analogy our present Rulers actings can be concluded absolutely injustifiable, as the means of their attaining this power.  
The difficulties therefore and intricacies being very many, wherewith such as take in hand to prove the sinfulness of the means by which, or the corruption of those interests for which our Government has been changed, must necessarily labour, and be entangled, and the duty of obedience to our present Governors continuing in full force (according to our first assertions) notwithstanding these difficulties should be broken through, since we say it is so hard a task, and in our judgements infeasible, to prove the means or end of our present establishment evil; and this done, still as difficult to prove that obedience and subjection are not good and necessary, we conclude that our wisdom, as well as our strength will be to sit still, and humbly to acquiesse in the 
* Mr. Burroughs rare jewel of Christian contentment. pag. 35. Prov. 22.5.  providential will of our God; Quae pertingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter & disponsit omnia suaviter: Thorns and snares will be in the way of those froward ones who study the intangling of other men's consciences, and the dis-obliging their own at this season. 
‖ See Pro. 28. in Rom. 14.19,  Such a work will be as dangerous, as liable to the exceptions of men, and as capable of his dis-owning, who commands us to study what makes for quietness, and the edifying of one another, as any change of Government amongst us or our neighbours, hath been for many Centuries of years; this attempt (we think) few quiet and undesigning spirits will be forward to engage themselves in; but what besotting interests have wrought men to, we see, and seeing, have cause to bewail, the fruits of their distempers, shaking and endangering the public bottom, that hath gone a nine years' voyage for peace, and is now within view of harbour, our having been wounded is not so much, as that our wound should be perpetual, 
Jer. 15.18.— 8.15.22.— 14.19.  and still kept open by the sons of peace official healers, if here you acquit yourselves Sirs, 'tis well. Quisquis vel quod potest arguendo corrigit vel quod corrigere non potest, salvo pacis vinculo excludit, vel quod salvo pacis vinculo excludere non potest equitate improbat firmitate supportat, 
August:  hic 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alexan. storm. l. 5.  pacificus est.  
We have insisted somewhat largely in our rejoinder to that exception (commenced against our Argument) touching the being of the present Authority over us from God, both because it is of confessed importance, and because it much facilitates our retargation of what follows under this head. To proceed therefore,  
To this explanation of our Position, viz. That frames of Government are resolved by God into the people's wills, as the immediate cause of their specification. They answer pag. 3.  
1 That People destitute of a lawful Magistracy have an elective Power, in the constitution of Government, but standing in the relation of Subjects, they have not a privative, or innovative power.  
We Answer, if at any time people are enabled to choose what form they will be governed under, Answ. then when necessitated, they may lawfully innovate, the very being or ordination of Magistracy for their good, warrants the one as well as the other, and though that Mode of Government from which they change be lawful, yet power tyrannically and injustifiably exercised, justifies their election of those means for their comfort and security, which the law of nature owned by the word, 
Grot Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit, Juv.  dictates to them, Necessitas enim summa reducit res ad merum jus naturale: Take away a people's privative power in this case, and their elective power serves only to make them perpetual slaves, before their choice of such a Governor or Government they were free to provide for their liberties, and natural immunities, but after their choice made, they must be content, (it seems) with what falls out, though to the destruction of these for ever, this is to enable people to make themselves miserable, and there to leave them remediless, but the Lord has provided more mercifully for them, ordaining Magistracy and Order as their accumulative freedom, not destroying by his postuate institution, what by that general Statute, that unrestrained Charter, the Law of Nature, he had before granted to them, yet if a people have no greater cause to desire a change of Government amongst them then Israel had when they cried, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Sam. 8.19, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph, Antiq. li. 8. Act. 26.18.  Make us a King, we shall never plead their excuse in endeavouring it.  
2 They say, Some kind of Governments are unlawful in their own nature, so is that of the beast, Rev. 17. and the ten Kings giving their power and strength to the beast, these cannot be said to be approved of God.  
Answ. 1. The power of those ten Kings, or Kingdoms, is lawful in its own nature, the text notes its abuse, and suggests thus much to those that allege it, viz. That regal Government is apt above all other modes whatsoever for the service of the beast; this is neither only nor also for their purpose.  
2 That bestial power they instance in, is but an equivocal power, that sway of Satan in the hearts of the children of disobedience, is called a power too; but what hinders this that God may not approve all civil frames of Government upon the Earth, how various soever? every Ordinance of man, which is confessed to be only an Application, or a Modification of the general Ordinance of God? These are capable of his owning sure, notwithstanding this out-leape, or essay of theirs, touching a power Antichristian in its very essence, and of an hellish Parentage; our Position reaches to no such power, when we say, What kind of Government a people do will for their own good, the Lord sets his seal upon it. Their instances indeed under the next Head, and our instance in 1 Sam. 8, 9, 10, 12. Chap. prove that God disownes the sinfulness of their wills who are given to change, and transgress without a cause, not that h● dis-approves the Government they desire. It is ordinary for m●n to abuse their Liberty, and that latitude of choice which God allows them in things of this kind; but to conclude, that ergo God gives not a People liberty of change, and that he resolves not frames of Government into their wills, because some men have, and others may sinne in erecting new Models, and changing their constitutions, is like dashing out a man's brains to cure the Megrime, or like that practical Logic of Lycurgus, who prohibited the planting of Vines, because men used to be drunk with the Grapes.  
3 We say, That in all changes of Government the prevailing, not the over-borne Party may lay claim to the signature of Divine approbation; this they conceive, contradicts our former Position, which entitled the People's will to the specification of Government, and the seal of God's approval; We all know (say they) the People's wills may go one way, a prevailing Party another, contrary to it, etc.  
Answ. We need not labour much to shake off that contradiction which is pinned upon us gratis, for though the wills of some people, yea of most people, may go one way, and the prevailing Party another way, yet we all know that the prevailing will goes but one way, and which way this will goes that way goes the divine approval, otherwise we had never been commanded to obey EVERY ORDINANCE of man FOR THE LORDS SAKE, 1 Pet. 2.13. Though men may sinne in the motions of their wills, yet God disowns not the power and privileges he has given them, but to hitch on a little.  
These Gentlemen fight notably with their own shadows from hence all along, till our second Medium (as they call it) gives them the opportunity of a new encounter, proceeding from a supposition which is no grant of ours, nor educible from any thing we have yet said, viz. that the prevailing Party is owned of God quatenus prevailing, hence they frame mountainous absurdities and lay them to our charge, as the consequences of our Principles; but we know that supposito quo libet sequitur quid libet, if any Minister of this combination should deliver such a Doctrine as this, The doers of Gods will, not the hearers only may lay claim to salvation (the supposition may pass) would he think himself fairly dealt with all, if some wild Antinomian should charge him with teaching, that those whom God saves he saves them because they are doers, or for their deeds? We doubt he would hardly bear such a misconstruction, or indulge the liberty of such an interpretation as this; so we say the prevailing Party lays claim to God's approbation in the contests about Government among the Sons of men, but will it thence follow that we hold God approves them because they prevail? surely he may do it upon another account, but whatever that be, their prevailency may bear witness that he does own them Pro hic & nunc, whatever the ends be that his holy will makes use of those powers for, we make God the great Arbiter in all Quarrels, and prevailency in contests of this nature shows us for whom he Arbitrates, 1 Chro. 5.2. Judah prevailed, 
(a) Hence comes Gibbor Nimrods' stile, that mighty Hunter, Gen. 10.8.9.  (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was strong) above his Brethren, and of him came the chief Rulers, but the birthright was josephs', the least that we can give to Iudah's prevailency is this, to attest the Lords designment of that Tribe to bear rule, and his actual disposition of authority to it, and will it now follow  
1 That we make force the infallible umpire betwixt Parties claiming interest in the constitution of Government? or,  
2 That the same Government and cause (without any alteration of its institution and demeanour) may lay claim to divine approbation, as its strength varieth: That Absalon's and Zimries' authority were good before God during the time of their prevailence? Sirs, those instances are not of cases Arbitrated, but in Arbitration, David had then a considerable Army, when he fled from his Son, with which the Lord of Hosts pleaded his cause against that rebellious Absalon in the day of Battle, so when Zimries wickedness was heard of, it presently came to umpeirage, all Israel made Omri the Captain of the Host, King over Israel THAT DAY in the camp, 1 King. 16.16. and when upon the death of Zimri the people were divided into two parts, 'tis said, the people that followed Omri PREVAILED against the people that followed Tibui the Son of Ginah, so Tibui died, and OMRI REIGNED, ver. 22. I wonder what witness we have of the Divine Authorization of many that were Kings over Israel, setting aside theirs and the peoples, prevailency that cleaved to them? it will be easily granted that Menahem, Pekah, and Hosea, 〈◊〉 Kings over Israel, and reigned till God cut them off for their abominations; but how came they to be Kings? what Titles had they? how near of kin to the Sceptre? the text tells us, they were Captains of the Host, men of power; and we say, God disposed of the Kingdom into their hands; but how will this be proved? why, they prevailed, upon what score, or to what purpose the Lord owned them we are unworthy to know, but own them he did, as Kings, and his people owned them too, upon their prevailency this was the needle that drew after it the thread of Allegiance. The like we say touching Jerobohams and Omri's Enthronment, these dissenters acknowledge, that Jerobohams' reigning over the Ten Tribes was from God, only they say, that the business betwixt them and the Two Tribes adhering to Rehoboham was not debated by the Sword,, and so the two Tribes were not the worsted and over-borne party, As if there could be no worsting or prevailency unless it be by the sword. 
1 Kings 12.22, 23.  True, God took up that difference by the mouth of his Prophet; he is not tied to manifest his approval only one way, this takes nothing therefore from our assertion touching prevailency; it may be a testimony of God's good pleasure in every contest about the disposal of power (where he interposeth not more immediately) notwithstanding this. Concerning Omri they tell us, that Gods not approving him, and the people, is but a slender argument that he approved their actions, God sometimes will not suffer his Prophets to be reprovers.  
Answ. 1. Why then do these men take such pains to bend several Texts in Hosea and Micah to a reproof of them? such Texts too as will then suit their purpose, when the counsels of the house of Ahab, and the Statutes of Omri are proved to be the powers of Ahab and Omri? the submission of God's Prophets to Ahab, and so many of God's people to Omri would hardly have been gained if this had been to walk in the Statutes of Omri, 
Micah 6.16.  and to keep the counsels and works of the house of Ahab.  
2 Those sins in the Kings of Israel which were of such a reach and influence upon the people under them, as to involve the whole Nation in a miserable guilt, (never as we know of) escaped reproof, the sins of Ahab, Ahaz, Jeroboham, and Manasseth, that were of this implicancy came all under the lash, yea the sins of Omri too, 1 King. 16.26. yet he is not reproved for usurpation, though by their principles, it involves every one in his sin who submitted to his power.  
3 'tis the abuse of God's patience, and that line upon line he has given them, which causeth him to stop his prophet's mouths, I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb, and shall not be to them a man reproving, for they are a rebellious house, Ezek. 3.26. this sin, these Ministers lay not to the charge of the people, who chose Omri for their King, as we can see:  
In the close of their exceptions against our first medium, though they think they have us fast enough, yet they complain they know not where to hold us, we do so contradict and thwart ourselves here only (say they) we wish them to consider if the superinduction of a power against the wills of many; yea of most men (which in our plea we justify) be not a selfe-contradiction in reflection upon that position of theirs, viz. Frames of Government are by God resolved into people's wills? And in answer hereto we wish them to consider, that this contradiction vanisheth as easily as the former, if the case prove ever such, as that the will of the most people happen not to be the prevailing will; it will be hardly proved that that half of the people which made Omri King were the greater half, though they were the prevailing half, thus we see this other contradiction falls into accord without any help from Sancta clara, or Scotus de duno.  
And now having sufficiently (as it should seem) broken the bones of our first argument, brought to prove the being of these present powers over us from God, they proceed to give their sense on our second, taken from Rom. 13.2. and then discant upon it.  
First they tell us, if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used for Divine Ordination be any where used for the Lords Ordination of a power, which is as to the persons coming in, and sustaining it unjustifiable (as it is Hab. 1.12.) than it cannot make the Text pregnant to our purpose.  
Answer, We neither say, that the word makes the Text full and pregnant to our purpose, the Scripture indeed we say is so, nor do we deny but our present powers may be ordained for judgement, and 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Euseb. praepar. Evangel. li. 8.  established for correction. Lord (saith the Prophet) thou hast ordained them (the Chaldean powers) for judgement, this Text therefore confirms what we have to prove, viz. That the Powers in being over any people, are God's Ordinance, though they may be (as most commonly they are) both attained unto, as to man's agency, and sustained unjustifiably thus they have not dis-favoured our argument at all by this septuagint-allegation.  
After this velitation anent the word Ordained, they come to a proposition of ours, which (they say) we form out of it, viz. In what ever series of events God manifests his special concurrence or appearing, that cause he owns, and authorizeth man's Agency in it: This they deny, But before we join issue, we must needs gratify them with some what, which they would feign know from us by the way, and it is this, why we call the powerful working of God unto events, flowing from the efficacious decree, his special concurrence or appearing, after we had thus paraphrased the words, the Powers that be, are ordained of God, as the first and chief cause of all Being's, but all Being's are not by his special concurrence?  
Answer, All those beings we speak of are, viz. All positive futuritions determined by him, and well pleasing to him. Is it another contradiction to say, the chief cause of all Being's may both generally and specially concur to the production of the same event? When we look back unto the years of the right hand of the most high God, and consider what great things he has done in England, Ireland and Scotland, and by what means, we conclude thus, Not by might, nor by power, but by the spirit of the Lord, and cry grace, grace to them, intituling the special out-going, 
Isa. 41.15.  and unbareings of his holy arm to these effects, wherein he made the worm Jacob a threshing instrument with teeth to beat the mountains like chaff; every work morally good, all the gracious actings of his Saints and Servants are drawn forth and his creatures enabled to them by a twofold divine concourse, 
Twist. vindic. Gratiae li. digres.  or assistance, the one Physical the other supernatural, but that we shall make use of in this debate, is only the special exertions of his divine power, and the might of his arm unto natural effects with his general providence in the support of instruments, these signal and observable exertions of his might in weak means, we call his special appearings, or efficiency; Now to the business.  
