A MODEST and CLEAR VINDICATION Of the Serious Representation, and late Vindication Of the Ministers of London, from the Scandalous Aspersions of JOHN PRICE, In a Pamphlet of his, entitled, clerico-classicum OR, The Clergies Alarum to a third War. WHEREIN 

His King-killing Doctrine is confuted.  
The Authors by him alleged, as defending it, cleared.  
The Ministers of London vindicated.  
The follies, and falsities of John Price discovered.  
The Protestation, Vow, and the Covenant explained.    
By a friend to a regulated Monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient Army, and a Godly Ministry▪ but an enemy to Tyranny, Malignity, Anarchy and heresy.  Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you, Mat. 5. 11, 12. You fight for the recovery of the King's royal person out of the hands of those misereants, and reinstate Him in His Royal throne and dignity, that both he and His Posterity may yet flourish in their Royalty; so that notwithstanding all contradictions you fight for your King. John Price in his spiritual Snapsack for the Parliaments soldiers, p. 8. 
London, Printed for Stephen Bowtell, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Bible in Popes-head-alley. 1649.   

To the Reverend and learned Ministers of the Gospel within the Province of London, subscribers of the Serious Representation and late Vindication.  
REVEREND SIRS,  
YOu are those whom I honour and love in truth, for the truth's sake that dwells in you, and is so faithfully promoted by you. Many besides myself rise up and call you blessed, for that Serious Representation of your judgements, &c. and seasonable Vindication of your persons and Ministry, which were lately published in print; 'tis true, 'tis your lot, that you who are ambassadors of peace, are now looked upon as men of contention, they who once counted your feet beautiful, say now the mark of the Beast is on your forehead yea they who would have pulled out their eyes to have done you good, are now so filled with prejudice and passion, that they would pull out your eyes to do you hurt; this is the best requital, the more you love, the less you are loved of them; though the people are in such a distempered frenzy, yet I know this provokes your pity, not your fury. I perceive you are made the But of Satan's malice, because you make the glory of God, and good of souls the mark you aim at in the course of your Ministry; the devil will not let you be at rest, because you will not suffer the sins of the times to be at quiet. Since the publication of your Letter and Vindication, there are many scurr●lous Pamphlets spread abroad, which labour to stain the integrity of your hearts, and the truth of your testimony; among the rest there is one written by John Price, which is stuffe● with such falsities, absurdities, tautologies, calumnies and animosities, with such railings and revilings, as if he were of the race of Rabs●ekah, or the lineage of Shime●: the Lord rebuke him, and clear you. He presents you to the world as guilty of malignity, perjury, hypocrisy, as wanting ministerial abilities, and void of the ingenuity that becomes Ministers of the Gospel, as men of falsehood, deceit, dissension, and what not? but what you are? It may be your comfort to consider that so persecuted they the Prophets who were before you; Elijah was called a troubler of Israel in the Old Testament, & Paul a mover of sedition in the New. When I considered what August. said, 
M●●i quidem sufficit conscientia mea, vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat. in ●●em Serm. 53.  that a Ministers good conscience is sufficient for himself, yet his good name is necessary for others: I thought fit to endeavour the Vindication of your names and Ministry from those unjust aspersions cast upon you by many sons of slander; your names, which are as precious ointment poured forth (spreading the sweet savour of the knowledge of Christ in many places) will not want sons of Belzebub, as so many flies to corrupt them: yet this may be your confidence, that although they make their mouths as open sepulchers to bury your names and reputations in, yet there shall be a resurrection of names as well as bodies at the last day, at which time all your reproach shall be wiped away, and your Revilers made ashamed, who have falsely accused your good conversation in Christ. This is the prayer and confidence of him who is 〈◊〉  
CHRIST-LOVER (I) HOPE and a Lover of you in him. Dated this 13 March, 1648. from my house about the middle way between Whitehall and Whitechapel.   

A MODEST and CLEAR VINDICATION Of the Serious Representation, and late Vindication Of the Ministers of London, from the Scandalous Aspersions of JOHN PRIC●, In a Pamphlet of his, entitled, clerico-classicum OR, The Clergies Alarum to a third War.  
John Price,  
WOULD one imagine that you who thought yourself once so good an alchemist, as to extract 
* Alluding to a book● entitled, Honey out of the Rock, made by ●ohn Price.  honey out of the rock, should now such poison out of a flower? I cannot compare you to a Bee (Unless for your sting) but to a Spider, for sucking poison from that savoury and serious Representation, and late Vindication of the Ministers of London, against whom you have spit so much of your venom. I shall not return you railing for railing, slander for slander, but in a spirit of meekness endeavour, to discover your sin to recover your soul. Before I shall take a survey of your book in particular, I shall give you this observation in the general; That either I was not myself when I read your book, or you were not yourself when you made it; The latter I am induced to believe upon this ground, in your book you declare your judgement for taking away the li●● of the King, and blame the Ministers of London for expressing themselves to the contrary; now had you been yourself, undoubtedly you would not have declared yourself for killing the King in this book, yet profess against it in another made by you when you were of a more sober sp●●it; In your book entitled, 
* See a Spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament soldiers, by John Price. p. 8. lin. 32  A spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament soldiers; you speak to them in these words: You fight for the Recovery of the King's royal person out of the hands of these mis●r●ants, and reinstate him in his royal Throne and Dignity, that both he and His Posterity (if God will) may yet flourish in their Royalty, so that notwithstanding all contradictions you sight for your King: 〈◊〉 forbear to descant upon your words; he that will compare your two books together, must think you, if not out of your wit●, yet at least out of your way; Oh that I might reclaim you! that is all the hurt I wish you. Passing by your slanderous Title and Epistle, I come to a particular survey of your book itself. You say.  
The Letter writers are (as they say) Ministers of the Gospel, 
Pag. 2. lin 14.  so the false Prophets of old pretended to be be the Prophets of the Lord, so the Pope, Christ's grand ambassador and Vicar upon earth, so the Popish Priests and Jesuits, the Ministers of Christ, &c.  
Answ. 1. The Letter writers are (as they say) Ministers of the Gospel, and do not you say so too? dare you say the contrary? I am sure you were of this mind when you 〈…〉 spiritual Snaps●ck for Parliament soldiers; there you 〈…〉 learned and conscientious Ministers in one place, 
In Spiritual 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 17.  〈…〉 godly Divines in another; if you be otherwise 〈…〉 would better become you to have brought 〈…〉 throw their Calling, than 〈◊〉 and slanders to 〈…〉 names.  
2. Because the false Prophets said they were Prophets of the Lord, &c. would you insert hence, the Subscribers are not Ministers of the Gospel? Paul said he was an Apostle● false Teachers said they were Apostles, when they were not, was 〈◊〉 therefore no Apostle? John Price saith he deals honestly in 〈◊〉 trade, common cheaters will say that they deal honestly also, will it therefore follow John Price doth not deal honestly? this is all the force your reasoning hath with it, which smel● more of the Exchange then the university, more of John Price his shop, than John Goodwins study.  
Surely who ever among them can vindicate their divine origination, 
Pag. 2. l. 24.  these men have administered cause sufficient to question their abilities hereunto.  
Answ. 1. You that make a doubt whether the Ministers can vindicate their divine origination; it were well you, who presume to be a Teacher in Israel, would make good your own, tell me in your next whence had you it; whether from the shop in the Exchange, or the alley in Colemanstreet.  
2. Whereas you say, they have administered cause sufficient to question their Minister●all abilities, this is so palpable a calumny that I need not confute you therein, because you confute yourself: 
Epist. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax. p. 1. p. 1. l. 30.  In your Epistle you say of the subscribers in the general, that they are judicious, grave, and learned men: and in pag. 12. in the body of your book, you say of some of the subscribers, that they are wise and good men; now if the subscribers be judicious, grave, learned, wise and good men, what cause sufficient is administered to question their Ministe●riall abilities? Surely were the Apostle Paul upon the earth, he would never question the Ministriall abilities of judicious, grave, learned, wise and good men; nor would he approve them as fit for the ministry, who are injudic●ous, raw, illiterate, indiscree● and bad men, yet such are the Teachers you cry up, and the others you cry down; methinks if you doubt of their office, you should not question their gifts also.  
