Illumination to Zion College.  
WHEREIN, Their calling to the Ministry (the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ) is dissipated, their arrogancy hereupon manifested, the extent of Magistrates power in general defined; the execution of the late King, and the seclusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified; the former Declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite, explained; their Objections from the Covenant, removed in the grammatical sense thereof; and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated. Being for answer, to the Representation of their judgements, in a Letter to the General, January 18. last: Serves also to their Vindication: And in part to a Pamphlet entitled, Essex Watchmens watchword: Likewise in effect to a later Libel (supposed Mr. Loves, entitled, A Vindication of the Ministers from the aspersions (alias the Etymologies) of Mr. Price, in his Clerico Classicum, etc. To which latter Pamphlet, is annexed a brief answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers.  
By J. L. as cordial and fervent a thirster after the Nation's prosperity, as any.  F●●k. 22.25. 
There is a conspiracy of her Prophets in the mids thereof like a roaring Lion, ravening the prey; they have devoured souls, they have taken the riches and precious things, etc.  Micah 3.6 
Therefore night shall be unto you for a Vision, and darkness shall be unto you for a divination, and the sun shall go down over the Prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.  2 coloss 8. 
Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ  Mr. Will. Prinne pag. 201. 
Sovereign power of Parliaments, etc. To that Objection that Kings are of div●ne institution, and therefore impunishable: His second answer, viz. All Ministers of the Gospel are as much, if not more jure divino, and by God● own ordination as Kings are; as our King's Writs to Bishops in the words, rex eadem gratia, episcopo, attest. but they for their offences and misdemeanours contrary to their function, may be both forcibly resisted, censured, deprived, degraded; yea, and executed, notwithstanding their divine right and institution; as the Cannons of most Counsels, the practice of all ages; yea, the express letter of the 26. Article of the Church of England, with all our Episcopal Cannous and Canonists arrest: therefore tyrannical, degenerating Kings may be so too, by the self same reason, in some cases.  
LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, and are to be sold by Giles Calvert at the Black-spread Eagle at the West end of Paul's. June 1. 1649.   

To the Reader.  
Reader,  
ACcording to my promise in a former Book (entitled The Execution of the late King justified) being a chief cause hereof) I now tender thee this ensuing discourse, desiring (according to the Title) the intended effect thereof: which if, through obstinacy, diverted and repelled; yet I shall patiently acquiesce in its truth; knowing, that light and truth are so even when rejected of those they are offered to (as some more Orthodox assertions hereof have been, though their labour is not in vain in the Lord;) However, whilst thou readest it, shake off the inclination of thy opinion, do it impartially, and let truth and reason take impression upon thy heart, where ever they be, according to the desire of thy affectionate friend herein,  
J. L.   

Errata.  
PAge 9 line 42. for  read least, p. 11. l. 39 for appear r. operate, and p. 11. l. 45. is in the place of 46. and 46. in the place of 45. p. 12. l. 46. for o frequently, r. so frequently, p. 13. l. 29. for a Covenant r. the Covenant, p. 14. l. 21. for the same end r. to the same end. p. 15. l. 17. for reign r. reigns, p. 21. l. 37. for imputed r. reputed, p. 22. l. 41. for dutty r. duty, p. 24. l. 2. for a cupting, r. attempting, p. 25. l. 47. for band r. brand, p. 27. l. 24. for this r. thy, and l. 43 for did reprove, r. did then reprove, p. 28. l. 7 for that r. that, p. 30. l. 41 for his law r. the law, p. 31. l. 7. for out r. aught, and l. 11. for when r. where, and l. 30. for overaigne r. sovereign, p. 32. l. 7. for satisfy r. satisfy.   

Illumination TO SION-COLLEDGE.  
O ye (self terming, and so imposing) Ministers of the Gospel:  
It is not (or at least should not be) unknown to you; what self Interest appears, in your assuming so great a power, only by virtue of that Title: through which you exceed the sounds of ministerial liberty; and many of you, being blinded with self (by whom the rest may be spur done, or else the same lust will appear uppermost in all) are so furious, that you transgress the law of Christian meekness; which I shall proceed more clearly to discover (avoiding a long Preamble) in the subsequent Answer: to the subject matter of your Letter.  
And therefore in the Preamble to the following matter in your Letter, you confess, divers applications have been made, as well in writing, as by verbal messages; inviting the Ministers of London, or some of them, to meet with the Officers of the Army, in their consultations about matters of Religion; which you say is most suitable to you Profession. And a delay in the propagation whereof, yourselves hath often decried, as a sin in others; and yet now are guilty of the same: by urging civil (though groundless) reasons, as will appear in that your concurrence, (which amongst the rest, you make one ground of this your writing) with your quoted Brethren in their dislike (which you say, you were willed to signify) of those mentioned proceed of the Army.] For your refusal of such meetings: which refusal had it indeed, proceeded from right principles of foresight, that such a meeting would have inevitably (through your own busy dispositions) produced a controversy about civil government (with which authoritatively, you are not to meddle) and so have frustrated the end of your meeting, viz to consult about matters of Religion: or from insight to your own unworthiness [of so indulgent an invitation in preference of what you profess, viz. Ministers of the Gospel, [though your calling thereunto is unwarrantable] men of parts and the like] through those many unjust, and public contradictions, and Pulpit aspersions (many of you choosing subjects for that very purpose) that you have cast upon their proceed: upon these grounds, it had been acceptable, and laudable in you to have refused a meeting; but on the contrary, not being contented with that preassu●●d title; but soaring to be Ministers of the State likewise, to which your ambition, the Army having put a stop, or at least, because they would not depend upon your fallible judgements, and so limit the spirit of God and their own reason, and consciences to your way of government and interpretation of the scripture thereto: for these reasons, which are the main, to refuse a meeting was contemptible.  
But that your matter might seem the stronger, you ascribe yourselves a large circuit viz. the Ministers of London, in defence of this your peremptory refusal under that stile: when the●e are as many sound, holy, conscientious, and (almost if not quite as many) learned, and yet contrary minded men [whose title is as good to the Ministry] as yourselves therein. But being carried on with that lust of self esteem, and continuance in the kingdom, you convert the reproofs in scripture unto wicked men, to those that oppose and resist this lust as a sin in you: and whereas you should lift up your voices as trumpets, to show the people their transgressions, as swearing drunkenness, whoredom, pride and the like; and against the Magistrates for bearing the sword in vain herein; you excite the people to more sin, which is fle●●ly contention, and opposition, being far distant from your assumed title, Minisers of the Gospel, and so should be of peace. But justly may that woe be pronounced against you; Woe be unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good; 
Is 1.5. ●0.  which put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter, for sweet, and sweet for sour.  
But in your 2 page, you discover that so openly, of yourselves, that needs not be discovered to you, for your words are had a conference been desired with 〈◊〉 o●●h, to have g●●e● you resolution, whether the ways wherein at present you are walking, are agreeable to the word of God; we should have delivered our judgements, etc.  
There needs no farther testimony of your ambition, or discovery of those ends, for which you first engaged and complied in deposing the Bishops [though you yet continue your Ordination from them] and conjunction, would supply their places: then these your own aspiring words, whereby you demonstrate, that you would be (as claiming a sole right thereunto) the Army's counsellors, as if the spirit of God rested upon you only, that none could discern what is agreeable to God's word, or what is rational, and essential to the peace and freedom of the kingdom, in the establishment of a civil government (the word of God not prescribing every particular expedient therein) but yourselves: and as if there were no Ministers, that had the same title, to the preaching of the Gospel, that sided with the Army, and that you are the only men to be enquired off, concerning the mind of God in his word: but your conjunction herein may well be compared to theirs in Ezek. 22.25. there is a conspiracy of her Prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion, raving the prey: they have devoured souls, etc. Many poor souls have been alured to depend upon your doctrine as infallible, (and so are deceived) through your usurping and maintaining such a sole right, to explicate the scriptures, especially upon men's traditions, humane grounds, degrees in leaning; which if any expedient at all, as receiving it by tradition, yet one of the least, 
1 Cor. 1.26.  when the Apostle saith expressly, not many wise men after the flesh, etc. but God hath choose the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise (that are so esteemed by the world) and vile things of the world, and things which are despised: 
Verse 28.  [such as Cobblers, and Tinkers; let their outward calling be never so mean, by reason whereof, they are contemned by the world, and thought unworthy, as to the exposition of the scriptures; yet these] hath God chosen of the world, and things which are not [in the world's apprehension, and their own likewise, capable of such preferment] to bring to nought [to render vain and unprofitable, not only to themselves, but those also, 
John 9.41.  by whom they were esteemed] things that are [and none else besides them, in their own estimation, and the worlds likewise; which say they sco, but therefore their sin remaineth:] Nay, unto babes, shall the hidden misteryes of the kingdom of heaven be revealed, to men of small capacities, 
Matth 11.25.  in the esteem of such as have fle●●y wisdom; such babes, [for that the spirit of God is powerfullest, purest, simplest, and discernably so where least of humane helps are adjoined] in Christ's account, have suitable spirits, for Gospel revelations. But remember, you self conceited and so ascribing men, that, Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, 
Isa. 5.21.  and prudent in their own sight.  
But had the Army questioned the lawfulness of their ways [in which they are as confident pro, that they are good, as yourselves count.] and hereupon had invited you to a conference, you should have met: And have given in this as your advice, that instead of proceeding further in such unwarrantable courses, they should have testified their timely and godly sorrow, for which [so clearly against the direct rule of the word] they have already acted. Who would have thought, that such self confident men, [in that you peremptorily conclude, the Army's ways are against the word of God, though your interpretation thereupon (as hereafter appears) makes the scriptures irreconcilable] should at a conference seek so much advantage from men, as to desire they should so much as question, much less deny the justness of their ways, about which they were to confer: for those that question the legality of their proceed, may easily be persuaded that they are illegal. But you still page 3. find fault with your invitation As is (say you) your ways were already granted by us; we were only invited to contribute our assistance in prosecution of what you had undertaken, which we conceive to be out of your Sphere.  
When would think that men [that would seem to be so conscientious as you do] should grumble that the Army (by their invitation) did repute you better than you were; yet I believe you mista●e them in it, for they could not be ignorant of the public impertinent and seditious opposition you made, and still make against them: therefore it would be folly to think, they should invite you to contribute assistance to their proceed, which they know, you so greatly did and do (though undeservedly) vilify; and all this from a mere conception, that they act out of their Sphere, gives more just ground to believe, that you are exceedingly transported with some affianced lust, thus inconsiderately to act out of your scheer, even to the reproach of your profession, by contending for such a power, which the word of God, allows not in any, and wherein to comply with you, 
〈◊〉 ●. 1  is to contradict the Apostles rule, that bids us have no fellowship with the unsrui●full works of darkness but reprove them rather.  
You proceed now more particularly [though inconsiderately in that you forget the 
* The 〈…〉 the 〈…〉  fast precedent of attempt against lawful authority, countenanced and ●●●tted (if not by verbal justification, yet in silence by you) to demonstrate the (by you so conceived) unjustness of the Arms ways, by their (by you called) late attempts up●n authority: and your words are these. It is already suffi●ien●● known (besides all former ●is●●arriages) what attempts of late have been put in practice against lawful authority: especially by your late Remonstrance and Declaration published in opposition to the proceed of Parliament.  