We must needs tell them they do us wrong in assuming that for the sinews of our argument which neither the argument itself, nor our judgements any way befriend, viz. That Gods efficatious decree, and hand in powerful working is conversant or operative in no human affairs or actions, but what are in man lawful or agreeable to the rule of God's word; and therefore this elaborate digression of theirs touching the Metaphysical derivation of all Actions, and Being's, with their moral state and qualifications; and touching God's agency in all the affairs and actings of men, without the least 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes.  tincture of sin, might have well been spared: we acknowledge with them that if the present power over us have no more from God than a Metaphysical existence, or a natural existence, or a natural power and production by his concourse, or co-operation with second causes, it is dis-owned by him with abomination, we plead not Gods ordinary workings, but his special appearings, in favour of our present Authority, as by our above mentioned proposition appears, though they would cajole it to speak their sense, who make no distinction betwixt God's ordinary operations, and those workings of his which are marvellous in all men's eyes. Surely Sirs, you may acknowledge some kind of language in Gods lifting up of his arm to a wonder, as well as the Psalmist does in all the works of his fingers, day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night telleth knowledge, there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard, Saith David: and if his wonders upon earth, speak any thing, it is the might of that God whose works they are, and his favour towards that people on whose behalf, and that cause in which they are wrought; Hath God essayed (saith Moses) to go and take him a Nation from the midst of a Nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, according to all that the Lord did for you? and what follows? because he loved thy Fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight, with his mighty power out of Egypt. Moses argues from the great things God did for that people to his owning of them, as about seven year ago these Ministers, at least some of them, made no bones to do, when God shown us any great salvation, or gave us any notable victory over the late King's forces, though now the same presence of God with our Counsels and Arms speaks nothing at all, yet we confess this Plea of God's mighty workings towards a people would be very weak if it went alone, but we plead the Law and Testimony for Gods owning our present Authority and their cause, as the witness beyond exception. His works we mention in the second place as a good comment upon the word only. Having thus righted ourselves, we need say little to their needless and exhojudiciall digression, only it seems strange to us that they should insinuate, as if our present Powers derived from God only as a Metaphysical entity, when as his giving a Kingdom into any men's hands imports clearly another thing, viz. Gods making them Rulers, which in so doing he owns, notwithstanding he may disowne their interests in grasping of power, and the sinful or indirect courses whereby they may become possessed of it.  
It creates us not any careful thoughts, that in taking their leave of our second Medium they call our Paraphrase, or gloss on Rom. 13.1. a wide one, unless they could make it appear we restrain God's Ordination of the Powers that are to Divine concourse, we have showed that our Powers are, from God by way of Authorization, and that his disposal of the Kingdom into their hands (conferring thereby his right unto them) has made the Authority lawful in the Subjects wherein it rests, let us see now how it fares with our third Medium.  
Their third Medium (say they) to prove that the present Powers are from God, as approving and legitimating them to the Persons, is divine Providence, the conduct thereof, and the Lords presence, with the instruments in his hand for effecting this change of Government, his wonderful appearings, his hand lifted up in breaking Conspiracies, disscipating numerous Bodies, preventing confusions, uninterrupted continuance of his goodness, all these make up an evidence of God's signal owning that Power in being over us, which is the product of these Wonders; not to quarrel with their Short Hand in cramping our Argument thus, they tell us, we are so passionately confident of this Medium from providence, that we pronounce them more deeply baptised into the spirit of Atheism than the Egyptian Sorcerers, and declare a curse of God surely to come upon them that confess not what we think undeniably infers our conclusion.  
Answ. Now let the world judge what passion or confidence our words have bewrayed, he that considers the works done in our days, pondering them well, and yet confesseth not Digitum Dei hic & hic, the Arm of the Almighty made bare for us, we cannot but think he is more deeply baptised into the spirit of Atheism than the Egyptian Sorcerers, which withstood Moses, Exod. 8.19. If the falling of a Sparrow to the ground, though worth but half a farthing, hath something of Providence in it, much more those wonderful appearings of God, anticedent, concomitant, and subsequent to our change of Government: Have not the hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, 
Psal. 97.5.  at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth? God will surely curse that man, and his house, who saith, it was an arm of flesh that did what was done in England, as making way for this change, or what hath been done in Ireland since, P.W. 
General's Letter from Ireland, Decem. 1649.  Surely these men are angry with Providence, or they would not call our taking notice of it passion, but yet it seems they are not desirous to come under the curse of those who will not see, for we acknowledge (say they) the hand of God, and his providence to have been operative, yea visibly and wonderfully working in these changes; neither are they willing to deny what we think infers our conclusion, so that (our premises passing currant) we must needs judge of this their Reply, as a battery raised only against our conclusion. But the judgements of God are a great deep, and without the Cynosure of his Word they find no safety, or warrant to launch forth into them; neither do those whom they jerk at, as hardy Steers-men, or bold Adventurers, when they take us without a sure word for our Chart and Compass, let their little fingers be as heavy upon us as their loins have been; but shall we through a ferulary awe of any men's threats or censures, suffer the Lords workings, those perfect Echoes of his Word, to vanish into air, or abstruse nothings? All his ways are judgement, Deut. 32.4. must we therefore look into none of them? shall not the just walk in them because transgressors fall therein? Hos. 14.9.  
2 Men used not formerly in the heat of our late dissertation betwixt King and Parliament to be so nice and squeamish in this particular, but could venture at interpreting the mind of the Lord of Hosts from events of War; most, if not all the Thanksgiving Sermons preached before the Houses are yet living to attest this? it seems we can tell how to blow both hot and cold, Providence is a Topick which must serve only at some seasons, and that for friends too; in short, 
Tertul.  Si Deus homini non placuerit Deus non erit. God must not be seen in that which suits not our interests, nor pleaseth us; we dare not adventure to interpret that so, which we have no mind should be so, yet let us take heed, dislike of persons or instruments may keep us from seeing God where he is, at least, be a temptation to hinder us from acknowledging him there.  
3 Gods Judgements we conceive in their more dark and hidden dispensations are a great deep, but to call his Providences so at all seasons, so that nothing may be learned from them, no discoveries of his mind at all, we see no warrant for, 
Habac. 3.9. Job 36.24, 25.  when his arm is made bare, and his bow made QVITE NAKED. Surely these appearings of his, may be soberly adventured on without launching into God's secret depths; they are brutish who understand not the obvious purport of his workings; thou hast made me glad through thy work, saith the Psalmist, and they are not only eyed, 
Psal. 92.4, 5. 28.5.  but sought out of all those that have pleasure therein, Psal. 111.2. may we not by observing them understand the loving kindness of the Lord? Psalm. 107.43. A Law shall proceed from me (saith God) and I will make my judgement to rest for a light of the people, Isa. 51.4.  
4 They tell us, that the appearances of God's hand in the advancement and successes of men, wipes not off the least spot of that grand guilt which rests upon their persons, much less, etc. We plead not Patronage, or justification to any men's cause, much less to their persons, from Providences alone, all that we draw from the prementioned great works of the Lord, in order to that great change of Powers over us, is, that be deals not so with every people, that he shown himself so in effecting it, as he useth to do in the production of those events which are of special complacency to him; and certainly he that undertakes to prove that God useth to do such things, for the Managers of that Cause which he abominates, will find it very operous; It is not a supercilious non sequitur therefore, that shall beat us off from taking comfort in God's Works, nor from glorying in the operations of his hands; neither will that which follows prevail so fare upon us, where we are put in mind of the usual lot and condition of God's Church, viz. A low degree, a state of oppression, a Winepress of troubles and wrongs to be bowed down and made a footstocle or street for the enemies of God and his Church to set their feet and walk upon, to have men to ride over their heads, to blow and make long furrows upon their backs, to be made to turn back from the enemy, to be spoilt of them that hate them, to be given like sheep appointed for meat, and to be scattered among the Heathen, etc. and on the contrary, earthly power, pomp and triumph, outward illustriousness, and victoriousness, to be destroyers of Cities, shakers' and overturners of Kingdoms; are more frequently the Characters and Equipage of Godless and notoriously wicked men, and practices, then of them that are better.  
Answ. We grant they are so, such have been the ways of Providence God hath walked in towards his Church and chosen hitherto, 
Psal. 71.20:  yet sometimes he hath lifted them up as well as cast them down; here are many of Zions complaints and lamentations gathered together, and it were easy for us to collect as large a bundle of her Hymns, Hallelujahs, and triumphant Exaltations, when God has given her the necks of her enemies to tread upon, but these glean on either hand, only show how and in what manner God dealt with his people, at such and such seasons, 
Heb. 3.1.  calling them to Songs upon Sigionoth, sometimes to rejoicing, sometimes to ejaculation; they only prove that it has been thus from the beginning, but are not standing or perpetual rules of Divine administrations towards the godly, nor prove that it shall be so unto the end; if we look upon those gracious promises drawing to the birth in these latter days, we may conclude, Zion shall be comforted according to the times wherein she has known adversity, and that she shall not be trodden under foot still of the wicked; so that prevailency and outward illustriousness, though Characters of the wicked race, till their day be done; shall  the Generation of the just, when their day gins, and the acceptable year is proclaimed; The Sons of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee (saith the Lord) and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet, and they shall call thee the City of the Lord, the Zion of the holy one of Israel; whereas thou hast been forsaken, and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal Excellency, a joy of many Generations, Isa. 60.14, 15. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lords House shall be established upon the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all Nations shall flow unto it, Isa. 2.2. And the Kingdom, and Dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the Saints of the most high, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and all Dominions shall serve and obey him, Dan. 7.27.  
What though prosperity spoke against the Church of old, may it not therefore now speak for it? an argument from this Topick, viz. successful providence, is of that purport and force in these days of ours, which it was not of in ancient times, 'tis very considerable (in our case) now those promises are fullfilling, though when they were but in making, it looked another way, yea 'tis a thriving argument, and will gather yet more strength and weight, in favour of the Church, before it come into the mouths of our children.  
Had these Ministers but heaped together as many promises of what the Church's condition shall be, (and which we see have taken effect in some comfortable degree) as they have done testimonies of what its lot was of old; it is likely they would have seen they have very little ground for such an odious untheologicall insinuation, as that of theirs in this paragraph is, viz. That the mighty presence of God with his Saints and Servants, who bend themselves against the usurpations of Antichrist, and labour his dethronment in these days, is no otherwise to be accounted of, than his providences towards the Babylonian, Seleucidan, and Roman Tyrants were of old, in effecting their enslavements of, his Church and chosen. Now to go forward, In driving on their Answer, to that use we make of providence a little further, they charge us as counterfeiters of the broad seale of heaven, by making that a sign of God's mind, which he never instituted to that purpose, but presumption is a groundless charge, we have told them once and again, and now tell them once for all, it is Heterodoxie in our judgements to affirm, that the Lord hath ordained Providences, and prevailing successes 
* Yet see what single providence once did Jona. 1.15, 16.  solitarily to nolifie his approving or dis-approving will, yet providence in conjunction with the word, gives effectual notice and sound conviction, yea, the Lord many times by Providence alone gives a check to the censorious and unadvised harshness of men's spirits, against a people or cause, 
Dan. 3.25, 26.  and boring through their propositions, makes way for a more impartial judgement, and charitable persuasion in them, Paul's shaking the Viper off his hand without harm, 
Act. 28.6.  made the Barbarians think otherwise of him then before, thus cross and adverse providences in a good cause strike many heart-searching, 
Jos. 7.8.  and staggerings into the stablest and best balanced leaders, Lord, saith Joshua what shall I say when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies? success hath light, as well as heat and comfort in it to God's people, and adverse occurrences, darkness as well as trouble, the Lamb's conquering the Kingdoms of the World, will so clear the promises that all Nations shall come to the brightness of Zions' rising, Christ gets up to his Throne by pulling down the Principalities and Thrones of others, present proprietors no doubt, 
Hag. 2.21, 22.  and if prevailencie, help not the Sons of men in discerning his title to dominion, the promises of his success (such is the hardness of men's hearts) must stand still for Ciphers, and 'tis to us altogether inconceiveable (Si prae scriptio malefida in omni foro procedat) how he will ever find a vacant or empty Throne upon the earth, or how he shall get possession of what his Father has given him, if his way be not made by notable shake, 
See Mr. Owen's Sermon on Heb. 12.26, 27.  and translations of the customs, and the constitutions of Governments in the World, A dead woman, saith the Proverb, will not be carried out of her house under four men.  
Their comparison betwixt Providence, as we use it, 
Pag. 14.  and Lot, seems to us a very poor one, we never looked at Providence as an Ordinance of God for the determining a Right, but seeing the hand of the Almighty in important events, we think ourselves bound to acknowledge it, and to conclude as much from it as his Word will give us leave, which in a righteous cause amounts to a testimony that he owns it, if he favours and more than ordinarily succeeds the managers of it, for God is in the Generation of the just, Psal. 14.5. 
Psal. 41.11.  And by this I know saith David thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me; if the Army have tempted God, by casting themselves upon Providence, and by their appeals to his Majesty in courses injustifiable (as they here tell us) we shall in no case stand by them, but leave them, as they desire to be left, even to him that judgeth righteously, their sin no doubt shall find them out, and are there not with us, even with us, sins against the Lord our God, 2 Chron. 28.10. In the next place they thus documentize us, the argument from Providence is ab eventu, or from the issue of a thing, they then that will conclude from this Medium (say these Cunctators) must tarry a while longer, even till the end be seen, and the winding up of Providence, etc. God hath taken time to visit the iniquities of them that hate him to the third and fourth Generation.  
Answ. The text saith, God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation of them that hate him. Here is nothing about his taking time to punish, this Scripture speaks forth God's just resolution to protract his Visitations to posterity, not to suspend or withhold them from the first Generation, he will begin with the sinful Fathers (according to his Oath) and that betimes to, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, Psal. 55.23. Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, much more the wicked and the sinner, Prov. 11.31. What mean ye that ye use this Proverb concerning the Land of Israel, saying, the Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel: behold! all souls are mine, as the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the Child is mine, the soul that sinneth it shall die, Ezek. 18.2, 3, 4.  
Again, Glorying and boasting of an outward happiness, and succesfulness, is the usual effect which such prosperity hath upon a wicked heart; this is another of their documents to us, or rather a charge breathed indirectly upon those in power over us, as if success had fly-blown their spirits with pride, and wrought them to unseemly glorying, it is true, Providence may be wrested to the support and strengthening of men in evil ways, so may the Word of God, but those who fear the Lord make not this use of either; for our parts, we are as  and jealous of opening providences without the key of the Word, and as fearful of inconsequential deductions from them, or of abusing them, as those are who seem to account them most sacred; and could we judge the Parliament or Army (which here they strike at) to be haters of God, or men counter-working his great design in these latter days, did we hear them boast of their hearts desire, or the glory of their successes and achievements otherwise then in humility, to the praises of the most high God, we should look to have the wheel brought over them, and that soon, for a short work will the Lord make upon the face of the earth; we should think that he had lift them up to cast them down, but if they continue to exercise that dependence upon God they have hitherto professed to do, and pursue those ends which they hold out to the World in their appeals to the Majesty of Heaven, we are confident that the winding up of Providence will be more comfortable to them then the beginning has been, and that they shall have the thanks of that very people, whose curses and reproaches they lie under at this day; and had we only Providences for the bottom of our persuasions, we might in likelihood change our minds as the people of Melita did, Act. 28. but we have a sure word of Prophecy, by which examining and trying their state and agency in the work of this season, we conclude that these and these Providences are the issue of former promises, and though God carry them back, yet that their cause shall go forward, till such a top stone be laid upon it as the people of God shall cry Grace unto; and now let us see how our second argument for engageing is dealt withal.  