Some of them have promoted, 
Pag. 2. l. 3●.  encouraged, and ●●etted the very self same actions done at another time, by other persons, (as we shall speak to anon) which here they 〈◊〉 and branded 〈◊〉 an ●●cursed thing.  
Answ. You neither name the men, nor mention the actions; when you particular●i●e the men, and specify the actions, which at one time they promoted and encouraged, and at another anathemati●ed and branded, it will then be time enough to give you a particular answer; for the present I shall say but this to you by way of Retortion, this Brat may be laid at your doors, you promoted, encouraged, and abetted the forcing of the Parliament by the Army at one time, yet condemned the violence offered by the King at another; but the Ministers of London did not thus, they misliked it in the one as well as in the other.  
Poor London thy Prophets make thee to err, 
Pag. 3. l. 5.  &c.  
Answ. 1. Poor London indeed, and it is like to be poorer before you have done with it; I could tell who have made themselves rich, and the City poor.  
2. You would have said more truly, if you had said thus, London of late hath made her Prophets poor, rather than the Prophets made London err.  
3. You say her Prophets make her err, had you named the men, and particularise the errors, it would have been more credible and demonstrable; but general accusations are no proofs; I am sure one Prophet of your own hath vented more gross and pernicious errors in one year, then can be fastened upon all the subscribers throughout the Course of their ministry. None of the subscribers ever held that the English Scriptures, or that book called the Bible, is not the Word of God; that no writings whatsoever, whether translations or originals, are the foundation of Christian Religion; that a natural man had free will and power to do good supernatural; that those without the Gospel written or preached have sufficient means for believing; that the sun, moon, and stars are the Apostles of Christ to preach the Gospel unto them: But these, with many others, have been invented by Mr. J. Goodwin, as may appear in his Hagiomastix, and by Divine Authority of the Scriptures, quoted in the Testimony of the London Ministers, against errors, &c. I would fain know whether any or all the subscribers have taught any error that carries the least proportion to any of these; let the world then judge what Prophets they are that make London to err.  
One while thou mayst take up arms, 
Pag. 3. l. 16.  by the instigation of thy Ministers, to maintain the cause of God, decency of wooship; viz. the prelatical faction, or the glorious interest of the Clergy thereof; another while thou must arm thyself from the same instigations to sacrifice thy gold and silver, thy moneys and thy plate upon the happy promotion of the House of God, the government of Christ, &c.  
Answ. 1. This is to notorious a falsity, the very mention is a sufficient Confutation; did ever any of the Letter-writers (as you scoffingly call them) ever instigate the people to maintain the prelatical faction, or the Clergy thereof? 'tis well known the Prelates were nevee friends to them, nor they to the Prelates; wherefore the Lord rebuke thee thou lying tongue, who goest about to belie their persons, when thou canst not confute their doctrine.  
2. For the latter part of your charge, that they did move the people to sacrifice their silver & gold, moneys & plate for the promotion of the House of God, &c. I verily thought that you would mention this as an ornament to the ministry, not a reproach to their persons. I am sure you were of this mind when you made your Snapsack for the Parliament soldiers, 
Spiritual Snapsack by John Price. p. 6. ●. 17.  you encouraged the soldiers in the Parliaments war, that all the learned, godly, orthodox & conscientious Ministers did join issue with them, & justify defensive arms; did you commend the Ministers then, and dare you blame them now? by this I see you have a musty budget (out of which at one time you can bring lies and slanders against the Ministers) as well as a spiritual Snapsack, wherein you have Encomiums of their praise.  
The ancient love, 
Pag. 3. l. 36.  anion, and goodness of thine (i.e. London's) inhabitants is turned into hatred, division and bitterness each against other, causing thy foundations to shake, and thy pillars to tremble, which is all the ben fit thou hast received by the exchange of thy late diocese for the Province of London.  
Answ. 1. I perceive you are a chip of the old block, like master like man, 
Young ●●ng elder by John Goodwin. p. 25.  John Goodwin indeed said, that all the success the Ministers of London had in converting of souls, for three or four years' last past, unless from God to Satan, may be cast up with a cipher, and measured with a reed that never grew. One may see by this you are his scholar to fasten on the London Ministers so notorious a falsity, that all the benefit the City hath received by them, is but to turn its ancient love, union and goodness into hatred, division, and bitterness each against other.  
2. This is so notorious a calumny, that many of your own party blush to read it, and acknowledge it ever God did the●e souls good, it was by the ministry of those men whom you falsely accuse.  
3. It were well that you and others (who say the labours of the London Ministers are insuccessefull) would consider, whether the spirit of the Lord be not departed from your Congregations, since you have fallen into separation, whether more hath not been perverted then converted by your Ministers. For my part I cannot discern any signals or seals to the ministry of many of your separated congregations, of bringing sheep to Christ's fold, but of stealing sheep out of the flock, brought in by the blessing of God upon other men's labours.  
4. Whereas you say, that all the benefit London hath received by the Ministers, is but to turn the ancient love and union of the inhabitants thereof, into hatred and division; all that I shall say to the slander, is this, the Lord be Judge between them and you; London was once a City at union within itself, and did serve the Lord with one consent, and carry on the work of the Lord with one shoulder, until men of your turbulent faction and humour fell to schism and separation, gathering Churches out of Churches, and that not when declining, but when reforming (a practice never heard of before late years) these and such like practices of yours, have turned London's ancient love, union and goodness, into hatred, division, and bitterness one against another.  
5. By these last words, viz. which is all the benefit thou hast received by the exchange of thy late diocese for the Province of London, by this I perceive John Price had rather have London a diocese than a Province; and thinks London in a better condition under Prelacy, then with Presbytery; of this I say no more, I wish you had not said so much.  
That which Gregory wrote to Mauritius, 
Pag. 4. l. 19  concerning the ambition of the prelatical Patriarchs of Constantinople, may be as truly said of our present Clergy men, exclamare compellor, ac dicere O tempora! O mores! &c. that is, I am compelled to cry out, Oh times! Oh manners! behold in all the parts of Europe, towns are destroyed, Castles overthrown, Provinces are spoiled, no labourer inhabiteth the land; notwithstanding the Priests who should lie in a●he● upon the ground weeping, they are seeking to themselves names of v●nity, &c. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 323.  
Answ. 1. Who would have thought that John Price had studied Pope Greg●●y? That he that cries out against all ordained Ministers, as having the mark of the Beast, should study the language of the beast?  
2. The passage you quote out of Gregory, is said to be in the fourth book, Epist. 323. whereas Gregory hath but 56? Epistles in all in his fourth book, if John Price should quote the third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, when Paul wrote but two Epistles to them, I would say he were as ignorant in Paul's Epistles, as in Gregory's Epistles: As I know Pope Gregory never saw your face, so this mistake makes me think you never saw his Epistle; let me tell you, though you mistake Gregory to have more Epistles than he had, yet Gregory [the Executioner] may not mistake you, to have more necks than you have, if you persist to justify the Killing the King, forcing the Parliament, imprisoning the Members, altering the fundamental government of the Kingdom, as you have done already.  