The practised attempts you speak off are [laying aside the common enemy, who in this ca●c are not to be our Judges, and indeed have forfeited so much as nomination] only discerned by your faction of unifo●mists, and consequently, the lawful authority you speak it, can be but alike opinionated prevailing faction in the Pa●liament, which upon just grounds being opposed, is accounted an unparalleled attempt against authority by you; when as such a faction is but jointly entrusted, by the Kingdom with the ●est; now for them, by virtue of a maj●● vote, to assume irresponsible and incontrolea●le power to themselves, is no l●sse usurpation: ●h●● that of the late Kings was [which is amply manifested in a book, entitled, the●●●●tion of the late King justified etc. already published by m●● to the Crown, by virtue of succession: and therefore no l●sse [but rather more because their trust is greater] offensive, and accordingly punishable, which I shall further illustrate, from your own party's example in the Parliament, when united with these, from whom they and you now descent; both jointly taking occasion [in discharge of that trust was reposed in them by the Kingdom] to exempt the Malignant party [upon that forfeiture of trust they made] from partaking in the privileges of Parliament, and likewise to exclude them the House: And yet after this, your faction in the Parliament (which you call the only lawful authority) shall recede and endeavour to resign up, that into the Malignant's power, which themselves jointly condemned, as breach of trust in them for attempting [viz. an inthralling of the people's liberties] and therefore dispossessed them, let reason & the world judge, whether the minor part in Parliament may not lawfully prosecute the samd forfeiture upon them, though the major part [breach of trust being the same in any, only the higher the persons the greater their offence therein] in cashiering them their trust, which they conco●ded should be, in the same case, upon the first Malignants, therefore what you charge the Army (the interest of the minor party) for attempt against the authority of your interest, was only the same advantage necessarily and justly improved by them, for the deposing of your Parties authority, which both united, took against the common ●ne●y; for, in that, your party in the Parliament [waving their late complying with the late King] did only seek the advancement of their own Interest, with pretence of good to the Kingdom, when it could be so only to themselves and their complices, they forfeited their trust; by which they were engaged to endeavour the good of such that then assisted them in that cause, as much as their own, which good cannot extend to all that so engaged with the Parliament, unless established from common principles, which were and are very wide of their and your tenants, th●t est●em not that liberty, which consists not in others oppression; the Army and their party, therefore [being as greatly entrusted for and in er●ssed in the good of the Kingdom, as those of yours] finding their liberties to be infringed by them, could not, but (in discharge of their duty to the Kingdom) clip their prevalency and obstruct their resolute prosecution of such an interest, merely satisfactory to their own party: and therefore far from a ge●●rall good: which to effect [in the establishment of such a government whereunder, as to yourselves, you may partake of as great benefit and freedom, as the present prosecu●ors thereof] the endeavours of the Army, can be no oppression, and therefore not unlawful, but expedient for them to attempt; wherein, your accusation of them is impertinent and scandalous. Yet you still persist pag. 4. [after several attempts recited and esteemed so by you, which I have already clearly proved in the negative] to justify your faction in the Parliament ●s the only authority, and therefore condemn the Army (though therein likewise you include the minor part of parliament) for opposing them; saying: All 〈◊〉 sr●ilues we cannot but judge, to be manifestly opposite to the lawf●ll authority of those Magistrates, which God hath set over us, and to that duty and obedience, which by the loves of God and man, and by our manifold Oaths and Covenants, we stand obliged to render to them.  
To which I answer, that if God had immediately (which your words would seem to imply) instituted and appointed y●u● party in the Parliament, to be sole (without others conjoined) Magistrates over us, and had enjoined us universal, in all cases, (for which we have neither precept nor precedent in God's word) obedience to them; it would have been sin in the Army in resisting them; but since God sets not all Magistrates (in that h● sets not tyrants) over us, otherwise then by permission: those are neer●st unto God's ordination, that receive their authority by his rule, which is now only through free election, and that not to an absolute power, to govern as they list (for then the people looseth their end, viz. th●ir own good in their choice) but to walk according to the rule that shall be prescribed them [a great defect (through the usurpation of predecessing Magstrates till of late days) in our laws] to discharge the end of their respective offices, and to perform the conditions upon which they are chosen (or at least for which they are intended) Magistrates; but now those that usurp authority, respects none of these rules, and therefore not lawful Magistrates for a lawful Magistrate cannot, and knows not, how to govern well [in that every particular expedient for the people's good in civil government, is not written in his heart] without a rule, [which the people only are best able to prescribe, seeing they know best their own wants. Now then, in what yond charge the Army of disobedience (as universal without exceptions to any) yourselves are guilty in the same, by complying which I urge against you (allowing it in yourselves and yet reproving it in them) as an example unto (though just in) hem, (but unjust in you, in that you now all●dge universal ●bedienc●) not to ye●ld obedience to all Magistrates.) Against the late King: let your pretence be what it will, viz. that you engaged against his evil council or the like; in your then engaging against them, you engaged against him abetting and inducing of them thereto, which is clearly testined by his approof (in which he died, as to all outward appearance) of them therein: and therefore to what you accuse the Army, for opposing lawful authority; I answer, that (besides that preci●ed, your own example) they have the reason, and righteousness of the act itself to justify them, in their opposition to your party, which had then the major Vote in Parliament, and by v●tu● whereof you call them lawful authority: Now, though from hence, you would enjoin the Army, obedience to them, which I have before showed is no plea, yet pray know thus much more, in answer thereto; that in just dissents, viz. for the good of the people, the minor part in Parliament (because so) cease not to be a power, but are the only power (in adhering to their charge) entrusted, because the pour of the other party is extinct throu●h their abuse thereof, by managing it to a wrong end, which your party was doing ●●edy for advantage to their own faction: therefore, in discharge of those b●nds both of God and men, which lay upon the minor part in Parliament, being then the only just power; they could not but improve (as they did) the●● utmost endeavours to perform their trust, viz. the people's Liberties, though against when they saw the digression of ●●a major party; therefore the opposition that you make against this present Parliament, (the only just power in be●●● is practical attempt against lawful authority; which according to your own words ●ou are bound by the laws of God a●●m●n, and manifold Oaths and Covenants to o●ey. Now ●h●●● the Parliament being then divided into lawful magistrates, and 〈…〉 ●hey were magistrates, let reasonable (not obstinate) men judge, whether the Army deserve ●●●et to be acquitted of your accusation, and justi●●● in those proceed, since the word of God commands them, to abb●●● that which is ●●●ll, and clea●e to that which is go●d. Rom. 12.9.  
But that you might confirm your matter, you proceed to quote scriptures, which as from God, are purely spiritual, no contradiction in them, all together righteous; but through men's various and corrupt interpretations, they are put (as 'twere) at civil wars, scripture against scripture, and made a cloak for most lustful errors; therefore the first text you cite, runs thus, in the advice to Solomon: Fear thou the Lord and the King, 
P●●●. 24 21.  and meddle not with them that are given to change: I shall (by way of answer) in these words denote, that the fear which Solomon enjoins to the King [in which title is comprehended all supreme Offices in power, therefore the same text commands fear, to a Parliament, or to the authority of any other way of government; else what the Apostle saith should be for instruction to all, is made useless, and of no force to many nations, that have no King, 
Rom. 15.4.  but are governed by States, someone way and some another] this fear I say, to the King, is conditional from the precedent fear, with which it's coupled; that is, the fear of the Lord: Fear thou the Lord, and the King; implying that we are not to fear the King, when it is disjoined, and much more when it will prejudice and extinguish the fear of the Lord; I would be as clear, yet as brief as I can; because my time is straightened: therefore  
Secondly, when he saith, Fear the King, without doubt, he means a lawful King, a King qualified for the Office; and then the text, enjoined not fear to the late King, as will more amply appear in my prenominated book.  
Thirdly, He means it not in all ci●ill cases, for than we shall come under that his reproof, it is not good, that is, 'tis a ●●n to have ●espect of persons in judgement, but now, 
Vose 23.  to respect Kings in judgement (through that former injunction to fear) notwithstanding punishable offences in them, is to respect persons in judgement, and so this latter text becomes ineffectual: but now that this latter may comply with the former verse, the latter must be expounded thus; It is not good, or it is a sin, to have respect of persons in judgement; that is, a King inclusively (though lawful in his calling) in ca●e of transgression, should be so far from being feared, as that judgement without partiality, should be executed on him: 
Luke 12.28.  and this is according to Christ's own rule; that to whom much is given, much shall be required: therefore the same laws that upon breach of trust, or any other offences, are (or should be) prosecuted against subordinate officers, or a Kings (should be brethren) subjects: the same should be prosecuted against a King, or superior magistrates so much the heavier, by how much, his or their trust and gifts being the more, his or their offences are the greater. Now than it is clear, that Solomon enjoins fear to Kings, or (where none are) to other superior Magistrates, only upon these grounds: viz. that they ar● lawful Magistrates, and as our fear to them, may consist with our fear to God; and this can be only in the execution of justice and judgement, which he commands: then lastly, the wiseman speaks this, not to those that have authority and power above the King, [as (before showed,) the agents in these transactions hath from the people, but to those that are private persons, without any interest in public affairs, as to trust: now in this sense I comply with the text; that private persons are to fear the higher powers, all such, whether Parliament or others, being included in this title King: but besides all these, I shall recite one p●oof more, (though the least) for justification of the Army herein, and that is your own examples in complying against the late King, which I wave, because before hinted: Now the application to what hath been said, in reference to this your first quoted text, I leave (because so easy) to be understood, and proceed (only hinting thus much) that seeing Solomon bids us meddle not with those that are given to change, (or in other translations, that are seditious, which is most fitly applied to yourselves, (and for the Army to observe towards you) that instead of preaching peace, the glad tidings of the Gospel, preach contention and debate.) yet yourselves are examples of a change, else many of you, would have had but small communion with light; and the reason why you are in such obscurity, i● because you are not so throughly changed, as you should be; there are yet too many episcopal principles in you, which particularly to survey, is from the purpose in hand; therefore I leave them as best known to God, and your own consciences, yet in part to the Kingdom; but only this, there are blessed changes.  
To the next text you quote, and that is, Withdraw from every brother, that walketh disorderly; and not according to the traditions, which you have received fro●● us. 
2 Thess. 3.6.   
Though you wave the particular end [in that Saint Paul in these instructions intende● them, to that particular act of inordinacy, vers. 8. from which he clears himself, by administering to his own necessities, & which he urgeth, 
Act● 18.34.  as a motive for every man, to work from his own example, though he had authority to have received maintenance from them, yet he saw it more expedient, to preach the gospel freely, since himself (among other reasons) was able to work: now though from this sense of that place, you very likely willingly) digress, yet it is too much veritied upon many of you, that make a trade, and pin your livelihoods upon the preaching of the Gospel, notwithstanding your abilities to the contrary: but if the Apostles thought it expedient to work; much more may you (whose authority is not so good) refer yourselves to the benevolence of your Congregations, or at least, not ungospellike, to contend for a reward] now I say, though you wave the particular end of the Apostles words; yet I shall answer a little to them in your own sense: therefore in the next place, you say, one of the Apostles traditions is,  
" Put them inminde to be subject to principalities, and powers; and to obey mag●●●;" 
T●● ●2. 1. Fo●. 13 1, 2.  and to let every soul be subject to the higher powers, etc.  
These te●● h●th in effect been already answered, the less therefore will now serve; now th●n seeing magistrates have a power above them: viz. the people, the original of their authority: it is clear, that the Apostle exhorts obedience in the people, 
D●●● ●8. ●6. F●●●. 33.2.  non conjunction, as they are the centre and top of the magistrates power, said d●●●s●●, as they are private persons; else you will civide the scripture, and make the fountain dependant on the streams; and the master, on his servants.  
Again he minded them of this obedience, either as a Church (which I rather believe) or as members of a State; if as a Church (though this interpretation wi●● h●●● good therein likewise) than what you infer, is as wide from the then present trans●●●tions of the Parliament and Army, as spiritual things are from temporal. And if as members of a State, your application of this text is altogether ●●●ti●ent, seeing it is granted, that private persons ought to obey lawful magr●●ates in lawful causes.  
But ●his 〈◊〉 t●xt you quote, seems to ●●g●a reason of obedience to magistrates, yet far from; 
Rom. 13.1, 2.  ●ur sense; the text saith, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there into po●er but of God, the powers that ●e are ordained of God: whos●e●er thereof ●or ●●ieth the power, resisleth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  
Now to open this scripture in opposition to your sense of it; I shall premise these things. viz. full, that there are powers immediately ordained of God, or by an immediate particular command from God: 
1 S●●● 17. 1 〈◊〉 13. 2● 〈◊〉 3.9.3.  that is, when God doth particularly institute such, or such a person to be a magistrate: thus God commanded Sam●● to single our Saul the s●ist King, and the same Prophet afterward, to ●●●int Davi●, the youngest of his br●●h en● in like manner was J●hu (though a servant to the successive King his master) instituted; therefore th● text commands not subjection in this sense, there ●eing no such ordination now. But.  