The mutual relation of protection and Allegiance presseth us to an owning and realliance with them (our present Powers) as our actual Protectors, every benefit requiring some duty: Our argument proceeds in these terms, these Non-subscribers deny that protection, and allegiance, are propter, or secundum, else relatives, (we can scarcely guess at what they here mean, considering what they grant by and by) Magistracy and Allegiance indeed they say, are Relatives, but protection in actu exercito, is not simul natura with Allegiance, and in actu signato is separable from Magistracy, so that they cannot be said properly to be Relata.  
Ans. We shall not break with our Brethren for a Logical notion, supposing they have found a flaw in our Logic, we do not rixari de lana caprina, fight for Goat's Wool, and in case our expression makes but way for our Conceptions into the minds of men, we use not (vervecum in patria crassóque sub aëre, in the coasts where we live) to subtelize our notions; we presume from what they here yield, that our proposition is Theologically true, we grant, say they, in some sort a relation, and so a mutual connectednesse betwixt Protection and Allegiance; this connectednesse serves our turns fully, He is the Minister of God to thee for good, saith the Apostle, WHEREFORE ye must needs be subject, etc. and FOR THIS CAUSE pay you tribute also, render THEREFORE to all their deuce, etc. Rom. 13.5, 6, 7. So that had not they granted this relation, we should have forced it.  
But in accommodating this their general deliberative to the business, they strive to husband their Allegiance due from them by reason of this acknowledged connectednesse to our present rulers, forcing it by a set of niggardly distinctions in Stillicidia, into syllabicall and wary concessions, such as is the protection (say they) such only can the Allegiance be required to be, now the protection is or may be deemed  
1 But voluntary (supposing the power to be intruded into, not lawfully possessed) and not of magistratical duty; we say this exception, as to our case, vanisheth upon our proving the powers that are, to be God's Ordinance, furnished and instructed with rule and dominion or Magistratical Authority, which we have done already in its place.  
2 But actual, not fixed or settled, it being (as we suppose) without any Basis of a regular vocation to it, Answer.  
1 By actual we guess that they mean temporary, and if they scruple not temporary allegiance, we conceive it may come off as conscionably from them 
(b) Nusquam & nunquam licet quod semper & ubique non licet. Tertul. de Specta.  all the while they receive protection.  
2 For the Basis of a regular vocation, they suppose our Rulers have none, and we on the other side suppose they have such a call as may satisfy the submitting consciences, if they mean by a regular call, such a call as our Parliaments ab initio used to have unto their supreme trust, we conceive they have it, but if they mean such a call as is every way incorrupt and complete in all circumstantial requisites, 
Pind.  and formalities (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) such a call as few Magistrates (sovereign ones at least) have among any people on the earth; lastly, such a call as no man can except against, or find fault with, this we say is not necessary for the justifying of the powers that are over us in their claim of Allegiance from us.  
3 Protection may be but partial, they say, or in some things, for it cannot be that where an arbitrary, or usurped power is erected, there should be universal protection. Answer,  
1 If you have not protection in Lancashire and Cheshire, where is the fault? is this mutual connectednesse you speak of verified among you? if you have protection (as for aught we know you have) remember what Job saith, Loweth the Ox over his fodder? Job 6.5.  
2 We cannot skill of this partial Allegiance, if it be confessed due in some things, viz. any one duty, we shall desire no more to drive you to an acknowledgement of a due in all, to whom Tribute is due, honour, fear, and obedience, is due likewise.  
3 This usurpation is but a thing supposed, if applied to our case, a mere peradventure, and they say, Fortasse ita soluiturper forte non; these foundations proving thus succumbent and infirm, what they build upon them against engaging must needs fall, as that Allegiance is to be but of choice or prudence, not of duty, actual only, not fixed and engaged; and lastly partial, which they thus restrain.  
1 That it entrench not upon another's right, but if the present Authority be lawful, and authorized from above, Conscience puts no man upon the inquest after another's right, or upon the search into any man's pretensions, to Sovereignty over us.  
2 That it be so fare as is lawful; they are afraid of the Usurpers guilt it seems by what follows, but usurpation is only presumed by them in our case, we must see the question otherwise mooted than we have done yet, before we carry Coals over the same bridge with them in this point, but though this were out of debate, yet we have showed the lawfulness of obeying Usurpers in licitis & honestis, and that it may be done without participating in their sins, Christ Jesus himself would never have paid tribute unto Caesar had it been otherwise, and we desire no easier a task then to prove, that the Roman Eagles preyed upon the Jewish State, and got their Authority indirectly. To conclude therefore they tell us, that to engage is to pay too much Allegiance to our present Rulers, let allegiance, (that is, an acting in conformity to the Command, and submitting to the power of the Protectors) be qualified as above, and what is this to engaging, say they, it falls short of it by many miles; the compensation will overweigh the favour.  
Ans. 1. It is easy to undervalue what we receive from our Protectors, if we have a mind not to be over lavish in our 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost in Rom. 13.  returns, or responsals.  
2 If any duties answer the claim of protection, besides a thankful owning of those Persons, and Powers, by whose means it is dispensed unto us, and a cheerful submission to them, let it be showed us; if these tenatious Non-subscribers will give any thing, let it be seen, if to be true and faithful to the Powers as now established, be of too high a size, and finednesse, what they will allow them sure is next to nothing, but a small Wax Candle may serve the turn now, it seems, though in our stormy times, when the proud waves reached even unto our souls, we stuck not to promise one as big as the Mast of our Ship, to those that should help to shore us; to live and die with our Protectors then was a small matter, now to be true and faithful to them is a monstrous courtesy; In taking their farewell of this Argument they plead the Parliaments Declaration of Febr. 9 1648. and tell us how fare the State shall be beholding to them; that which these. Ministers plead runs thus: We are fully resolved to maintain, preserve, and keep the fundamental Laws of this Nation, for and concerning the preservation of the Lives, Properties, and Liberties of the People, with all things incident thereunto; that which they Promise, or resolve to do, is this, to live and conform themselves according to those Laws, and in so doing apprehend that they should enjoy the protection of them, 
Act for subscript. jan. 10. 1649.  especially since the DECLARERS make their protection an Argument for their demand of subjection.  
Ans. 1. Subscribing the Engagement we take to be the giving of an assurance of this their resolved subjection and conformity, to plead any thing in their act without performing the condition of it, is to say, the Parliament must do whatsoever we claim from them, although we refuse them in every thing.  
2 The House declared their resolutions, Febr. 9 1648, but we see not how such as disowne the Power, and the relation of the Declarers over them, come within the compass, or under the benefit of those resolves, If I acknowledge not this man for my Father, how can I expect or beg a Father's blessing from him, or look for a child's portion?  
Our third Argument follows; We know not how to approve our hearts before God, if we should put ourselves out of a capacity of serving his providence, while he offers us opportunity thereunto, as we should do by refusing the Engagement; now every man almost cries out, MAKE ME NOT A RULER TO THIS PEOPLE, let me not meddle, this breach shall not be under my hand, 
Ezek. 13.5.22.30. Psal. 106.23.  we think it most seasonable standing up in the gap (as our callings may require) and offering our services to the God of our lives and comforts. This argument the Ministers turn off with a Nil probat, serving God and his providence, standing up in the gap, and going after his conduct (say they) are very necessary and goodly Pleas, when they are not mis-applyed, but how do they prove that taking and observing the Engagement is a work of this nature, etc. This they touch not upon, we are persuaded to enter the Engagement would be a dis-service to God, a breaking down the gap, etc.  
Ans. 1. This persuasion of theirs they let alone to shift for itself, and win upon the Reader if it may be, without any reason to make way for it; they only tell us their mind, and that we knew before; we shall make bold therefore to cast their persuasion over the bar, and number it amongst the dead, as they do our assumption, they teach us an easy way of answering.  
2 It lies not upon us to prove, 
Honestè succumbit qui servit tempori, Sen.  that taking the Engagement is a work of that nature they speak, goodly and necessary in itself; 'tis only conditio sine qua non, a door or inlet at this season to that service which is always good and necessary, 'tis not for us to account that no service of Providence (as those Non-subscribers do) which we cannot perform in our own way, or at our own liberty; never man fell off from the Lords work upon any temptation whatsoever, but he would tell us, he could not conscientiously go on, it would be dis-service to God, etc.  
3 Though sometimes their sagacity 
* Caetitatis duae species facilè oecurrunt, ut qui non vident quae sunt, & videre videantur quae non sunt. Tert. Apol.  creates an object, yet they seldom see what they had as leive were not to be seen, Isa. 42.19. the owning that power which God himself owns can be no conscientious Plea, for declining a Moral duty; somewhat of this purport they might have taken notice of in our Argument, as the proof of our assumption, which we speak more to (according as we there refer them) in the beginning of our Plea; we are sure that whatsoever is a standing up in the gap, the laying a man's self aside, or stepping behind the hedge in a surly discontent, 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Dem. in A●chy. 1 King. 19.4.14.  that is not; though the Children of Israel had forsaken the Lords Covenant, thrown down his Altars, and slain the Prophets with the sword, yet Elijah was not to be excused in making request, that God would take away his life, so ridding him of his ingrate and troublesome service.  
4 They require a commission from God for the service they are to do; this is good, we suppose they are Ministers, they writ themselves so, hence 'tis presumed they have a commission from God for all Ministerial service, and no man (for aught we hear) goes to take it away from them; if any thing be required of them which they cannot do by virtue of that commission, they may look into these Scriptures, Psalm 75.3. Mic. 6.8. and furnish themselves with another; we conceive they need not fear a design here, or any danger in our advice, though we are told, they cannot but fear our styling what we have done, and would have others to follow us in, A STANDING UP IN THE GAP, will prove a daubing them with untempered mortar, who are like Wolves, ravening the prey to get dishonest gain, Ezek. 22.27, 28.  
Ans. 
Prov. 25.15.  1. What! Iracundiores Adria? soft words will sooner break the bones, here's another goodly insinuation, they lift up their voices like Trumpets indeed, but Non refert tales versus qua voce legantar, had we any list to recriminate directly, or indirectly, we could tell them, that 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Hier. Cat. l. 1.  Wolves were on both sides, some they say ravening the Prey, others we see in Sheep's clothing, these look to their own way likewise, every one for his gain from his Quarter; the design is noble on neither side, if filling their own bowels be the end, if such interests be yet, though disadvowedly, driven on amongst us, we shall patiently wait for him, 
Esa. 56.11. Ezek. 22.25.  who with righteousness shall judge the poor, and argue with equity for the meek of the earth; who shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall slay the wicked, Isa. 11.4.  
2 Fear is wonderfully jealous, 
Quod timet esse putat. Ovid.  and makes the worst of every thing, so do these Ministers; we dare not account them amongst those which the Psalmist speaks of, that fear where no fear is; but unless they had showed us some real ground for their fears, or proved our Mortar untempered, they might have spared their application of that Scripture, Ezek. 22. and their pointing it against Engagers, it suits those of the Lanca shire Association better, and gives a fuller blow to the Statists of their temper, and interest, who were tooth and nail for daubing up a bargain with the late King at Newport, against Covenant, Conscience, and Religion, as the Scots could tell us, for if that lift were not to get dishonest gain we may stand and admire, but shall never be able to make any tolerable conjecture what the men's aims should be.  
In answer to an Objection, pag. 13. of our Plea, we say, Tha subscribing to the present Authority, concludes neither our approbation of what hath been done in order to the change of Government, no nor ye of the change itself. To this Declaration of our judgements touching that consequence from the Engagement, which ex professo most of all pincheth them, their reply is this; How a man can engage in the form prescribed, and not approve of, or consent to the establishment of the new, and the exclusion of the old (form) is beyond us to conceive.  
Answ. What, will they never understand? 
Chauces  the form prescribed (so fare as we can see into the words, or they either for aught that yet appears) neither requires our consent to, nor approbation of the antiquating King, and House of Lords, tying us only to subjection, and from a subversion of the establishment in esse, and therefore they might easily conceive the dis-engagement of a man's consent as to the change, notwithstanding his personal engagement of submission to the Powers changed. To the proof of this:  
They say, We shall yield all that they allege of the English submitting to the Normane yoke, and of the Duke of Braganre to the Spaniard, but deny their inference, which should be a parallel, but is not at all in the thing wherein they stand against us, which is the point of approval of the change, for the English, and the said Duke's submission was a consenting to the change made by their respective invaders.  
To this we answer, It was indeed such a consent as these Ministers yield to our present Powers, per force majore as the Dutchman calls it, there was a yielding to the change, but that action, or rather that passion flowing from an illogicall principle, constraint implies the inward dissent of the submitters will, which if prevailed upon to a consent, it had been done with other manner of Weapons than those the Conquerors used; there can be no proper consent without a precedent ground of conviction upon the Judgement, but neither the Norman, nor the Spanish Knapsacks afforded any arguments congruous to such a purpose as this.  
But, say they, Those Cases and ours are widely different in point of conscience, to whom was the wrong done by the invading Parties? surely to none (so fare as those replyers represent) but to the Parties submitting or swearing Allegiance, who could remit the wrong done to themselves respectively, and transfer a Right over themselves to their respective invaders, but in our case the wrong redounds not only to ourselves, but to the Nation in general, and to the dispossessed power, etc.  
Answ. 1. Who authorised you Sirs, for Advocates of the Nation in general? surely the Subscribers are a part of it; or for the disposed power! have you the broad Seal of Scotland for this? but,  
2 Those who submitted to the Norman yoke were no other than all the people, and that under a pre-establisht Magistracy, to which they were bound up no doubt, and pre-engaged by Oaths of Allegiance; ask the Elders, and they will tell you: could these Ministers make the contrary appear, they might plead a difference in the case, we know of none in Authority that receded from their own rights, to give way or place to the Conqueror in England, therefore if engaging in our case would be a participation in sin, by consenting to, and establishing the change, theirs could not be without such an accessariness. But well may the Ghosts of our Grandfather's rest till such a change as this find them out; they knew if this Governor, or Government was dis-enabled from giving them protection, they were free for another, Supremacy being ambulatory, 
Salus Populi.  but the supreme Law fast fixed.  
3 Who can believe that the Dukes of Braganre 
‖ Philippus secundus qui neque ex Lusitanorum voluntate, neque ex justo bello poterat in Lusitania regnare, etc. D. Anton. de Sousa, Hist. li. 2. c. 3.  consented to their own dethronement? Ingens telum necessitas, to this they gave way, or that the Portugoes approved Castile's usurpation over him and them, if the present King of Portugal's Grandfather had given away his right to the Crown by swearing Allegiance to the Spaniard (as these rejoinders intimate) how could here-assume it as he did about 1640, and yet be justified? surely in both these cases wrong was not done only to those who of right were possessed of power, which wrong they might release the usurpers of, but to the Nations in general, over which the pre-authorized persons could not transfer any right of power to those who conquered and vassalized them, so that our parallel yet holds good; to go on therefore we insist, that Powers irregularly and disorderly changed, may be lawfully and conscientiously subscribed to, and owned as powers ordained of God: And here the whole Classes Votes with us, We say so too, if they have besides that disorderly entrance (say they) a lawful calling or title conveyed to them.  
