ΚΑΤΑΔΥΝΑΣΤΗΣ: MIGHT OVERCOMING RIGHT, OR A CLEAR ANSWER to M. JOHN GOODWIN's MIGHT and RIGHT well met.  
Wherein is cleared, That the Action of the Army in secluding many Parliament men from the place of their discharge of Trust, and the imprisoning of some of them, Is neither defensible by the rules of solid Reason, nor Religion.  
By John Geree M. A. and Pastor of Faith's under Paul's in LONDON.  Help Lord, for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. Psal. 12.1. Ferenda est magis omnis necessitas, quàm perpetranda est aliqua iniquitas, August. in Psal. 73. Non enim mihi est vita mea utilior, quàm animi mei talis affectio, neminem ut violem commodi mei gratiâ, Cicero. lib. 3. Offic. 
Published by Authority.  
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock at the King's Head in Paul's Churchyard. 1649.   

TO THE Right Honourable LADIES, THE LADY VERE, AND THE LADY FAIRFAX Her DAUGHTER: grace. and PEACE.  
Right Honourable, and Religious LADIES:  
IT is not any acquaintance with your Honours, that emboldens me to this dedication, for I am a stranger to you; nor yet your deserved fame for your eminency, and sincerity, in Religion, though that be so illustrious that it might engage Godly Minister to be ambitious of your Patronage, But that assurance that I have, that both your Ladyships are affectionately serious against those irregular ways that I implead, and the service you may do to God by your interest, in the furthering the acceptance of my poor labours to be effectual, where they may be of most use: for the Medicine I administer is somewhat unpleasing, and harsh, and therefore needs the hands of Ladies for the application. And what Ladies can do it with more acceptance than your Ladyships; one of which cannot but be greatly respected, because the other, that first lay in her womb, now lies in the bosom, of the chieftain General of those, whose actings, this Treatise doth concern. Madam (for now I apply my speech to your Ladyship who hath been an ancient mother in our Israel) After the way that hath been called Puritanisme have I served the God of my fathers for somewhat above 33 years. And yet I believe by the same, that I have heard of your Ladyship, your Ladyship was spiritually in Christ long before me. And I may say as S. Paul (with a little alteration) that after the strictest way of that Religion I lived, and tasted deep for many years together, of such afflictions as either Chancelours Courts, or high Commisssion, were used to impose on men of my principles, and yet the days I see, and am like to see (unless the God of heaven graciously interpose) are far more doleful than any yet that I have seen, For there is a mourning that is blessed, for it shall end in comfort, and such was that which then I met with, when my heart was smitten and withered like grass, and by reason of the voice of my groaning, my bowels did cleave to my skin, and I was pale with fasting, while mine enemies reproached me all the day; and there is a laughter, and triumphing, which hath a woe denounced upon it, because it shall end in mourning and weeping. Luk. 6.21.25. And such is the joy and triumph in these days in success in irregular ways. O Madam had such ways as are now in agitation been proposed to your dearly respected friend old 
* See Bifield on 1 Pet. 2.13. where among other there is this passage. The Jesuits who maintain that horrid doctrine of deposing and murrthering Princes, are rather to be confuted with strokes, than arguments, as men that offend not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nations, and nature.  Mr. Bifield, with what an eye would he have looked upon them? Or let us suppose when our ancient worthies such as Cartwright, Traverse, Dod, Bradshaw etc. being calumniated by the Prelates for disrespect to authority, for not conforming to unlawful ceremonies, have replied that they did ascribe as much honour, and teach as much subjection to Magistrates as any in things lawful and in things unlawful, they shown their respect by patiented submission to suffering: Or when our Godly polemical divine, such as Jewel, Reynolds, Whitaker, etc. have rejected that false pretence of the Papist, that the Primitive Christians were so subject to the heathen Emperors, quia deerant vires temporales, because they wanted temporal strength; suppose I say, some one of the worst of Prelates or Jesuits, should have bespoke them, O ye hypocrites, or false hearted men, how do you dissemble with us, or let your hearts deceive you! for if over you be Masters of power, ye will trample under your feet all above you, that will not comply with you, yea you will imprison, attaint, murder your King; would our worthies have returned with less indignation, and acrimony then S. Paul to Elymas? O full of all subtlety, and mischief, O Children of the Devil, you enemies of righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the ways of the Lord? Act. 13.10. And yet behold a generation risen up, who for the most part, have not known the brick-kilnes of Egypt that if they had so accused our worthies, would by their actions have made them true Prophets. Oh Madam, let us sit down and weep over our Religion, which these men have ravished and done her shame, and we whether shall we cause her shame to go? How shall we now look Papists in the face? whom we have so reviled, and abhorred for their derogatory doctrine, and damnable practices against Kings, or any in supreme authority? What shall we do with the Writings of our Worthies, shall we give over reading, as the manner of some is? or learn another trick of the Papists, and get an Index Expurgatorius to blot out of their Writings such passages as cry guilt and shame on our actions? But affection hath almost made me forget the bounds of an Epistle. Therefore honourable Ladies, go on with assiduity, constancy, and increasing servor to withdraw him (whom you so dearly respect) from society in actions so contrary to the honour of God and our Religion. Oh study, that it may never be said, That any person of Honour, and of the Protestant Religion, had any hand in so unworthy an action, as the deposing and destroying of a King, whose preservation they stand bound to endeavour by so many sacred Bonds. So shall your Ladyships do an office pleasing to God, Honourable to your relations, an ornament to your Religion, and unspeakably useful for your Native Country. And if as a poor means thereof, you shall present one of these poor Treatises to his Excellency, written on purpose to dispel those mists that a deceived Brother hath endeavoured to cast before his eyes; your Ladyships shall deeply engage to be your Ladyships daily Orator at the throne of Grace  
From my Study in Ivy-lane, Jan. 15. 1648. Madams, Your Ladyship's humble Servant in the LORD JESUS, JOHN GEREE.   

ΚΑΤΑΔΥΝΑΣΤΗΣ. Might overcoming Right.  

The PREFACE.  
THe foulest actions always borrow fair pretences. If the Devil did not transform himself into an Angel of light, who would be seduced by him? Hence those that would overthrow all, or usurp authority themselves, have always pretended (though seldom or never promoted) public weal or liberty: and dubbed those Magistrates Tyrants, whom they meant to oppress, to still their own consciences, (if they be not arrived at past feeling) and to blear the eyes of those, who bear an awful respect to that ordinance of God, Authority. And never were there any pretenders so far out of reason, but they had some Lawyers to justify their proceed in foro humane, and some Divines to plead their warrant from holy writ. For amongst multitudes either through want of wit or honesty, there have always been found abettors to a prevailing faction. Of all the exorbitances that ever were committed against men in authority, I know to parallel (all circumstances considered) to that late one of the Army towards the Members of the House of Commons, violently secluded, or forcibly restrained by the entrusted power of a few, from discharging their trust committed to them, by several whole Shires and Burrougheses. And yet behold a Divine of note with much confidence pleading their cause, to be so equitable, as though it were not to be stumbled at by any not profoundly ignorant, either of the evil of oppression, or the unquestionable means of shaking it off. But confidence in a dubious case doth argue either great shallowness, or deep prejudice arising either from doting affection, or unworthy interest: What hath dazzled the eyes of this Champion of the Army? I know not; But in reading I have observed it him, what I have often in other controversies in others; That men of strong reason in maintaining errors, have showed themselves so irrational, that a man would wonder, that they that are so acute, where they preach, or defend truth, should discover such weakness in the patronage of error. But he that gives the gift may well blast it, when he sees it turned against himself. Now that we may not accuse only (as he hath done the Parliament Members) but make good the error objected, let us take into consideration what he hath said to the controversy in hand.   

CHAP. I.  

ANd here first of all the question must be rightly stated, or else there can be no accurate reasoning, but we shall ever and anon fall into the fallacy ex ignoratione E'lugchi. Now the case I conceive may be thus impartially stated: This Kingdom having been long imbroyied in an unnatural consuming war, through a misunderstanding between the King & Parliament: The King at last fell into the Parliaments power, all his strength being broken by them. While the King is in this condition (after many other overtures useless, and experience of the discontent of the Nation, both for want of settlement; and the sad condition of their King) There is set on foot a personal Treaty with the King: In which the Parliament demand of him concession, and confirmation of such privileges, as from the beginning they thought conducible to render this people free, and happy, and were the sum of all that had been formerly demanded in any of their other treaties or proposals, or had been held forth in their Declarations, as the scope of their undertake. To this Treaty the far Major part of the House of Commons agreed & that willingly, yea so far were they from being forced to it, (as it pretended) by petitions, that neither the impetuousness of petitions from people, nor fear of soldier's pistols, could make them relinquish it, for they were satisfied in their consciences, that it was the fairest, justest, & most probable way to promote and settle the peace, & weal of a distressed Kingdom; so this Treaty is prosecuted till its very near an happy conclusion. The Army (raised by, and deriving their military power from the Houses) dislike this Treaty, suppose it would endanger them, & a godly party in the land (so they style their adherents.) This their judgement they remostrate to the house of Commons. The house not convinced by their reasons, nor dismayed at their power, laid aside their Remonstrance, hold on the Treaty, vote the King's concessions to contain matter for a well grounded peace; hereupon the Army beset the passages to the House of Commons, take above forty of the Members of Parliament into safe custody, and violently keep or fright a major part out of the House, debarring them liberty of sitting, and voting there. This action of the Army Mr. John Goodwin undertakes to defend under the title of garbling the Parliament. And I yet believe, 
pag. 2.  that it was a most irregular and scandalous usurpation, destructive to Parliaments, and so to the wellbeing of this Kingdom, if not to the present ruin of it, unless it be retracted by the actors. And this I here undertake to make good against Mr. John Goodwin, by making good those arguments, which he would overthrow, and enlarging them as occasion is offered.   