Secondly, there are powers mediately ordained of God, that is, God hath committee ●●t to a people, 
〈…〉 6. 1●.  to constitute their own Officers, whethe● high or lo●: n●w when a people hath thus elected, & with power invested their own magistrates (upon that general limitation to their respective Offices: viz. to do equity and righteousness in all the particular acts thereof, as far as the p●●●l● a●● convinced of them) than that people are enjoined by your precited text, 
1 〈◊〉 1● 9  as private persons, to obey them (in lawful commands) as the mediate ordinance of Go●: but it being clear (as before amply demonstrated) that the lawful authority you speak of, had not this qualification, or at least, acted not up to it; it is 〈◊〉, that this text enjoined not obedience to them, but consequently oppos●●● the contrary of subjection: and the Army is to be justifica (as upon many o●●●r grounds, so upon this) therein.  
Thirdly and lastly, in answer to the same text; there are powers permissively ordained by God, that is, such that God doth not prevent or oppose, but suffereth to be; and these are illegal, tyrannical, & oppressive powers, which God is said to ordain, as he is said to do evil by permitting it to be done: 
* Amos 3.6.  now for any to think that God is the author of evil because he permits it, or that God ordains (otherwise then permissively) and enjoins tyrannical powers, because he doth not appear against them: is to charge God with injustice; it being against his attribute of justice to enjoin obedience to an unjust power, it is indeed to make God the author of sin, so far as an unjust power is sinful; and therefore that the Apostle might manifest (as I believe) the justice of God herein; he limits our subjection to a condition, by rendering a reason thereof (which though you omit, yet is the very qualification of our subjection) the command is, Be subject to the higher powers, etc. but why? For, or because he (that is the magistrate) is the minister of God for thy wealth, etc. this is the very Hinge upon which the power of magistracy hangs, 
Rom. 13.4.  but take away the Hinge, and the door must needs be down; that is, if the magistrates actings, for the wealth of the people dies, their power dies with it: now if omissions of, much more commissions against the common wealths good (by oppressions in designing self-interest and the like) makes the power of Magistrates extinct: wherein likewise we are bound to resist them; it being the complaint of God, that none are found in a Nation, to oppose the exercise of an unjust power, whether in Princes by shedding of blood, or in Prophets by divining lies, or in the people (most likely in their Representatives) by oppression. The Lord saith, Ezek. 22.30. I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me, for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none: not only to stand in the gap by Prayer, but make up the hedge, put thorns in their way; and as the Margin hath it, which should show himself zealous in my cause, by resisting vice, & in the like neglect, Isa. 59.16. God wondered that no man offered himself to do judgement; and how acceptably did God take it, Numb. 25.11. that Phineas (though a private man) did execute justice upon Zimri and Cosbi, though the chief of their families; and though he had no particular command for what he did, and so not a rule (as some of you say) yet it is a renowned example (approved, by God himself) unto us (In case of the like neglect in others) to act up to that general and universal command, viz. the execution of judgement and justice, as he did; and such may expect the same blessing, if they respect the same end: therefore the Parliament and Army (that had both equity and power; and were entrusted) unto that opposition which they made against your (tho the major) party in Parliament (in their sought to be established oppression, and therein to infringe the people's liberties, tending to subvert the end and cause of their trust; an offence in any sole power, much more in them, who were but jointly entrusted] the fear of God did oblige them, though the minor part, as a happy and most desirable civil change from darkness unto light, communion wherewith we should most cover to enjoy, free from discontent, since we should rather secondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army, then trustfully to adhere to their authority, 
The first man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. L●●●try last, being, than Fastday  when there was the lest yet lawfullest (part thereof (which I have showed, we must rather obey) appearing to discharge their duty  
Now then, that can be no plea (though asserted by one of your * Brethren, upon that subject of universal obedience to Magistrates, seeing he made no exceptions) the effect of it [viz. that magistrates are of divine institution, that they bear God's image; that God himself calls them Gods; and therefore disobedience to them is an eternal damage, whereas to disappoint the people's safety, is but a temporal loss, and so to be less esteemed than an eternal.] I say, this can be no plea (craving leave a little to digress from your matter: for satisfaction sake, more formally, though this is effectually already answered since that the office or duty of the Magistrate not his own person) is only of divine institution; in the execution of which office [viz. 1 Kings 10.9. to do equity and righteousness, in as much as therein consists holiness] he bears God's image; but when Magistrates shall act quite contrary to the cause, which take away, and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being, by oppression, injustice, Covenant-breaking, exaltation above their (brethren, subjects; and all this with that great aggravation of self, respect: herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holiness, so unto dominion which is to rule in righteousness, meekness and mercy) in which defect they cease to be either the ordinance of God or man; and the people are disobliged from obedience to them, and so by consequence and contrary, may lawfully resist their evil practices. Nay, lawful magistrates enjoining things (that may ordinarily in themselves be lawful) in all extraordinary cases, may sometimes err; and lawfully be resisted therein; in as much as they obstruct a greater good: let all remember therefore, that as of two evils, the least, so of two goods the greatest is to be chosen: but the example of David may more fitly insert hereafter, at present I therefore wave it; and proceed to your fifth page, and there your words are:  
We have not forgotten those declared grounds and principles, upon which the Parliament first took up Arms, and upon which we were induced to join with them, etc.  
Which though you say, you have not declined, yet will prove the contrary: for the grounds that the Parliament first did (or at least should have done) take up arms upon; was not so much their own privileges, as the people's liberties: and therefore their 
* jaintry 17 1●●1.  Declaration (which you instance for confirmation, will prove the confutation of all your matter) upon that attempt which the King made upon their Privileges; putteth such an assault, as an offence against the liberty of the Subject, before a breach of their own privileges: whose privileges to preserve, indeed were the instrumental cause of our first taking up Arms; but we (not you, unless you confirm this truth) rested not here, this was not our end; the only thing we aimed at: but we had respect to some thing beyond, and yet then through the privileges of Parliament: viz. the People's liberties, the very end wherefore they sit: and the grounds of our assistance to them, was not so much [though our liberties were apparently, because we had no other power to appear for us, and whose miscarriage would have been ours not subordinately wrapped up in] their Privileges, as our own liberties; therefore consonant to this, is the conclusion of the precited Declaration; wherein they declare, the Person that shall so Arrest any member, or members of Parliament, to be a Public enemy to the Commonwealth; which clearly shows, that such members must be acting for the good of the common wealth, or else the Person or Persons so arresting them, will be so far from enemies, as that they will be friends to the Commonwealth in so doing: therefore from hence, this flows clearly, by way of use; that those are no Privileges (but usurped) of Parliament, that are inconsistent with the People's l●borties.  
As likewise this undeniable conclusion, that to arrest or seclude (as was then endeavoured by the late King) any Person or Persons in the Parliament acting for the people's liberties, is contrary thereunto; and a breach of the privileges of Parliament.  
But the Army [with the consent of those only lawful ones (and so the house) left behind] secluded the late members of Parliament, for infringing the people's liberties.  
Therefore it was no breath of their Privileges.  
But it is most manifest by all your precedent arguments and quotations, that you would make the people the Packhorse to all your imposed burdens, and slaves to no less than three powers; the King his Honour, and Prerogative; the Parliament their Privileges which you make distinct from, though if they are so, they must concur in, the people's liberties) above them; and you your Ecclesiastical government above all: but your complying with the two former; from all evidences, is only that they may assist in advancing yours; when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all cases, at all times, upon all occasion: all three would centre in the people's liberties; they being ordained for the people, and not the people for them: but herein you prefer the Box before the Ointment, the Raiment before the body: and you are blinded with self, yet confidently you say, you see; but therefore your blindness remaineth, and no wonder, if you occasion your own fal●.  
Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting, because in your 6 page 25. line: you say, that in reference to the power of Magistracy, they are but private Persons: it seems strange, that you should so forget the privilege, that both you and we, when united (in a then thought just cause against the King, by suing out our liberties) took (notwithstanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the kingdom) to esteem ourselves the kingdom: as witness your own words in the 5 p. of your pamphlet, line 12. upon the attempt of. the late King (destructive to the good of the Kingdom,) and shall the Army, and their party (which in comparison to yours, are more numerous, then both of us than were to the Kings) be esteemed as private Persons, and less justifiable, in the prosecution of the same end, against the proceed of your Party only? and can this be a breach of the Privileges (being only a Purge, which though it makes sick, yet is, in order to the health) of the Parliament, in acting up to the fountain of their Privileges: let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceed, since our eyes have been witness of the justness of them; and the rather, because they acted not alone (very lawful to do justly, should none other appear thereto) but contributed their assistance unto their solely lawful authority, which (though for quantity the least, yet for quality the best) being in the right, a minor Vote, was then ●ver-powred by might, a major Vote; and yet this doth, nor did not extenuate, or lessen the equity of the minor part, which to maintain (as being bound in duty thereunto) the then appearance of the Army must needs be justified; in as much likewise as choosing the good, and eschewing the evil is justifiable: and therefore for farther confirmation hereof, (though the premises considered, there needs none) from Junius Brutus (in as much as such relics chiefly appear upon some) upon the same subject, cited by Mr Prinne [in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments, and Kingdoms. pag. 198. line 1. to the 18,] from whom I gather them, viz  
The King swears that he will seek the safety of the Realm, the Nobles swe●r every one the same by himself: whether therefore the King, or most of the Nobles neglecting their Oath, shall either destroy the Commonweal, or desert it being in danger, ought the rest therefore to desert the Republic; or at least, but rather then especially, they ought to shows their fidelity, when as others neglect it, be less bound to defend it, as if they were observed from their Oath? Especially, since they were principally instituted for that end, like the Epho●● and every thing may then be reputed just, when it attains its end: whether truly if many have promised the same thing, is the obligation of the one dissolved by the perjury of the other? whether if many be guilty of the same sin, are the rest freed by the fraud of one? whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupil, shall one good man be less bound with the burden of the wardship through their default? but rather, neither can those avoid the infamy of perjury, unless they, end ●●our to satisfy their trust as much as in them lieth; neither can those exempt themselves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianship ill administered, unless they implead the other Guardians suspected; when as verily one guardian may not ●uely implead the rest suspected, and take care of those to be removed, but also remove them.  
The application of this passage I need not insert, seeing the words themselves are clear and easy to be understood, and that in general it holds forth thus much, That a minor party are bound in duty to discharge their trust, though in opposition to the major party neglecting or falsifying it. And although you would seem to take off an objection from the Parliaments own example in opposing the late King, by th●se your words.  
And although both Houses of Parliament (who are jointly together with the King entrusted with the supreme authority of the Kingdom) saw cause to take up Arms for their own defence, against the attempts made upon them by the King and his evil Counsellors; and for some other ends which you cite, though doubtless experience will produce sufficient testimony of better effected; yet it hath been amply and satisfactorily proved, that the Army have not acted as private persons, since they assisted the lawful authority (though the least part of the Nobles, yet the King's superior and so supreme, it being most unsafe to leave the supremacy undetermined, as is largely demonstrated by that Author [junius Brutus] quoted by Mr. Prinne in the 196, 197. pages of that his prenominated Book) in prosecution of the end of their engagements, the people's liberty, since likewise they were not instituted the Parliaments servants to pursue their end, but the people's good, in as much as the Parliament represents, and are but servants thereunto also. And therefore, whereas, when the Parliament first took up Arms, you would [page the 7.] plead their intentions then, was not thereby to do violence to the person of the King, etc. yet I answer, that this was not binding either to the Army, or to themselves, in case of greater enormities committed by him; for I had thought you had known the distinction, between intentions, and illimited determinations, or conclusions: because a man at the same time when he intends a thing; may prescribe to himself the intervening of some other thing that shall divert his intended act; therefore intention cannot proceed so farre as determination or resolution, could the Parliament then intent, should the late King have acted never so high in tyranny, to exempt him from accounting, and so collude (as the precited Author hath it) and not be reputed in the number of Prevaricators; or connive, of desertors; or not vindicate the Republic from his tyranny, and not be traitors?  