3. Let me know in the next whence this gross mistake did arise, either from the carelessness of the Printer, or the ignorance of you the author; that I may help this poor Ignoramus at a dead list: I shall let you know that it is true indeed, there is such an Epistle of Gregory's to M●●ritius, and such words as you mention, but 'tis in lib. 4. Epist. 32. yet what was then said by him concerning John Bishop of Constantinople, & other Bishops, cannot as truly be said of our present Clergy men, as you falsely affirm, for it will evidently appear to you, if you read the whole 32. Epistle, that the name of vanity that some did desire, was to be universal Bishop; 〈…〉 then he comes in with the words you quote, O tempora! O 〈…〉 then he goes on, Qui● est qui contra 〈…〉 Now I leave it to yourself to be judge, 〈◊〉 be said of our present Clergy men (as your reproachfully 〈◊〉 them) at Gregory of th●se Bishops: did ever any subscribers of the letter, affect the name of Bishop in the prelatical sense? did any of them arrogate the Title of universal Bishop, or any other name of vanity of the like nature? if not, than what Gregory said of those Bishops, cannot as truly be said of our present Clergy men, as you slanderously affirm: Besides, what names of vanity do the Ministers seek to themselves? are they any other than Ministers of the Gospel, Preachers of the Word, ambassadors of Christ? if these be the names of vanity, do not you count Christ vain in giving these names unto his Ministers? Which if you do I shall esteem you a man of vanity and blasphemy too. To conclude my answer, to this Quotation out of Gregory, I shall only give you this counsel, that it would better become such a raw novice to study Perkins Principles, than Gregory's Epistles.  
Was not the late second war, 
Pag 4. l. 35.  and the flames thereof, kindled and blown up by the Pulpit Incendiaries, the like Ministers of the Gospel, ambassadors of Jesus Christ, viz. the ambitious Presbyters, who are now again by their fiery tongues, and furious pens, scattering their furious Pamphlets among the people, and hissing them on to a third war, resolving as it appears to see the Kingdom in ashes, but they will have their wishes?  
Answ. 1. Surely you think your tongue is your own, else you durst never be so frolic of your slanders; the blame of the first war, nay of the second, yea of instigating to a third, you lay upon the godly Ministers of the City; I wonder your heart did not tremble, and you hand shake when you wrote these lines; had you not a brow of brass, you would blush and be ashamed for raising against them such improbable and incredible aspersions.  
2. I appeal in their behalf to the righteous judge of all the world to give sentence between them and you, who kindled the second war; did not they whoat one time 
* Armies R●mon June, 23. 164●.  cried up the King, closed with the malignants, pleading for the Immunities of the royal family, and a moderate Composition for Delinquents; yet at another time forced the Parliament to the Vote of Non-addresses: this fickleness and falseness in the Army being so palpably discerned by all, did so irritate and provoke the malignant party, that hereupon many tumults and insurrections did arise in many parts of the kingdom; yea the Mariners at sea, did take the soldiers on land for their example, and did revolt from, and refuse obedience to the Parliament; yea the Lord Inchequeene in Ireland also made the army's disobedience to the Parliament, to be the cause and precedent to him, why he did dispute their Commands, and refuse subjection; as appears by the Relation made to the House of Commons, published in print; by this you may see, who they were that did kindle the flames of a second war.  
3. May not you now well be ashamed for charging that on others, which only you, and others of your faction are guilty of? do not you do just as Nero did, set Rome on fire, yet charged the Christians with it, or as the Papists did, contrive the Gunpowder-treason, yet lay the blame of it on the Puritans? you have put the whole land on a flame, yet lay it on the godly Ministers, who would live quietly and peaceably in the land.  
Your letter standt though faintly upon 4 feet. 
Pag. 5. l. 33.   
Answ. As faintly as it stands on 4 feet in your esteem, yet it is able to travail up and down the world (when your Pamphlet is hung with cobwebs on the stationer's stall) and speak in many languages, besides its own, the Piety, Loyalty, and Charity of the London Ministers.  
May we not behold the domineering, 
Pag. 6. lin. 22.  Lordly, and prelatical pride of these unchrist-like Ministers of Jesus Christ, that would not vouchsafe such a condescension as to give them (viz. the general, and his council of War) a meeting? then a few lines after you say, these Ministers of the Gospel, these zealous and hot disputers against the errors, heresies, and blasphemies of the Army, cannot be prevailed withal, by several applications by writing, by verbal messages to advise, counsel, and direct them in the matters of the greatest concernment to the whole nation, &c.  
Answ. 1. Your aspersions on the Ministers, will not prove them unchrist-like, they rather prove yourself to be unsaint-like.  
2. You would by this endeavour to make the world believe, as if the Ministers were guilty of the greatest act of incivility that is imaginable, to refuse a meeting with the General and his Ofcers, & that when invited; but if the whole transaction of the business were clearly understood, their refusal of a meeting would turn to their honour and your reproach; I shall therefore give you a brief narrative of the whole business (to rectify your mistake) as I have received it from those who have very good reason to know all the particulars of it; which was thus; Col. Titchbourne came to m Ash as from the council of the Army, desiring that he and other Ministers would come to a debate concerning the Coercive power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion; soon after a letter was written by m Peter's directed to m Calamy, wherein he, with other Ministers were desired in the name of the council of the Army, to meet at Whitehall, about somewhat to be held forth by them, about liberty in worship: To the first invitation by Col. Titchbourne, Mr. Ash did in the name of the Ministers, declare to him, that if the council of the Army would come to a debate, whether they had sinned or no, in entering upon those ways wherein they were unduly engaged, in seizing on the Members of Parliament, &c. he professed the Ministers would be willing to meet, where and with whomsoever, to labour to satisfy them therein; but this offer was declined, they that do evil hate the light, lest their deeds should be made manifest; I need say no more, because the letter itself saith so much for the Ministers vindication, in refusing such a conference as was desired, read pag. 2. of the Serious Representation, that may stop your mouth. Had a conference been desired with us, only to have given you resolution, whether the ways wherein at the present you are walking, are agreeable to the word of God, we should most willingly have delivered our judgements, &c. And if only for the clearing of this case a conference had been desired, it was from the first professed, that we should be ready and willing to meet where, and with whomsoever, to assert and maintain our judgement therein, but as if the justness of your way 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; and for us to have joined in any consultations of this nature, would have made us accessary unto them, guilty of the evil that is in them, &c. Thus was the letter. And because you are but of a vulgar capacity, I shall relate a comparison m Ash used to Col. Titchbourne, Suppose (said he to the colonel) your servants should offer you violence, and lay you under restraint, and should then come to a Minister, and pray him to advise them, how they shall distribute their Master's goods, and what or how much each of them should take to themselves; now should that Minister consult with those servants, he should be an abettor in their horrid insolences against their Master; the Minister should rather tell those undutiful servants, that it were more proper for them to ask whether they had not sinned in thus abusing their Master, and to charge them, to restore their Master to his liberty, and the enjoyment of his authority, by them unduly usurped, to obey him for time to come, &c. The drift Mr. Ash aimed at is easy to conjecture, the Army who are as servants to the Parliament, did lay violent hands on, and restrain their Lord and Master the Parliament of England, (whose Army they were, raised by their authority, for preservation of their privileges, &c.) and when the Army had done that, they sent to Ministers to advise what was yet further to be done; and how they must manage their Master's work, (I mean, dispose of the affairs of the kingdom) but never desire to be resolved whether they had done well or ill in offering violence to their Masters the Parliament, but as if it were to be taken for granted that the Army had done well in forcing the Parliament, the Ministers are only desired to join in consultations with them, to advise about those things which are not legally within their cognizance to settle, what ever satisfaction they should receive from the Ministers.  
Your ingenuity and ●andor appears by your submissive and christian respects to Authority, 
Pag 7. l. 34.  especially the Parliament, and as at all times, so chiefly when they contend not, (though with the ruin of all) for your greatness and interest, than your ministerial ingenuity and candour appears, calling them an apostatising Parliament, a Covenant-breaking Parliament.  
Answ. 1. General accusations are no certain proofs: si sufciat accusare, qui● erit innocent? if you mention the time when, the place where, and the Ministers who did call the Parliament an apostatising, Covenant-breaking Parliament (for I know none did so) I shall then blame them, and acquit you therein.  