Sect. 2.  
The first argument which he incleavours to answer, is; 
pag. 3.  From the Armies acting without sufficient authority, and so transgressing that law which commands every man to keep order and within the compass of his calling. And this he styles the first born of our strength. And you shall see that it is indeed like Moses, a goodly child, if you view him in his right and full proportion, in mood and figure thus.  
All exercise of jurisdiction, where neither by God or man we are clothed with authority, is usurpation, breach of order, injurious, and so greatly sinful.  
The Army in inhibiting the Members entrance into their House of Council, and more grossly in imprisoning their persons, did exercise jurisdiction, where they were clothed with no authority from God or man. Therefore  
The Army in that force upon the Houses stand guilty of usurpation, breach of order, and injury to the Members so used, and so sinned greatly.  
The Major is undeniable; if men will grant there are such things as usurpation, disorderly walking and injury, or that those are sinful where ever they be. For what is usurpation if this be not for men to exercise jurisdiction over them who are not under their authority, nay to whose authority they are subject? What is breach of rank and order if this be not, for men that are under authority to usurp authority without a call? And what is injury if this be not, to be haled to prison, by those that are neither authoritative judges of my fact, nor have any superiority over my person, and that only for acting according to the dictates of my conscience? And are not such abuses grossly sinful, that do as it were make void the fifth Commandment, and destroy Government?  
And for the Minor, first its clear that the Army did exercise jurisdiction over the Members: for suspension from office, and commitment are high acts of jurisdiction. And if the Army were clothed with any authority for this, let them produce their patents that we may believe them, or else the conclusion is in force against them, to convict them of usurpation, breach of order and injury.   

Sect. 3.  
But now what saith Mr. Goodwin to this? 
pag. 3.  As our Saviour saith. The Sabath was not made for man but man for the Sabath. So certain it is, that callings were made for man, and not man for callings. Therefore as the law of the Sabath, was to give way to the necessities of men: so the law of callings etc. therefore unless it can be proved, that there was no necessity lying on the Army to garble the Parliament; Their exceeding their callings, will not illegitimate their actions.  
Answ. 1. That saying of our Saviour, that the Sabath was not made for man etc. was not uttered by him to show that the action of the Desciples in plucking, and eating the ears of corn, was warranted by necessity against the command of the Sabath, but that it was not within the prohibition of works on the Sabath, which ordinarily is restrained to works of a civil or servile nature, not to natural refreshment, which is always indulged on the Sabath and so that work of mercy is not under the prohibition, for the plucking of the ears of corn, when they were n the field was no more than drawing drink out of a vessel and of this opinion is learned Chemnitius. Hoc Christus ita defendit, ut simul ostendat extra casum contempus publici ministerii, et turbationis cultus sabati propter otium externum Sabati, hominem ne levi quidem incommodo assiciendum. By this Christ doth so defend his Desciples, as withal he shows that out of the case of contempt of the public ministry, and disturbance of the worships of the Sabath, for the external rest of the Sabath, a man is not to undergo the least damage. So that in his judgement, though the other arguments show, what is lawful in case of necessity, so à Majori clears the disciples, yet this argument shows this was not in the prohibition of works on the Sabath.  
2. The rest of the Sabath, and keeping within our callings, are duties we own to God by virtue of commands of a far different condition: The one by a command positive, as that of the Sabath, the other by a law natural, as the fifth commandment, that commands every one to observe their ranks, and duties in them. Now commandments that are positive, are to give way to duties natural. Sacrifice, to mercy: The rest of the Sabath, not to the life only, but to the cheerfulness and wellbeing of man; as the instance of the disciples, who were not in danger of death if they had fasted a little longer, but of inconvenience. But I hope Mr. Goodwin will not judge, that danger of inconveniency, should make every man, or party of power, turn controulers of magistracy. Not only Vzziah, that wantonly 2 Chron. 26. but Saul who out of fear of inconveniency, 1 Sam. 13.11, 12, 13, 14: yea and Vzzah, who as he thought was a case of necessity, put his hand without the call to the work of a Priest, aswell, as the former reproved, and smitten, 1 Chron. 13.9.20.  
And if there be any case wherein necessity amounts to a calling, it must be where that necessity engageth to a duty, that aught to take place before this Commandment for order amongst men, as that for saving life etc. And then the danger must be apparent, not probable only to some and disputable; for else he shall run against an undoubted rule, upon an uncertain exception. 2. It must be imminent, so that no other means is left, or possible in an ordinary way. 3. And illegal, as when any, whether Magistrate or other, is about to act mischief to the persons of others without or against law. But if a man's life be in danger in a legal way, though unjustly, A man may not himself, nor ought others to resist authority armed with law, for that were to take away all honour and opportunity of Martyrdom. The servant who hath a froward unjust Master, is according to Christ's example to be patiented, though he suffer unjustly committing his cause to him that judgeth righteously, 
(a) 1 Pet. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 2.  though many times the servant hath strength enough to bind his exorbitant Master. And such should be the carriage of private Christians to hard magistrates executing hard laws. But now that there was no danger, evident, imminent, and against the laws of the Nation to urge the Army so to force the Parliament, shallbe afterwards cleared.   

Sect. 4.  
But secondly Mr. Goodwin hath found out a new fancy, if the former fail him; but that is such a feeble one, that I question whether he be serious in it; for he takes the boldness to affirm that the Army did not exceed the bounds of their calling, in their force upon the Parliament men, and he would seem to prove it; 
pag. 3.  for saith he, their calling and commission was to act in the capacity of soldiers, for the peace, liberty, and safety of the Kingdom etc. But here first I must mind him that the Army themselves have manned his market: for they who know better the purport of their own commission than he, and whom he flatteringly tells in his Epistle dedicatory, that he doubts not but they were satisfied in the righteousness of their actions from heaven, before they were in being, roundly confess, (in their answer to the demands of the remnant of the House touching their Members Jan. 3. 1648.) That their restraining the Members was a course in itself Irregular, and UNIUSTIFIABLE, but by honest intentions, and extraordinany necessity, whereby they plainly disclaim any call by the tenor of their Commission. But least any in such times as these, when men many times are imprisoned first, and show of just occasion is gladly laid hold on afterwards, This false plea might be made use of, though it were not at first thought of, I will examine what he saith; he enlargeth himself: nor did their Commission (I presume) limit or conclude their judgements to any kind of enemies etc. But I presume their Commission was to bear arms, to remove evil Councillors from the King, and bring him back to his Parliament, and to endeavour the subduing of all them that were in arms against the Parliament, or the welfare of the Kingdom, and (as I am informed) they were still to be regulated in their proceed, by the Judgement of both Houses of Parliament; which any man may easily believe; for that the Parliament should give them a Commission enabling them to judge of their Counsels, and imprison their persons, if they answered not their new illuminated fancies (for they must be judges what grounds are competent to make men enemies) is so far from policy, reason, or common sense, that I wonder any man of judgement should aver it in print.  
But saith he again, 
Page 4.  If it shall be supposed, that by their Commission they were limited, to judge only those enemies who were in Arms with the King, and his partakers: Those Parliament-men whom they have excluded have notoriously discovered themselves to be men of this engagement, &. But was ever any accusation more unjust or senseless? Did not they in the Treaty hold the King so hard to it, as to justify them and the Army in the war, to the virtual condemning of himself and his? And to grant all, for which they engaged against him and his party? And can they for this be traduced, as apparently friends and abettors of that party. But he comes on with a third answer, 
Page 4, 5.  That if the Parliaments call were warrantable to levy Forces against the King and his party; then was the Armies call to act in the business under Debat●, warrantable likewise. But this consequence is very weak, for the Parliament is the supreme Court, and Council in the Kingdom (and in your apprehension, I believe, the supreme authority) who were indeed called to that Trust by the people▪ but being by their call made members of Parliament, they became clothed with authority, to consult, and provide m●ans for the safety of themselves and the Nation, according to the Laws and Constitutions of it. And so issued out Commissions, etc. but this as private men they could not do. But now the Army was not by any Commission clothed with any authority over the Parliament. And therefore they cannot justify their actings against the Parliament, over whom they had no authority, by what the Parliament did, having so great authority; yea in the conceit of our new Lords, the greatest authority in the Land. But he argues further, 
Page 5, 6.  That if the Parliament-men by being made Parliament-men, had formally and really power to raise an Army, than that Army hath power to act whatsoever lies within the verge of their Commission, etc. This is not doubted: But the thing which we doubt and deny is, That the tenor of their Commission should be by strong hand to suppress all that by rational grounds, they should judge enemies of the peace of the Kingdom, without dependence on Parliamentary judgement: for they were as raised, so to be regulated by the Parliament in their proceed. The power of judging being reserved in the Parliament; The power of executing committed to the Army, especially in case of doubt or difference. Never would, never did, any State raise an Army on other terms, unless they meant to make them Lords, not Servants. For who is likely to be more skilful in judging what is conducible to peace and public weal? A Council of War, or a Council of State? Therefore its clear that the Army in assuming power to judge their raisers authoritatively, and so using force against them; have exceeded the bounds of their Commission, falsifyed trust, and are injurious usurpers on the Parliament men.   