Now then, 'tis resolved upon the question, That the intentions of the Parliament then, could extend only unto that present time, wherein had he returned, they were willing to remit (without (as you term it) violence to his person) what he had then offended in, viz. attempts upon their privileges; but the (measure of his iniquity not being then full) not unto that time, wherein he prosecuted those attempts (not only on their privileges, but on the very foundation of Government, the people's liberties) in the blood of thousands; seeing they adjudged him by that their declaration, you have precited, no less than a public enemy, for practising such attempts, & might have justly proceeded accordingly; but I say, if then, much more now are they to be justified in that justice, o● frequently enjoined in Scripture, to be executed without respect of persons, and so, far from violence, wherein therefore your accusation is very scandals us.  
Again, neither could the Parliaments intentions then (as you affirm page 7.) extend to the continuance of that government now: for the constitution thereof must be considered either as good or bad; if as good in the positive (though the negative may be proved, which I wave, because the affirmative is indurable) yet better, or best, is to be preferred before it. Now then, could the Parliament then intent (or should they, yet were it binding either to themselves or us) the establishment of that or any other government? when greater light (in reference to the end for which government should be constituted, viz. the people's safety) should be manifested; nay, could the accomplishment of such purposes be esteemed otherwise then a rejecting of the light, and a loving of darkness rather than light. To instance this in one particular, Episcopal government (then constituted it's likely in the greatest measure of light they had) had it been binding either to future years or ages, than your abolishing of it was illegal; but through pretence of a greater light, and so lawfully, you have extirpated it therefore the constitution of what government you mean, was conditional (not upon yours, but our own light) and so not binding to us.  
But whereas, in the same page, you say you apprehend yourselves obliged thus to appear for the maintenance of your Religion, Laws, etc. as against those that would introduce an arbitraty tyrannical power in the King: so on the other hand against the irregular proceed of private persons (as you term them, though I have showed they are public) to introduce anarchy, irreligion, etc. the former of which justifies the Army in that opposition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing, by tolerating, if not tyranny, yet such a power in the King, whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people; and the cause of your obligation to the latter, is taken away, since you may enjoy under the government to be set led (laying aside your principles of oppression) as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any: whereunder likewise, as may be (because the best way) continued love and amity, so in stead of irreligion, a free religion most suitable to the Gospel (not compulsive or constrictive) may be introduced.  
But now, that your former matter might seem infallible, you reinforce it with a Covenant, though never intended for such an abuse; you include the Army (making them unparalleled Covenant-breakers) as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such (as you instance from Scripture) who violated an absolute, pure, simple Covenant; whereas ours was limited & conditional, only the bond or rye of both being alike, the breach whereof was the cause that God poured down his judgements upon them: In this therefore your holdfast will prove as infirm as in the rest, and according to the literali sense of it, (not to mention here your omission of the end) yourselves will be found more guilty of perjury than any, and so your texts are misapplied.  
You say then, page 7. That you are the more strongly engaged to adhere to your former just principles, ●y reason of the several oaths and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdom; and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641, wherein (as your words are) We do in the presence of Almighty God promise, vow & protest, according to the duty of our Allegiance, to maintain and defend with our lives, powers and estates, his Majesty's Royal person, honour and estate, and the power and privileges of Parliament.  
To this I answer first, That your first engagement upon these precedent principles (as if they were independent, and the people's sole happiness did consist in them, as you positively cite) was unjust and without understanding. For mark you how the former particular in the oath doth depend upon the latter; you did not swear (give me leave a little to enlighten lighten you, it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance, but a greater to continue ignorant of it) to maintain and defend the late King's Majesties person, etc. in case he should with his person, make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and privileges of Parliament, which (unless you be turned malignants obstinate) you cannot but confess is a limitation to the former clause in that oath, and indeed with which you complied against the late King, and never violated the oath, as to that particular, because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other (as experience hath witnessed) by cleaving to one and forsaking the other: we break the oath unless we make one conditional and dependent upon the other, which was the late King's case, the Parliament being more entrusted, and so more supreme than himself. This yourselves have granted: herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant.  
Again, as to that latter clause [to defend and maintain the power and privileges of Parliament] I answer, that this likewise doth rely and depend upon something, which though you insert not, and if neither expressed in the oath, yet is consequently and necessarily understood to be the top and end of both. For in what you did engage against an unquestionable and tyrannical power in the King, to set it up in a major vote of Parliament, you did it void of understanding, and a great deal of blood was shed to no purpose, which (upon such an engagement) for aught I know, may as soon lie upon your account, as elsewhere But to be short, because before insisted on, the Parliaments power and privileges continue in such force above a Kings, whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted, and from whom the same end both did and do receive their power, which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdom, particularly these words, [junius Brutus, p. 154.] A King exists by and for the people, and cannot consist without the people, and that all Officers are chosen by the people. Several other Authors to the same purpose he quotes: but desirous to hasten to a conclusion) I wave, and proceed to discover how palpably yourselves are guilty of the breach of this oath.  
First, as to that particular which you did swear to defend the late King's person, etc. you are guilty of perjuty, for that you never ventured your lives, persons, and estates, to preserve his person, many times (perhaps not intentionally, yet accidentally) in jeopardy from the Parliaments Forces, against whom according to this clause in your oath, with your temporal All you should have defended him.  
Secondly, as to the maintenance of his Honour, you fail likewise, since you have complied with the Parliament, a● least by silence, to detract from his honour, by intending to dimini●h that Authority which formerly (though unlawfully) he had in the Kingdom.  
I hirdly, to be brief, by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament, in depriving him of his (because possessed of it, though it were and is the peoples) former estate. M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, in his seventh Observation, his words are, That Emperors, Kings, Princes, are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands, Revenues, Forts, Castles, Ships, jewels, Ammunition, Treasure of their Empires, Kingdoms, to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures, but only the Guardians, trusties, Stewards, or Supervisors of them, for their Kingdoms use and benefit, from whom they cannot alien them, nor may without their consents or privities, lawfully dispose of them, or any of them, to the public prejudice, which if they doc, their Grants are void and revocable.  
Now, as to this first clause in that oath, in which I have showed you are guilty of a breach) the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant, the people's safety, which they are principally to endeavour, though against other subordinate inclusions that prove prejudicial thereto: as to the Oaths of Allegiance, the obligation is void, since he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us, as Subjects; which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book, where he saith, There is every where between the Prince and People, a mutual and reciprocal obligation: be promiseth that he will be a just Prince; They, that they will obey him, if be shall be such a one: therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition: the Prince, purely to the People: therefore if the condition be not fulfilled, the People are unbound; the contrast void, the obligation null in law is self: therefore, the King is perfidious if be Reigns unjustly: the People perfidious, if they obey not him, who Reigns justly.  
To which I add, that the Magistrate, being but a servant in duty cannot call them to account, for their perfidiousness (God properly being the avenger of that in them) but they him: since the wrong and hurt is chiefly done unto themselves, not unto him; who dischargeth his duty in gentle persuasion and admonition.  
But the People are free from all crime of perfidiousness, if they publicly renounce him who reign unjustly: or if they endeavour to evict him with Arms, who desires to retain the kingdom unlawfully.  
Again, as to the defence of his Person, the Army is clear, as to that time (the Oath being then the same) since he was out of their power, and in the possession of others; and might (if he would) have destroyed himself: there is this limitation to it, likewise to justify the Army in their late proceed against him; that our defence to his Person must needs be understood to be in just ways; else such would be partakers in his sin, and become liable to the same punishment, as the justly executed 
* Hamll●ton  Lords were, Holland, and Capell.  
And then as to the latter particular in that Oath, viz. The defence of the power and Privileges of the Parliament: the Army's refining their House cannot be reputed a breach of that Privileges, no more than the rectifying of one crooked line to the Centre, may be esteemed the disordering of the circumference: since likewise, that the convening, or assembling of the Parliament is not (but their representing the People, not only in their Persons, but in their qualifications, which doth distinguish them from Slaves: is) the original of their power and Privileges: the which therefore, can be no longer reputed theirs, than they are the peoples; and the endeavours of the Army to repossess them of their own, can be no breach of Covenant.  
Again, concerning the Vow and Covenant, taken to unite us against those conspiracies and designs that were practised against the Parliament; you are likewise guilty of a breach, (though herein you have acted, yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own) by disjunction of what tended to unity, and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every respect, as we to you; notwithstanding your labour hath been spent to hale others to Conformity to your way: In which (laying aside their endeavours to free themselves from your oppression) they are clear towards you.  
But now, your last and greatest seeming prop, upon which you build all your arguments, as to your sense upon it will prove as invalid, as all the rest; and those scriptures you cite for proof thereof, misapplied. You cite the Covenant thus:  
That you will sircerely, really, and constantly, in your several Vocations, endeavour to preserve the Rights and Privileges of the Parliaments; and preserve and defend the King's Majesty's Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms.  
Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant, I shall not here farther enlarge, because before insisted upon, and proved that they have (though you exempt) conditions understood as limits and bounds to our defence and preservation of them. Therefore I shall only commemorate you a little of the conclusion: The Independent part (as to temporals) of this Covenant, which when first instituted, was intended for a general good; therefore that party that hath sought to over reach any other thereby, and design it only for their own good, must needs be guilty, as of fraud, so of a breach thereof; but I leave this to your own Consciences (if not dead) to apply, and proceed to recite the engagement: viz. We will, etc. indeacour to preserve and defend the Rights and Privileges of Parliament, and the King's Person, etc. But how? In the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdoms: that is so far, as the two former doth concur and incur, to the preservation of this latter; so far, as the maintenance of the Rights & Privileges of the Parliament do; and as the Person, Honour and safety of the late King did Centre in the safety, preservation, defence, and propagation of the true Religion, and the liberties of the Kingdom: but now should the Parliament, as your party therein, & the late King did) usurp Privileges and Prerogatives, as to establish themselves in the government; so likewise forcibly what form thereof they please upon others, and turn enemies to the liberties (the very spring of all their most as and actings, as lawful Magistrates) of the Kingdoms; By this Covenant, we are not only disobliged from obedience to them, but also engaged to oppose them, as enemies to the true Religion: it being free, and to the Liberties of the Kingdoms.  
Furthermore, we are the more firmly obliged hereunto, by that relation & union, this oath hath with the former; wherein both you and we [supposing myself (had I been through age capable) to have taken the Covenant] equivalently did engage against those conspiracies, that were & after should be contrived against the Parliament: but now, was not our, conjunction & colligation against such confederacies, more with respect unto, or for that they were designed against the public good of the Kingdoms; then merely or principally, for the defence & preservation of the Parliament therein: who were only, as an assembly of men, without qualifications accordingly. Now then, this being granted (as necessarily it must, unless you will be unnatural, and irrational, to prefer so few singly before the safety of the Kingdom, wherein yourselves likewise are interested) I say, this being granted, it undeniably follows, that if the Parliament (as is sufficiently proved your party thereof did) should turn enemies to the good of the Kingdoms (which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance, and them not otherwise then they shall concur herewith) we are bound by those precited Covenants, as to oppose them, so to inflict (without respect of persons) the same (if not greater, because their trust aggravates their fault) punishment upon them, as upon others in the like offences; provided that right take place.  
But now I shall proceed to speak a little to these two particulars in the end of the Covenant; We swore to defend the Person of the King, and the Privileges of Parliament, etc. in the defence of the true Religion, etc. because this is one of your main accusations against the Army that (you say) they have not endeavoured to preserve Religion: in as much likewise as that it is distinct from the People's civil liberties, and the first thing necessary, could it infallibly be determined.  