2. Notwithstanding your slanders, 'tis well known what submissive and christian respects to Authority, especially the Parliament, the Ministers of the Presbyterian judgement have expressed; yea if the Lords and Commons should sit full and free in Parliament, though in some things God might leave them to act sinfully, yet would the Ministers live quietly and submissively, if not in doing what they command, yet in patient suffering what they inflict; and not express such a spirit of Turbulency, as many have done in the imprisoning of the chief Magistrates, altering of our Laws, and putting the whole Land into a conflagration.  
3. If the Ministers will not with you cry up a faction, must they therefore needs be charged by you to cry down a Parliament? suppose they should not acknowleg. 60 members of the House of Commons (now under the power of the Sword) to be a free Parliament (when above two hundred Members are forced away) or the supreme Authority of the Nation, are they therefore disingenuous, and unsubmissive to all Authority?  
Doth not your ingenuity and candour further appear, 
Pag. 8. l. 20.  by your abetting, countenancing, and encouraging violence and force upon the two Houses, by company of loose, profane and wicked fellows at one time, is some of you did, falling in with the dis●ffected, delinquent, and malignant party; and at another time, crying out, and exclaiming against the Army, & c?  
Answ. 1. It would make more for your honour and their shame, had you named those Ministers that did abet, and encourage the violence and force upon the two Houses. Yea it would more have advantaged you, if in stead of a perempory and naked assertion, you had given in some plain and evident demonstration, that any of the Ministers had done so.  
2. I can truly say, that those Ministers, with whom I have had most occasion to converse, have expressed their utter abhorrency of that force and violence. Yea to my knowledge, many of them did declare against it in their Pulpits.  
3. For the other part of your accusation, that they fell in with the disaffected, delingquent and malignant party, that's most notoriously false, as well as the rest. 'Tis well known the Ministers have never been friends to Malignants, nor they to the Ministers.  
4. Whereas you say, they did at another time declare against the Army for S●izing on the Members of the Commons House: I grant they did so, and had they not cause to do it? considering that the Parliament had long before declared, 
Declar. Ian. 17. 1641.  that if any person should offer to arrest or detain any member of Parliament, that it was against the libe●ties of the Subject, and a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and such a person is declared a public enemy of the commonwealth. And considering also the Vow and Covenant, when the Lords and Commons declared a horrid design to surprise the City, and by arms to force the Parliament, they did then vow and covenant, to resist the same, and all other of the like nature; so the Ministers have dealt most impartially in blaming the violence offered the Houses, as well in the one, as in the other. Indeed it may be said of you, that you are the most partial judge in this matter that can be in the world; to countenance and encourage the Armies forcing the Parliament at one time, yet condemn it in the Apprentices at another, for my own part I must profess I condemn it in both.  
The ingenuity and cand●r of London Preachers in fam●us throughout the whole kingdom, 
Pag. 9 l. ●  doth not it further appear, by setting the people at first against the King and his party— And now having raised men's spirits to a resolution of requiring just and scriptural satisfaction that blood may be avenged, in cry out in your pulpits, of staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King, & c?  
Answ. 1. You did once count it a virtue in the Ministers to excite the people against the King and His party, and do you now esteem it a vice? are you turned malignant after so many turnings?  
2. 'Tis true the Ministers did excite the people to cleave to the two Houses of Parliament, who were necessitated to take up defensive arms, against the forces of the King, but never against the person of the King.  
3. But did they ever stir up any to bring the King to a judicial trial, and to take away his life? The Ministers understood themselves better then for they know 'twas lawful in David to take up defensive arms, to fortify Ziglag, and other places of strength against Saul's fury, yet that it was unlawful for David to kill Saul, when he had him in his hands, yea though he were a most bloody and tyrannical King.  
The Ministers do well consider that it is one thing to take away the life of a King, and another thing to withstand the violent execution of the unjust commands of a King: And this distinction your Mr. Goodwin did well know, 
I. Goodwin in his Anti●aval. p. 10. l. 31.  when he wrote his anticavalierism, pag. 10. 'Tis one thing (saith he) to offer violence to the person of a King, or to attempt the taking away of his life; another to secure a man's own life, or the life of another whom we know to be innocent, and much more the public safety, by strengthening a man's self towithstand the violent execution of any unjust Command from a King: M●. Goodwin justified the withstanding the violence of the King, yet condemned all attempts of taking away the life of the King: The Ministers are still of this mind, though he be revolted from these his first Principles.  
4. Whereas you say, the Ministers cry out against staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King; had they not cause to do so? considering that people of the Protestant Religion did never take away the life of their King till now: Blessed be God, and blessed be they, that it was in their hearts to vindicate themselves to the world to be clear in this matter.  
If you deny this, 
I. P. p. 9 l. 16.  I shall show you several of your own books and Sermons, preaching the one and the other; and for a taste at present, take one instance of m Chr. Love Pastor of Anne Aldersgate, &c.  
Answ. 1. I deny it absolutely that any of the subscribers did ever stir up the people to take away the life of the King; for aught I could ever yet understand: You pretend you can show their books and Sermons for it, but I am very confident you can show none.  
2. I observe you promise in your book more than you make good; you promise as if you would show several books and Sermons of the subscribers, yet you quote but one, viz. m love's Sermon at Vnbridge; now because you single him out from among his Brethren, I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication. 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no less than ten times in your Clerico-Classicum, yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary, so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary. 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book, as if what you had alleged from him would have made much for your cause, for bringing the King to capital punishment; his words you quote are these: Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with, till all the guilt of blood be expiated & avenged, either by the sword of the Law, or the law of the Sword, else a peace can neither be safe nor just. Chr. Love in his England's distemper. pag. 37.  
Answ. To which I have four things to say. 1. There is no mention at all of the King, either in that passage, or any other part of his Sermon, that he should be cut off. 2. Mr. Love doth clearly express himself whom he means by those men of blood, viz. not the King, but as he saith, pag. 32. of England's distemper: Many malignant humours are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this kingdom before we can be healed. 3. 'tis true, Mr. Love then was, and still is of that mind, that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off, either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace, or (if not reach them that way) by the law of the sword in the time of war; and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms, and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to endeavour after; according to the fourth Article of the Covenant, wherein we are bound that malignant's may be brought to condign punishment, as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories respectively, or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient. Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider, that in that very part of the Covenant, where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment, we promise to preserve the person of the King; as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condign punishment, whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evil instruments, viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion, divide the King from his people (and have not you done that?) or one of the kingdoms from another, or that make any factions or parties among the people, of all which yourself, and the men you plead for, have been most notoriously guilty, as well as the malignant; therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they.  
As for that other passage of m Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote, 
I. P. pag. 9 l 24.  It will search to the quick, to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no. It would, ear●h to the quick whether Rochel was not betrayed, and by whom; It would go to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted, promoted, and contrived in England, and by whom. Mr. Love in his England's Distemper. pag. 23.  
To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication, viz. m love's desire is, that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain, but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest; he often wished that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland, the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell, the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henry's death (if they did come to an untimely end) might be found out. 2. I demand of you, is there any clause in that Sermon, or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King James or Prince Henry, or with the blood of Rochel or Ireland? 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King (which he did not) yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon, that you should bring the King to capital punishment. Now that Mr. love's judgement was utterly against cutting off the King, I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print, against that horrid attempt.  
Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candour to assert several notorious falsities and untruths, 
●. P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12.  as to instance, pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin, where you say the Agreement of the people, was the same for substance with that of the Armies, and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth— again you say, that one of the soldiers was shot to death for promoting it, this is first a most notorious untruth; and secondly, a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man, the man that was shot to death, was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement; but being sent with his Company by the general to Newcastle, did with others make a mutiny, resisted and beat their Officers, took away the Colours from their ensign, beat him with his own Colours, for which this fellow that was sh●t to death was condemned, &c.  
Answ. 1. You who are so pragmatical as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers, will show yourself to be (I say not the father of lies, yet) a son of falsehood.  