Sect. 5.  
But he raiseth an Objection, That it is not likely that the Parliament would give Commission to act against themselves. He answers: 
pag. 6.  1 That Lawgivers when in their righe minds, may give out Laws against mad men, which may be put in execution against themselves when they become mad. And in case any of the Parliament men from whom the Commission issued had turned Cavaliers, etc. But this is a wild answer: for the excluded Parliament-men are in the same way, and in the same principles, in which they first gave out Commissions, that is, to have the King home, separated from his evil Counsellors, that his Throne might be established in righteousness. Therefore to argue, That because their Commission might have been used against them if they had left the Body that gave it, and united with the King's party, that Now it may be so used when they continue in Parliament; and act on the same principles, on which they issued out the Commissions, is as poor a come off, as could be expected from the weakest Sophister.  
Nor hath his 2 Answer any more strength where he affirms, That what one 
* Traiane  Emperor spoke expressly to an inferior Officer, is said implicitly to all inferior Officers, by their superiors; to use the power they have for them, if they rule well; against them, if they rule ill: 
pag. 6.7.  for they are also for the punishment of evil-doers, and that without partiality. And S. Peter requires submission not only to the King as supreme, but unto governors, sent by him for the punishment of evil doers. But first, if there were nothing peculiar in that saying of Trajane, why is it so often mentioned of him, as a note of eminency and honour? Again, though inferior officers should use their power and be respected in the use of it, yet they must also remember their limits. A Justice of Peace hath power, but it is with limits in regard of place, which if he exceed, though his act be never so just, he usurps, and is punishable. And so is he limited also in regard of persons. Subordinate Magistrates are to govern, & to be obeyed by those under them; but they are to be governed by the powers above them, and not exercise authority over them, for their Commission extends not so far; Though we are to be subject to subordinate Magistrates, yet in case of opinion of wrong, we may appeal from them, as Paul to Caesar; which shows the supreme Magistrate is to censure their Sentences, not they his.  
You might have spared that Scripture which here you too lightly bring in, that in this Army's Commission there cannot be pretence for that exception which is in that of Christ. 1 Cor. 15.27. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is exempted that did put all things under him, God the Father being incapable of sin. For though the superior magistrate is not exempt from sin, yet is he excepted out of the Commission of the inferior Magistrate, because his superior in Magistracy; and Par in Parem, much less inferior in superiorem (in codem genere) non habet potestatem, equal hath no authority over his equal, much less the inferior over the superior in the same kind, especially where the supreme Magistrate thinks he doth well; for whose judgement shall control? shall the inferiors control the superior? Neither doth Mr. Prinne or any judicious Divine that I know, affirm that any other inferior Magistrates but the representatives of a Kingdom, shall take order with the restraining of Tyrants: or if any inferior Magistrate may do it, yet they and the representatives are to proceed, by taking order with their ministers which are under the penalties of the law, and within the verge of authority. And there is no usurpation in this, when penalties are inflicted on them that are under jurisdiction. But he adds If the Army had not so for maul a call, as the Parliament, yet had they a call as material, for the one had it from the persons of the people, and the other from the people's liberties, yea and lives, many of their lives being now laid upon the altar etc. what a loud untruth is here in matter of fact? whose lives were on the altar? Or what better security could the Parliament devise. Then first to be justified by Act of Parliament, and secondly to be secured from violence by the command of the militia? Again what palpable weakness is here in matter of argument, to compare the calls of men to their votes, with real calls of their miseries, and these too most in their own fancies for the major part of people apprehend no such thing, and so their groans call not: who knows not, that personal call by votes clothes with authority, gives jurisdiction, and enables to order others? But sight of miseries, gives a man no authority to command, only calls him to put forth that power he hath to help,  
Lastly he affirms incase of extreme necessity, 
Aquinas, q. 32. Art. 7.  all things are common, and so callings; for this he citys a Popish writer, a fit patron for a false position; for if this be true, here is no theft in extreme need when a man must die, to feed on another man's store, it is no theft. But this is against the Scriptures, making a difference indeed between him that steals presumtuously, and him that steals for need, the one deserving pity, but is a thief still, and must restore, though it be to all his substance Prov. 6, 30, 31. 
‖ So Augustine in Psalm. 73. Pauper mendicus furtum facit ex macie processit iniquitas.  And Cicero is of the same judgement, that a good man must famish rather than steal, lib. 3. Off. 
* Nun igitur sapiens si fame ipse conficiatur abstulerit cibum alteri ad nullam rem utili? Minimè vero; non enim mihi est vita mea utilior, quam animi mei talis affectus, neminem ut violem commodi mei gratia.  wherein he speaketh to the shame of Papists and all that symbolise with them. To the example of David I have answered already, for what he citys out of Polanus; That when eclesiastics are negligent, Laickes may reform, It's just nothing to his purpose; for who knows not that Polanus and other Protestant Divines, hold the reformation of the eclesiastical estate to be within the verge of a magistrates call? But will Polanus or Mr. Goodwin say, that a magistrate in case of defect without any other call, may administer the Sacraments? could necessity excuse Vzzah? Therefore this pretended community in case of necessity, is a Popish device, and a figleaf too narrow.  
He closeth his answer with a similitude of his own, which he amplifies out of Master Prin, 
Pag. 9.10.  [Where he supposeth the Pilot of a Ship drunk, or mad, and the Ship running on quicksands, etc. In such a case may not any man or inen Act as a Pilate, which others stand bound at the peril of their lives in this case to obey.] But first, similitudes are better for illustrations, than proofs, Secondly, They prove nothing at all, unless there be parity between the example, and the thing exemplified. Whereas here is the greatest disparity. For if this similitude clear the Army, it must suppose the Parliament-men drunk, or mad, whereas indeed they that accuse them, labour of somewhat proportionable to these diseases. But let the case be put thus: The Master of the Ship is, according to his place ablest to guide the Ship, and he according to his best skill, directs such a course, and accordingly giveth out commands. The Master Gunner, presumes he can steer a safer course, and thereupon, by the help of his under-officers, awes, and forcibly seizeth the Pilot, and so takes his own way. Is not the Gunner here guistle of usurpation and disobedience? Just so stands the case between the Parliament and the Army. The Parliament are best able to judge, for they are the Council of State, and have most right to guide the Ship of the commonwealth, for they have the Superior Authority. But the Soldiers command the Guns, and they propose another way, which though looked upon, as most dangerous by the skilful Pilots; yet by force, all are secluded, that will not run their way. Is not this usurpation in the Soldier, and dangerous, not safe to public weal? In case of difference in judgements, whose sentence shall control? Shall the son's judgement control the fathers? or the servants his Masters? no more ought inferiors Magistrate control the Superiors. The Army therefore should obey, not pr●scribe to the Parliament in things dubious, especially such as are of Civil, not Martial cognizance. But because the exception that Master Goodwin all along supposeth is, That the Parliament Members restrained, are drunk or mad civilly, or have turned back on trust, and there is much depends on this. I will here, once for all, lay down grounds to clear it; That the Parliament-men restrained, are in reference to the Soldiery, sober, in their right wits, and true to trust, and that the contrary errors rest among their oppressors. As first I argue thus:   