I shall propound some things to your consideration, as to clear the Army from your aspersions herein; so likewise to illuminate yourselves and stop (if reason will) your invectives: And  
The first is this; did we in covenanting to preserve and defend the true Religion, swear to maintain your Religion? Especially, when we were not convinced of the truth of it; and than though it were so, if we knew it not, how could we keep the Covenant in maintaining it as true? And therefore I answer in the negative, we did not (wear to defend your way of Government, because this were sinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it, which yourselves cannot make out to be jure Divino, & so infallible, and therefore not to be imposed upon others. Again, suppose we had engaged to have maintained your Government of Uniformity, as being (to our light) the truest way then extant; yet could this engagement firmly extend to times of greater light, & not sinfully suppress the truth? As for instance, Had you in the days of Episcopacy, taken an Oath (without any limitations expressed) to maintain and defend it, yet could you think yourselves obliged to have kept it, when convinced of the way that you are now in, and not forget that a greater light always extinguisheth a lesser, as the light of a Torch that of a Candle? Now then, what I would infer herefrom, is, That seeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true [in that we expect, and do or should patiently wait (according to God's promises) for a more perfect] Religion, which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man: the best way to preserve this Covenant unviolated, is to tolerate many opinions, or (if you will) religions: For by this means there will be a door opened for the truest to have free passage, which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph; but otherwise, constrained conformity to one way, not the perfectest, is to limit and confine the Spit of God to a general illumination; which limitation, how sinful; and dispensation (if at all) how seldom, let any reasonable men judge. Therefore such a predicted toleration endeavoured by any, cannot be reputed a breach of covenant.  
Now then, the other particular, viz. the people's liberties, in the end of our Covenant (the first, viz. true Religion being yet in obscurity) doth appear to be the sole and visible end of our engagement, and therefore the Master-wheel, upon which the motion of the power and privileges of Parliament, and the person of the King (though by this Oath (waving his Office being the cause of his greatness) we are no more tied to his, than a private man's person) as being under and lesser wheels doth depend. Now therefore those that have complied with the two former, which indeed are but instruments, (and as men cannot build without tools, so a people cannot rule without some elected and compendious form; yet as the instrument cannot ascribe any thing to itself, in the work it is appointed unto, being made, guided, and acted by man; even to, the Parliament or any others 〈◊〉 whom the people shall contract themselves to govern, and prescribe them Rules accordingly, cannot ascribe the good discharge of their trust according to those rules, unto themselves, so much as to the people that instituted them, since likewise that the burden of the ill managing of their power, if not redressed by, would most of all be laid upon the people) I say, these that have complied with the two former, that are but as instruments in the people's hands, and herein have preferred the shell before the kinnell, the effect before the cause, their motion before the suggestion, and this against the liberties of the people, the very end of their and our Covenant; those are the only persons that have violated their oath.  
For in all Obligations (as well temporal in which the liberties of the people, as in this of ours, is principally aimed at: as in spiritual, in which the glory of God is or should be chief intended;) the end, the thing aimed at, the cause of the obligation, is above the bond or tie thereof; because, not endeavouring, or neglecting to attain the end, doth occasion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant: And therefore the use of an oath in this case, is only to incite [in that there is an engagement lies upon the spirit of those that swear] firmly and undauntedly to prosecute their end; which they cannot do, as that Oath against Conspiracies testifieth; but in opposition to all the enemies thereof: therefore if Parliament, as your faction therein did, and the King not only desist from endeavouring that end of the Covenant, viz. The people's liberties, upon which condition they were included in preservation; but also turn enemies, though intended for the former end, to the good of the same: the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of connivance and perjury, unless they courageously in prosecution of their cathes end [notwithstanding all other literal, conditional, and subordinate inclosions therein] oppose them as enemies thereunto. But now unto this effect, the Army in their late transactions hath manifested their opposition unto the two former, therefore they have performed the Covenants, insomuch that the world may bear witness with their consciences, that they had no thought [the premises considered] to diminish his Majesty's [just] power and greatness.  
Now then, your grand objections from the Covenant, being fully answered, and the Army from your aspersions hereupon vindicated, as I hope all reasonable men will clearly discern, it were an easy thing to reply all your subsequent quotations of examples of God's judgements upon Covenant-breakers, upon yourselves, since you have neglected the end, and so are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant; but I wave this, and shall with more brevity and lesser pains, prove the said quotations misapplied and impertinent.  
And therefore to the first of them, viz that oath of Zedekiah [Ezek. 17.14, 15, 16, 19] King of Jerusalem, of obedience to the King of Babylon; I answer, that his oath was absolute, and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylon's part, so is not ours, as hath been amply proved. Again, the end of his Covenant was perfect obedience as to civil affairs; ours, limited to the people's liberties; his attempt of the people's freedom (or perhaps his own rather than theirs) being against the will of God, in that his oath was inconditionall, and he had no such superior relation and power above the King of Babylon, and so exposed the people more unto his tyrannical will and power then before; ours, being agreeable to the will of God, in executing justice, especially since the people are the root of the Kings and all other Authority: and he, their servant to act for their good, and therefore accountable; put in trust by them, and therefore their Steward, and so required to give an account of his Stewardsh: as to God in the things he hides from men, so to his people in public neglect of his trust. I need not further amplify the disparity of our Covenant with his, since it is clear, that therein we had an end above the preservation of King or Parliament; which to endeavour, can be no violation of the tye of the Covenant (of which Zedekiah was guilty) and therefore I believe (as to the merit of such a sin) we shall not partake of his judgements.  
Now then, my serious (and therefore let it not be rejected) advice to you is, That you would consider and confer you covenant with what I have dilated thereupon, and confess and revoke your mistakes and breaches thereof in those several particulars whereof (and as I have cleared you are guilty, in our public assemblies, that through your hearty sorrow for the same, and such a real testimony of your illumination, the Parliament and Army may be again induced to invite you to their Consultations. And whereas you have been instruments of sedition, you may be so now of enlightening and composing the spirits of those you have seduced and incensed against the public good; and that hereby you may redisplay what excellencies hath been all this while under a cloud of self-interest in you, that so you may recover our hearts, helps, and prayers, that the blessing of God may be upon you, and that you may relinquish revile and invectives with mixtures of self esteem in your preach, that so the Gospel in the simplicity, purity, and truth thereof, may be dispensed by you, to the comfort of all those whom now you (undeservedly) oppose, and that by your serious and cordial application of this matter, you may become their professed friends in one day, to the terrifying of both your enemies, that yet rejoice in your dissension. But in your tenth page you still brand the Army, (as being your greatest eyesore and heartsore) with Disobedience to Magistrates, which indeed were a great sin, as by the examples of God's judgements (which you cite) upon it, did you rightly apply it. But because your particular designs are obstructed, and prevented, therefore you will unpreach what ever formerly with vehemency you have conjured the people unto: I cannot but reply (since you are conscious of the frequent commands in God's word to yield obedience to Magistrates, doth not include tyrannical Magistrates, or lawful ones in all cases, which hath been sufficiently proved, yet the example of Jehu, remaining for our instruction in the like case, doth more confirm, who (though a private person, yet was commanded from God [2 King's 9.7.] too avenge the blood of the Prophets upon the House of Ahab, by whose authority or connivance they were destroyed, which accordingly he executed, as in the 24 verse upon Jehoram, that had an hereditary right to the Crown, and succeeded in his stead.) You know the word of God frequently enjoins universal and unpartial justice, without exemption and respect of persons; and yet you speak contrary to your knowledge, by seeking to impel total obedience in the Army to Magistrates, when through some defaults from Scripture-warrant, they may be exposed to a condition of punishment, and then very incapable either to command or be obeyed. And then you practise otherwise then you speak, when your own interest is uppermost, and obstructed by the Magistrates (as now) none more forward to oppose them, and excite others thereunto, than yourselves, as witness your resolution against tyranny in the King, in the seventh page of that your Book, and your groundless impudent opposition to the Parliament now.  
But to your exhortation page your 11. and 12. for the Army to examine themselves, whether they should not have opposed those proceed (there largely recited by you in others if done by them, which they did approve of and esteem as a virtue in themselves; I answer, that one and the self same act done by distinct persons, may become just or unjust according to the cause or end thereof for which the party acts it: Now then, 'tis just and unjust to seclude a Major part of Parliament; just in them, that secluded your party their trust, when they were apparently acting against the end thereof, the good of tho●e that entrusted them; and therefore I cannot but remember, how when the Army was first before the City, they voted in the King, and proclaimed to make humble addresses to him for peace, without any conditions, and how easily, (if excepted against at all by them) in the treaty with the late King, they let slip his negative voice (though the chiefest ground of so long a war) if I am not mistaken. Again, it would have been unjust in your party from their principles of self-interest, to have secluded any other (though a minor) part in Parliament, endeavouring only their own liberties, not prejudicial to others, when indeed they might (as now they do) better extend freedom to the whole Nation. And lastly, it would have been more unjust in malignants from their superlative principles of tyranny, to have attempted the seclusion of either. It was Ichu's unjust end in his act, not the ●ct itself which was just, that brought a judgement upon his posterity. And in 2 Chron. 25.2. Amaziah did those things that were upright in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heirs. Hypocrisy in a duty makes the manner of its performance become abominable in the sight of God, it makes the manner which God most respects in a duty, become the object of his hatred, and greatly inferior to the matter of the duty Now then, the reproofs in Scripture that you allege against the Army, as disobedient to Authority, may most fitly and deservedly be replied upon yourselves. Therefore give me leave a little to urge your own interpretation of the Scriptures upon yourselves. The first is, Tit. 3.1. Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and to obey Magistrates. You kn●w Sirs, where the Powers are, since you make Pulpit-confessions of them (though not as a Parliament) most intolerable contempt in you, of no less th●n the ordinance of God, (waving the justness thereof as from Man, because largely p●●d●m●nst●ated) for that the Apostle Rom. 13.1, 2. commands, Let every sou●e of yo● be subject to the higher powers, for there is no powers but of God. Here are the reasons of your obedience; The power, that be are ordained of God; and they thu resist, r●si●● the Ordinance of God. etc. Mark Sirs, the Apostle speaks it in the present tense, or time, The powers that be are ordained of God, as being the word of God that is everlasting, yesterday, and to day, and the same forever, firm and effectual in all generations. Now then, what is the reason you somuch oppose them, and resist the Ordinance of God, by di●av●wing their authority? Surely this among others, that they are so honest to su●er other men to p●a●tue what you profess, and not to cause them hid their Talon in a Napkin, but as they have received freely, so, freely to give (the Spirit of God not being limited in his gists, o●ely where such a traditional and humane calling (as yours) is.) This b●n● likewise agreeable to Mos● this public p●●●t for God's glory, that would that all the L●r● people were Prophets; and I cannot conceive so hardly, as that he should with them gists inf●●●● in to his own.  
Now therefore I entreat you to consider, that your centempt of this God's ordinance, depends upon no less than an ternall penalty, viz. damnation, unless you timely recover it by your future and sincere obedience; which in neglected, you likewise come under a brand here, that Iu●● verse 8, 11. sets upon those that despise Dominion, and speak evil of Dignities (it must be those that are present then) woe unto them, faith he, for they are gone in the way of Cain etc. You know likewise the sad effect of Corah, ●athan, and abiram's unjust rebellion against Moses and. Aaron, appointed by God over them; as also how I have proved the lawfulness of this present Parliament, and their proceed which you accuse, and how the same judgement remains for the disobedient in their degree; let this therefore be a means to reclaim you, surely, else the judgement of God is according to truth against those that commit such things, who will render to every man according to his deeds: For there is no respect of ●●rsous with God, Rom. 2.2, 6, 11.  