2. It seems you are put to your shifts, in searching out any accusation against the subscribers, for from their Representation, you run to their Vindication, and leap as far as the sixth page at once, and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book, that you are forced to pitch upon a small marginal note; which I need not answer, yet I shall, and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly, but you falsely, for you say, it is said in the marginal note, that the Agreement of the People, is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army. I affirm 'tis true (though you say 'tis false:) I have compared the one and the other together, and find them for substance the same; only I must confess, the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had, which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament, 9 November, 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments, and to the fundamental Government of the kingdom. And afterwards in December 17. 1647. there was an Ordinance of both Houses, wherein it was ordained, that no person who contrived, abetted, persuaded, or entered into that engagement, called the Agreement of the People, should be capable of bearing office in the City of London, for the space of one whole year.  
The other falsity you would fasten upon the marginal note, 
Pag. 12. lin. 10.  is, that one of the soldiers was shot to death for promoting of it. This you say is a most notorious untruth.  
Answ. To convince you that you (not the Minister) have spoken an untruth; I shall produce against you a threefold Testimony. 1. Of the honourable House of Commons, who on November 23. 1647. voted a Letter to be sent to the general to give him thanks for the execution of that mutinous person, for promoting the Agreement of the People, and to desire him to prosecute the examination of that business to the bottom, and to bring such guilty persons as he shall think ●it, to condign and exemplary punishment; now surely the House of Commons then sitting at Westminster, was more likely to have true intelligence why the man was shot to death, than John Price could have at his shop in the Exchange.  
2. Of the full Relation in print, having Gilbert Mabbots Imprimatur, pag. 5. of the proceedings of the rendezvous (Nov. 15. 1647.) held in C●rkbush heath near Ware, wherein 'tis fully declared, that for dispersing sundry scandalous and factious papers, as the Agreement of the People, &c. for this 3 of them were tried and condemned to death, and one of them was shot to death at the head of a Regiment. Yea to give a third testimony, the general and divers of his Officers who acknowledged it, yea and did commit to safe custody Col. Eyre and Major Scot, for abetting and promoting this Agreement; yea afterward did not the general write a Letter to the Parliament against Col. Rainsborow, who was the man that presented this Agreement of the People to the general? Is not all this proof evident enough that the general and his Officers then did dislike the Agreement of the People, and did put the man to death for promoting it? Yea I might quote a fourth testimony also, if it were of any credit, viz. Lilburne and his Agitators, who with one mouth have exclaimed against the Army, for voting that man (viz. White) to death. But suppose it were true, as you relate it in p. 12. that he was shot to death, for mutinying against his Ensign, and taking away his Colours from him, and beating him with his own Colours. What will this advantage you? I would ask you which deserves death most, whether a soldiers mutinying against an inferior Officer, an Ensign, or the army's mutiny against the supreme council the Parliament? Whether he that takes away the Colours from an Ensign, or they that take away the fundamental laws from a Kingdom? Whether he that beats an Ensign with his own Colours, or they that offer violence to a Parliament, with their own swords? If you say, that 'twas not only for his mutinying against his Ensign, but against the general and his Officers Commands, who ordered him to go to Newcastle; If it were so. I would ask you but this one question more, Whether doth deserve death most, either he that disobeyes a petty council of war, or they that disobey the Parliament the great council of State? 
Pag. 14. l. 26.   
Had you been ingenuous and candid, as you would seem to be, you would have said Nicholas Prophet Minister at foster's, alias at Marlborough in somerset-sheet, and Stanley Gower Minister at martin's Ludgate, alias Pastor of Dorchester in Dorsetshire, &c.  
Answ. What poor cavils are these? I see you had rather wrangle then dispute. To rectify your mistake about Mr. Prophet, let me tell you first, that he was never a Minister in Somersetshire, indeed he was about three years since Minister of Merlborough in Wilt-shire, but hath now left the place, and hath received not since that time any profit thence; besides there is a Minister chosen by them now among them; Moreover, he was fairly chosen Minister at foster's, where still he is; now what blemish is it to the Ministers ingenuity, if Mr. Prophet is said to be Minister at foster's? would you count it want of ingenuity in John Goodwin to call himself Pastor of the Church at Swanalley, because about three years since he was Minister of Stephens Colemanstreet. And to inform you better about m Gower; I must tell you that he was never settled at Dorchester, yea when the Letter was made he was not fully resolved to remove from martin's Ludgate to my knowledge; now was it not more proper for Mr. Gower to subscribe himself Minister of martin's Ludgate (where he had been so long) then of Dorchester where he was not then settled at all?  
You stain your Reputation with the mention of Thomas Bedford Paster of martin's Outwich, 
Pag 15. l. 7.  carried from Plymouth for his notorious Delinquency, and worthily sequestered for the same.  
Answ. 1. It seems you want ability to confute the matter subscribed, that one while you must be forced to exclaim against the persons subscribing, and at another time against a marginal note.  
2. Whether Mr. Bedford is a Delinquent or sequestered I know not, yet this I know that the Ministers in a general meeting did manifest their dislike that any should subscribe the Letter or Vindication but such as had owned the Parliament from the beginning.  
3. Whether his name was subscribed I know not, in the printed Copies which I have seen his name was not annexed, yea the Printer told me that to above 2000 Copies his name was not printed; how it came subscribed he could not give an account.  
You still insist upon the Armies proceedings against the Members, 
P. 15. l. 31.  which themselves do acknowledge simply considered, irregular, and not justifiable but by honest intentions, and an extraordinary necessity for the same end leading them thereunto.  
Answ. 1. If the Army (who are but partial Judges in their own case) are forced to confess their proceedings to be irregular and unjustifiable, may not indifferent Spectators say they are sinful and abominable?  
2. Surely the Army are put to their shifts, when they are constrained to make honest intentions their main plea to justify irregular actions; this was no good Divinity in Paul's time for any to say, Let us do evil that good may come, Rom. 3. 8. nor in the time of the Old Testament; Saul had, a good intention in offering a sacrifice to the Lord (which was the priest's office, not his) yet his good intention could neither acquit him from sin or punishment, 1 Sam. 13. v. 9 to 15. nor could it excuse Saul that he had a good intention for the public, viz. his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, in staying the Gibeonitel, whose lives by Covenant he ought not to take away, but the Lord punished that iniquity upon his posterity, though Saul's intentions were honest, 2 Sam. 21. 2. I could instance in Uzzah. 1 Chr. 13. 9, 10. and the men of Bethshemesh, 1 Sam. 6. 13, 14. 19, 20. with many others, to satisfy you, herein, that honest intenteons cannot justify sinful actions. Besides this plea were somewhat the more tolerable, if the intentions of the Army had been for public good; but if we may guess at their intentions by their own expressions in print, they will then appear to be more sinful, treasonable, and irreligious. Were not their intentions expressed in their Remonstrance, Novemb. 16. 1648. and other papers of theirs, as against an accommodation with the King upon any terms at all; p. 57 though never so safe or just, for the taking away the King's life, p. 62. that the Prince and Duke of York be made incapable of government; that if they come not in & render themselves, that they stand exiled for ever, die without mercy, if ever found or taken in this kingdom, pag. 62. that a Period be put to this Parliament, that the supreme power be put into the hands of the people. pag. 65, 66. that in stead of this & all future Parliaments there may be a new kind of Representative; that all professing faith in God, shall have a Toleration whatever his opinion be; that the Magistrate meddle not with matters of Religion; these and such like are the declared intentions of the Army, which must justify all their irregular and unjustifiable proceedings; by this it appears, that the ends they aim at are no more justifiable, than the means they use. Now whether such intentions can justify their irregular actions, let the world judge, so that I may say of them, as one did of men of the Popish Religion, if these be Saints, who be Scythians? if these be Catholics, who be cannibals?  