Sect. 6.  
Those that keep to their Principles, Professions and Declarations made, when they are confessed to be sober, in their right wits, and true to trust, must needs be judged to be so still. The Parliament men who endeavour the settling of the King and Kingdom, upon his large Concessions, keep to their principle Declarations and Professions. Ergo, They are to be judged sober, in their wits, and faithful to trust. The Major is manifest, for constancy in Principles and ways, is the greatest evidence of sobriety and faithfulness. A double-minded man, a drunken man, a frantic man, is unstable in all his ways. The Minor is undeniable, which may be seen by every one in the Record of their Principles, Declarations and Professions, in the Book called, The exact collections, printed long since by the Parliaments appointment, and in other Summaries of them. And if the Members be soher, in their wits, and true to trust; their opposites are under the evils, contrary to these virtues; For Contrarioram contraria sunt praedicata.  
Secondly, Those that proceed in a way to which they stand engaged, by divers solemn and religious bonds, they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust. The oppressed Members proceeded in a way to which they stood engaged by many solemn and religious Bonds, therefore they are sober, etc. The Major is not to be doubted of, unless we be like Felix, and think much Religion or Learning makes mad.  
The Minor is as evident, for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, Protestation, the Nationall Covenant, are all sacred and solemn Bonds, and all engage to preserve the King's Honour, Safety, and Greatness, at least upon such Concessions as these granted by him. Therefore the conclusion is undeniable, and the blame must rest on their Oppressors, but the oppressed Members are free.  
Thirdly, They that walk in a way suitable to the Religion that they profess, and after the pattern of the wisest and best professors of 〈◊〉, they are sober, etc. The Parliament in according with the King upon his Concessions walk suitable to the Religion they profess and follow the pattern of the wisest and best professors of it, therefore they are sober, etc. The Mayor is evident, and the Minor is clear, if there be any difference, it is from the Parliaments holding up the King too high, and not in stooping too low. For no Religion is more for not only accepting, but exalting Governors in legal ways, than the religion of Protestants in matter of Loyalty, even in case of difference of Religion, always condemning the Jesuitical Doctrine of deposing, or destroying Princes; And for the practice of the best Protestants you shall hear, junius Brutus in his Vindiciae contra Tyranos, a Book that is Scandalous even to many Protestants, for the great liberty he gives against Princes; yet in this case, thus he speaks, p. 47. Cum his quoties cunque optaris praesto est pax desine caedere cedunt, Desine deum, oppugnare, desinent propugnare. Arma si velis iis è manibus encutere, satis est modo ne percutias. A Prince saith he may have pe ace with protestant Subjects when he will let him leave beating them, they yield to him; let him leave opposing God, they will leave their forcible defence; If you would disarne them, it's enough that you strike them not: and a little after Principi portas urbis claudunt, ubi res●p●erit, & ad se redierit, impertata facere parati. They shut the gat●s of the City against the Prince; assoon as he shall repent, and come to himself, they are ready to do his Commands. A little after, no strovero etiam tempore menivimus eos, qui pro vera religione, adversus impietatem in Germania, Galliaque pugnarant, quotiescunque dei pure colendi potestas facta est, arma ultro deposuisse. Also we remember that those in our time have fought for true Religion against impiety, either in Germany or France, as often as they had liberty given to serve God purely, lay down Arms. And his conclusion is very remarkable, Ejusmodi ergo signis possient high a defectoribus facile distingui. Therefore by such like signs, those (that maintain legal liberties against Tyranny by the Sword) may be easily distinguished from Rebels or apostate Subjects. And thus it is cleared, that the Parliament, in endeavouring peace upon the King's Concessions, do walk after the rules and patterns of Protestants and their Religion; Therefore the conclusion stands good, that they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust, but than what to think of their oppressors is obvious enough.  
Fourthly and lastly, (that I may not exceed in ma●ters so clear; Th●se whose work and trust is, to provide for the honour, safety, peace, and prosperity of a Nation, who proceed in the most probable way, to promote the honour, safety, peace and prosperity of that Nation; they are sober, in their wits, and true to trust. But such was the work, and trust of restrained Members, and they took the most probable way to promote it; Therefore, they are sober, in their right wits, and true to trust. The Mayor is manifest; The Minor may be clear thus, Monarchical Government, is the most honourable Government, when it is regulated, that it degenerate not into tyranny, and its an honour to people to be loyal to Governors in good ways. Loyalty is praiseworthy, Treachery vile, and base; Therefore when by the King's concessions. Tyranny is prevented the liberties of the people secured: to preserve the Monarch, in safety and honour; and the people in loyalty is undoubtly, the glory of a Nation. And this would be as conducible to peace and safety, for this would have put a present period to our broils, and set the Parliament in a capacity to preserve peace, by their command of the forces by Sea and Land, and hereby we should have recovered reverence from friends, and become terrible to enemies, and what could in reason be the result of all this, but great prosperity? and this was the Judgement of the Army, but a little above a year ago, and this discovered by sundry Declarations and proposals, enforced with solid reasons, and this they pursued a good while, till self interest, ambition, or I know not what tentation turned their brains, and though they have laid out all their skill in their Remonstrance, to show that the King by peace on his Concessions, would have both opportunity and will, quickly to make himself absolute, and so fall upon revenge, yet there are fairer probabilities on the other side, that he would not, if he could or could not, if he would let out his spirit in such a destructive way of revenge; And that he would not, if he could may appear. Because he hath given so ample testimony of deep wisdom, whereby he is able fully to foresee the desperate danger of attempting any such change, or revenge. Secondly, Experience will make him wary; The burnt child dreads the fire, he hath sufficiently felt the misery, acrewing to Princes, by the alienation of Subjects. And thirdly, Which is most moving with me, his invincible patience, and tranquillity of Spirit in his sufferings. Noble natures that can bear adversity without fainting; can enjoy prosperity without revenging; revenging most haunts base, and cowardly natures; But if he would he could not break out, because by these concessions his hands are tied; and by this recommodation, the Parlioment would be reinvested in the people's affections, and any attempt of breach on the King's part, would carry so much ill in the face of it, that the whole Nation would be ready to rise up, and pluck in pieces, whosoever should be supposed to be either Counsellors or Actors in such a breach of faith; And the Militia being in the Parliaments hands, such incendiaries might bs easily crushed. I might add the King's carriage in his concessions, where his own honour, or external rights was concerned most facile; but where his conscience was interested tenacious to the greatest adventure, what found reason can be given, why the King should be so resolute in the matters of his conscience, but that he means to keep what he granted; And therefore would not grant now, what conscience hereafter might enforce him to break, as being against conscience, and see the engagement to it sinful, and null. But suppose the danger in peace on these concessions be more than I apprehend; yet if the danger of deposing or destroying be greater, ●nd more unavoidable: It is not madness, but sobriety to choose the suffer way, wherein if we fall, we shall fall with inward peace and honour, having discharged our consciences in reference to our Oaths, and professions: and to decline another way more dangerous, wherein if we fall, our fall will be more foul and uncomfortable. Now let the danger of deposition or destroying the King be weighed in the balance, either of experience or reason, and I doubt not but it will weigh down the danger of commodation on such concessions; for that the Prince of Wales should come in, and submit himself to the deposers or destroyers of his Father, is not imaginabl. What cause, and mind to revenge he will have; any man that hath a Father, to who● he is not only linked in nature, but associated in cause, may easily apprehend; And his opportunities are as Evident. What potent Prince will not seek his affinity, having a just and clear title to such three Kingdoms? And what a partly is he like to have at home? The whole Peerage of England, distaste rigour against the person of the King; and I think three parts of four in the House of Commons are in their mind. The Generality of the people of the Land detest it; The Ministry, that have not been thought altogether inconsiderable, stand amazed at it, as most dishonourable to Religion, nor are the affections of Scotland dubious in this point; nor is all fair weather in Ireland. The party, that had enough to do, to grapple with the King, when United, is now divided; Peace in Germany will afford plenty of Mercenaries; What greater probability was there ever for any Prince, either to attempt or achieve revenge? And by the same means be in condition to make his own terms with his people? And if he should fail in his attempts at first, yet how endlessely they will be renewed, till the Kingdom be settled on his right basis, is as clear as the Sun in our experience. After the deposition of Richard the second, and setting up Henry the fourth, of the younger House, There was no settlement between the House of York, and Lancaster, for above fourscore years, but ever and anon bloody Wars, to the inestimable damage of this poor Kingdom; neither was there any hope of settled Peace, till their titles were United by the marriage of Henry the seventh, of the House of Lancaster, with the Heyresse of the House of York. And thus I hope I have cleared it, that the Army was not oney destitute of any warrantable call, but also of all just occasions, so to oppress the Members of Parliament, for proceeding to settle the Kingdom by treaty: for its evident, they therein acted wisely, soberly, faithfully, and suitable to their former professions, and sacred engagements.    

CHAP. 2.  

Sect. 1.  
Now Mr. Goodwin proceeds to a second objection, from the Armies resisting lawful authority, or the powers set over them, and therein the Ordinance of God. View the argument in its full proportion, and I doubt not but it will be sound Herculean.  
THey that resist lawful powers, who they acknowledge lawfully set overthem, and to whom these should be subject for conscience sake; They defile themselves, and incur damnation. The Army in their late forcible act on the Houses, did resist lawful authority, lawfully set over them, to whom they o●ght to be subject for conscience sake: Therefore the Army by that act did defile themselves, and make themselves lie able to damnation. The Major is the Apostles, Rom. 13.1.2.34. and now let us see how Mr. Goodwin quits him from the Minor.  
He answers, [That to resist authority imports two things; A denial of obedience to the just command of authority; 
pag. 11.  But this is not all, there is resistance in opposing authority in legal commands, whether just or unjust; if they be legal, they be obligatory to the subject, either in regard of doing or patiented suffering, or else the advice were of little use to those that lived in heathenish Commonwealths, and under Emperors, none of the best, but many times the worst of men; But, saith he, [The House had given out no such Commandment, that none of their Members should be seized, though Voting never so palpably against their trust; But though they have not Voted things in such au absurd way, yet have they declared (upon occasion of the King's demand of five of their Members,) 
pag. 11,  that the arresting of any Member whatsoever, without a legal proceeding against them, and without the consent of the House, whereof such person is a Member, is a breach of privilege of Parliament, and the person that shall arrest any such Member of Parliament, is declared a public enemy of the Commonwealth, Die Lunae Janu. 17. 1641. And this I hope Mr. Goodwin, and the Officers of the Army did not then think unreasonable; and so into what condition the Army have put themselves by that Declaration, is evident, But Mr. Goodwin would have no act binding, 
p. 11  unless the justice of it may be sufficiently cleared: It this must be in the judgement of their opposites (which it must be, or else it will not serve his turn) sure it is a tenant that destroys all Government.   

Sect. 3.  
But Secondly, [He saith resisting imports an engagement, to take away authority, but that they did not they declare their approbation and resolution, to maintain authority Parliamentary, etc.] But what more ridiculous, or hypocritical apology can be made, then to say, they will maintain authority, when it is only so much, and so fare as it will be ruled by, and suit their conceits? which is indeed to subdue not to maintain authority, as they pretend.  
But he objects against himself 
p. 12.  [That if the Army did not in either of his senses resist Authority, yet they did what was worse, offer violence to persons in Authority, etc. He answers, It's lawful by violence to wrest a Sword out of a mad man's hand, etc.] An easy, and ready way to de-throne all Authority, if saying they be mad will serve the turn, when they are neither in drink, passion, nor under any other symptom of such unnatural distemper: Besides, I have proved, that the madness that is lies at the doors of their opposites, and sure else they would never run on so confidently, as they do, in irregular ways, and yet pretend to so much conscience.   

Sect. 2.  
He answers, 
p. 13.  secondly, [That the King had as legal an investiture into the power of the Militia, of sitting in Parliament, etc. as also men had in their Parliamentary trust, yet did the Parliament upon a discovery, etc. deprive him of this power.] First, what power the King had in the Militia by Law, is not within my element to determine. But if that Principle laid down by him be true, for aught I know, it's likelier to draw the Parliament into a community in erring, then exempt the Army, Beside, The King did at first leave the Parliament, and their chief overture of War, was to bring him to, not keep him out of Parliament; And that he hath not been readmitted e'er now, I think he may chief thank some of your Party.   

Sect. 4.  
He answers, thirdly, [As a Client may cast off an Advocate, whom he suspects, or a Pupil his Guardian, etc.] But first, Can a Pupil cast off his Guardian till he be fourteen years of age, when he is enabled thereto by Law? But to compare also the Parliament to a mercenary Advocate, is base and ridicuous. Besides, if the Parliament be Guardians, it is of the Nation, not of them only. Who made them trusties to cast them of for the whole Nation?   

Sect. 5.  
But he Objects against himself, first, 
p. 14.  [That the Parliament were Judget lawfully, Constituted of the King's Delinquency. But the Army not so, in regard of the Parliament. He answers, That if we measure the Parliaments judicature, by the people's call, the Army hath every whit as lawful a Constitution to judge who are enemies, etc. as the Parliament; as he hath proved.] But the folly of that proof hath been manifested, for they had no call at all from the people, but from the Parliament: And that call was not to be Judges, but Actors, according to the judgement of Parliament: And this they did usually profess, and promised to the Parliament, as long as the Parliament pleased them. [What he adds of explicit, and implicit call from the people.] It's nothing for him, for the Army had neither. The implicit, I have disproved; [explicit he confesseth, they had none, for want of opportunity at the present: Nay, he confesseth, That the generality of p●●ple dis-relish their Act, but they are in a Frenzy too.] A short cut to make a man absolute Master of his Actions to dub every one mad, that opposeth him. But it is the most insolent, and mendicant way, that ever was avowed by a Scholar.  
But secondly, 
p. 15.  He saith [The investiture of the Army into the judicature, which they have exercised, is by a Law of greater Authority, than any the Parliament can pretend; that is by the Law of nature, necessity, and love to their Country.] For his Law of nature, and necessity, they are all one in his account. For his Law of love, they were just acted by it, as Saul when he slew the Gibeonites in Zeal to the children of Israel, 2 Sam. 21.2. and a like pleasing to God. But the Army acted against their Personal Oath, Saul only against the oath of his Ancestors.   