But whereas you fear, Jest jesuits should have too great an Influence upon the Armies late transactions, especially against the King; I shall not insist upon this, but tender you conceptions, that it is inconsistent with reason, to think that jesuits should so much destroy their own interest of ●opery, as to foment and prosecute such an act of justice upon the late King. But however, suppose it were so, yet all I●le say, as to this, is, That the justness of the things managed, not the managers, is to be respected: Therefore as to other the Armies proceed, let the equity of them acquit them from any such Jesuitical influence (as you fear to be) upon them. And seeing no party can clear themselves of such a concurrence and influence in their own way, let them have a care of making it heinous in others, especially knowing, that where God sows his Word, there the Devil will sow Tares, and such a mixture is so fare from disparaging and clouding the word of God, as that it makes it more splendent.  
But I proceed to your 12. page, wherein you dissuade the Army (as being the But you aim at, because the greatest impediment to the advancement of your interest) from too much confidence in former successes. The which advice indeed literally is good, not to respect blessings and m●●●●s above th● God that gives them; but in your sense, is directly to digresses●o●n that excellent Rule, Deut. 3 27. to 15. To remember the days of old, etc. not only 〈◊〉 praise God for them, but make them encouragements in greater straits to trust to God's providence for d●●●●●●nce. This use David made of his former success against the Lion and the Bear, therefore (saith he, 1 Sam. 17.3.) this uncircumcised Philistin (Goliath) shall ●●c as one ●●●h●m etc.  
And is not the Army obliged to s●ck out the like encouragements from former successes, in so good a caus● to prosecute the and thereof, viz. the liberties of the people? it being the will and ●●nd of God th● they ●●ould live free from the molestation and oppression of any, much less their servants: in the which way likewise God had foe greatly blest them. And (as you say) though S●●omon saith, Eccles. 8.14 7.1. that there be sometimes just men to who● 〈◊〉 happeneth according to the work of the wicked; and to wicked men according to the work of the righteous: And, that there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, etc. yet this is no argument for a godly man to forgo his integrity, or a wicked man to persist in his wickedness. The Benjamites twice good success lessened not the evil of their cause, or the Israelites bad success the goodness of theirs, who at last had victory, judg. 20. Though God walk in the Sanctuary, yet we are not to decline the Sanctuary: can we do good unless we have a providence to effect it? And though we should perish in it, yet were it not a sin to omit such a providence. David. in such necessity are the Shewbread, though in itself unlawful. In civil affairs the providence of God rules, where his Word doth not meddle; the which then is a safe rule to walk by, especially in such acts that promote freedom, judgement and righteousness, which the word of God justifies: As when a man is in slavery, having a providence, (it is a ground for him) to escape: which if he should neglect, his perpetual bondage would be but just.  
Now then, it being before clearly proved both from the word of God, the law of Nature and Reason, that the late transactions of the Parliament and Army (for which you accuse them) are just and g●od: it as clearly follows, that the end of those actions in itself, is just and good; the which therefore to pursue, providence and the necessity of improving the same when offered, besides what the good end itself requires, and what evil the neglect thereof may produce, as likewise impulses of spirit thereunto, all which concurring in the self same act, to promote the self same end, must needs be not only an incitation, but a Rule for the Army to walk by, especially in those ways which the word of God justifies, as well as in th●se with which it meddles not. For we must thus fare conclude, that the word of God directs not in the ordering of a civil State, and that neither the law of the land (it not being civilly perfect) comprehends all things rationally requisite thereunto. Whether then it can be imputed irregular, and so transgression, that hath both the light of reason, providence, necessity, and an impulse of spirit (which you say is no rule without the word of God) assisting the establishment of what (as beforesaid) the word of God directs not, and the law of the land is defective in? Nay surely, since that which is needful at one time, may be hurtful at another, and the mending cannot be esteemed the breaking of the Rule, likewise, that the making the law more impartial, cannot be thought to be an abrogating of it.  
Again, as to what the word of God enjoins in general, as in that command generally without exceptions, To execute justice and judgement, it prescribes not every particular act of justice and judgement, but leaves it to an impulse of his Spirit, to our understandings, the necessity of it, and his providence together: all which in this case, must needs be a rule to walk by. Again, (to touch upon what before promised) if two commands should come in competition (as in this case they do not) yet the greatest is to be first respected and obeyed. There was a command not to eat the Show bread, but David had a greater command, Not to murder, least of all himself, when there was such sustenance before him, which he rather obeyed. If then universal obedience were (as it is not) enjoined to all Magistrates, yet the execution of judgement and justice, as a greater command, more force in it, must be preferred before it, without respect of persons; and this from an impulse of Spirit in those empowered for the office: and that there are such, the very command implies as much, ●●●e that a people cannot execute judgement and justice, without illimited power to do it.  
Moreover, to your objection of an Impulse of spirit falling upon multitudes at the same time, patting them all at once ●pon performances, contrary to moral precepts (as you say) or whether those that have such an impulse of spirit, can command others that have it not? I partly answer, that if the transactions of the Army (that you speak of,) were contrary to moral precepts (as you peremptorily conclude they are) than they must be contrary to God's word: but it is before clearly proved, that they are in general and so in particular, agreeble to God's word, therefore they cannot be contrary to moral precepts. Now then, for fuller resolution to this your Question, we must consider whether the things thus impulsed by the Spirit, be against a command greater or lesser, whether against a greater command that is absolute, and will in no case admit of a breach: or whether against a lesser command, as in some cases (as that a greater may not be violated) will admit of a breach of the letter of i●, thus the fifth Commandment is subordinate to the first, viz. to own God, though in the denial of our parents. Thus likewise in two necessities, the greater is to be p●efer●d before the lesse●.  
We read that the rigour of the punishment due to theft under the Law, was mitigated when committed merely to preserve life. The fourth Commandment likewise dispenseth with needful acts, it holds good likewise in the example of David which you instance, wherewith I thus far comply, that for David in revenge of his own private cause; being especially a private person, to have improved those providences he had to have killed Saul, might have been a sin, as in the case of Nabal; that also being no ground for any to take away another man's life, because he would have taken away his: but now had it thus happened, that Saul in pursuit of David had so straitened him, that either he must have killed Sa●d, or by him have been killed himself; in this case I believe the law of Reason and Nature affords a man all means to preserve his own life. Upon the aforesaid limitation, the Margin (upon that providence given David) hath it to the same effect, and for proof instanceth the example of Ichu.  
Now then, much more the impulses of Spirit [upon (though not the multitude, yet) such that have the command of them, unto the execution of absolute commands, free from all exceptions, which ten is not likewise to the breach of others qualified with conditions, as (hath been amply showed) our subjection to Magistrates is] are to be followed. And seeing it lies as a dutty upon all to act in obedience to these commands, especially such that are convinced of the justness of them, and much more those that are incited by the Spirit to obey them. It is clear that the persons that have this impulse of Spirit, may incite, and (especially in that they have authority over the multitude, as you call the Army) command those others that want such an impulse of spirit (though they were never yet compelled) to act in discharge of that their duty; seeing likewise we are to perform duties, though we want that spiritual quickening that is most acceptable in them.  
Again, towards a conclusion (though I needed not thus largely to have proceeded up on the last part of your matter, which depends upon concession; that those actions of the Army were illegal, since I have proved the contrary, that they were lawful and just; and therefore all your discourse of providences, impulses of spirit, & no necessity to sin, hath been to no purpose, but, because I would as f●lly satisfy as I may: I shall speak a little to that your last objection viz That there is no necessity can oblige a man to sin, from whence it clearly follows that, to what a man is obliged by necessity, that is no sin: now then, the Army's necessity unto those transactions was absolute (besides what expedition the goodness itself of them required) in th●t they aff●ied other means in vain, when reason would allow them no other than the stric●nesse of justice: their necessity was likewise present, because post est occasio calva, opportunity once neglected is not their own to recall; and also clear (though you say only to themselves) since the truth is only discerned of those that have it; therefore the means they have used being clearly good, it cannot consist with your charity, to fear their ends aimed at less justifiable.  
And then lastly, your exhortation, pag. 15. to the army, to recede from these evil ways, as your words are; is altogether useless, and which if followed would prove very prejudicial, since the justness of these ways is clearly manifested, and as far as the omission thereof, and receding therefrom would be prejudicial; and therefore to what you would incite the Army from john Baptists lesson to Soldiers Luke 3.14. viz. Do violence to no man, etc. is already practised by them, since that command forbids not, but that they should do justice to all men; or may run thus, do violence to no man, but legally try, and let justice take place upon all men (as the f●llowing words shows) not accusing any man falsty, and be content with your wages: this last clause likewise is so candidly observed by the Army, that the whole Nation can bear witness to their patience and cententednesse, with what little they have received, notwithstanding the great arrears due to them, and their necessities f●r the same: but in your conclu●i●n though you have so boldly proceeded hitherto you cenf●sle and confine your fear of the Armies threatenings (for so it seems they are interpreted by you, which were only brotherly premonitions, what would be the consequence of your seditious doctrine should you persist therein) unto their general return, unto that which is only conceived by you to be their duty: truly this is very disagreeable to your Profession, to desire and persuade men to return from what is so clearly manifested to be enjoined by the word of God, viz. to execute justice and judgement, and the establishment of the People's liberties, for which they have Covenanted; and from which (the prayers of honest men will be) Lord let them never digress▪ but persevere in the truth: though occasionally thereby men be scandalised and offended never so much; but being more willing of your conviction, then forcible suppression, I entreat you to apply your s●l●es more sincerely to discharge your own duty, before you presume to censure wherein you conceive others fail; and labour after more charity towards your brethren, ceasing to be any longer like children, whose hearts are big, but▪ dare not cry because the ●●d of the patent is over them. It is a sad thing when you that pretend to have the keeping of the Oracles of God, and to receive (as it were) the law at his mouth; should walk so irregularly, as to deserve to have laws prescribed by authority to keep you within your own sphere, to direct you how far the liberty of your profession will extend: I say, like children not for innocency; but you are no longer quiet than the rod of the Army is over you, nor then neither; but you must be sobbing and sighing, you must have dry slings at them; my what would you not speak if you durst, since you dare to speak so much as you do: and therefore, whereas (in case of sufferings for your deserts) you seem to extract comfort from more peculiar servants of God, that suffered for clear infallible t●●ths, without a tempting to compel others to conform thereunto: yet I am confident, that if (through your own all tri●pi●copall spirits meddling in matters impertinent as to yourselves) you acquire to yourselves sufferings; you suffer not for Christ, but as busy bodies, and your comfort will advene accordingly. What instrumental good you have been f●●●erly unto any in the due exercise of your calling, cannot but be acknowledged as by o●●●, so by myself, that hath had a share therein: but this is no argument to jus●●●ey you in you● late and present exorbitancy: That smal● esteem that many formerly, wh●n deserved, respective you 〈◊〉 hath now of you, hath been the product of your own miscarriages, ●●s●rde●y walking, beyond the line of your profession, both in words and actions: you have and d●e endeavour to pour contempt upon the lawful authority of this Kingdom; some of you actually disobeying them, others baulking the observation of then commands notwithstanding the several places of scripture, which yourselves have quoted, fire-proof to such disobedient ones herein) and all this being aggravated with s●lt respect, d●th render your proceed the more odious, and your Pulpit contradictions, your d●●t●m● more lame and invalid: yea, very unprofitable; giving just cause to fear, that the slender returns to all your Pasting and Prayers, hath been, because you have performed th●se and other duties to a wrong end: Like to those which the Prpph●● Isa●th speaks to: Isa. 58.3.4. Behold, in the day of your fast, you will seek your will, and require all your del●s. Behold, ye fast to strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wh●le●nesse, etc. How often upon such days have you in your Prayers spread abread general● sins, seeming to include yourselves in them; and yet it hath appeared by after expressions, that you have intended them only for others, to cast reproach upon your brethren, that have so little deserved at from you, and patiently forborn to (though justly they might) inflict the due punishment of your opposition upon you; and what themselves might have expected from (it they had but lawfully opposed) your party in the like power, (though more unjustly) to have been executed upon them; but taking more pleasure in your reversion then in your rejection: I mind you of this as your duty, viz. That you meddle less with the State, and more in the word of God, most agreeable to your profession, less to divide and interpret it to your own ends, and more to reconcile and declare the truths thereof; less in Self, and more in advancing the Sceptre of Christ; not in tyranny but truth, that hereby you may regain the hearts you have lost, more glory to God, and comfort both to your own and hearer's souls.  