Answ. We conceive a perfect implicancy in what they here would seem to grant us, for the condition which they annexed to their grant, makes submission to powers disorderly changed, an absolute impossibility (saving their own principles) this we prove thus; To submit or give any countenance to persons irregularly possessed of the seat of Authority brings men under a participation of their sin, for (say they, pag. 22.) anent engaging to a changed power, We do insist that it doth necessarily carry in it an express consent to the essentials, or executive acts of the change; 'tis impossible therefore that men thus persuaded should furnish disorderly intruders with a postuentionall power, and not sin against conscience; to countenance them at all levels their principles, they cannot call any to authority without sinning, who have no Basis for their Authority before their call, and by this means Gods supreme right to a disposal of the Kingdoms of the world becomes altogether null and vacated, and by consequence the very Ordinance of Magistracy, when we cannot persuade ourselves of man's right (as the case now happens) for if this power be by the providence of God dis-enabled from affording us protection, no other power (unless of the same right, constitution, and formality with that to which we were pre-engaged) may be lawfully (by these principles) submitted to as his Ordinance; Homo jam Deo propitius esto, no doubt Sirs, but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. 
Job 12.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog. Laerr. de Gysip.   
To this one persuasion, viz. That neither Gods commands touching subjection, nor the Parliaments Act for subscription, puts the submitting conscience either upon the approbation or dis-approbation of the equity or iniquity of this change of Government wrought amongst us, etc. They say, Here is a strange confused Divinity, a conscientious acknowledgement of a thing, and yet no act of conscience exercised either by way of approbation, or dis-approbation, etc. ye that built this labyrinth, lend your clue to lead us out.  
Answ. In return to this wonderment of theirs, we must say, that had these smart Casuists but taken notice, of the sentence immediately preceding that they here allege, they might happily have avoided the charging confusion upon us, or of confounding themselves, and have driven this case of conscience to a clear and more satisfying issue than they have done; but seeing they have intricated themselves, we shall endeavour to extricate them (as they desire us) step by step.  
1 The first step is this, Governing Powers may be irregularly changed, and yet conscientiously submitted to, this is their own acknowledgement at the top of the Page, if therefore they know the print of their own feet, this step they may safely take without our conduct.  
2 The second step, it belongs not to persons of a private sphere in times of contest about Sovereignty, decisively to determine of the right, that pretenders to supreme power in the world have over us; conscience cannot be supposed to demand that of every man, which is beyond the abilities and helps of most men, to attain unto any certainty or exactness in, viz. the knowledge of every party's pretention to Government, or the grounds of their claim.  
3 The third step, if the title or tenure of Magistrates concern not private consciences, than the innovation and antiquation of this or that order in public Government, or the change of persons in power with the equity or iniquity of either, concerns them as little.  
4 The fourth step, wher-ever men live and enjoy protection, the proper fruit of Magistracy, there the Ordinance of God is in being.  
5 The fifth step, this Ordinance of God which they see ministering to their good, they are bound to acknowledge, and (in whatsoever persons it is seated) to pay homage unto it, Rom. 13.1, etc. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13. etc. this binds Consciences to a changed power, and yet puts it not upon the examination of the equity or iniquity of the change, as out of duty, much less upon the approval or disapprovall thereof, where we see the end of Magistracy performed, there Magistracy is in being we conclude, and where this power resides we cannot be long ignorant, if we see who they are that minister to our good in this nature.  
But let us hear what they say against these things:  
Where God commands subjection, beyond all doubt he requires the conscience to approve, or disapprove, the assent of conscience must be of faith, and this cannot be without its inquiry into the equity or iniquity of the thing proposed; this is the substance.  
Answ. The assent of Conscience as to submission is of faith, when we see those over us are Ministers for our good in a judiciary, irreprovable orderly way, if we find this inquisition after the titles of men in power to do us good, or to command us in order thereto, is not necessary for the binding of Conscience; we hear very much of duty pressed by the Apostles upon the primitive Saints, private Christians, towards those empowered over them, obedience, prayers, honours, fear, tribute, etc. but not a word about disputing or questioning their titles who were in civil supremacy; had Conscience been so much concerned herein, could they not have submitted, and that out of faith too, without canvasing the titles of the great ones in the world to Authority over them, or searching into the Right of their claims and pretences to power, the Apostles no doubt, who instructed them fully to every good work, would have left some light that they might not be at a loss in their search after just titles in men to rule and command them, especially considering how easily they might be benighted ere they could make up a judgement of faith in such a difficult matter (Soldiers 
‖ Ab eo tempore status Reipublicae fuit eò redactus ut penes exercitum atque legiones populi Romani esset crean Caesarem; hunc ad modum factus est etiam Caesar Vespatianus, etc. Sleid. De quatuor sum. Imper. ita & justinus, etc. Evagr. li. 4.  using now and then to carve out titles illfavouredly for their Emperors with the sword) and so they might be in danger of blind obedience, but not a word of this that we see; all the help they had for the discerning to whom they owed and were to pay obedience was this; they are for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, revengers to execute wrath on them that do evil, etc. These are their administrations, not their titles.  
To the case they put, to clear the business; we say, Conscience is oftener resolved in its doubtings from the cause, than the titles of persons, or parties commanding both at once, as we believe most private men's Consciences were in the case betwixt King and Parliament, 
2 Chron. 13.  their Cause gained them more abettors than a knowledge of their competency to command and do what they did; and this is the way we intent to take for the resolving our own Consciences under such scruples; If the title on one hand be not such as that he who runs may read the justice of it; and,  
Here they do not take a case, but make a case, for,  
2 The case they mind us of, runs but half parallel with that which we shall mind them of in the application, and 'tis like we both mean the same case, viz. our own at this present; there may be granted two Parties claiming a title to rule over us, but there are not two actually commanding (as they suggest in the Hypothesis) if the King of Scots Warrants come amongst them into Lancashire, and Cheshire now, (as sometimes the Kings and Parliaments they say did to the same place formerly) 'tis more than we know, or hear of, and so can say little to it; we are sure the Parliaments Warrants or Commands do, though they find not so much as a Potentia obedientiali, amongst the Classes there; and supposing the said King doth send any of his injunctions or prohibitions thither, we are sure likewise that they are such solitary wouldings, such Personal commands, or scarecrows from a non-kinged man, as would not have been owned by them from the late King in times of War before he was unking'd, unless they were then Prerogative sticklers, the contrary whereto themselves profess; we shall only say this more, that if a scrupling their title who now solely command (notwithstanding their pretence to a title as fair as any others claiming) may absolve or exempt the conscience of any man from the tye of obedience, we must be forced at this time to deny many men's competency to the performing several such moral duties, as they are at no time bound up from exercising themselves in, but at all times tied to be doing, so long as the Lord continues them to serve their Generations; now to proceed, We have said enough before (say they) to disprove the challenge of Authority upon mere present possession.  
Answ. The claim of those Powers over us being not thus bottomed, viz. merely upon the presentness of superiority,  they have said against such a challenge hurts us not, and that which they have fastened upon our Authority to this purpose gratis, has met with an answer in its proper place; There is yet a knot remaining which they cannot untie, and that is, how the act for subscription should bind us to be true and faithful to the Commonweal as now established, etc. and yet not put the Conscience upon approval, or disapprovall of the change. We have led them already out of the maze wherein they professed themselves lost touching Gods command, for subjection binding the Conscience without putting it upon the approbation or disapprobation of the equity, etc. of a changed Power; and being helped out of that labyrinth, we doubt not but they will lose this knot with much ease.  
In the next place, supposing this consequence good (say we, P. 14.) That Subscription drew with it a consent to the change of Government, and an approbation of what was done in order to it; we conceive that both of these, without any injury offered to Conscience, may be approved, the Parliaments Declaration, March 17, 1648. renders the former approvable to us, and as to the main things done in order to this change, we shall speak our thoughts in particular; This Declaration these Ministers tell us, is neither in their hands, nor allowed to be under their consideration, yea they affirm that some in high degree and office amongst us have declared in open Court, that there is no change of the Government made.  
Answ. Peradventure the King of Scotland has bound up his forward faithful ones in this Commonwealth, under the forfeiture of their Allegiance from looking into any such dangerous Declarations, otherwise they might come into Lancashire, and Cheshire surely; and these unsatisfied ones might have allowance to consider them, being published for the whole world to consider of; and for what was declared in open Court concerning our Government's being not changed, we suppose these Gentlemen believed it not, for some of them declared the contrary as openly in their Pulpits (we hear) to the faces of those high officers, which we conceive they here relate to.  
Touching that discourse of theirs unto which we are referred for the disapproveablenesse of this change amongst us, etc. we must tell them, as they do us; it is not allowed to come under ours, or any men's consideration, we dare only take the boldness, being particularly concerned, to vindicate our own grounds, for submission from their confident exceptions, under which yet we conceive the substance of their Plea, against the lawfulness of our present Authority is brought in, which how substantial it is, we refer to the judgements of discerning spirits for a sentence. Concerning the main things done in order to this change of Government we speak our thoughts, and they speak theirs: As,  
1 Touching the Parliaments declaring the People to be the original of all lawful power; To this indeed they say nothing, not reckoning it happily amongst the essentials, or executive act of the change.  
2 Touching their laying aside the House of Lords, which in effect they had done seven years before, in declaring, That if their Lordships refused to join with them in settling the Militia, they would proceed to do it without them. To this their Reply is;  
1 That they are not clear in the truth of this Report, and if they be not, we say, there are several of their corresponding friends the Ministers of London, who after conference had with them by some of the Members touching that business, did approve of it, as a thing lawful and necessary to be done; these men, we doubt not, will abundantly clear them.  
2 But thence we cannot infer the justness of an act, viz. because it was done many years since; 'Tis truth we confess, in case there was nothing else to justify the thing but only the doing of it, but it was accounted an wholesome resolve, and justified then, therefore the same thing cannot in itself be unjustifiable now.  
3 But supposing it to have been done, and just in the doing, yet (as their last and surest hold) they difference what the Parliament did in laying the Lords aside then, from their laying them by now, by this distinction, Coordinates may exercise (say they) a cumulative or suppletive power upon the defectiveness of one another, but they cannot put forth a privative power to take away one the other, which was done in this case.  
Answ. Nobis non licet esse tam acutis.  
We cannot possibly divide the hair betwixt that suppletive act which the Commons did put forth, and that privative act which they tell us, is not allowed them to put forth, we think them tantamount or equipolent, and cannot but so judge of them till these distinguishers, or some other, show us a difference betwixt co-ordinals acting without, and against the consent of those that stand in an equality of power with them (this the Commons did) and their putting forth a privative power against them; if it be said, This was but once or twice done, and in case of necessity too; we say, if the same necessity revert over and over, the Lords might be laid aside again and again, and if by their delays and Negatives they continue to show their implacable bent (as they did do) against the sense of the Commons, upon that account they were laid aside temporarily, or at such a season; upon the same account they may be laid aside for ever; To their illustration we say, that the Lords were not TRUSTEES, but sat in Parliament for their own interests, and as Prerogative-supporters, thus much we are told by such as understand Parliaments better than we do, in the Declaration, March 17. 1648.  
2 But what if the Lords laid themselves aside (as some say they did, by not meeting upon the period of their adjournment) than they have no injury, if they receded from their own right, what are we concerned in their being unhoused?  
3 Lastly, supposing there has been injury done unto the Lords (for we make not ourselves Judges of their Privileges and Rights) yet we understand not how that injury can take away a Right from the Commons, or absolve us of our subjection.  
3 Touching their bringing the late King to a Trial, sentencing him, and taking him away; this we mention as approvable by conscientious men, and instance in Knox, etc. but for the rendering this approvable, they say, our sole reason is, Fiat justitia ruat coelum; God is no accepter of persons, he hath strictly commanded that we take no satisfaction for the life of a Murderer, 
Numb. 35.30, 31, 33.  etc. Who hath he commanded, say they? all those who are called to execute wrath upon evil doers, say we; and it stands every man in hand to see that they do it, for at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man saith the Lord, Gen. 9.5. After some preparatives of this nature, they come to state the point in debate, the question betwixt us will be (say they) not whether some are exempt from the sentence of the Law or no, (this it seems must needs be granted) but, who they are who sitting in the highest chair of Magistracy amongst us, have none placed by God above them to take cognizance of, and unsheathe the sword of Authority against their offences? upon this seat they would prove the King to be set, from the Oath of Supremacy, and the words of both Houses of Parliament thus declaring, 
Exact. Collat. Pag. 727.  We did, and do say, that the Sovereign Power doth reside in the King, and both Houses of Parliament.  
Answ. 1. It would be known indeed who they be that are elevated to such a seat of eminency as that no hand may touch them? or whether there be any such menin the World or no? what they here allege looks another way; they should prove the King to be unaccountable, and they prove him only the supreme Officer of State, Ignoratio Elenchi, unaccountablenesse is not a necessary adjunct of Supremacy, the highest in the world do, or should Minister to others, as trusties for the Public, and this implies their accountablenesse; the wise King doth not say, Princes may not be stricken, but it is not good to strike them for equity, Prov. 17.26.  
2 Upon this ground they give us for the-Kings impunity, (if it hold good) both the Houses of Parliament, and every individual Member of both come under a necessary unaccountablenesse and impunity likewise, as having (confessedly) all of them a share in the Supreme Power; if the residence of Sovereign Authority in any person or persons makes them Justice-proofe, and this Authority resides where we heard, in the Houses as well as the King, than we understand not the legality of questioning and condemning Strafford, Laud, Hotham, etc. or how any the Members of either Houses during their Membership, should be questioned by any persons whatsoever; and so the Houses of Parliament might become Cities of refuge, or Sanctuaries to the vilest of men, who could get within those walls, as well as to the King. Who can take away his Privilege, or Prerogative, that is chosen to a share in the supreme Authority? This is well argued Sirs, and if any one say the Major part of either House may question the Minor, we conceive not, if the residence of supreme Authority in that part conjunctly with the other, renders it unaccountable, as we are taught it doth, and as it must needs do, if any man whatsoever by reason of his share in Supremacy becomes invulnerable, as anointed with the sovereign Oil of impunity; therefore we contend, that no man whatsoever is thus placed above the reach of Justice, and consequently, that such as are empowered by a call to judicial Authority, may and ought (as the case may be) to execute God's Judgements upon the King. See what the rational Scotchman speaks to this purpose, and if he speaks not truth believe him not; he proves by various arguments that the King is under the La●, as King; amongst which arguments one is this, 
Lex Rex, pag. 183, etc.  Else the Lord in making a King to preserve his people, should give liberty, without all Politic restraint, for one man to destory many, which is contrary to God's end in the Fifth Commandment, if one man have absolute power to destroy souls and bodies of many thousands. Again, That the King should be under one Law of God, to be executed by men (viz. the Guardian Law of property) and not under another Law, Royalists are to show a difference from God's Word, Deut. 17.20. The King on the Throne remaineth a Brother, Psal. 22.22. and so the Judges, or three Estates are not to accept of the Person of the King for his greatness in Judgement, Deut. 1.16, 17. and the Judge is to give out such a sentence in Judgement as the Lord, with whom there is no iniquity, 
Pag. 235.  etc. Again, pag. 235. If God have provided that the King, who is a part of the Commonwealth shall be free of all punishment, though he be an habitual destroyer of the whole Kingdom, seeing God hath given him to be a Father, Tutor, Saviour, Defender thereof, and destinated him as a means for its safety, then must God have worse, not better, provided for the safety of the whole, then of the part.  