Sect 6.  
But he Objects against himself, 
p. 16.  [That the necessity might be pretended, not real. Pretence of necessity is easy, but not so easy a thing, to design what that necessity is, which is authorized by God with a suspensive power over humane Laws.] It's very true, that pretence of necessity is easy, and the difficulty in designing that Authority, which hath no Law, great. And yet it will be a greater difficulty to prove the Armieunder that necessity, both which lies on you; but let us see how you proceed.  
He answers, 
p. 16 17.  first, [That every man hath power given him in judging of persons, or things, in respect of themselves, and with relation to what concerns themselves, by way of duty, to do, or to forbear, etc.]  
This is in a right sense true, that man being a Rational creature, and so to do his actions in judgement, and wisdom. He is to judge of every thing, that is before him, whether it be good, to be acted, or bad, to be omitted. But this is as clear a Principle: That he is to judge of things by Rule, and one plain Rule is, That Public things are to be done by public authority. And in such matters, the judgements of public persons, using their best skill, aught to preponderate private judgements, at least to prevent contrarty acting. Or else we must fall into confusion, and have all authority overthrown, and Apostolical precepts touching subjection to Principalities, and Powers, quite enervated. And this clear Principle they walk by, that judge the Army guilty of gross usurpation in their force upon the Members. And therefore do not usurp upon them, nor are injurious to them, in such censures, as expose them to no more dis-repute for this fact, than it deserves.   

Sect. 7.  
But he proceeds, [To prove the sentence which the Army passed on the Members, as meet to be dispossessed of their Parliamentary Authority, not to he erroneous either for want of skill in judgement, or for want of care in putting forth that skill. And why? Because for some probabilities, to wit, That the Royal Party, by agreement, 
p. 18. 19  would have had and improved opportunity to have taken revenge on those, whose hands had been heavy upon them to enrage them, and who had showed most courarge for the Parliament.] But the Parliament itself, upon more probable grounds (as I formerly showed) have judged their way to be for the Peace and safety of the Kingdom, in composing differences in such a way, that they should by Law have established, all that for which they had so long contended for, and all security they could demand, for the preservation of it. And their judgement ought to be binding to all under their Authority to acquiese in it, at least so far, as not to oppose it forcibly.   

Sect. 8.  
He proceeds, 
p. 20.  [It's no such difficult matter to judge of such emergent necessities, which is authorised by God to suspend humane laws. He instances Mat. 12.3, 4, 5. in hunger.] But here you must note the necessity of hunger, doth only suspend a ceremonial (not a moral) Law, as that about Shewbread; or if you apply it to the Sabbath, that was only moral by institution, not by nature, and such a moral differs little from the ceremoniaell, but in perpetuity. Hunger will not dispense with that natural law, Thou shalt not steal, as I have proved from Prov. 6.30, 31. Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul, when he is hungry. But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold. So the necessity of hunger makes not theft, no theft. And thus much Mr. Goodwin in effect confesseth: 
p. 21.  [In his caution, where he saith, When we seem to approve of that Principle of the Jews peril of life drives away all; we intent not to say, That men may lawfully transgress every precept of God. As for example: Men may not lie, forswear themselves in such eases.] Wherein he hath said enough to confirm my answer, and ●o cut the throat of that Cause, which he would maintain.  
For was not the seizing of the Parliament-men, a manifest breach of that privilege, which they had Sworn to maintain? What is a privilege of Parliament, if that be not, that their persons be free from violence, in and for Voting according to their consciences, upon the probablest grounds that they can discern? If this necessity do not give a man leave to be forsworn, as he confesseth, it cannot be their discharge in this fact. And undoubtedly, the law of an oath, is of absolute and indispensable authority, and so judged hitherto by all but that Antichrist, who for assuming to himself authority to dispense with oaths, is evinced to be that Man of Sin, who in the Temple of God, sits as God, 2 Thess. 2.3, 4. Neither let any man deceive himself, by thinking that necessity doth not give leave to be perjured, but by this necessity the oath was not binding, & so breach of the oath was not perjury. For so the Papists say in making it excuse theft, in case of necessity taking what is another's ceaseth to be theft; and yet this Mr. to Goowin, I suppose likes not, for he saith, We may not lie, in case of necessity, and not to steal, is a command of the same stamp.  
It being therefore clear that the act of the Army was both against their Word, and Oath, and Mr. Goodwin confesseth that necessity dispenseth not with an Oath, or a Ly. I need add nothing to what he saith concerning humane Laws, Though I must tell him that many humane Laws, are but the backing of Divine Laws with civil sanction and penalties, because carnal men are senseless of sin against God, and fearless of his threaten, and such laws are as indispensable as the Laws of God themselves, being but the Laws of God, put out in a Political dress. And such is the Law of man, for private men to be subject to the Laws, and Votes of those, that are clothed with authority over them, thus far as not to resist them, or rise up in rebellion against them, for this is required by a Law, that Commands things morally, intrinsically good, and forbids the contrary, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, and so much for that Objection also.  
But he proceeds to another Objection, [That at least many of the Parliament men, disturbed in their way, were religious, and conscientious men, and voted, and acted what they did conscientiously judging the course they steered safest, etc. And is it not contrary to Reason, and Religion, That such men upon so fair an account, should be used so fowlly? But I would rather frame the Objection thus, when wise and conscientious men, clothed with authority, do act conscientiously, and according to their best skill, determine a way for public weal. No private persons can have place left for the plea of such a necessity, as may authorize them against the rules of order, to resist them. For that necessity, that dispenseth with Laws, must not be probable only, and disputable among men of equal parts, and integrity: But apparent and imminent, which the conscientiousness of the Members oppressed proclaims to be otherways, in the case in hand. But now what saith he. 1 After an obliqne reflection upon their Religion in a parenthesis, he answers though they be religious, yet they be men, and so have not that Divine prerogative James 1.13. to be untemptable to evil, and then adds an uncharitable, and to men in authority, an arrogant insinuation. They that are capable of receiving of gifts, or of any inordinacy in their desires after earthly accommodations, how wise soever, are jubject to have their eyes blinded. But doth he not see how this may be retorted, are the army above temptations? Above ordinances some may be, and that is to be overcome of temptations, but above temptations he will not say they are, I suppose; And do not the Army and their party receive gifts and accommodations? who equal to them in this Kingdom? many of them from so mean and defective a condition riseu to such a shining condition? Besides though the Parliament men be not untemptible, their determinations are uncontrollable, by inferiors, as subject to temptations and possessing more advantages by distractions, than they were like to get (at least most of them) to themselves in particular, by accommodations.  
Secondly, saith he, when men are religious only to a mediocrity and withal servile in their judgements to some principles, with great confidences obtruded on their consciences, for sacred truths and yet full of enmity to a thorough dependence on God, they may become twofold more the children of fear, and more capable of dismal impressions from the World. By which obscure passage, I confess I know not what he glanceth at. But me thinks he hath no great cause to upbraid them with fear, who did with that resolution reject the motion of such an Army, and after a Vote, so highly cross to their design, passed through them, so in arms, to proceed in their discharge of their trust. Let Mr. Goodwin please himself and his followers, with his black insinuations, but all uninteressed men will believe that action shows them above fears, and that they had not lost, but recovered that noble spirit, that once moved in Nehemiah, shall such a man as I fly? I might also oppose to his old saw, that fear is a bad counsellor, another as authentic Prudens magis metuit, quam sperat. The prudent counsellor is apt rather to fear then confidence, and Aristotle gives it as an effect of fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fear makes deliberative, Rhet. lib. 2. c. 6. But saith he secondly, When Religious men sin against the common liberties of a Nation, and make one purse with the thrice declared enemies of the Nation; here then the law of nature, and necessity cannot stand to make inquiry after such a difference, etc. But first how false this supposition is, in reference to the oppressed Members, I have formerly shown proving the goodness of the way they were in. And again there cannot be more senseless boldness, then to call such an agreement, so much to the advantage of one party, and to the burden of an other, making one purse with them. And lastly, so long as the necessity is so obscure that so many wise, and good men, apprehend safety not danger; There can be no necessity so apparent, as to authorize inferiors, to rise against their superiors, to the violation of that Ordinance of God wherewith the superiors are clothed.  
He adds fourthly That the corruption of the best men is worst, with such other flourishes in themselves true to dazzle the eyes of his unwary Reader, wherein he still begs the question, that these men were corrupted, 
pag. 26,  and waves the force of the argument, which is, that being the Parliament men were not only by their places more able to judge, but by their conscientiousnes, like to put forth their abilities to the best advantage. The course that such approve cannot be thought so apparently destructive, as to give just cause to pretend such apparent necessity of danger, as to break Laws humane and Divine, seen only by men, that can pretend to no more of science, or conscience, than those whom they reject.  
He adds fifthly For any hard measure objected to be used against the Parliament men, he answers, He knows not bow the Army could walk toward them with a softer foot. How doth affection blind men, could not they have used more softness, then leave so many of them in Hell all night, without any accommodations for rest? And what menaces have been cast out, against the lives of some of them, separated from their brethren, into a place of straighter custody, & of greater terror, but all sufferings are light with some, that light not on them and theirs. For close of this, because he hath cast out some obliqne and some more direct glances, at the Religion, and integrity of the secluded Members. I will make him this offer. That if the secluded Members, be not as free from raising advantage during the late troubles, and have not given as good satisfaction to the World, both of their knowledge, integrity, and affection to Religion, as so many, choose them where they can, of the same trust, that approve of their necessity, let them carry the cause among men. But if not their pretended necessity, is not like to be the genuine issue of a faithful brain and heart.    

CHAP. 3.  