3. For the extraordinary necessity the Army pleaded for, I have but three things to say in way of answer. 1. 'tis apparent by what was mentioned before, that the end the Army aimed at, were no more justifiable than the means they used, now what can be more unreasonable, then to make necessity a plea to justify not only irregular actions, but corrupt ends also? 2. The godly in former ages had a more conscientious tenderness, then to make necessity a plea and patron of impiety; they thought it better to suffer the greatest evil than to commit the least sin; 
Aug. in Ps. 73.  Ferenda est magis omnis necessitas, duam perpe●randa est aliqua iniquitas, said Aug. in Ps. 73. yea it was a maxim among the primitive Christiane, 
Tertul. Apol.  Nulla est necessitas delinquendi, quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi. 3. I am of the same mind with the subscribers, 
The serious Representat. of the London Ministers, p. 14.  viz. that the necessity pleaded for, is either merely pretended, or else contracted by their own misscarriages. And this I am induced to believe, because at one time they plead a necessity, for treating with the King (as they confessed in a Letter to the House of Common●, July 18. 1647.) And at another time plead a necessity for their violence 〈◊〉 the Parliament, because they did 〈◊〉 with the King, must not this be a pretended necessity? In one Remonstrance, in June 23. 1647, they say, There can be no peace in this kingdom 〈◊〉 and lasting, without a provision for the Rights, Quiet; and 〈◊〉 of His majesty's royal family. And in mother Remonstrance of November, 16, 1648. they declare, that it can neither be just before God, nor safe for the Kingdom to have any accommodation with the King upon any terms at all, that shall imply His Restitution, &c. but that he must be brought to trial and judgement, for treason and blood he was guilty of. Is not this ground sufficient to suspect that the necessity pleaded for, is but pretended or contracted, when they have done the quite contrary this year, to what they did the last, yet plead a necessity for doing of both, though never so contrariant the one to the other. So much at present to this plea of necessity; I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more to this point.  
I observe by pag. 16, & 17. that you are not content to vent your passions against the Ministers of London only; but also against the secluded and imprisoned Members of Parliament, whom you falsely accuse for countenancing the tumultuous violence of the Apprentices, imbezling the 200000 l. appointed for the relief of Ireland, corresponding with the revolted ships, the Scots Army, and the Insurrections in Kent, &c. For the taking off those scandals from those renowned Gentlemen, I refer the Reader to that clear and satisfactory Vindication of the imprisoned and secluded Members of the House of Commons, printed January 20. 1648. Hoping that the Lord will bring forth their righteousness as the light, and their just dealing as the noon day.  
You have been as full of changes as the vannes of your steeples, 
I. P. pag. 18. l 9  one while stirring up the people against the King, and for the Parliament, witness many of your Sermons, preached before the Houses, and elsewhere.  
Answ. 1. With what face dare you who have been tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, accuse so many grave and godly Ministers of ●icklenesse, who have still kept their first steadfastness, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left? Indeed you and your teachers have been as changeable as the Vannes, but the Ministers of London as fixed and immovable in their principles as the Steeples themselves.  
2. If you mean by stirring up the People against the King, and for the Parliament; that the ministers did, being called thereunto, plead for the lawfulness of defensive arms against the King with his forces, this I grant; for they were bound by a solemn Oath to assist the Forces raised by the Parliament, against the Forces raised by the King without their consent. But if by stirring, up the people against the King, you mean the bringing of the King to capital punishment, or the taking away of his life, than I flatly deny that any of the subscribers did stir up the people to that end, or that they have any books or Sermons in print to that purpose. I am sure many of them in their books and Sermons did express their utter abhorrency of any such intendment. I'll instance but in two of the subscribers (though I could mention many more) the one is m Case, who though he were a zealous Anti-cavalierist, yet no Anti-carolist, in a Fast Sermon before the House of Commons 26. October. 1642. pag. 11, 12. hath these words. It is and hath been from ancient times the cursed policy of desperate malignant Courtiers and Counsellors, when they would arm Princes and Potentates against the poor people of God, to possess their ears and hearts with this prejudice, that they are enemies to Monarchy. With such jealousies did the enemies of God and his people in the neighbour Nation of Scotland labour to possess his Majesty towards those his loyal Subjects there; they were represented to His Majesty as traitors and Rebels, that intended nothing else but to uncrown and unking him, when power shall be in their own hand. And is not the same design practised upon his faithful Parliament and Subjects here in England? Do not these Rehums and Shim●hies fill his Royal ears with this odium, that the Parliament and the Puritans are enemies to Monarchy, and intend nothing but to bring all into a parity, and after they have pulled down Bishops, than down with King too? with a world of such calumnies invented by the father of lies; truly the Land is not able to bear their words. If Mr. Case then thought the Land could not bear such words, blame him not though he be so pathetic and compassionate (as you say he was) that he cannot bear your deeds, in imbruing your hands with the blood of your sovereign, as you affirm he said.  
Yea Mr. Love also, whom you slanderously report to be for cutting off the King, hath a book in print near two years since, entitled Works of darkness brought to light, &c. wherein he doth clearly express himself to the contrary, he having showed that the design of the Army was first to new mould the House of Commons, next to destroy the House of Lords, their third design he laid down in these words, viz. To cut off the King if he sides not to the Independent party; 'tis true of late they seem to appear for him to gain Malignants on their side, but 'tis notoriously known how their principles are directly against Monarchy; what desperate speeches have some Independent Members uttered against the King, yea it will never be forgotten how enraged the Independent Members of the House and Sectaries of London were against the City Remonstrance, chiefly because there was this passage in it, for the preservation of the King's person according to the Covenant. Yea the Sectaries publish to the world in print, that [the King for his misgovernment must lose his life— By this it appears that the Sectaries intend as the 32 Syrian Captains did, 1 King. 22. 31. to fight neither with small nor great; but with the King of Israel. In laying down this their design I would have none conceive as if I were a Malignant Royalist (I hate Arbitrary power and tyranny in Princes, as much as any) I only mention this that malignant's might not be brought to fools Paradise to join with the Army, as conceiving them to be for the King's honour and safety, who are the greatest enemies of both. These are m Loves own words, than he concludes with these verses.  
Malignants all believe this thing,  
Sectarians would destroy the King,  
Yea they do wish there might be none  
For to succeed him on the Throne.  
All this Mr. Love declared near two years since, however you may account him a mean Preacher, yet I am sure he was in this a true Prophet.  
One while stirring up the People against the King, 
I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10.  another while stirring up the People against the Parliament and for the King, as you did of late in your prayers and preaching expressing greater malignity against the Parliament, and their party, and greater zeal for the King and his interest, than those very Ministers whose places you possess, they being sequestered and cast out for the Tenths of that Anti-parliamentary malignancy which you have vented.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true they stirred up the people indeed (according to the Vow and Covenant) to assist the forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament against the Forces raised by the King, but never stirred any up against the person of the King.  
2. As for the other part of your charge, that another while the Ministers did stir up the People against the Parliament, and for the King; this is so manifest a falsity, that the very mention is a sufficient confutation of it.  
3. For the last part of your charge, viz. that the Subscribers express greater Malignity against the Parliament, and greater zeal for the King and his interest then those very Ministers whose places they possess; this is so palpable a calumny that I should have more ado to hide and cover your folly, then to vindicate their innocency in this matter; Will not all that know the London Ministers acquit them and blame you? could you not be contented to charge them with falsities, with the want of ministerial abilities, and of that candour and ingenuity that becomes Ministers, but must you now tax them with Malignancy also? yea were you not ashamed to tell the world, that Malignant Ministers were sequestered for the Tenths of the Anti-parliamentary Malignancy which the London Ministers vented? when you know that one century of sequestered Ministers is printed, and the rest recorded, which will remain a lasting monument of their shame and your falsehood. If you think as you write, in time you may become the Malignant Ministers Advocate to have them brought into their places, and the godly Ministers to be thrown out.  