Again, if all the sins and oppressions of the Prince be so above the punishments that men can inflict, they are not sins before men, by which means the King is loofed from all guiltiness of the sins against the second Table, for, the Ratio formalis, why, etc.  
And lastly, the Prelate taketh it for confessed (saith our Author) that it had been Treason in the Santiedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his Adultery, 
Pag. 241.  and for his Murder, but he giveth no reason for this, nor any Word of God, and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this: God's Law, Gen. 9.5. compared with Numb. 35.30, 31. seemeth to say against them, nor can I think that God's Law, or his Deputies the Judges, are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great, 2 Chron. 19.6, 7. and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not; the Lord speaketh to under Judges, Levit. 19.15. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty, or, of the Prince, (for we know what these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean) I grant, it is not God's meaning that the King should draw the Sword against himself, but yet it follows not that if we speak of the DEMERIT OF BLOOD, that the Law of God accepteth any Judge, great or small, and if the Estate be above the King, as I conceive they are, though it be an humane Politic constitution, that the King be free of all co-action of Law, because it conduceth for the peace of that Commonwealth, yet if we make a matter of Conscience, for my part, I see no exception that God maketh, if men make, I crave leave to say, A facto ad jus non sequitur, thus far that honest public Advocate. We see all Scotchmen are not of the blood Royal, and when we hear this man's reasons, 
Junius Brutus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I. M. senure of King, etc.  and those which other men have brought against exempting the King from the Co-action of the Law, answered, we shall then think men have some cause and ground for their heinous resentment of the proceed against the late King, and for that great stir they make in the world about them.  
But suppose (say they) the King notwithstanding his place to be liable to capital punishment by the Parliament, it remains to be clearly proved that they who did it were qualified with that power.  
Ans. We must conceive (ploughing with their own Heifer) that by that power, they mean Parliamentary power, and this is the power that they who did it were chosen to, and enabled to act till they dissolved themselves; that they are essentially Judges, and so men competent and qualified to do Justice is solidly asserted and demonstrated by the  strenuous Author, 
Lex Rex.  and though the House hath been dismembered (for that we know these Minister's hint at, taking the excluders for Presbyterian, when indeed they were royal Martyrs) though it be not so full and formal a power as we could wish; yet we say again, an injury takes not away a right; the remnant of them, after the seclusion of some, and the defection of others, fare exceeding that number which by Law (as we are informed) makes an house, and till they unhouse themselves, retain that authority to which they were elected, supposing the proceed were in some respect extraordinary, yet here again the Scotchman (who echoes well in Lancashire) will help us out; Elias causeth to kill the Prophets and Priests of Ball, saith he, 1 King. 18.19 according to God's express Law; 'tis true, it was extraordinary, but no otherwise extraordinary than it is at this day, when the supreme Magistrate will not execute the Judgement of the Lord, those who made him a supreme Magistrate under God, who have under God Sovereign liberty to dispose of Crowns and Kingdoms, are to execute the JUDGEMENT OF THE LORD, when wicked men make the Law of God of none effect; so Samuel Killed Agag, whom the Lord commanded expressly to be killed, because Saul disobeyed the voice of the Lord, 1 Sam. 15.32.  
But in the last place, if this be made to appear (say the Ministers) yet by virtue of religious Oaths and Vows which have been taken, we conceive the King ought to have been exempred from that proceeding.  
Ans. It was the King's choice 
‖ See his answer to the Pet. of Right.  Maxim, that he owed account of his actions to none but God, and these men swallow it roundly of late, but this Prerogative being destructive to the end of Magistracy, and rendering it an inconceiveable discommode (considering the corruption and temptations of great ones) rather then an advantage to any people, is absolutely incompatible in its own nature to any man's person though in supreme trust, this being clear, the supervention of Oaths for the preserving his person altars not the case, if any such Oath or Vow be lawful, we conceive it must be conditional, since the declared mind and Laws of God are the boundaries which men may not step beyond; In privileging their Kings, if they lift them up by Oath higher than they ought to do, or invest them with impunity whatever their demerits and miss deserts may be, even by destroying the Nation habitually; the matter of that Oath we do insist is, res illicita, and so it falls a pieces, but surely no man can be so irrational as to deny the latent vein of a 
‖ Vide Ames Cas. Cons. l. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 8.  condition running through every promise or Covenant where the contrary is not expressed; if therefore we Covenanted for the preservation of his person conditionally, 'tis all one as if we had not covenanted at all, the condition proving apparently impossible and inconsistent with what we promised, strains upon the promise and revokes it, if absolutely and in express terms excluding all condition (as surely we never did) the Covenant were unlawful, setting man up above God's Ordinance, and so has no obligatory power at all in it, but enough of this: seeing these Ministers in this page call the King's death an impertinency, we shall now be content to let it pass for one, after this foreign velitation anent it, which we could have waved likewise very contentedly had we not been charged, as having said little in our Plea to render it approvable, besides fiat justitia ruat coelum.  
They tell us, pag. 26. That they will only touch upon what we say is, and they judge it not to be approved in order to the change of Government, yet here (forgetting themselves surely) they bring in somewhat as introductory to it, and charge the maintaining of it as approvable upon us, which we neither grant properly introductory, but forinsecum quid, being not done by those who changed the Government, nor yet that we touch upon it as approvable, for the contrary might be seen in the page immediately preceding, where we presume that the Parliament end Army might do some things in order to the change, which themselves hold only justifyable upon the plea of necessity; this it seems could put no stop to their fury, but they will needs have the Engagement (from what cogency of Reason we cannot see) to draw in the Engagers to a necessary approbation of the supposed miscarriage, viz. The breach of Parliaments privileges, by forcing the House, excluding the Members, etc. for, that which I promise to be true and faithful to, I must needs suppose and avow to be just and good; but we say, that by this rule all our forefathers that swore Allegiance to the Conqueror, must be supposed to avow his Authority just and good, which these Gentlemen will implead, unless their consent made it so.  
2 That the authority may be owned as just and good (the Lord himself owning it) we have proved before, notwithstanding the means of attaining it, as to man's acting in them be justly disavowed and abhorred, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys.  we can distinguish the Powers that be, from the sinfulness of their introduction, therefore fupposing the truth of what follows; That our present Rulers entrance into, and continuance in power, depends upon these two concauses, their own and the Army's force, what is this to the submitting conscience, who knows of no other powers that be? (however these came to be) and therefore concludes, If he resists the power, he resists the Ordinance of God; unlawful introductions, neither taking away the being of the Powers, nor dis-obliging conscience from obedience.  
But let us examine their assertion a little, 'tis strange that the Parliament and Army should act as they did, without the consent and concurrence of any men besides themselves, if their Authority depends merely upon their own and the Armies force it should needs be thus; but we can tell them of a great number that concurred with, and consented to, what they did antecedentià, and of many more that gave their subsequent consent (which was sufficient (they say) to make Leah, jacob's Wife) to the change of Government, and so espoused the present Authority. Peradventure few did, or do consent to it in Lancashire, what then? sure the Classis of Ministers there, is not like the Frog, who thought the Ditch he lived in was all the World, thus the fire-edge of their assertion is taken off.  
3 Suppose a man gets that which he hath a right to, and keeps possession of it by force, does this denude him of his title? Is it unjust in him after this force, which before he used any force he had a just claim to? especially if it be no otherwise recoverable, as it is usually with public liberties, where Prerogative has once fastened its claws in them, making that its freehold or inheritance which was originally in the people's power to dispose of? now let us mind you of a pretty Allusion; Two Sons of a loving Mother, hear her cry out in her Bedchamber, as likely to be abused by vile Fellows, one of these Sons strives to unlock the door and cannot (the key having contracted a seven year's rust) the other unhinges, or breaks open the door, and comes in timely to rescue her, is be justifiable, yea, or no? certainly though force he not the arbitor of right, yet it follows not, that whatsoever is gotten by force is vainly gotten, the possession of our powers may depend upon force, and their cause be never the worse for all this.  
3 It would be known what these men mean by that which they term their own force; If the prevalency of our present Rulers Judgements, it is an allowable force, but an improper one, if we indulge them not the liberty of Voting their sense, they must be all (as the Lord Faulkland said of Finch) silent Speakers, if we allow thus much to them, than what is this force still? A power or competency for the managing and carrying on their Votes and Orders, if we gratify them not with this force, the freest Parliament that ever shall sit in England will be Vox & praeterea nihil, therefore▪  
4 It must needs be the Armies Force which adnuls, or makes our present Authority base-born, if any force do it, the former force (say they) could give no just title, 
See the Declar●t. Febr. 17. 1648. pag, 15. & Declarat. March 17. 1648. pag. 22.  and without this could not avail to their advancement. But Sirs, if the Army acted gratis or without command, in this heavy business of secluding some Members, this being an extrinsical force could not possibly denude the remaining numbers of a right to act authoritatively; the Kings routing of five Members did not break the House, and if five do it not, an hundred and fifty will not; if the Army in this doing acted the Houses pleasure, or by the call of the House they acted as servants, and is this that which unauthorised the House? Suppose the Parliament had called Sir William Waller, Stapleton, or Balfore, to their door, upon the refusal of many to swear the vow, 1643. and had commanded them to seculde those who then were secluded for disgusting that Engagement, and their renitency to the work of that season, would this have vacated the power of that remnant? Surely no, the House it is granted may prescribe conditions to itself, and the Members which refuse them are ipso facto unmembred, so that the outing or secluding them is at most but aggravated by the Soldier's interposition, it is not made another thing; such the case may be therefore, as that men may enable themselves by force to act anthoritatively, and possess themselves of Authority by force, and be justified; such we insist was that our case in debate, but upon supposal it was not so, we say again, that sinful means or introductories render not an authority uncapable of a conscientious man's owning; yet it should seem by what follows, that those Ministers Boanerges like (out of a pretended zeal to the Covenant) could willingly sound an alarm to the undertaking, 
— Nimium placet ipse Caton●— Si bellum civile placet— Lucan.  viz. the dis-possession of our present Powers, a good mind they have that War should be raised in behalf of those who remain yet Confessors for the Covenant, in a certain sense, and they would not stick to call it, an 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Adm. ad Gentes.  holy War, what else means this Divinity of theirs? A present impediment or privation of the act, creates not an impossibility in the thing, and so dissolves no Oath; some the Covenant binds to counsel, command, pray, and pay, others to hand force. for the remedying the breaches of it; half an eye may see the drift of these insinuations. But it would be canvassed a little, whether the Covenant gives them a call to endeavour the subverting our present Parliament to redeem Parliament privileges, yea, or no? (this they must needs plead for here, otherwise they beat the air, their argument is dissolute, and does them no service at all) if it indeed gives them a Call, and Commissions them to this work, viz. the breaking our present establishment, this Commission is conveyed to them by some Mediativa, for the Covenant hath War in it but virtually, and therefore is no formal warrant for the raising of Arms; now we cannot think that the Parliament (as we call it) will thus mediate, or Commission any persons to such a Project, or that the King (as they call him) can do it of himself, (unless he must be a Sultan, Mogul, or 
‖ Though in Scotland an Ahenian royalty serves his turn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Syn. de regno.  absolute Lord over us) his Father's Commissions of this nature during our late Wars used not to be much owned in Lanc●shire, nor his Commands obeyed being solitary, personal, and Anti-parliamentary, but peradventure they may expect a call in its season from the Scots Kings Divan, or a confluence of those Atoms which were swept out of the Commons House for making such a dust in the year, 1648. from some Juncto or other, of hot Covenanteirs, called by the name of a Parliament; if so, they exclude these in place, and null their Commissions by the heinous sin of our present Rulers, usurpation; yea, if ever they command they must be enabled to it by some force too, still worse; if force when it serveth men's turns have not the happiness, as it usually hath, to pass for no force, or else to be adjudged Orthodox, necessary, and legal, could we but see therefore how the Covenant-Commissions run, it is ten to one but we should find them capable of some exceptions.  
In the next Paragraph we find what we last spoke to verified (by the Judgements of these Ministers touching a certain force upon the Scotch Parliament when time was) viz. Force when it 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tatian: Assyr.  befriends us, and our interests, is no force; You tell us (say they) of a force in Scotland, by which the Power there in being was brought in, which was greater than ever our Parliament groaned under here; they say, It is not congruous to conclude others by those precedents which we ourselves will not receive a bound from; cannot we mention such a thing then without concluding others by that precedent? fare be it from us to conclude this Classis by a Scotch precedent, though we think it would go farther than a better argument, and do more toward the concluding of very many amongst us, who dote upon Scottish modes exceedingly, and hang upon the lips of their Mufti, and oricular Consistorians; but these Gentlemen are not clear in the matter of the Fact there; We tell them (say they) of a force, and truly we conceive they need not be told any more of it; yet they do not believe that we can allege that the Parliament there was called, chofen, and convened, or hath sat and acted under, or been dismembered by any force, nor that we have heard of any actual force upon any Parliament in Scotland, since the Covenant here was first taken.  
Ans. These words are very warily packed together, here are creepes ●now if ever they should be put to a start, and it concerns them in this point not to lie too open, not an actual force, but what if we can tell them of a force which wrought as strongly Per contactum virtualem, as that force of the rude Apprentices did upon our Speaker in 1645? not upon any Parliament, what if it was upon the Committee of safety? their Parliament contracted? will not this serve the turn? this is a force in Scotland sure, and that is it we undertake to tell them of; now to the thing in question, they cannot believe that there was ever a forced or dismembered Parliament in Scotland since, etc. what think they of the Parliament which sent Hambleton into Lancashire in England? resolved into a Committee of safety? routed head and tail, branch and rash by Arguile, with some other unauthorised persons? This was the only Nationall Authority then in being, and if that be a force in Scotland which is accounted so in England, out of doubt this was a force, the Notoreity whereof gives not any latitude of dis-beleefe; true, this assembly was not dismembred, it was utterly unbodied, and the Parliament next surrogated, or succeeding, was chosen by Rules, framed and prescribed by the prevailing Arguile and his Party, countenanced and managed herein by the power of an English Army, that this was not only a force, but a greater force than ever our Parliament groaned under, will appear by this Parallel.  
1 Scotland had none of those who were Members of the old Parliament (not garbled, but routed) sitting and retaining their Authority after the force, England had a Parliamentary number.  