Sect. 1.  
[Mr. Goodwin proceeds to a third Objection, from the Covenant, he might have added the Protestation made May, the 5. 1641. which was taken more generally from which I present the argument, thus form.  
EVery act contrary to any one, or more solemn engagements made to God is lawful, and impious: the Act of the Army seizing the members of Parliament, is contrary to one, or more solemn engagements made to God. Therefore that act was unlawful and impious; The Minor is clear, for in the protestation May, 1641. This is one clause to defend their power, and privilege of Parliament. Now what more unquestionable privilege of Parliament than this, to have free a ccesse to the House, and there to vote according to their consciences? 
pag. 27.   
Mr. Goodwin answer, [" That it is no privilege of Parliament to act in opposition, to the benefit of the Kingdom. True, but when the qustion is, what is for the benefit of the Kingdom; it is part of the power of Parliaments (which is one thing which you have protested to maintain) to be the final Judges, else broils and confusion must follow; for they shall stand bound, (together with all of their Judgement,) to maintain, what they judge so conducible for the Kingdom's wealth, and if their Judgements be not determining, others may think themselves bound by force to oppose them, and what can be expected from this, but perpetual broils?  
But he answers further, to a supposed reply [" That this is a privilege of Parliament for the Members to be free from question without the consent of the House; True saith he, when a Parliament is taken in a proper signification, noting out a company of men not dead to trust; But if these be dead to trust, than they are not properly a Parliament; As he is not a jew that is one outwardly, etc. But who shall Judge them dead to trust? They are not to be Judged, authoritatively by private persons, none such can pronouce them dead; neither have they in what they are accused, given evidence to be dead to trust, but faithful as I have showed; Again He that was only a Jew outwardly, was not to be denied the outward privilege of a Jew, by man. Though in God's account he was no Jew, that is not holy to, & accepted of God, therefore not only is the insinuation against the Parliament men, false, but if it were true, the Army hath no authority to pronounce them so, so nor to deal with them as such; Is not the Parliament the Supreme judicature, against which lies no writ of error, or appeal but to God? So it stands good that their act was against their Oath.  
But secondly he saith, [" That if such a number of men be a Parliament, 
p. 28  though dead to trust, etc. he knows no privilege of Parliament due to them, no more than a dread man hath the privileges of a man; and this he sets off with many flourishes, wherein he keeps this old artifice to play upon a plausible string, to please his party, that agree with him in the supposition that those Parliament men are dead to trust; whereas that supposition is apparently false and scandalous. But his flourishes are but Sophistical neither, for a dead thing hath no privilege, as it is dead, but if it be dead in oneself, and alive in another, it may have privilege in oneself, 〈…〉 have none in another; as the carnal seed of Abraham 〈…〉 ●ewes to men, and so had their outward privileges, but not so reputed, of God and so had no spiritual privileges: so a degenerate Parliament is dead indeed to God, who is above it, to judge it, it hath no honour with, nor shall have any reward from God. But it is not dead to men, so far as to resist it; for they have no authority to judge it or resist it: but it is only so far dead to private men, that they are not to give life to the dead acts of it. If the Army had said the Parliament is dead, we will not uphold it in dead ways, the charge being true, it had been noble to have laid down their Commission, and not have supported them: but to resist was out of their sphere; Let me ask this man what he would have said of Saul, when the spirit of the Lord departed from him, and an evil spirit seized on him, 1 Sam. 16.14. Was he dead to trust or no? And yet you see David was as observant and tender of him, as though he had been good aswell as great. These distinctions therefore be fig-leaves, and truly I think such delusions that men otherwais quicksighted, use to be left to for their want of integrity to truth.   

Sect. 2.  
But Master Goodwin adds, that though the Army had stood, 
p 29. ●0. 31.  bound to the privileges of Parliament, yet they stood bound also to maintain the liberties of the Kingdom against all impediments whatsoever, and what they are not able themselves to suppress etc. And the liberties of the Kingdom he endeavours to prove to be greater than of the Parliament, and in opposition of laws or privileges, he greater is to take place etc. But first here is supposed a Bull, that the liberties of a people and a Parliament of the same people, may be inconsistent, whereas it can be no true privilege on the one side, but pretended, if they push one another. Secondly he must remember the limitation in the Covenant, that every one is to act in the performance of it according to their callings; that is not only the Soldier as a Soldier, the Minister as a Minister, but the private man as a private man: so that a private man is not to act in a juridical way, by virtue of his Covenant, but according to Law or Commission from men in authority; and therefore the Covenant bond not them in reference to the Kingdom to act juridically in committing the Parliament men. Again, though the liberties of the Kingdom be in some sense more than the liberties of the Parliament, yet the privileges of Parliament are first put, and the bond of it takes hold there; therefore by what is spoken afterwards, the true privileges of Parliament cannot be prejudiced. And indeed there is nothing wherein the privileges of the Kingdom are more concerned then in the liberties of the Parliament: And there is greater probability of the land being watered with blood, by the way that the Army are in, then by that way of accommodation that the Parliament men were in: and therefore it is but their fancy, that the liberties of the nation are in danger; nay, that particular mischief is not eligible, before this inconvenience of giving the inferiors liberty upon their own private conceits to resist and disturb the supreme Indicature of a Commonwealth.   

Sect. 3.  
But he adds thirdly; 
p. 31.  If there had been no clause in the oaths for the liberties of the Subjoct, yet had the Army more than warrant sufficient to stand up for them with out any breach of Covenant; for men stand bound by the Law of nature against all other obligation whatsoever. Now there is no Law of nature that speaks more plainly than this, that the strong aught to stand by the weak in cases of extremity. Formerly you made exceptions in the cases of extremity, that a man may not lie, forswear himself etc. Now all bonds must give way to the Law of necessity, nor only word burr oath, oportet esse memorem. Again, I would know of him, if the Sheriff differ in judgement from the judge when a case is argued, 
pag. 21.  and the Sheriff thinks might overcomes right, and that if the judge proceed, he undoes or destroys a poor man and his family, Is the Sheriff having power bound to pluck the judge off the Bench, or keep him from the Bench rather than suffer him to pass (in his conceit) an unjust sentence tending to extremity? For what he adds touching the intention of the Covenant makers and Covenant takers, I refer me to his conscience, whether though they did not intent the Covenant to bind to things against the Law of nature, yet that they intended, that they themselves should be ultimate judges what was for the public weal of the Kingdom, and so not against the Law of nature; what not? and you know the old rule, quacunque arte verborum quis jurat etc. whatsoever art of words are used in the oath, the oath is to be interpreted according to his sense that gives it, not his that takes it.  
But next he tells us, that this act of the Army in the dissociation of the Parliament, doth not give the least colour or shadows to the act of the Kings breaking into their House, and demanding which and how many of their Members he pleased to be sacraficed upon the sor●●ice of his will.  
But I answer 1. The act of the King is falsely and uncharitably, that I say not maliciously represented by him; for the King did not break into the House of Commons as he mouths it, but had admission there, which of right he may claim in either House of Parliament upon occasion; nor did he demand the Members to be sacrificed to his own will: his words were fairer to have them legally tried, touching some things which he had to lay to their charge; what was in his heart you know not. Now compare the act of the Army to this of the King, and see whether there be not only some colour, but according to our English Proverb, whether they have not made the King a Saint? 1. The King demanded but five of the Commons Members; they imprisoned above forty, and secluded as they say, above an hundred; Secondly the King took none out nor can any man tell what he would have done, had they been there, reason might have qualified him. They did not only violently inhibit many, but as I am informed by Master Stevens himself, he and Colonel Birch were pulled out of the House. Thirdly the King was the supreme Magistrate, they clothed with no authority. Fourthly the King pretended a legal trial, they have no legal objection against them. Fifthly The King confesseth Parliaments should be free, 
Collect. ● Declar. p. 37.  and one of his objections against the five members of Parliament, was that by tumults they hindered the freedom of Parliament, and you affirm tumultuous engagements have as much hindered freedom of Parliament this two years, 
Article ●  as the forcible act of the Army. Sixthly the King was easily reduced from his error, and relinquished it, and assured them of tenderness of privilege for future; you avow the Army's act, and they persist in their soree. Now who is the greater transgressor thus far? Neither did the King (as you say) look upon the accused Members as the greatest Patrons of the Kingdom's interest, but under the notion of such as fought to alter the well tempered government of it; as he erred in his apprehensions, so do you now in your conceits of the Parliament men restrained. Nor was the pretence of the King, ' to advance the will and power of one against the peace and comfort of many, but to preserve the government as it stood free from alteration, which was in the judgement of any uninteressed fare more for the benefit of this Nation, than the new model of your fancy (wittily by Sedgewick termed All breech) which if it take, will make us a base, and in all likelihood ere long a broken Kingdom. But if the King under fair pretences did intent, as you hint, tyranny, may it not as well be objected to you that you intent Oligarchy? It's therefore clear as the light, tha● as the King did ill, the Army did worse; and the Declaration of that House against the King's act, doth militate as strongly against the act of the Army, which declares the arresting of any Member of Parliament without a legal proceeding and consent of that House whereof he is a Member, a breach of previledge; 
C●ll. of Remonst. Decla. etc. pag. 39  and the preson that shall arrest any such Member, is declared an enemy of State.    

CHAP. IU.  

Sect. 1.  
Master Goodwin proceeds to a fourth Objection, To prove the Army's Act unjustifiable, because against the Law of the Land; which should rightly be framed thus:  
WHosoever being under law, and sworn to maintain the Law, or legal Privileges of others; do against Law, or legal Privilege imprison the Persons of others, are guilty of an act of impious transgression. The Army being under Law, and sworn to maintain the legal Privileges of others yet against Law, and legal Privileges have imprisoned the Persons of others; Therefore by that act of theirs they have made themselves guilty of impious transgression: That imprisonment of the Members is against Law, and legal privilege, is clear; for the Law is, That no free man shall be imprisoned without due process in Law. And the greater the person, the greater is the presumption, in the oppression of them.  
Master Goodw. To this: First, Sums up his Answers already given to this Objection, which have had their Answers in their places.  
He adds, 
Pag. 33.  That we may charitably suppose, that there is no Law prohibiting any sort of men from being benefactors to the Public especially from preserving the Public Liberties, when they stand in extremâ tegulâ.  
Ans. How false this supposition is in the Army's case, to wit, that the Liberties stand in extremâ tegulâ, I have formerly showed, nor is there any thing more prejudicial to the Public Liberties, then that the persons of their Public Counsel, shall be restrained upon the uncertain fancies of a small Party: And necessity cannot dispense with a lie, nor an Oath, as he hath formerly confessed: God can preserve where our hands are bound without our lie 
* Rom. 3.7.  or perjury, or sanctify all that is to be suffered.   