And now being come to pag. 19 of your book, I cannot but give you notice wherein you discover palpable weakness; for you set yourself to answer what makes most for your ease (though not for your cause) you stand much upon circumstantials, the Title page, a marginal note, and such like, but speak not a word to the most grave, weighty and most material passages of the Representation or vindication. This I can easily and plainly demonstrate, for when the Ministers did strongly reason, that if the Kings coming to the House of Commons to demand but five Members was deemed such a horrid violation of the Parliaments privileges, that they thereupon Ordered that any person that did seize upon any Member of Parliament, was declared a public enemy of the commonwealth: Then how might the Armies forcing the Parliament be aggravated by many more heinous circumstances? yet you have not a word in way of clear answer to this; 
●. P. p. 19 l. 8.  all that you say is this. I ●ay answer you that you never mentioned that Order of the House in aggravating the Apprentices forcing the House the last year, and to give you any other answer were but to beat the air, for we are like to hear no reply to it. Now to this s●eight and shallow answer of yours to that strong and weighty objection of theirs, I have but four things ●o say.  
1. The Ministers did sufficiently declare against and aggravate the evil of that act of the Apprentices.  
2. Suppose the Ministers had not declared against that act of the Apprentices, yet doth that any way extenuate that act of the Army?  
3. Whereas you say that to give any other answer were but to beat t●e air, I'll say so too; I verily believe you had as good beat the air as go about to justify the Armies forcing the House of Commons; and yet condemn the violence offered by the King at one time, and the Apprentices at another. For 1. the King demanded but 6. the Army imprisoned 42. secluded 100 and forced away 100 Members more. 2. The King did take away none out of the House; but that they Army did, they pulled out Mr. Stevens and colonel Birch by force and violence out of the House. 3. The King was one of the three States who together with the two Houses was entrusted with the supreme Authority of the kingdom, but the Army can lay no legal claim to any such authority. 4. The King relinqui●ht the prosecution of the Members, and promised to have a tenderness of the Parliaments privileges for the future, but the Army avows the act and per●ists in their force to this very day. Again for the violence offered by the Apprentices, on July, 26. 1647. (though I go not about to extenuate it, yet consider, 1. They came unarmed to the Houses, the Army came in a Hostile manner. 2. They pulled none of the Members out of the House, but the Army plucked Mr. Stevens, and Col. B●rch out of the House where they were doing their country service. 3. They hindered none of the Members from coming to fit in the House, but the Army excluded and kept by force above a hundred Members from ●itting in the House. 4. They when they heard of an O●der forbidding ●hem to co●● to Westminster, the next day did desist, & did so no more; but the Army persists in what they have done to this very day. If these things were compared together, John Price had as good b●at the air, yea his brains too against the wall, as to go about to justify that unparalleled violence offered the Parliament by the Army, yet condemn a lesser violence offered by the King and the Apprentices.  
4. Whereas you say, you are like to hear no Reply to it. I would ask you, did you think yourself such a stout champion, and potent Goliath, that none durst come forth and encounter with you▪ The reason why you have had no Reply sooner, wa●, that some wise men esteem yourself so unworthy, and your book so weak, that neither deserves an answer. I am almost persuaded you did not look for a Reply, if you had, surely you would never have written so rawly, weakly, falsely, and inconsiderately as you have done, ever and anon exposing your nakedness to the lash of any adversary that should deal with you.  
Supposing that when Argument, 
I. P. p. 20. l. 34.  Scripture and reason cannot help you, yet the Protestation, Vow and Covenant will do it, these like the Egyptian reeds run into your ●ides▪ and do no service at all for you, but discover your nakedness.  
Answ. 1. There is a sufficiency in scripture and reason to justify them, and condemn you; now if ex abundanti they can plead the Protestation, the Vow, the League and Covenant also, this makes their cause more strong, and yours more weak.  
2. If these sacred oaths were well considered, it will appear they are as pillars of Marble, on which the Ministers safely stand, but like Egyptian reeds run into your sides, and cause the shame of your nakedness to be made manifest.  
You begin with the Protestation; 
I. P. p. 21. l. 6.  whereby (you say) we are tied to His just Authority, and not abstractively to His Person, if acting contrary to his just Authority; and that the Protestation i● complex● for the privileges of the Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, as well as the Person of the King; if the Person of the King be engaged against the privileges of the Parliament, or Liberties of the Subjects, the Protestatio● cannot be obligatory.  
Answ. 1. I see you are a pregnant scholar in the Jesuits school, you have learned their Art of Equ●vocation, and mental reservation, in all that you say or swear; an oath hath no more hold upon your conscience, than a loose collar about an ape's neck, which he can put on and off at pleasure.  
2. Why did not you tell the world this your mental reserve, that if the King did any thing contrary to his just authority, that then the Protestation was not obligatory, but you might destroy His Person?  
3. The Protestation did bind us to preserve the King's Person according to the duty of our Allegiance; wherein you swore, 
●●ad the Oath of Allegiance.  to defend the King's PERSON, and that oath you took according to the express words, and their plain and commonsense, without any Equivocation, or mental Evasion, or secret Reservation whats●ever.  
4. It seems you yourself did once deem the Protestation to be obligatory, in reference to the King's person, notwithstanding he should act contrary to His just authority; for long after the Person of the King was engaged against the privileges of Parliament, and liberties of the Subject, in demanding the 5 Members, setting up His Standard, and in His own Person engaging in a War against His Subjects; yet I say after all this, in your spiritual Snapsack. pag. 8. you tell the Parliaments soldiers, that without all contradictions they did fight for the King, to rescue him out of the ●ands of Malignants, and reinstate him in his royal Throne, &c. With what an impudent face, and traitorous heart can you at one time plead for the soldiers to bring the King to a doleful scaffold, when at another time you tell the soldiers they fight to reinstate Him in His Royal throne?  
5. Yea the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament (who are the best interpreters of the Protestation) declared that notwithstanding▪ His majesty's Proclamations against their general and Army as traitors, 
Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879.  yet they will preserve His majesty's Person and Cr●wn from all dangers, yea that they would suffer far more for and from their sovereign, than they hoped God would ever permit the malice of His wicked Counsellors to put them to: yea when the Houses were taxed that their intent was to murder and depose the King, 
Exact Collect. p. 2●8. 695. 657. 991.  they declared, that the thoughts of it never entered, nor should enter into their loyal hearts, and they hoped the Contrivers of these scandalou● reports, or any that professed the name of a Christian, could not have so little charity as to raise such a scandal, especially when they must needs know the Protestation made by the Members of both Houses; whereby they promise in the presence of Almighty God, to defend & preserve his majesty's Person. By all which it appears, both Houses thought the Protestation obligatory (though you do not) touching the defence of the King's Person, notwithstanding His doing many acts contrary to His just Authority, to the privileges of Parliament, or Liberties of the People.  
6. When the Trained-bands & Seamen of London did wear the Protestation in their hats, & on their pikes, engaging themselves to King and Parliament, can it be imagined that they had this mental reservation, that if the King should go about to infringe the privileges of Parliament, or liberties of the People, they were no longer bound to preserve His Person, but might cut off His head? Had you then made this Paraphrase upon the Protestation, you should have lost your head, and not the King His.  
But you go on. 
I. P. p. 22. l. 12.  We are bound (say you) by this Protest●tion to maintain and defend the King, Parliament and People, so far a● lawfully we may, which refers unto the manner of this defence; while the King was in Person against the Parliament, we were by this Protestation to defend the Parliament and People, though with the ●azard of the King; if the King and Parliament should ingag● against the People, we are by the same reason tied to preserve the People, though with the ●azard of both.  
Answ. 1. I told you but even now, both Houses of Parliament did hold themselves bound by the Protestation to preserve the King's Person (as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned) even after the King had engaged in person against the Parliament as well as before, so that your limitation of the Protestation to such a period of time is invalid. 2. 'tis true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament, 
The King confessed it in His 〈◊〉 Answer to the 19 Propositions of June, 1642. that there is power legally in the two Houses of Parliament to restrain Him from Tyranny.  as if they could not legally withstand any Forces to be raised by the King against Parliament & Kingdom, but only by it they were bound up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Person of the King; yea to manifest that they had no evil intention to His Maj●sties Person, when they chose the Lord of Essex to be General, & raised an Army under his conduct, before any blow was given, they sent a humble Petition to the King, to be presented by the Lord general, That His Majesty would not put His royal Person in danger, but remove Himself from His Army, and come in person to His Parliament, where he should be sure to remain in honour and safety. So that if the King would endanger His Person in being in the head of his Army, 'twas He that put himself upon hazard, the Parliament still declared, their hands should not be upon Him to offer Him any violen●e.  