2 We called not in a Foreign Power to disband our Authority, but it is very well known Scotland did.  
3 Our Parliament Members which sat and acted, after the force, were all chosen (by ancient rules) and that long before the force too, those in Scotland who then stepped into the Seat of Authority, were not only chosen De novo, but chosen by rules newly framed, the very framing of which was so arbitrary and violent a fact, that in England those who had come in upon such a score should never have been acknowledged the Ordinance of God.  
4 Their routed Members were dis-enabled from sitting any more in their former capacity, ours have the liberty to resume their places if they please, as many have repent and done, so that the Scotch Authority does not only depend upon a Force, but upon a greater Force than ours in England, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Our in ference from this Force in Scotland, so useful to the Kirk there, and so in-offensive, as it seems, to the Ministers in Lancashire & Cheshire that they judge it no force, was this; Hence we conceive that Parliament privileges may be sometimes looked at as formalities, rather than sacred and indispensible rights, viz. when the greater number of Parliament men set themselves in a way of utter ruining, rather than of building up and establishing a Nation on the sure foundation of peace and righteousness. Certainly Sirs, if any Privileges should enable a Parliament to ruin us, as good we sat content under the mercies of a Lawlesse-Royall-Prerogative as of a Parliament so privileged, yet this inference of ours the Gentlemen take too much to heart, that even — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it stirs them out of measure, 
Theecr.  so that incontinently they fall into a fierce Parexysme. This gloss (say they) calls not so much for an answer as for admiration and execration, and ask, Is this all the reverence and force which we give to Vows, Protestations, and Oaths? truly as little as they say we reverence them, we yet reverence them as highly as the Kirke of Scotland does, which are sometimes (we see) dispensed with in its respect to Parliament Privileges, we Covenant for them as servants, not as Masters to the Public good, though they be not such light formalities but they may be lawfully Covenanted for; what is a sacred thing in its place, becomes a shadow if misplaced, and unduly preferred, it may be Sacrilege to pursue that, which zeal and duty well informed let go, as inconfistent with what is most sacred; the Scots allow of a subordination in the matters of the most solemn Covenant (as we showed in our Plea) and subordinates, we know are in a sense formalities, dispensable withal, surely if set in balance with the more sacred and superior ends encovenanted for; so are Parliament Privileges (though in themselves grave and grand realities) if they stand in competition, or be compared with reformation, public liberty, and safety, those SANCTA SANCTORUM of the Covenant. And now let wise men judge whether this inference or gloss of ours (as the Ministers call it) be such an execrable heinous one, as they would render it, and whether it be a dangerless and religionlesse excuse of the Army's force?  
1 Is there danger in preferring public good, before the privileges of any particular men, or any sort of men whatsoever? this would implead not only the Army's force, but also the Selfe-denying Ordinance, Sirs.  
2 Religion lets us not know to give flattering titles to men, 
Job 32.21, 22.  much less to indulge them with undue Seraphical inrespective privileges, this is real and transcendent adulation; how comes it to be religionlesse then, to give public weal and safety an higher room in our Covenant, than Parliament Privileges? every public spirit savours such ir-religion as this, Covenants are conservatories of these Privileges, whiles improved to public service, otherwise men might ruin a Nation cum privilegio, and plead Covenant for their justification; but this is prevented by that limitation in our Solemn League and Covenant, viz. in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdom; This we allege in answer to that question of these Ministers, whother there be such a condition (as we speak to) reserved out of the covenanted preservation of Parliament privileges yea or no? The letter of the Covenant notes out this reservation or condition, providing for Parliament Privileges as things subordinate and sub-servant to Religion and Liberty; but (say they) Do we find any where in Scripture that subjects are dis-engaged from subjection to, and maintaining of the rights, or the Authorities lawfully placed over them in case of their maeleadministration?  
Ans. There were many such texts of Scripture to be found eight or nine years ago, when men cried out, To thy tents O Israel, and Ministers cried, Curse ye Meroz, etc. Subjection was not with drawn from King Charles, nor Arms raised against him, and he beaten from one place to another without some Scripture warrant, but if men vomit up their principles and build again what they destroyed, they are to be dealt with upon another score.  
2 There are some rights or particular privileges belonging to Magistrates in all constitutions (we conceive) which may undergo a dominution yea be pessundated, Salva authoritate, personal rights may at some seasons interfere with common safety and peace, which authority never doth, therefore in the question propounded there is fallacia compositionis. But  
3 'tis a thorny solemn point, and we dare not rush on unheedily in it, let the grave and bold Lapinian lead us the way, in his Treatise touching peoples withdrawing subjection from their King, or otherwise called the Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, he thus expresseth himself, it can hardly seem probable, much less credible, that any 
* Negari non potest quin populus aliquis necessitate coactus possit se vendere Regi, ut omnes sint pl●ne servi ipsius, Gen. 47.23. sed neque hoc unquam praesumi debet, quando non est manifestum, quia contra mores est, & contra naturae inclinationem, neque licitè honesteve ab ullo principe quaeri potest, quia ejus officium est communem utilitatem populi praecipué spectare; neque denique civitas aut politia esset quae illum in modum constitueretur, sed herile dominium & servitium monstrosum. Ames. cas. consc. lib. 5. cap. 25.  free people whatsoever, when they voluntarily at first encorporated themselves into a Kingdom, or set up an elective or hereditary King over them, would so absolutely resign up their sovereign, popular, original authority, power and liberty to their Kings, etc. as to give them an absolute irrevocable, uncontrollable supremacy over them, superior to, irrestrainable, , or unalterable by their own primitive, inherent, national sovereignty, out of which their regal power was derived, for this had been to make the creator in ferior to the creature, etc. a most brutish, sottish, inconsiderate, rash action, not once to be imagined of any people, and had our Ancestors, or any other nations when they first erected Kings, and instituted Kingly government, been asked this question, whether they meant thereby to transfer all their National Authority, Power, and Privileges so far over to their Kings, etc. as not still to reserve the supremest power and jurisdiction to themselves to direct, limit, restrain, their Prince's supremacy, and the exorbitant abuses of it, when they should see just cause; or so, as not to be able ever after TO ALTAR or diminish this form of Government upon any occasion whatsoever? or if their Kings should turn professed Tyrants, etc. patiently to submit themselves to their destructive proceed without any restraint of them, or calling them to account for those gross irregularities? I make no question but they would have jointly answered that they had never any imagination to erect such an absolute irresistible unlimited Monarchy, or plain Tyranny over them, and that they ever intended to receive the absolute original sovereign jurisdiction in themselves, as their native hereditary Privilege which they never meant to divest themselves of.  
Well therefore, presuming the truth of this doctrine, as being true yesterday, and coming from the pen of one so Orthodox; and which is more, a Non-Subscriber, a Martyr for the Cause of the Covenant (as they call it) we shall add but little, the maladministration of Monarchical authority may be such, saith Mr. Prynne as that it may disengage duty-bound Subjects from submission, and make them resume their own native original sovereignty; and if this hold true against Kingly power and supremacy, it holds true against power in any other form whatsoever, though lawfully placed over a people: in a word, if that sovereignty or Power concredited by a Nation to any person or persons as trusties, be forfeitable (as our  author will affirm and avow) then there may be such a thing as a disengagement from subjection in the people, so far as any authority is limited, 'tis resistible. (This we dare tie ourselves to make good) and then the case is clear, the dissolution of subjection necessarily follows, but if our supposition should prove groundless, and our assertion weak, if Power or Authority be an unforfeitable freehold, and absolutely  all our laws for Public Safety, Advantage and Freedom, which any way tie the hands of our Rulers, are mere mock-guardians of property, and most perfect nullities; yea, we may then write folly upon the very wisdom of our Progenitors, their capitulations, and taking security from Princes and Magistrates for their good behaviour by any Parchment devices, this would be but ridiculous vanity, if the persons empowered or entrusted may not be withstood in their encroachments, exorbitances and wretched expilations, wherewith they exercise the people under them: Yea, if they may not be unpowred, as the late King was some years before he died, in case they persist in a ruining way; He (viz. the Magistrate) is the minister of God to thee for good, saith the Apostle, And if he ministers to our ruin, whose vicegerent is he in that ministration? Must we needs be held under the bond of duty, notwithstanding he thus ministers? yea, and that habitually and inflexibly too? our paying Custom, Honour, Tribute, is enforced (as we have noted before) from the Magistrate's Ministering to our good, and if this argument be taken away, his claim to subjection is a poor seeble thing.  
Thus we have reinforced our Arguments for engaging with the present Authority over us, and past the brow of the hill, the heat of the Encounter, it remains only that we see how their Reserves against engaging will stand the dispute. We examined the validity of these in our Plea, to that purpose they are urged against us.  
One of them, viz. The Oath of Allegiance we found had no life in it, and with the other, viz. the Covenant after some short debate we parted friends as we met. But these men putting life into the one, and enmity into the other against us, press them into their service a new, and give them the advantage of a full blow at the Engagement, leaving it not any shift or guard at all to save itself by, not any salve invented (as they say) by us to elude the force of these Oaths. Well,  
First, Touching the Oath of Allegiance, We do still insist, that the ground of it is our protection, and that it binds us not but to our actual protectors successively. They acknowledge That Protection is a secondary ground of Allegiance, and consequently of the Oath, But contend that God's ordination and image imprinted upon the Magistrate as his deputed Vicegerent: is the first and chief ground.  
Answer, What if this be granted? their advantage against us will not be much greatned, in applying these notions to our present purpose, we ask, Where is that Magistrate, that bears this image spoken of? is he in being amongst us or not? And how shall we know this? Why, do we receive due and legal protection? and by whose mediation is it conveyed to us? Now by satisfying ourselves in these last Queries, we come to a resolution in the two former; We cannot separate God's Ordination of any person or power from that which is the very office and end of that power, nor understand the impression of his image any where without some argument of it. Feign would we see some Rules that may instruct and enable us to judge of God's ordinance, or help us to find it out, when there is no ministry for a people's good: We are utterly to seek how to discern this image they speak of, without its shining forth upon us by protective emanations; 'tis to little purpose to tell us of a man in the clouds, a deputed vice-gerency, if we have no feeling at all of its activity, as to our well-being, nor see any thing like the beamings forth of God's image upon us in goodness and righteousness.  
Metaphysical Magistracy is a thing we cannot skill of, and the case which these Divines put, viz. Of Subjects rising up in arms and disenabling the Magistrate from protecting them (and so freeing themselves from Allegiance) helps us very little in the business, 'tis a thing begged of us, not following upon our Principles, that a people in so doing discharge themselves of the debt of Allegiance, if they fall under the Magistrates captivating power, in this case they lose the benefit of Subjects, we affirm, but not that the Magistrate loses his title to their Allegiance, because they put from themselves his supposed Protection, which if they may have it, is all one to conscience as if they had it: But now they must show us how we may come by protection from any other powers then those that are over us, or else they say nothing to our case? nor convince us that the debt of our Allegiance is due to any other, but those to whom we pay it, notwithstanding the Oath urged against us; it is not any man's pretended power or obligation to protect us, that can be satisfaction to us in the condition we now are; we say, That people is in danger to be very miserable, whose well fare is no otherwise secured then by a King's obligation to protect them. In Answer whereto instead of showing us the completeness of this provision for a people's safety, they shoot at Rovers, and tell us that by the Oath of Allegiance, the King not the people is secured. Truly we never thought that this Oath was provided for the people's security, but being told that the Magistrates obligation to protect us, is all the provision God hath made for the securing our properties, liberties and lives, this we impugn, and there may be other security for our welfare, though the Oath of Allegiance be none of it.  
Secondly, they retort upon us, miserable is that Prince, or that Power, whose title to Allegiance depends upon his actual protection, etc. true, if they intent to be Nero's, Caligula's, Heliogabula's men of wildfire spirits, who (
* L. Catelina in Senatu, M. Cicerone incendium ab ipso incitatum dicente; sentio, inquit, & quidem illud si aqua non potuero, ruina extinguam. Val. Max. è Sallust. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Syn. See Prov. 16.12 20.28.31.3. Prov. 29.14.  Cataline-like) care not to sacrifice Nations at the Altar of their ambition and tyranny; if their aims be to make their Houses great, and to that end do trample upon the poor, if they leave off to do Judgement, and are as roaring Lions, and ranging Bears, pity but they should be miserable, but if their deportment be as becomes God's Vicegerent, their Titles are well enough secured, the Throne shall be established by righteousness, shalt thou reign because thou closest thyself in Cedar? (saith the Lord to Jehoiakim) did not thy Father eat and drink, and do judgement and justice, and then it was well with him? what better security can be given to Princes then this? what destroys their Title and right in Scripture account, but unrighteousness, tyranny, and wickedness, Ezek. 21.25.27? and thou profaine wicked Prince of Israel, whose day is come when iniquity shall have an end; thus saith the Lord God, remove the Diadem, etc. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more until he come WHOSE RIGHT it is, and to him I will give it.  
Kings (say we) have got a knack to disoblige themselves, etc. but say they, 'Tis impossible they should be dis-obliged in conscience, and yet remain Kings, and for fact how can they do it?  
Ans. 1. Did not the late King profess, that he could not in Conscience yield to many things which the Parliament declared it his duty to grant? as the abolition of Episcopacy, Litturgy, the punishing of Delinquents? etc. but perhaps they'll say, being thus disobliged of his duty, in Conscience he remained nothing, if so (as they seem plainly to suggest) we shall kiss their lips for giving so right an answer.  
2 What the facto Kings have lately done in this point, Europe's sad experience shall speak, where Laws have been too short Beds for Monarches to stretch themselves upon, and scarcely in any corner is there a rag of freedom left the Commons, unless empty formalities (such as, will you have this man reign over you) pass for freedom indeed, and as little security, unless written Laws will secure them, which is all the defence and shelter we see these Ministers allow them; but the Parliament was more favourable and good when time was, 
Declarat. March 4. 1647.  and more Orthodox in our Judgements. We shall offer to the consideration of all Englishmen (say they) that however they may please themselves with their Magna Charta, their Courts of Justice, high Court of Parliament, etc. all this signifiesnothing, etc. Ridiculous are those Laws which may be violated by force, and by force shall not be defended, etc.  
3 Their complaint of Subjects dis-obliging themselves is a wide retortion, this they say, many now do (for their pleasure and advantage) but, such a Buskin will fit any leg, we believe that if ever these men disobeyed the late Kings personal commands, or disowned his Warrants in Cheshire, etc. other men have said as much of them as now they say of others, so that for their advantage they could disoblige themselves of Allegiance too, if to tell them so was to prove it; we discharge ourselves of no homage due to any set over us by God, any that afford us, or in likeli-hood may afford us quiet and legal protection, but because we refuse to espouse the Scots King's quarrel for Dominion and Lordship here, which was to put our Sickle into another man's Harvest, therefore they tell us, we disoblige ourselves, etc. But content yourselves Sirs, for until you can persuade us, that the Powers which ARE NOT are ordained of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4 The next thing they find themselves aggrieved withal, and think good to take notice of is, our apprehension touching the Coalition, or the mean of a People and their Rulers closing together; we conceive in this transaction a mutual stipulation betwixt Magistrate and people, they say, 'tis not always mutual, but since they grant that it is so with us in England in a sense, which we take to be our sense, we shall proceed to examine their exceptions against that rule, which we assumed withal as a safe and true one, viz. That if he who promiseth mutually will not perform what he promiseth, our obligation is not binding, this (say they) is no true rule.  