Sect. 2.  
Secondly, 
Pag. 4.  Saith he, If there were such a Law, it could have no obliging force, etc. If he mean it could have no obliging force in foro Dei, in the Court of Heaven; so that man should not obey it: It is true. But if he mean, it hath no obliging force in foro humano, in the Courts of men; so that a man ought not to suffer, but resist, it is false; for then all the Laws of Emperors made against Christians are invalid: And those sufferings of Primitive Christians, especially when they grew into multitudes and legions, were not such glorious actions, but rather the follies of the Christians, that knew not their Liberty to use their power to resist those dead Laws to which they no ways stood bound: At least, Bellarmine's Answer in behalf of the Church of Rome, running courses contrary to Primitive times, is true; that then derant vires temporales, they wanted temporal strength; and Protestants have been in an error that have ascribed the dissimilitude to the decay of spiritual graces. But it's nothing for such as Mr Goodwin to symbolise with Papists.   

Sect. 3.  
He proceeds: Thirdly, 
Pag. 31.35.  If there were a Law to make force in any kind to interrupt Magistrates in their way punishable, yet this would not evict this Act of the Army, to have been contrary to the Laws, because it is the constant genius and manner of Laws, to lay down only the general Rules, and conceal the exception: Now the exception doth not break the rule. And here he citys something out of Tully, Grotius, Aristotle, and the Impeirall Laws; and the chiefest exception is necessity.  
But first, where no such exception against the Law lies, there the Actor is the Transgressor of the Law. And those that urge the Law against them, suppose it clear that there was no such necessity. For those Magistrates restrained, were good and wise men, and in their serious thoughts judged the way that they were in preservative, and ten parts of the Land to one, are of their mind still; and so the necessity is but pretended. Besides, though the Laws of men be subject to exceptions, I refer it to his conscience, in case a Magistrate may be consulted, whether he thinks that any of his Authors will say, that private men's exceptions are to be received before the judgement of those with whom power of interpreting Laws is entrusted? And lastly, whether an Oath to a partiticular Law engage not to it, though it prove detrimental? Psal. 15.4.    

CHAP. V.  

Sect. 1.  
Master Goodwin proceeds to a fifth Objection, From the mischievous consequence of the example of the fact of this Army which may be made use of by any Party, finding themselves strongh enough to attempt the like disturbance and confusion: but I would frame the Argument thus:  
EVery action grounded on such Principles as are a manifest inlet to wickedness, confusion and Anarchy, is pernicious and wicked: The force exercised on the Parliament by the Army grounded on necessity, visible only to them and their party, is a manifest inlet to wickedness, anarchy, and confusion. Therefore the Armies said Act is pernicious and wicked.  
M goodwin's Answ. 1. page 36. The lawfulness of actions is not to be judged by what doth, but by what is likely to follow and that not by accident, or misconstruction, but by the native tendency of it, etc. Ans. 2 Though there were not only a possibility but a probability, that the Army's Act should beget disturbances, yet should not they have stood still, because when the seed time is come, we must not observe the wind.  
But these Answers reach not the Objection, as it is laid by me, and should have been laid by him which condemns actions, grounded on such principles which will bear out other persons of strength, in wicked and State confounding actions: The ground of this action in the Army was necessity, whereof themselves are judges; for it appeaes not to others: But if necessity be a sufficient warrant to disturb Authority in legal ways; and the Parties in whom Power is, be judges of this necessity: By this any Party of Power may justify themselves to men in disturbing Governors, whether the Party be Royalists, Papists, or Atheists: That plea would have served the Northern Army if it had marched up against the Parliament, as well as the present Army did, or the Apprentizes as well as them, they might have pretended necessity, and been judges in their own case; ex veris nil nisi verum, nothing but truth will naturally flow from true principles: Therefore the ground of the Army's Act was a false principle, because it will bear false conclusions; nay further, if necessity may dispense with Laws, and the Actors be judges; what if the Levelling Part of the Army should have further designs than the Moderator Part, and the heads of the Moderate Party stand in their way, may not they take up this plea, and without Law, or legal process tollere è medio take them out of their way? yea, then what bar is left against jesuitical King-killing by assassinates.   

Sect. 2.  
Nor will this be taken off by what he saith Thirdly, 
Pag. 36.37.  that where there is not a concurrence of the same circumstances formally and equivalently, there can be no place for exemplartnesse; for we speak not now of the legitimacy of actions in the sight of God only but men also. We are to provide for things honest in the sight of all men, Rom. 12.17. 2 Cor. 8.21. And if there be the same pretences not to be disproved by men, which (they cannot be) if they must be judges of them, who carry the long sword, Those actions which are the same in external, though not in real circumstances, shall be as impleadable by men.   

Sect.  
And there is yet less sense in his fourth answer, That it is not likely that action should breed disturbance, that was done in due order to prevent occasion and opportunity of disturbance etc. For what if they that levelled this shaft at this mark, were unskilful Archers, may they not shoot quite wide the mark they aim at, and hit a friend instead of the butr? I am sure they have been most of them but little used to the bow of Politics, and what if the Scene change? May not the present Army degenerate, (no man can say they are stable in their Princiciples) and then will not this plea of necessity fit their hands for worse changes, if worse can be? I am sure it hath once served their turns, to comply with the King against the minds of the Parliament, and now to imprison Parliament men, and to threaten the destruction of the King, and who knows what design it may carry on next? And is not this course a means to irritate an opposite party, and who knows where God may cast strength? and than what a gallant plea is here for them, Quodlibet audendi? adventuring upon any thing.   

Sect. 4.  
Lastly he argues, 
37.  that if that action of the Army is not disproveable by any likelihood of evil that it may bring upon this Kingdom hereafter, no more than preservation of a man from imminent death is reprovable, because by it he is occasionally exposed to die another time. There were something in this, if there were any iminency of death over our Nation; but this is denied upon better grounds, than they can give to the contrary, and that by those that are the legal judges of it, which the Army was not. You add, they who conceive the Army had better have sat still for fear of after disturbance, plead as if a man shall counsel a friend dangerously sick, not to use a Physician, because if he do recover, his recovery might prove an occasion of more sickness afterwards. But this answer hath wit without reason; for first, it presupposeth that to be sickness of the Commonwealth, which indeed was good Physic for her recovery. And secondly to make the similitude hit, the Physic that is dissuaded, must be to have an influence by the hazardous cure of one malady, to have procured more. And truly I should not think him mad but wise, that should dissuade such Physic; nor is the example of Hezekiah any better, that he was to be thankful for his recovery, though he were to die fifteen years after. For first it runs upon the former false supposition: And secondly that which recovered Hezekiah, was not the cause of his death afterwards. But here it is objected against the medicine that he saith revives, that it will have an influence to kill afterwards. Nay, after a pretended cure, that medicine which he saith revives, is not like to preserve long, not fifteen years, nor fifteen months; for where there is one in the Kingdom that accounts this act of the Army medicine, it's conceived there be an hundred that count it a cup of poison and so to be broken: And what a Paroxysm this is like to beget shortly in this poor Kingdom, let the prudent Reader judge.    

CHAP. VI  

Sect. 1.  
Master Goodwin proceeds to a sixth Objection, counted he saith by some impregnable; It is taken from Rom. 13.1.2. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for the powers that be, are ordained of God. He therefore that resisteth the powers, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. And this I doubt not will yield an Argument too hard for Master Goodwin to answer, or else sure all Protestant Divines have been much mistaken: It may be form thus.  
Whosoever resisteth the higher powers, resists the Ordinance of God and receive to himself damnation. The Army in secluding and imprisoning Parliament men did resist the higher powers; therefore thereby they did resist the Ordinance of God, and receive to themselves damnation. For the minor, Master Goodwin will not deny but the Parliament are higher powers, to which the Army are to be subject. This he saith he hath considered in the second objection, yet because he would give surplusage in such urguments as pretend to Scripture, he will take it in hand again; let us see whether he can acquit himself better than he did before.  
And first he presents us with a distanction between the power and the abuse of the power; the abuse of the power is not of God, 
pag. 38.  and so the resistance of that not forbidden nor damnable. Now that the Army did only resist the abuse of the power (he saith) he hath proved in his book: And I reply, that it hath been as often disproved in my Answer. Again, this distinction between the powers, and abuse of powers, is to be taken with caution, or else it may deceive. Mr Burroughs his distinction in his Lord of Hosts page 32. contains better divinity, which is between the commands of abused authority, and the commands that are from the wills of men in authority. That is abused authority when those to whom power of making laws doth belong, shall make evil laws; in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flight, until some way be taken to rectify the authority that is abused (that is disannulling those evil laws) but when men that are in authority command any thing out of their wills etc. So that in his judgement abuse of authority being legal, is to be borne with patience, not resisted by violence. And indeed if we consider that these powers were in St. Paul's times Heathens, and how bloody their laws were against Christians, and how impious they were in many other things, one might judge it had been sitter (after Master goodwin's light) to have taught them his new doctrine of resistance, rather than to have pressed subjection on them. Magistracy is the Ordinance of God, the laws of the land the rule of it, while it keeps within that sphere; though the laws be corrupt, the Magistrate is no tyrant; so he is a power ordained of God, and we are to be subject in obeying or suffering, but may not resist.   

Sect.  
He adds, 
pag. 35.  it is manifest that they did not resist Parliamentary power because this power remains quiet and indisturbed: but is he in good earnest? Is not Parliamentary power a power represence of the whole Nation? Doth it remain undisturbed when so great a part are secluded, and so many thereupon think it unlawful for them to handle the affairs of the Nation without the concurrence of their fellow trusties, that as they say ordinarily, searce a sixth part of that number that ought to sit, meet in the House? Secondly he saith, that they have care to settle Parliamentary power on better terms. Yes by their new Model. What disturbers of present Governance were over found without that pretence? but how few if ever any, effected it?  
He objects against himself, That the Parliamentary power is under force now. He answers, That they are no more under force now, than they were before the Army secluded the Members. I answer, Why is that which he calls Parliamentary power free from force now, but because they act after the Armies misguided fancy? but should they cross them in their Idol Design, doth Mr john Goodwin think they would be more exempt from 
* One Parliament man told me, that as he was coming from the House the day after the seizing, one of the Soldiers cried room, room, another said knock him down; so he never came there since. Was not he forced a way? And are not many m●●● (not of their principles▪ kept away in like manner? And is the Parliament free from force▪  force, than their brethren now secluded? why doth he then trifle so? And it is palpably false, That the Parliament now is not more under force, than it hath been for two years by reason of tumultuous engagements; for though there was one unhappy tumult soon appeased, there was no other tumult so near them that threatened them other ways then with desertion in affect on, whereas now they are secluded the House and imprisoned.   