Before I proceeded thus fare, I perceived a pamphlet abroad, supposed to be Mr. Loves, in vindication of the Ministers Letter, being an Answer to Mr. John Price, and being willing (had I found it any thing satisfactory) that it should have prevented my labour to finen this, in well-nigh a period: upon survey, I find all the subject matter thereof in effect (though not so formally as a particular Reply) before answered, and being willing fully to satisfy, I subnex a very brief Reply, to what I think is not so fully before hinted.  
A brief answer in what may not be fully prehinted to a late Pamphlet entitled, a modest (immodest) and clear (obscure, unsatisfactory) vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the Ministers of London, &c (so termed for distinctions sake) in answer to Mr. I●hn Price his late book entitled, clerico class●cun●, etc. but the said answer not subscribed, yet supposed to be Chri●lopher Loves, one of the same profession, and that's all.  
I shall not undertake to speak to every impertinent passage in the aforesaid pamphlet: but chief to what is objected therein, to justi●e the representation of the Ministers; a little hinting likewise at his groundless carp, upon some particulars, in former of Mr. Price his Books; and therefore (waving his great uncharitableness in his epistle Dedicated to the Ministers, where he calls all that oppose them sons of Belzebub, though they are known to be as godly, and some, in every respect, as able as themselves.  
I proceed to his second page, where upon this ground only; Mr. Love, or the right author whoever it be, is induced to believe Mr. Price, not to be himself, when he made his late book: viz. that he justifies the l●te act of justice upon the King, and in a former book some years since speaks thus (as the said Author) citys it: You sight, (speaking to the soldiers) for th●recovery of the King's royal Person, out of the hands of those miscreant; and reinstate him in his royal throne and dignity, that both he and his Posterity (if God will) may yet flourish in their royally; so that notwithstanding all contradictions, you sight for your King: Now Mr. Love, let any reasonable man Judge, whether this passage tends in the least, in case of demerit, to exempt the King from death; for was Mr. Price to cha●table and sober spirited (as you say) as (when nothing from the King appeared to the contrary) to believe that he was seduced and withdrawn by evil Counsel? (though an ordinary man should suffer to obey that) and can it consist with your charity to judge, that the same spirit is not in him, and that he is besides himself, to justify what the word of God justifies: viz. the late act of justice upon the King (notwithstanding his former words were they in themselves absolute) when sufficient testimony was given to the whole Nation, that the King instead of being seduced was the seducer, and evil counsellor; and as the Load stone to draw all the rest after him: Therefore it is no argument, that because Mr. Love professeth to be a Minister of the Gospel now, and thereupon some think him to be so; that therefore they should believe so, if he should turn a Prelate or a Jesuit: Again, Mr. Love, if you mark the same words, and turn yourself when you read them, there is a limitation in them, thus and thus, they fight for the King (if God will) but it being clear, that the will of God is executed upon the King in his death: are you angry and in your judgement, others besides themselves, if they repine and resist not the w●ll of God? now then, the only ground of this your belief, being taken a way; it follows from your own words, that you were not yourself, when you read Mr. Price his said book. In the next place, you are offended that Mr Price questions the truth of the Ministers calling; and therefore mind him of another passage in the same book, where (you say) he calls them learned and conscientious Ministers, Orthodox and godly Divines? to this I answer (though he might not ascribe that to the letter Writers) that though the Ministers, as to their actings, than (seeming pure in opposition to the Bishops) might deserve that which was before attributed them, yet (as a Saint can no longer be reputed so, when in the state of Apostasy, but a judas) so neither are these men worthy of that predicted charity, now it appears, that what they acted to subvert the Bishops, was to instate themselves, under a new notion, in the same power: but pray remember, that those you now band for Heretics, were your example to oppose the Bishops, though not for the same cod. Again, you are touched with the manner of his argument: viz. that we have nothing, but their own say to prove that they are Ministers, and would Mr. Love make this a foundation? Indeed it's just like thei● own argument n the beginning of their vindication, tiz. that Paul was counted a seditious pestilent fellow. And here lies the force of their Argument, that because (upon good grounds) they are counted seditious pestilent fellows, therefore they are Paul's. Upon the same grounds every seditious person is a Paul, and that is the way to make Paul seditious indeed. You see now the weight of your argument, and that for want of better proof than words, and th●se only to affirm it, your calling is built upon a sandy foundation, which yourself more clearly discovers, page 3. where you count any man unworthy to speak to you in confutation of your Doctrine, that hath not a smell of the University; which truly in your sense stinks, and would keep men from coming thither as much as th●y can. Again, in the same page you find fault with Mr. Price that he should question the Ministers divine origination, but you neither assert nor prove it. Truly, this gives more cause to fear that it is weak, and affords you no such liberty as you take from it, viz. Ministers of the Gostel, Ambassadors of Christ, Stewards of the Ordivances, and that you are in God's right hand, and he will hold you fast, you shall not be removed. But you were best make better use of your liberty than you have done, or I am confident your faith herein will fail you. Indeed you scoffingly summon a testimony of his calling, when your own is more ridiculous, and less justifiable than a Cobblers from the stall Do you not remember the calling of Peter, Andrew, James and John? for they were Fishers, Mat. 4.18. Again, neither can you conclude from those Mr. Price his words, viz. that they are judicious, learned, gra●e, wise and good men, that therefore they are able for the Ministry: For than you will confine judgement, gravity, learning, wisdom, and godliness to them only: or allow thousands besides them, as great a right and title to the Ministry, (and yet not from the University) as themselves, but that you will never do Again, judgement, wisdom, gravity, etc. will not serve, but there must be such a degree of each, that must render th●●● capable of the Ministry; or else still more are fit for it then themselves. We read of Apollo's an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, yet more perfectly instructed in the way of God by Aquila & Pris●●lla, Acts 18.24.26. Again, as nothing doth justify honest words so much as honest actions, so nothing the true Ministers of the Gospel, so much as qualifications accordingly. Now true Ministers of the Gospel (as they are rightly ordained (not by such whom themselves have deposed as unjust) and elected, so likewise) they are qualified with graces thereunto, the peculiar free gift of God's Spirit, but not common. But now these present Ministers profess their chief qualification to be the University, wherein the worst and most of men may attain to as much, if not more learning, as being common to all, and from thence plead the same privilege to preach the Gospel, as themselves, and so not from the Spirit, and therefore not true Ministers of the Gospel. Indeed we had need pray for better, or a more special gift of the Spirit, or for all these, we are like to be in darkness in reference to many truths. I am sure of late their doctrine hath been very unprofitable: they tail against heresies in general, but very seldom confute any one in particular; and they fix that as heresy upon others, which (if it came to trial, they cannot confute by argument.  
But I proceed to your sixth page, where you insert the good effect of the Ministers preach, as being likewise acknowledged by some of our own party: To this I answer, That we are not disputing what good they have done formerly; but of late days: whether most of their Doctrine (since the consciences of many could not comply in their way) hath not tended more to distension, and making the breach wider, than lesser, or to edification? Or whether the good they have done formerly in their pretended places, be any support to their Callings? since by the same Argument many of the Bishops, whose doctrine hath been profitable, should yet have been continued in their offices: But though many of us cannot but acknowledge the power of God, even through darkness to bring light unto us, and reach our good to our souls, through such weak instruments as the Ministers; yet this is no ground unto us to suppress the illumination of God's Spirit, If he please to afford us (not to boast but to his glory) as much if not more than themselves; neither is it for want of more holy and spiritual performances in those whom you count perverters of the truth (if few are converted) but rather through the opposition of the contentious preaching of the Ministers you so much esteem  
As to the days of union you speak of, it is confessed, in the Bishop's days, we were under the pour of such conformity, that the truth could hardly appear, but be suddenly suppressed with some reproach or other upon it; at which time likewise there were daily declinings from that little light there was; if these be your days (for other I know none) of union, and so desirable, the mercy of God in freeing us from them, is ill requited by you; otherwise you much degenerate from that general duty (Do as you would be done to) to endeavour a compulsive conformity by others unto your way; since you so much pleaded for (and against the restr●nt of) liberty in the worship and service of God, when attempted to be● imposed on you, under the Prelatical prevalency. Neither therefore can our separation be reputed Schism or Faction criminal, since (upon the same grounds as yourselves did) we avoid the continual flashings of conscience in our faces, that attend a compulsive worship.  
As to that forced interpretation you make of Mr. Price his words, viz. Which is all the benefit thou hast received by the exchange of this late Diocese for the Province of London, that therefore he would rather have London a Diocese then a Province. I say, this interpretation is merely forced; seeing the words are only the result of a discovery of what little benefit hath accrued by that change, from which (had the conditions thereof been rightly managed) we did expect and might accordingly have enjoyed our hearts content, the benefit intended. In a word, he mislikes the ill use of the change, not the thing itself; but should I yield to what you would imply in them, I tell you, we should never have been so willing (had we known your intentions before hand) to have assisted with our temporal estates, to depose a coercive power in the Bishops, to exalt it in you, and so more irksome, from whom we expected better, (as David from his friends) it (indeed) not being worth a tithe of seven years such expense, war, and trouble, only in name (and not in nature) the province of London for its Diocese.  
Again, to your exceptions against his quotation of Gregory, viz. That it is the language of the Beast, and therefore makes it incogitable that he should study it. I answer, that in Mr Loves sense, if he will avoid the language of the Beast, than he must avoid preaching and praying, with many other good words and deeds that they both speak and do. But secondly, as there is the greatest motive upon Christians to perform some good duties, lest they should come short of Heathen that do the same; so doth this reproof lie heavier upon the Ministers that are found seeking to themselves names of vanity, which even the Beast (as you call him) did reprove.  
But secondly, Mr. Love is very captious, to comment so much upon an error in printing, viz. 323. for 32. and I cannot but think himself believes to be a mistake therein: and yet enlargeth half a side upon it. Truly, it's a sign he wanted good matter enough, when he causelessly insists so much upon circumstances, neither can he keep himself close to this, but upon the mistake grows very pastionate, and tells us. (though directed only to Mr. Price, yet we must all expect the same since) that if we persist to justify the ki●ling the King, (as h● calls it, etc.) Gregory (the Executioner) may not mistake our necks to be more than we have. Who would have thought that Mr Loves Nature should differ so much from his Name? What a bitter spirit doth he here discover? He tells us plainly what we might expect (se●●dice) if he were our judge; at least that we should despair of him as an advocate, though it came to that extremity by his own party; but blessed be God that we are not as yet fallen into your hands, neither rewarded you evil for evil, though (abstractively considered) it is no evil to render you impartially according to your deserts. But I rather desire concord.  
Th●n thirdly, Mr. Love would fain justify his brethren and himself likewise from seeking those names of vanity that Gregory there reproves, as universal Bishop, and the like; but all this will not serve: for in seeking the same authority that is denominated by those names, (though for shame of the world you omit the names thmeselves, yet) you are liable to the same reproof, it being intended to the sought for arrogant authority, not so much the name of the person. Again, what though you should not seek after the same names and substance (though in comparison there is none in it) of vanity, yet in seeking others really vain, you are as culpable. For Christ never allowed a sole power to his Apostles to preach the Gospel and unfold the Scriptures, them only, and none besides them; but the Ministers (though they come not in by the door, yet) assume this power. And though you say that they seek no other names but what Christ gives, viz. Ministers of the Gospel, Preachers of the Word, Ambassadors of Christ, (but I am sure they want his commission) yet Christ never ascribed these names to an Academical University calling, to a vain calling: And therefore as to the unclean all things are unclean; so for the Ministers, upon so vain a title to assume these names, is absolute vanity; and one act hereof (by the way) I shall mind you of, and that is, because Ministers, you shall see some young boys, with hardly a hair in than faces, take the wall of some that are thrice better both in estate and age, but if you mend not, you'll work out yourselves.  