1 First, Because what the Prince and people promise or swear to each other, they were bound to by the Law of God and Nature before such Oaths; This they dictate to us, telling us it is evident, but we see no such thing; sure we are 'tis none of those principles that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carrying their evidence in themselves, neither do they offer us any proof of it. Besides this, in our case (say they) this is evident by the constitution, Law, and continual practice of the Kingdom, which to us is ignotum per ignotius, and did we know it, it would not sway much with us, unless we could come acquainted with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereof, yet we shall be content to suppose it; well therefore, be it so, Subjects cannot be conceived bound without all condition. 'Tis presumed surely that they shall receive protection if they stand bound, for the Magistrates debt is every whit as due as the peoples, and if so, our Oath cannot render that absolute which before was but conditional, unless in the letter of it, it excepts against all condition; let us hear their other Argument.  
2 Secondly (say they) Because the Covenants between Prince and people are absolute and irrespective, they are not as two parts of one and the same convention or Covenant, they make not one Indenture interchangeably sealed on both sides, etc. How prove they this? why forsooth, first, because they swear at several times, a proper Argument to prove an Independent Covenant, may not many men promise the same thing under a condition, and yet tie themselves to it by Oath, some at one time, some at another, and he to whom the promise is made engage himself at a distinct time too, to all those who shall so swear? people cannot be so formal & punctual in indenting with their Princes as they may be one with another, yet this makes nothing against the cogent equity and necessity of a Relative covenant. Secondly, because they swear to perform a Moral duty of the fifth Commandment; here it is presumed that all Moral duties are to be performed ir-respectively, and without condition; we deny this latent proposition, we conceive a debt of Moral duties as justly due and payable from us, to those who are over us in the Lord, as to our Civil Rulers, yet we are not tied to pay it but upon condition, viz. of their labour amongst us, or for their works sake, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. 1 Tim. 5.17. in case our Shepherds be Idol Shepherds, is their claim to maintenance and esteem from us valid? we are told the contrary by a 
* Dr. Ames. Haec non debentur ratione tituli, sed propter ordinationem divinam, & operam impensam; idcireò neque hominum creaturis dedeptur neq, prorsus indignis. Cas. consc. li. 5. c. 24.  faithful Shepherd, and we think there are Idol Shepherds of two sorts, viz. Politic or 
‖ Genes. 49.24. Psal. 78.71, 72. Zech. 11.8.17. Thus the Grecians entitle their Prince, or Ruler, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the People's Shepbraid.  Magisteriall, as well as Ecclesiastic, or Ministerial. Time was when some of these Ministers of Cheshire and Lancashire accounted disobedience a Moral duty, viz. when the late King was beside himself, or under an incapacity of commanding; this makes us think that (whatever they here speak) they never swore irrespective allegiance. It somewhat startled us to see them parallel Allegiance with conjugal duties, and to offer it as the proof of their argument, making the relations betwixt Prince and People, as infringible as the relation betwixt Man and Wife, we presently expected that they should prove Magistrates and their people to be one flesh, as they twain are, but failing in our expectations, we shall let the lame allusion go, and tell them in answer to what follows, that, Non entis nulla sunt accidentia, the King of Scotland never promised any thing to us, nor was called so to do that we know of, and therefore cannot be said to refuse performance; if this rule that we have vindicated dis-obliged us from Allegiance to the Father, the Sons claim to Allegiance, or his putting in for it shall not much trouble us.  
Next, they lift up their hands to cripple an Argument, which (they say) is lamely propounded, viz. the formal cause of a promissory Oath ceasing, the Obligation itself ceaseth, but the formal cause of Allegiance is protection, therefore we conceive ourselves loosed from Allegiance, according to that Oath, its correlate and foundation being taken away, etc.  
Here they cannot see our reason for want of Logic, and quote Dr. Saunderson (their familiar in this point) to prove the formal cause of an Oath to be the invocation of God's Name; It is not a punctilio, or formality of Logic shall break them and us if reason do not, they might easily have seen what we meant by the formal cause of that Oath, viz. the foundation or reason of it, and that this is proper speaking, yea and Logical too; Dr. Ames, and old Henderson, quoted by us in that very Page and point, will maintain, so that if we may be admitted to take Causa formalis for that which we do, and may take it, their reasons from the relation betwixt forma and formatum, to invalidate our assertion do them very little service; and something we could bring out of Dr. saunderson's Prelections which would not please their Worships neither very well in the application.  
But we are told, 'Tis a wide oversight to say that the formal cause of Allegiance is protection; and we tell them again, that we are not tentativi Dialectici, pickeering Logicians, neither do we dispute or contend about formalities, it sufficeth us if the reason or foundation of Allegiance be protection, this is it which we speak to, and this they speak nothing against, when they prove Allegiance to be due where protection neither is, nor may be had, or which is all one, where the Magistrate is no Minister of God to a people for good, and so indeed no Magistrate, than we shall acknowledge that they enervate our reason, till than they do but scratch the face of our Logic, and in so doing, 
Job 15.2.  utter vain knowledge, and fill their bellies with the East Wind, which wise men should not do.  
The Northern Subscribers go on thus; When we swear homage to our Lord and Superior, who afterwards ceaseth to be so, the obligation ceaseth; can this Oath bind us now our Superior is not? however taken away by might or right, Caveat actor. The Northern Non-subscribers reply thus; That the Party sworn to is not, or that his superiority is not, we neither of ourselves see reason to judge, nor in these Authors find we any argument to prove.  
Ans. 1. It seems then that they have sworn Allegiance to another since the King was taken away, for sure we are be is not, and his Superiority is not; if so, Valeat quoad valere potest.  
2 Because they complain for want of Arguments to prove the dis-obligation of this Oath, or that our Liege Lords Superiority is expired, we shall direct them to one which they went round about, and yet it seems had not the good hap to light on, and it is this: If we swear Homage to the King's Successors, they must either succeed him before we can pay or perform it, else our Oath ties us to his Children, or Heirs while he lives, as well and fully as when he is dead, etc. This they will not aver, therefore failor in succession proves the expiration of the supposed Superiority, and renders the Oath dis-obliging.  
But how comes the expiration of the interest of our late King's Children about? First, mere absence out of the Realm (say they) cannot debar his title who is next Heir to the Crown, our English Chronicles gives us many precedents of Princes coming to the Crown by the death of their respective Predecessors, who (though absent at the commencing of their title, were acknowledged, and their regnancies embraced during their absence, as Edward the first for instance, etc.  
Ans. But they should have instanced in one who was not acknowledged, and had Allegiance paid him though his regancy were not embraced, and that would suit our case indeed, this which they allege proves that Edward the first did de facto succeed Henry the third, notwithstanding his absence, etc. but they should prove that Charles Stuart which now it doth de facto succeed Charles that was in his Government, notwithstanding his absence from us, (and then as we told them) we shall yield our Allegiance due; but,  
Secondly, no act of them that possess the place of power, they insist, can put an end to the title and being of that Sovereignty sworn to in this Oath, as to conscience; this they tell us is largely argued in their first part.  
Ans. 1. Whether they could of Right put an end to that Sovereignty or no, concerns us very little, unless by the Engagement we should be drawn to a participation in the act (which they neither prove in the first nor second part of their Discourse) certaine it is that they have done it, and consequently either these gentlemen's Allegiance is expired, or else if they continue to pay it, and pay it not to the Powers that be, they pay it to a Non ens, or an Jshbosheth, a King without a Kingdom.  
2 We are so fully persuaded of their power and competency to dis-mantle, and lay aside King-ship, so fully instructed in their sufficiency who have done it, that if engaging be a guarding the door, that none enter into that Office more (as they insinuate) we dare stand in that door to guard our present Rulers, and in so doing, think our Allegiance duly paid. We never swore Allegiance to Kingly Power, but to our Royal Protectors, neither can we be termed his Liege people, who is not actually our Liege Lord.  
Touching that Maxim, viz. The King cannot die, we thus express our dis-relish; A King dethroned is dead in Law, and a King laid aside, or dead, dies in Law; otherwise there could be no such thing as an Inter-regnum, etc. but we are told hereupon, that such as the laying aside of a King is, such is the inter-regnum which happens by that means, viz. it is de facto, and not of right, and therefore altars not at all the point of title or property, when you make good and lawful the present laying aside, than we shall embrace the inter-regnum.  
Ans. 1. We affirm not that there is an inter-regnum now, and never may we have more cause to call it so, nor are they desired to own the present Authority as a Chas'me or interval of regal power, a Commonwealth sounds as well as a Kingdom every whit, and may we live under a Democracy we shall never much lust after 
a Faelicitatem ego sic definio, reditum uniuscujusque rei ad suum principium. Mirand. Heptap.  the happiness of a Monarchy again; we know that the kinds of 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diog. Laert. in Plat.  Magistracy are humane Creature for the Creator's glory, one of them as lawful as another, and that successive Royalty is next of kin to tyranny; neither do we believe any of the Royal Progeny to be such 
* Du Plessis progress. 62. ex Abb. Urspurg.  Zisca's that we should deem ourselves Orphans without them.  
2 We told them in our Plea that the Parliaments Declaration satisfied us touching the equity, and necessity of the change of Government amongst us, we judge it needless and misbecoming us to meddle any further than we have done, What can the man do (saith Solomon) that cometh after the King? Eccles. 2.12. yet we trust that ere long we shall see their cause pleaded better, and far more convincingly then they themselves have pleaded it: But to go on; We ever thought the King's Coronation to be his actual investiture with power, etc. this the Ministers say was but a Compliment, then say we, his Coronation Oath was no more, and thus it seems we were complemented into Slavery; but Sirs, from the beginning it was not so, all the antiquity in Bodley's Library will attest this, yet being they so please, let it pass for a compliment now, since we are like to have no more such fooling or complementing amongst us, till Vrsa Major, and Vrsa Minor meet together.  
Lastly, 
Page 22.  If any of the King's Children do de facto succeed him as King (say we) or Heir his Power, we shall be their Liege people, but for a succession DE JURE, as we are made no Judges of any such thing; so, etc.  
Hence the Replyers draw much advantage, and sugaciously redargue us of sinning against Conscience, in keeping our Allegiance we know not from whom, If we be the Liege People of any of them upon such a succession as you express (say they) is it because your Allegiance and Oath would bind you to it? Assuming this as granted, they conclude from it, that the Oath of Allegiance is acknowledged in force by us.  
Ans. 1. In case any of the late King's Children should de facto succeed, they will be then the powers that are, their regnancies being embraced by our representatives would create them a title to our Allegiance, till than their claims (if ever they had jus ad rem) are dead as dead can be, that Sovereignty to which they pretend, having lain in the Grave several years already.  
2 'Tis none of our Callings to judge of that succession de jure, to which any great ones of the world may pretend for rule over us, neither does the Lord put submitting Consciences upon such an Inquest, as we conceive; 'Tis not morally possible, saith one, for private men to have a true insight into such a business, because all claims amongst men depend upon the concurrence of many circumstances which in the way of justice give to one, and take away from another, a right to the same; the incidences of which circumstances, changing the nature of rights and claims to places, private men cannot possibly in their ordinary way (wherein they are bound to stand, and walk) come to any certain knowledge of; and consequently such rights cannot be supposed to fall under their Umpirage. But waving this Plea at present, (as being a reserve whereof we stand in no great need) these two particulars (the sum of what we have dogmatized in this point) are to us clear as the day.  
1 The foundation or reason of our Allegiance as payable to Kings or Queens of England ceaseth; we receiving protection from no such persons  
2 The Relativum formale of that Oath is extinct, that Sovereignty under which the Oath was exacted, being devolved into their hands who neither own the name nor thing of Kingship.  
Hence we conclude ourselves alleviated and assoiled of its obligation, unless by that Oath we stand bound to make a King or a Queen to heir our Allegiance, which design, the letter of the Oath is no whit guilty of forcing upon us.  
Now in the last place we must re-examine how wonderfully the Covenant befriends these Royalists, 
That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behind.  and whether Monarchy, the Gored they are so fond of, grow in this Garden or no? formerly when this Covenant was entered into, Monarchical power humbled, and prostituted, cried out thus: Call me no more Naomi, 
Ruth. 1.20.  but call me Mara, and Covenanters were then its bitterest enemies, how come they now so passionately to court this Helena, and make the Covenant serve for a Spokesman? is Monarchy another thing, or is there a fresh gloss now upon neglected Royalty? 
Juven.  surely— Fancies non uxor amatur; well, we shall not ask why Spaniels when they are beaten fawn upon us? but how the Covenant comes to strike up a Match betwixt Presbytery and Monarchy? if it provides indispencably for Kingly Government in the letter of it, we are satisfied; but we see these Gentlemen quit the letter, and retire to the preface of it, certainly Sirs, Ad●triarios deventam est, you are shrewdly thrust at, if none of the Covenants Articles will stand by you, but you must needs fall unless the Preface lend you an hand, 'tis a pretty kind of argument this; The King's Posterity is mentioned in the Preface, ergo Kingly Government is provided for in the Covenant, or that which is to be seen in never an Article of the Covenant, yet must needs be there, because something which sounds like it is in the Preface. How could the honour and happiness of his Majesty's Posterity be before our eyes in Covenanting (say they) if they were not where included in, or provided for, by the Covenant? Now instead of ask this question, they should have argued thus, viz. the happiness of the King's Posterity is provided for in such or such an Article, therefore it's certainly covenanted for; and this would have stricken us stone dead; we think the Articles of the Covenant are the Covenant, and the Preface only an introductory, no essential part of it, the frame thereof (being only declaratory of the Covenanters then conceptions, and resolutions) not running like an Obligation (as the Covenant Articles do) enforceth to a grant of this; but since we are put upon answering an Interrogatory instead of an Argument, this shall be said to their question.  
1 It is not necessary that whatever men have before their eyes in Covenanting (especially when the subject is Arbytrary) should be provided for, or included formally in their Covenant; put case a man be highly injured by some unworthy person, and having him under his power, promiseth to deal as favourably with him as may be, out of respect to his Family and Posterity, because if he falls they are like to fall too; now though the Promiser hath before his eyes, the happiness and welfare of his Posterity, in whose behalf he makes the promise, yet his Posterity is not formally and expressly concluded, interessed in, or provided for, by that his promise.  
2 Let us grant for this once, that provision is made by the Covenant for the honour and happiness of the King's posterity, it cannot hence follow (which is the point in question) that Monarchy comes within the compass of the Covenant, or that it makes provision for the everlastingness of Kingly Government, for the King's Posterity or Children may be both honourable and happy, and yet neither Kings nor Queens.  