Sect. 3.  
But Master Goodwin proceeds the Ordinance of God in magistratical power, is the adequate foundation whereon obedience to it is to be built, and he intent of magistratical power is the good of those that are subject to it. Therefore there is no subjection commanded of God to any higher power, further or otherwise then they act, and quit themselves in due proportion of the good of men. I answer the conclusion here inserd is pointblank to the plain word of God; for the power of a Master over a servant is a power ordained of God, and the Apostle Peter directs servants to be subject not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward; for its praise worthy to suffer wrongfully, 1 Pet. 2.18.19. and why this should not hold in office powers; I shall expect a solid reason from Master Goodwin, till than his premises must pass for false with me, because his conclusion is contrary to express Scripture, and he knows ex veris nil nisi verum. And me th●nks it's strange to see what difference there is between the new light and the old: The Apostles whom Christ jesus made the infallible lights of the world, were most careful to warn Christians, that they should not suffer at evil doers, but as Christians, 1 Pet. 4.15.16. But new 〈◊〉 tells us that we need not suffer but when we are evil doers; for if the powers molest us in good, they are abused, decline from their ends, so we own them no subjection, but may resist. But the Apostles had the spirit of truth, and those that descent give heed to seducing spirits. 
1 Tim. 4.1  The truth is because Magistracy is an Ordinance of God appointed for the good of men, though they through weakness do miscarry, yet so long as they act as Magistrates, that is, legally, we are not to resist them, because they have God's Ordinance upon them. And utable to this was the doctrine of Pomitive times to be read in the legible characters of their glorious sufferings; and therefore sit seems they so understood St. Paul and St. Peter.   

Sect. 3.  
He adds lastly, That the resisting of the higher powers here condemned, is not detaining men in authority by strong hand from doing mischief etc. but detaining them by strong hand from going on in their Office, is the resistance condemned, which the Army did to the Parliament men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Beza, is verbum militare, the original is a military word, and therefore the Soldiers restraining the Members as Soldiers in a warlike posture, did resist in the exact propriety of the word, But saith he, It is either refusing obedience to their lawful commands, which he ascribes to Paraeus: but he abuseth Paraus, if he make that all that Paraus thinks is intended there, for he affirms, Christianos non minus quam alios quoscunque potestatibus subjectos esse debere, non tantum fidelibus, sed infidelibus, quales tunc omneserant: non tantum placidis & aequis, sed etiam difficilibus & iniquis; Christians no less than other aught to be subject to the powers, not only when believers, but when infidels, as all the powers than were; not only to the pleasing and equitable, but also to the froward and injust. And what Master Goodwin citys out of Parous, That every disobedience is not to be accounted Rebellion or resistance, but only that which is practised out of malice contrary to the Laws, is true; but helps not him, but is only suitable to Mr Burroughs his distinction, between the Authority of Magistrates, that is, when he acts legally, and his will; disobedience, to his will, is not condemned but to his Authority, that is his legal will: Again, if we disobey out of conscience, but submit to suffer, and be not carried with passion to oppose, we do not rebel. The latter thing which you cite out of Pareus, will stand you in no more stead: That if a Tyrant set upon a private man at a Robber, etc. he may defend himself from him (in case of no other means of escape) as against an ordinary Robber; for in that case a Tyrant acts not legally, and his will, not his authority is resisted.  
But Mr Goodwin adds another sense out of Calvin, 
Page 41.  That by resisting it meant a completting and attempting to shake off the yoke of all obedience to the Magistrate: But he abuseth Calvin and the Reader, if he set down that as the full of what Calvin thinks is forbidden; whereas he makes that only the scope of the place to be the preventing such a tentation, to which he shows it is likely Christians might be subject: But upon the place delivers Doctrine as contrary to Mr goodwin's, as light to darkness; for faith he, on Vers. 3. Caterum hic de vero & quasi nativo Magistratus officio loquitun, à que tametsi non ●aro degenerant qui principatum tonent; nihilominus deferenda est eis obedientia quae principibus debetur: Nam si malus princeps flagellum etc. But the Apostle here speaks of the true, and at it were native Office of a Magistrate, from which although they degenerate, which hold the Principality; yet nevertheless; the obedience which is due to Princes is to be given to them, for if an evil Prince be a scourge sent of God, 
Page 41.  etc. But you add, The Army did not in what they did, refuse to obey any commands of their Superiors; false: The remaining Members in the Commons were their Superiors; and their demands of their Members imprisoned twice by their Sergeant, were commands disobeyed by the Army; You say also, They refused not giving satisfaction to the Law by refusing to suffer any punishment; Ridiculous: What Magistrate will attempt their punishment? Yet we shall see how Mr goodwin's words will hold, when Mr Prynne brings his action of false imprisonment against them.  
But you have another clinch out of Calvin; he saith, say you, but you tell us not where that the Apostle speaks of powers in the abstract, not of the persons of Magistrates at all, otherwise than he useth his power in due order. First, this is flat contrary to that which I cited out of Calvin, That the place teacheth Obedience to Princes though they degenerate; therefore sure you abuse Calvin: And Beza (that is not used to differ from Calvin) saith. Potestatis nomine este, tropice intelliguntur, qus sunt in illis dignitatibus cons●●tuti, ut 〈◊〉 ha●e subjectione in i●sis dignitatibus habend 〈◊〉 ●●●●msi indignisint qui eo sunt evecti: By that name of powers, they are tropidully understood, which are laced in those dignities, that we ●ay know this subjection is to be given to the Powers, though they are unworthy that are advanced to them. Besides, all that can be hinted in the name of Powers so often used, is but according to the distinction between the will, & Authority of the Magistrate for conscience sake, further, than it is clothed, with Power, that is, legally, and that is plainly the inraning of Pareus cited by you, He names Powers rather than Kings and Princes, for in the persons vices 〈◊〉 causes of disobedience are found; therefore he would have the Powers different from the persons. That is, their corruptions will put them on to seek to have their will a Law, & their Power extends no farther than Law, nor further are we bound to obey. But what need we stand upon this term any longer, sigh S. Peter expressly mentioneth the persons both of the King, as Supreme, and all that are in Authoty under him? Therefore Mr Goodw. without just ground, Limits the subjection to Magistrates only, while they act regularly, and with a single eye on procurement of Good. Though I doubt not but our Parliament men feised for endeavouring agreement with King, were both regular in their way and aims: I may conclude therefore, for all Mr goodwin's sleek Apology, the Armies forcible Act upon the Parliament stands convict of grievous guilt, and yet we see the old adage ●●ue. Durum telum necessitas; for behold that Army, that hath so often prevailed against the sharped weapons of their Enemies, fallen and expiring in their honours, vanquished by this one poor dart of pre●ended necessity.  
And yet this Act of theirs, that is so unwarrantable in itself, is made much more abominable, by the intention of it, which the issue discovers; for its evident it was to make a Party, to proceed to the deposition and destruction of the King, if God prevent them not: A thing directly contrary to their sworn Allegiance, to the Doctrine of the Church of England, to which they are also engaged by Protestation, to the constant Profession of the Parliament in general; their partakers in their Apologetical Declarations, and 
* Amongst wh●●● Mister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Anti cavalierisme hath spo 〈◊〉 as plain and sensibly as any, That it is a just Prerogative of Persons of Kings to be secure from the violence of men in what causes soever; and their lives to be as consecrated corn, meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himself: with other words which may be seen: 〈…〉 sent unto him by a learned godly and ●orthy Knight, Sir ●ra. Nethe●sole.  Books whereby they engaged many people in their quarrel, who will now detest the present Act, the more because they have been made somewhat to contribute to it, by the former hypocrisy and present treachery of others. And this also heightens the injury of the Army's Act, that they should exclude the trusties of so many Shires, Cities and Burrougheses, when a thing of so great a concernment to them, as the life of their King is to come in question; is this justice? If their trusties be degenerate, should they not have leave and time to have chosen other before such a matter had been taken in hand? For that of Aquinas you cited to no purpose, pag. 15. will not take place here neither; for you confess their choice was good, but the men are degenerate. I may therefore conclude, little reason had Mr Goodwin to conclude his Book with such hyperbolical (that I say not blasphemous) flattery, as to compare so sinful an Act of the Army, to the sufferings of Jesus Christ to save a lost world etc. But the conclusion suits with the premises both Popish; for its the manner of Papists to extol their assassinates, so they do it with a good intent adificandicausa, and in case of necessity to save the lives, or prevent the ruins of many Catholics. And I now seriously propose it to Mr Goodwin and his Associates, Whether the necessity harped upon, be any other then danger to a sort of people in the land, that out of pretended new Light, would live exempt from the ordinary and received rules of Government. Danger I say to such, lest they should meet with trouble; lose those preferments and that Ruledome that they draw, and many times usurped to themselves in Parliament, City, Country, by the Power of the sword entrusted to more Public ends. If this be the necessity, as there be hints many, that it is: How much more suitable were it for men of conscience, not to disturb the Treaty for Peace, but interpose in it for their own Interest? And if they think exemption from the coercieve Power of the civil sword in matters of Religion be a native Liberty of Christians: Let them desire it may be debated freely, before a free Parliament; and if we convince not the impiety and iniquity of it, let them carry it. If they fall short in that, yet whatever indulgence may be consistent with duty to Truth, and the peace of the Church will never be denied them. Oh! did any relenting appear to procure return from those irregular ways, how would all godly hearts embrace them with joy, looking on them in their irregularities past, as men under a strong tentation, and with consideration that they also may be tempted. But if they be resolved, that what they have usurped they will hold, I hope I shall no●, I am sure, I need not envy their slippery places; for when they have done Gods whole work on those under their oppressive power, I am confident God will visit the fruit of the great hearts of this aspiring Faction, and the glory of their high looks.    
DEO GLORIA.  
FINIS.