To conclude this answer, I cannot but take notice how Mr. Love hath all this while laboured to vindicate the Ministers, left they should fall under that Pope Gregory's reproof; and therefore cannot but grant 'tis just, and yet in his first answer thereto, calls it the language of the ●●●●st. This is a plain contradiction in his own words, and is the mark of a ●aw no●●●e, than any thing he can fix upon the person he would reproach therewith.  
Again, to what he chargeth the Army [page 8.] for kindling the flames of a second war, and therefore allegeth these reasons, viz. That one while they erred up the King, closed with the Maligna●●●, etc. And at another time forced the Parliament (as he calleth it) to Nonad trasse●, etc. these did irritate the Malignants to now insurrections etc. To this I answer, That this s●●lenesse in the Army, as you call it, is no less justifiable than that of a wise and tender he ●●ed Father towards an obstinate disobedient child: the Father will first assay all means, as mild pe●●wa●ions and gifts; and if that will not do, then threaten, and long fo●b●a ance, and stripes before he delivers up his child to the Judge to be stoned. Thus, wh●●●●ll m●anes would not prevail with the King, there was no way but one. But it may be you will object, That the Army itself in their last Remonstrance, confessed this 〈◊〉 col●●●ing to be a miscarriage: Then I answer, the more shame for you, so to neglect your duty, in forgiving and forgetting, as to upbraid them with it. But, if your words be 〈◊〉, that this was a cause of a second warte, how comes it that so many of your own party are found guilty? I shall proceed little further to answer circumstances, and indeed had I ●une, it would be ill spent justly to aggravate your folly in them, it being more easy to judge of the rest by what is already spoken; therefore I pass over to your 32. page, where I wave that Ordinance of Parliament you cite, to speak further to it then before, seeing likewise the express ends, as the conditions of the Army's service therein is demonstrated: as likewise in the Covenant to be in the Grammatical sense thereof as limits to their defence either of King or Parliament, both being servants, and to command the Army in nothing derogatory from the people's liberties; and therefore that your objection, that we are but a party of the people, is invalid, since you can dee no less than allow us as much power as yourselves, and in number we are more; yet you a●●ume the power of the people to yourselves in the 16. page, where you seem to make the Malignants and us e●ill Instruments, and therefore as well to be brought to condign punishment as they. Surely there is none left their to be Executioners but yourselves: and me thinks you should not offer to blame the Army's party for assuming a power as the people, when more interested therein then yourselves, who was likewise their example. But to your Concession in the 32 page, viz. that the Ministers are for justice, and that according to the Covenant, on the chief delinquents. For answer then, Mr. Love with all his Divinity cannot (it being no part thereof, too) exempt the King from justice, since none was so great a Delinquent as himself, the rest had not been so but for him countenancing and abetting them therein; else they could not have subsisted so long unpunished as they did: And did not the late executed Lords plead his authority for their actions? that what they did, was in obedience to him their Master? Doth it not appear by this, that he was their evil counsellor, they not his? And might not this be a reason why he so much insisted to have them indemnified, because he know himself to be their chief seducer? And yet Mr. Love from the Covenant would have the King exempted, when it runs expressly to bring chief Delinquents to punishment, and the King so in the superlative degree, and yet freed: Were not this indeed to make the Covenant a contradictious thing? But now this being granted, that the King was the cause of all that opposition and bloodshed in the Kingdom; that your supposition page 16. to clear Mr. Love, that if he had laid the guilt of the bloodshed upon the King, yet that there was nothing in that his Sermon touching his punishment. I say this supposition is fully answered by your own words (though you declare not your intentions whether to the King or no) That men of blood are not meet persons to be at e'en with till all the guilt of blood be expiated and avenged, either by the sword of the law or the 〈◊〉 of the sword, etc. Chr Love in his England's distemper, page 37. Their it follows from these words, that it the King were guilty of blood, the expiation thereof by the sword of the law was just upon him. But this point being largely discussed in that late Book, The ex●●●tion of the King justified, I shall for hea●e to speak much (yet a little) more, (because so much opposed by you) unto it, and therefore proceed to your 39 page, where you say, First, that one end of the war was to preserve the iugsperson. Answ. But conditionally, to be in our protection, and to act nothing against his trust, being to give an account thereof, as any subordinate officer. Secondly, in defence of the King's person, you say many full sequent oaths of the Parliament, etc. for the preservation of his person. Answ. These oaths could not extend to greater deserts of his, as in the precedent answer to your brethren is largely demonstrated. But further, if in all cases they swore to maintain his person then in sinful ones likewise, and so they would have become preservers of sin, and p●●●ably a constant course of sin, even the introducing of Popery itself, by him. Your third aggravation of his death is, That he was the first Protestant King (as you say, though in the former page you were uncertain whether he was so or no; but suppose it, that he were so, the first) so put to death of his own subjects, yet you mean in such a regular way; and would you find fault with that? but rather have more condemned them, had they literally and directly followed the example of jehu: for so fare as judicial proceeds by way of lega●●●●ll are preferred before immediate execution, are they not the rather justifiable th●r●m?  
Y●●● fourth objection is, That in killing him, they likewise killed the King of Scotland and Irel●●●, who had as much right in him as their King, as this kingdom had. For answer, First, w● 〈◊〉 to walk, (especially a Nation) by other men's light, but our own. Secondly, that the ●●ne Rule (upon transgression) by which an Israelite was punished, the same likewise extended to a stranger inhabiting among them, which the late King was not altogether 〈◊〉 unto us.  
Your fifth objection, That he had granted more for the good of the Kingdom, etc. then any before him. Answ. For the people to expose themselves to his grants, is to confess themselves slaves, and to yield up their rights and liberties into his will and power, the which likewise (the●● he might ●eca●● when he pleased.  
Your sixth Objection with your eighth in the 43. pag. viz. That the House of Commons if full and free) cannot take away the life of a King, seeing they cannot administer an oath, etc. And your eighth, That the House of Commons▪ if full and free cannot by law erect a new Court to take away the life of any man, much less the Kings: I answer the last first, viz. That the Parliament being full as to the number requisite for their being, and free having no ●est●●●●t upon them) is not limited unto the law, neither is it obligatory unto them, where d●●●●●ent: e●s● they cannot discharge their trust, and their assembling would be to no purpose● the chiefest put thereof being to redress and amend what is amiss or prejudicial to the People's welfare, as to establish what is good: now then (if neither the law would (as you say and likewise did we the Parliaments hands, that they could not execute justice upon the late King (though his Person acted never so much hurtful to the commonwealth) to what effect was their convening and sitting? what profit would ensue therefrom. or, how could they discharge their trust to the Kingdom? since also the laws if rightly constituted, are usually prescribed by them.  
Now then, upon these considerations, the Parliament had power to erect the Court of Justice, which (in answer to your first of those objections) when constituted and invested with pour (had the King pleaded) oaths were ready to be administered. But I cannot but observe how punctual you would be in every tittle of the law of the Land that serves your turn, and yet so partial in the law of God and our law likewise. For, can the law be justly administered, when a King is known to break such and such points thereof, and yet be exempted the penalty because a King? Would not this make his Authority or Office, which simply is just and good, become a protection to the vice of his person? Can you not as soon make good to have communion and fellowship with evil? Again, do you not hereby frustrate all the force that lies upon the example of a King, to induce his subjects likewise to yield obedience to his law? And is it not a means to make him live more carelessly and licentiously without so weighty an argument against the appearance of evil, when he is tolerated to live uncontrollably? And do you not make partial the law of God? when thereby you will take liberty to restrain and oppose, yet leave unpunished (when you may as lawfully punish) the ill manners of a King: But rather may not the law take hold of a King, if murderer, adulterer, or offender in any other point thereof, according to the penalty of it, and yet be no attempt or prejudice to his authority or Office? when indeed it appears purest, when impartially executed opon his own person? Of this le●●easonable men judge.  
But not to leave it altogether upon myself, I shall confirm it with the opinion of others, and therefore take what Mr. Prinne citys of Mariana in the 59 p. of his Sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms: viz. That all Kings and Princes, among others, the Kings of Spain, are and aught to be bound by laws, and are not exempted from them: that this doctrine out to be inculcated into the minds of Princes from their infancy, and to be believed; yea, oft considered of them: that they are more strictly obliged to observe their laws thou Subjects, because they are sworn to do it, they are the conservators of the laws, the avengers of those that infringe them, and their example are the best means to draw Subjects to obey them: When he likewise affirms that the whole Kingdom is above the King, and may not only bind him by laws, but question him for the breach of them.  
Again, the same Author likewise argues there against succession, if any ways defective f●r the Office, but more particularly in the 55. pag. lin. 5. he saith thus much: That if the King degeverate into a tyrant by subverting Religion, Laws, ●iberties, oppressing, murdering, ●r deflowering his Subjects: the whole kingdom may not only question, admonish and reprehend him, but (in case he prove incorrigible after admonition) deprive him, and substitute another in his place; which (saith he) hath been done more than once in Spain, and there instenceth many Kings that have been thus dealt with: and for a conclusion he adds, That such a tyrannical King continuing incorrigible after public admonitions of the whole state (if there be no hopes of amendment) may not only be deposed, but put to death and murdered by the whole State, or any particular persons by their appointment; yea, without it, if be be declared a publisk enemy by the whole State: he proceeds likewise to justify the act in a private person, which I need not cite: seeing this serves my purpose, now that the lawfullest part of this Nation's authority (though Junius Br●●us extends this power to one single person in●usted in a Kingdom, against both King and the rest of the Nobles deserting it commanded what hath been executed upon the late King, hath been sufficiently proved; and not so much to be their command as Gods: therefore I shall proceed to cite what Mr. Prinne himself saith upon this point, in his So●●raign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, pag. 130.3. Position: viz. That the Kings of Judah and Israel were no absolute overaign Princes; ●●●●●●ke their Crown with and upon such divine conditions. For breach whereof, they and their posterities were often times by God's command, just judgement and special approbation, deposed, the inberited, destroyed and the Crown translated to other families. For this he quotes junius Brutus (though you would so much vilify the same (as from a Jesuit) being quoted by Mr. Price) as likewise divers scriptures; and josephus upon one text to the same ●slect: but especially in the conclusion of this his Position, he citys, that Swinglius with B. Dilson, expressly resolves, that the People were bound to refist, question and depose their Kings for Idolatry and breach of those conditions, as before demonstrated, and that God himself jusily punished them, viz. the People for Manassahs' sins and wickedness, because they re●i●●ed and punished him not for them, as they were obliged to do: where he affirms likewise pag. 136. that the children of Israel their Rulers, Kings, and People, did joymly make a Covenant frequently to serve the Lord, and the violators thereof to die the death; where he saith (the King and the Queen not excepted) in six or seven of those pages he treat● of the same subject; but I know this is sufficient testimony to this truth: and therefore shall for bear to insert more of his authors hereupon. Therefore lastly, to your objection which I finde thrice asserted literally, and oftener to the same effect: viz. That it the Murderer should be put to death, which you grant is a known precept; why then, were not Goring & Owen, say you, with the rest of the King's party that in a military way have shed blood, put to death? To this I answer, that as the kill of one Zimri & Cozbi, heads of their Families, appeased the wrath and Law of God; (though doubtless had Moses proceeded to the condemnation and execution of some of the rest guilty of the same fact, it would have been just, as neither his omission thereof (through mercy) could be no neglect of the Law's injunction) so likewise may the execution of such persons as are found principal causes (and most of all the chiefest) of bloodshed in a military way, satisfy the Law, (though themselves might not actually shed blood) when such that (as we say hab nab) might act therein (through the others seductions) may justly & mercifully be remitted, even as the seducers are usually punished when the seduced (though both in the same fact are (through the mercy of justice) absolved. Many instances of this might be produced, but finding the scope of your matter fully answered, I shall wind up all in this advice to you, viz. That (if you be Mr. Love, or of his profession) you would (according to your calling) meddle more in your study, and less in the State; more in tuition, and less in sedition: then shall the Nation be less disturbed, Authority more obeyed, and your Parishioners better instructed.  
FINIS.