3 But in case provision be made for King-ship by the Covenant, yet this provision cannot be deemed absolute, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Medit. on the Covenant.  but conditional, so the late King's person, and personal Authority were provided for, and yet both of them now laid in the dust; Salvo foedere Nationali, that clause in the preservation of Religion, etc. which the King said, was of a dangerous limitation as to his Person, must be acknowledged of as dangerous a limitation as to King-ship, the being whereof maybe supposed as much inconsistent with Religion, Liberty, etc. as the late Kings personal safety, so that still we are where we were.  
The Preface thus shrinking from the service it was called to, one help at maw they have yet left, and that is the Declaration of April, 1646, which without fail will make the Covenant open its mealy, mouth, and speak aloud for Monarchy; but as we insisted in our Plea, so we do still, that we are not bound by the Covenant to maintain any thing besides the letter, and obvious sense of it, it being unreasonable to fasten any Post-nate, or occasional Declarations upon men's Consciences in this case. Here these Ministers find out two contradictions (sure they are very full of contradictions 
‖ Ictericis quibusdam lutca videntur omnia, item vertiginosis omnia circumagi— cui amarer in lingua est, amara videnter omnia. Seal. Exercis. 265.  within, that they thus pluck the straitest lines without to make them lie cross) but these aerial crosses vanish like Antipherons' Image, which had a being merely in his fancy. First, say they, This seems to us not only to cross what the Commons in their Declaration (April 17. 1646.) assume to them at their peculiar, viz. That the Covenant in case of any doubt arising, is only to be expounded by them, by whose authority it was settled in this Kingdom.  
Ans. 1. What makes this to the weakening of our Position? We suppose that the sense of the Commons expounding the Covenant otherwise then the Letter will bear, may without presumption be deemed unreasonable, and their exposition, (especially if it be postnate) unreasonably imposed upon the Consciences of Covenantiers, will these Ministers judge themselves reasonably bound by any men's sense, when in Conscience they conclude it not the Covenant sense? we conceive not, because  
2 They will not admit the present sense of our Commons touching the Covenant, notwithstanding they are as authentic Interpreters of it as any we know, or as any they tell us of.  
Secondly, We contradict ourselves (pag. 18.) where for the sense of this very clause (say they) you will not leave men to their own judgement of the Letter, but refer it to the Parliament to unfold it. Deal ingeniously Sirs, did we so? we speak indeed there to this purpose, viz. That we account not ourselves but the House of Commons competent Judges, whether the King's Person and authority could have been preserved, and the main ends of the Covenant obtained, yea, or no? Is this to allow them a power, or latitude of binding men's consciences to what sense of the Covenant they please by a postnate Declaration? Here is an unpardonable sailing in this deduction, we speak nothing at all in that place touching the sense of the Covenant, our words are these: If the King's preservation was conditional, we must leave it to the determination of those who are chosen to judge, and conclude what is consistent with our Liberties, and what not, whether the things mainly Covenanted for, or the condition of the Covenant could have been obtained, and preserved, with the preservation of the King's Person, yea, or no? And now Sirs,  
Let the world know upon your second thoughts, whether in these words by our own confession, we can be concluded to judge it reasonable that the Parliament should fasten postnate, and occasional declarations upon men's consciences touching the sense of the Covenant? we conceive you will find yourselves heavenly wide and besides the book in raising the inference, that which follows therefore in these authors (instead of an answer to what we aver, touching the alterable nature of Declarations) is full as wide from the business they had to speak to, they say the sense of an Oath, or Covenant is unalterable, and we say the letter of the Covenant (no after-declaration) makes that sense out to us, here is no clashing betwixt these propositions: Therefore hastening towards a conclusion, we shall briefly vindicate, what we subjoined in our Plea, for the clearing our Averment touching the alterablenesse of that Declaration 1646. viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease, if the state of things and persons be so altered, as that in the judgement of wise men, those who promised or declared aught, cannot be thought to have willed the including such or such an event in the promise: Here, say they, is a little missing the mark.  
Answer, Not of the mark we aimed at, the frame of that objection, to which, in our Plea we undertook a reply, forcing us to speak both to the Parliaments interpretation of the Covenant in reference to Kingly power, and likewise to their Promise, that they would maintain the government of the Nation, by King, Lords, and Commons, as to the former of these, we affirm, that no postnate interpretation (that may be supposed to have more or less in it then the letter of a Covenant) can be reasonably imposed upon the conscience, neither do we see cause to judge that the Parliament by their above named Declaration intended to elucidate or interpret the letter of the Covenant. To the latter, we say, that although such and such things were declared for, yet declarations (as they here acknowledge) are alterable pro re nata and therefore are of no perpetual obligation.  
Let us hear what they say, to our reason or evidence brought to prove this, viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease, if the state of things and persons be, etc. after a distinction premised (to very little purpose) about 
* Touching their instance in the case of the Gibeonites, Jos. 9 see Ames Cas. consc. l. 4. cap. 22. Quest. 9  particular and general willing the inclusion of an event in any promise, they come to this conclusion Such events as may make the performing of the promise a sin in the Promiser, infringe the obligation, these in the judgements of wise men are deemed to be excluded to the Promiser, but the event brought in by us, as falling out in the Parliaments case, viz. The King's implacability and inexoriblenesse (as we grossly enough style it) they say, is not to be ranged amongst events of that nature, they might have performed their promise without sin, and it seems they did intent to include the King's persistency (thus they mollify our expression) not excepting against it, after several of those addresses made to him, divers of them before the Covenant, most of them before the Declaration, April 17. 1646. so that the greatest part of his persistency was precedent to the making some of those promises, etc.  
Ans. 1. If after all their experience had of the King's presistency in a ruining way, and all their hopes of bowing him to a compliance with their just desires, extinct, the House of Lords by their delays and Negatives in matters of highest moment making it appear too, that they drew the same way with him; if after these sad experiences the Parliament had sacrificed the peace and welfare of the Nation to the interests of King and Lords, we cannot but deem it had been a very sinful thing, a betraying their trust, a ruining the Nation, a giving us up to a seventimes worse slavery then at their first convention they found us in; and we can see nothing here alleged by these Divines, though we look longly for it, to persuade us of the contrary; they only say, it had not been matter of sin in the Commons to have made good that Declaration of which we are speaking, but for this we want evidence.  
2 The King's persistency in his way was that very event which put the Commons out of a capacity or possibility of serving the Public with his advancement, an event to be wondered at by all wise men; 
Declar. of. March 17. 1648.  and therefore in the judgements of wise men not includible in the promise: The Commons themselves tell us, that upon their making that Declaration they were confident the King would have conformed himself to the desires of his people in Parliament, and that the Peers who remained with the Parliament would have been a great cause of his so doing, and therefore certainly they intended not to include his presistency, or the House of Lords declining the public cause in their promise, 
Si aliquid incautius aliquem j●●●sse contigerit quod observatum inpejorem vergat exitum illud salubri consilio mutandum noverimus, etc. Soter. Epist. ad Episc. Ital. Charsum. Concil. Ann. 163 Concil. Toler. 8. Can. 2.  we conceive they were not bound at that instant expressly to except these events, they shown what their exception was, very reasonably when (after all their fruitless endeavours to win the King) they voted no more addresses to him; peradventure this vote is interpreted one of the Parliaments swervings from their principles which these Minister's mind us of, but we cannot so judge of it, that principle which respects the King's Person and Authority, having an express condition joined with it, ever since the Covenant was entr●d into, therefore, for aught we know, they might have voted no more addresses sooner than they did, that famous and safe limitation saving the Covenant harmless had they done so, and the emergency of an event (as if confessed) a warranting the change of Laws and Declarations, may justify the Commons in receding from what they had declared about governing the Nation by King, Lords, and Commons, yet these assailants have not done with us, but ere they leave us will get betwixt the joints of our harness by a pretty sleight blow, a pure subtlety, the King's inexorableness was not any change, say they, but a going on in the way he was when the promise was made, and therefore cannot be urged truly as a change of a person or thing, to release the Parliament of their promise in his behalf, truly this is subtle nihil, for we must tell them, that, as to our case, in the judgement of wise men, there is not any imaginable difference betwixt the failing of an event fully and confidently expected, and the failing out of an event utterly unexpected, the King's flexiblenesse was the event confidently presumed, and made the ground of what was declared concerning him by the Parliament, and his not changing to their mind, together with the House of Peers changing from their minds, (viz. their sense) may be tolerably called a change of Persons, (subverting the foundation of that promise) the one not doing what was expected, the other doing what was not expected; but the King was not so stiff as is pretended it seems, for he did not hold out after seven addresses; We suppose, say they, that Treaty at Newport was one of the seven, no Sirs, it was the eighth, 
Declar. March. 17. 1648, p. 12.  if they keep a true account who declare it so to the whole world; neither was he then inexorable, but contrarily yielded to more than had been desired of him, in former addresses to him: Did he so? well, but did he grant enough? peradventure those who treated with him had no mind to ask what they should have asked, so we are told, those Members proceeded to make such Propositions to the King at the Isle of Wight for a safe and well-grounded peace, 
Declare. Jan. 15. 1648.  as if they had been granted and kept (of which there was no probability) would have returned the people again to their former slavery, etc. yea, this Treaty was entertained upon such Propositions as the King himself also should make, which was formerly held to be so destructive to any well settled peace, as neither the Houses of Parliament, nor the Commissioners for the Kingdom of Scotland did think fitting to admit, when he was in his greatest height of power; whether now is here seen the King's bounty to the Treaters, or their prodigality to him; he never would yield to recall Ormonds' Commission (as we are informed) granted in the time of the Treaty, nor that Episcopacy should be abolished, only suspended: (Oh! royal bounty) nor last, that any one Delinquent should be capitally punished, one only (according to the Covenant no doubt) being offered unto him, namely poor David Jenkins; in the mean time, the worthy Treaters let him alone with his negative voice, and Book of Common Prayer, etc. brave daubing; so that the Scottish Consistories had cause to lift up their voices against acqiescing in the King's Concessions at Newport, as being destructive to Religion and Covenant: But, the House voted these Concessions a ground to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdom.  
Ans. We have heard of such a Vote indeed, but 'twas to us a mysterious cabal, we could never get acquainted with the reason of it, no more then with their reasons for recalling those Votes of non-addresses to the King, made upon such and so many reasons of great weight, unto the least of which there was never any answer given; designing Statists use not it seems to play above board, but the reasons of adnulling that Vote (for proceeding upon the King's Concessions) are visible, Parliament Votes and Parliament reasons do well together, unless we should deny the goodness of our Cause (saith the Parliament) which God hath adjudged on our side, 
Declar. Jan. 15 1648.  by the gracious blessings of so many signal Victories, unless we should betray our friends, who have engaged with us upon our Votes of Non-addresses to the hazard of their lives and fortunes, unless we should value this one man, the King, above so many Millions of people whom we represent; and unless we should scorn and contemn any peace which the great God of Heaven and Earth, (our assured help in our greatest distresses) hath given us, and that we must rely only upon such a peace, which the King (a Mortal man, and our implacable enemy) shall allow us, unless we should give up ourselves to the slaughter, and suffer our own Members to undermine the Parliament and Kingdom's Cause, unless we should stake all to the Kings nothing, and Treat with him who hath not any thing to give us, etc. And lastly, unless we should value the blood of so many Innocents', and the Army of so many Martyrs, who have died in this Cause, less than the blood of a few guilty persons by what name or title soever styled, we could do no less then repeal those Votes before specified, as being highly repugnant to the glory of God, greatly dishonourable to the proceed of Parliament, and apparently destructive to the good of this Kingdom.  
And here we should cut off our Web, but that for a close we must needs remember what in a margicall note they tell us we forgot, viz. That Scripture, Job 34.18. and that Moral rule, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, and why? because we call the King's persistency by no softer a name then inexoriblenesse, and implacability; plain dealing is a jewel Sirs, the vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the Churl said to be bountiful, Isa. 32.5.  
1 Therefore we did not forget that text in Job, but these gentle Doctors forgot to take in the 17 vers. with the 18. we read them both together, and then they expound one another, and chide the Classis for putting them asunder; 
Job 34.17, 18.  Shall even he that hateth right, govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a King, thou art wicked, and to Princes, ye are ungodly? If Princes be just, God forbidden they should be evil spoken of, It is not fit to strike Rulers for equity; but what if they hate right, must no Prophet come within the Prince's Chapel? must not Kings know their Names? 
Am. 7.13.  Thou profane wicked Prince of Israel, saith Ezekiel. Thou and thy Father's house hath troubled Israel, saith Elijah; 
Ezek. 21.25. 1 King. 18.18. 2 Chron, 16.9 1 Sam. 15. Luk. ●3. 32.  Herein thou hast done foolishly, saith the Seer unto Asa; this is plain dealing. Did Samuel spare Saul when he rebelled against the Lord? Did our blessed Master the Lord Jesus spare Herod? In a word, did the general Assembly of the Kirke of Scotland spare King Charles, or might they charge him as a Sabbath-breaker, an Idolater, a Murderer? and is it a Piaculum, or any blasphemy for us poor Mortals to call him an inexorable man? the Heathen Lawyer Papinian boldly reproved the Emperor Caracalla for his Parricide, and are Kings yet more sacred? We are persuaded that sometime within the memory of Man, divers Ministers of Lancashire and Cheshire, (though they opened not their mouths as Papinian did against Caracalla) yet have spoken as grossly of King Charles as ever the Northern Subscribers did, Non enim Sacerdotale est, quod Sentias non dicere, Ambros.  
2 Neither did we forget that saying, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, to speak the truth of the dead is to speak what is 
‖ Bonum et verum convertuntur.  good, and if we have spoken otherwise, let the World bear witness of the evil; that rule requires Charity, but not in dispendium veritatis. The names of the wicked shall rot, saith the surer Word; so did the names of Ahab, Omri, and Jeroboam, though Kings; and how unsavoury doth the Spirit of God make the memory of Ahaz by that brand upon his bones? that inscription upon his Grave, 2 Chron. 28.22. This is that King Ahaz? these Ministers we presume are no strangers to Nazianzens invectives, where the deceased 
* 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c Orat. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. Paulo post. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 19   Julian is drawn to the life; to flatter the dead is to wrong the living, and to strengthen the hands of wicked men in evil ways (the great discommode of funeral Panegyrics) were it not better that a Spade were called a Spade, then to say, King Charles of blessed memory, unless there was cause for it? truly, this Prince's Fate is observable, for many who made no more of him (either in Press or Pulpit) when he was alive, than one would do of a dead Dog, 
a Panaeb. Regis defuncti corpus terrâ condunt, caput abscindunt inaurant, in sacris collocan●, Causs: Hierogl. l. 5 c 58.  now can hardly bear a word spoken against him, 
See Prov. 24.24 Suet. in Otho.— Quiescat Obba parum, Mantu.  but upon all occasions rise up as his compurgators, but there is no new thing. Thus Suetonius tells us it was with Otho; Magna pars hominum incolumem gravissime detestata mortuum laudibus tulit; but we shall provoke these Royalists indignation no further. Here let our Pitchar stand, farewell.  
Now the Lord of peace himself give us peace always, by all means, 2 Thes. 3.16.  
FINIS.