3. And whereas you say in the last place, that if the King and Parliament should engage against the People, we are by the same reason tied to preserve the People, though with the hazard of b●●h. Certainly your speech bewrays you; you that once uttered language of Loyal●y in your Snapsack, can speak nothing but Levelling language now; you are not a friend either to King or Parliament, unless they will patronize your party, and favour your faction, though it be to the damage and endangering of the whole kingdom besides. But I would ask you, (and pray resolve me in the next) Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good, or what for the hurt of the people? if you say King and Parliament; why did you not acquiesce in their judgements, in their late transactions of the Treaty, tending to the settlement of the kingdom? but if you say your sovereign Lords the People, then why do you not give them their power, and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation, whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People; or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament, be not for the hurt and ruin of the whole; if you would leave them to be Judges, there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army; Alas! what tyrannical Usurpers are you? a few Members in the House of Common● (when 200 are forced away) must rule King and Lords; the people must rule the House of Commons, and the Army must rule the people? have not you brought the Kingdom to a fine pass, that in stead of having it governed by the laws which should administer an equal right to all, the Land should be overruled by the sword, which will give right to none, neither King, Parliament, or People?  
Have you neit●er for hope or fear, 
I. P. p. 24 l. 6.  nor other respect relinquished this Protestation? How is it th●n that you are so shuff●ing, changing, and uncertain, for the King and against the King, for the Parliament and against the Parliament, for the Army and against the Army, for justice and against justice, & c?  
Answ. 1. The Reverend Ministers are still the same they were, 'tis you and your Teacher (who hath made you to err) are the shufflers and changelings; 
I. P. His Snapsack, p. 8.  one while for the King, to reinstate to his Throne, another while against the King, to bring Him to the scaffold; 
John Goodwin Anticaval. p. 6.  one while that it is the just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings, in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men, and the●r lives to he as consecrated corn, meet to be reaped & gathered only by the hand of God. Yet at another time, that the axe of the Executioner must cut off the King, or cut down this consecrated corn: let the world judge who are shufflers or changelings, the Ministers or you?  
2. I grant that Ministers were for the King and against the King; but in this sense, for the Person of the King, never against it; and against the forces of the King, never for them; I hope this will not make them Changelings.  
3. I yield the subscribers are for the Parliament and against the Parliament, but clearly in this sense: for the Parliament when they sit free and full, although they should express frailty as men, yet would the subscribers live submissively as become● Ministers. And if you mean nothing but this, when you say, the Ministers are against the Parliament; viz. that they cannot in their Consciences believe, that the Members sitting at Westminster are a free Parliament, seeing they are under the power of the sword, nor a full Parliament; in regard above 200 Members of it are forced away; nor a complete Parliament, when two States are aboli●ht, viz. King and Lords, if only in this sense, you say they are against the Parliament, I shall not contend with you.  
4. I grant further that the Ministers were for the Army and against the Army; yet only in this sense, for the Army whilst obedient to the Parliaments commands, and followed their directions, but against them when they did dispute the Parliaments Authority and disobey their commands; for the Army whiles they used the sword to subdue Malignants in arms▪ but against them when they used the sword to cut off the King and force the Parliament. And have not the Ministers cause to be against them in regard they go against those ends, 
Vid. the Ord, of P●rl. 15. of Febr. 1644. as the first raising the Army under Sir. T. Fairfax.  for which they were first raised? For that Ordinance by which this new Mod●ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the def●nce of the King and Parliament, the true Protestant Religion, the laws and Liberties of the kingdom, and to be from time to time subject to such orders and directions as they shall receive from both Houses of Parliament.  
5 I yield in the last place that the Ministers are for justice and against justice; for justice on chief delinquents, that they may be brought to condign punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme Judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from, for that effect shall judge convenient; yea are they against the trying, condemning, and ekecuting the King; which is that which you call justice: this kind of justice the Ministers are against; and had they not reason? because the Parliament declared to the whole world, that one end of the war was to bring Delinquents to condign punishment, yet to preserve the person of the King. And thus I have given you an answer touching the Protestation; 
Pag. 23. lin. 3.  as you conclude about it, so will I. Now let the World judge who it is that doth violate this Protestation so as you d●e. I come in the next place to examine whether the Vow and Covenant speaks for the Ministers, or against them.  
Where as you mention the▪ Vow and Covenant you might have indeed showed your ingenuity and candour becoming Ministers of the Gospe●●, 
I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14.  to have taken notice of that which was the main end of that Vow and Covenant contained in those words, that I will according to my power and vocation assist the forces raised and continued by both houses of Parliament against the force raised by the King without their conse●t; have you performed this vow?  
Answ. ● The Ministers have not been wanting in that ingenuity which becomes Ministers of the gospel even in the main end of the Vow and Covenant, for they have according to their power and vocation, assisted the forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament, against the Forces raised by the King, without their consent. Now because the Subscribers will not assist the said Forces against the Parliament, as they did once assist them against the Forces raised by the King, must they be accounted transgressors or breakers of their vow?  
2 You might have showed that ingenulty that becomes a Christian to have taken notice of the grounds or motives why the Vow and Covenant was made, viz. because there was a horrid and treacherous design to surprise the Cities of London and West●inster, with the Suburbs, and by arms to force the Parliament, therefore the Lords and Commons thought fit that all who are true hearted and lovers of their Country should bind themselves each to other in a sacred Vow and Covenant, wherein we declared our abhorrency and detestation of the said wicked and treacherous design, and that according to our power and vocation would oppose and resist the same and all other of the like nature. So that by the Vow and Covenant it appears the Ministers were bound according to their power and vocation to oppose and resist the Armies forcing the Parliament as well as the former attempt of Malignants by arms to force the Parliament, they being both of the like nature.  
3 Yea you would have showed your ingenuity to have taken notice that the Vow binds to assist only such Forces as are raised and c●ntinued by both Houses of Parliament, not such Forces as are raised by both Houses but continue longer than both Houses would have them; Now the Forces (I mean the Army) raised by the Parliament are continued longer than both Houses of Parliament thought fit to continue them. For they would have disbanded them (unless 9000) in May 1647. & they are continued until March 1649. and God knows how much longer yet they may continue to be an oppression to the people. To conclude this, I would ask you whether in case the Earl of Essex his Army, the Lord of Manchester's, Sir William Waller's, and Major general Massie's soldiers, who were all raised by the Parliament, had refused to disband when the Parliament did command them, and had continued in arms together longer than the Parliament thought fit to continue them, I pray resolve me in your next whether the Vow and Covenant did oblige those that had taken it to assist and defend those Forces; if not, then how can you accuse Ministers that they have broken their Vow in not assisting the Army, who though they were raised by both Houses, yet have continued longer in arms then both Houses were willing to continue them.  
4 we were all bound by the Vow and Covenant to assist the Forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament against the Forces raised by the King, but not against the person of the King, the privileges of the Parliament, &c. Now to assist any Forces whatsoever in opposition unto those just ends for which they were first raised, would have involved us in the guilt of the greatest perjury imaginable. And that the Army raised by the Parliament went directly contrary to those just ends for which they were first raised, is easily demonstrable. For ●. the Army was raised for the defence of the King's person, and they have destroyed his person. 2. For the preservation and defence of Religion, and they have endangered Religion, by pleading for a licentious toleration. 3. For the privileges of Parliament, and they have offered such an unparalleled violation of their privileges as the like hath not been heard. And now tell me whether the Protestation and Vow be not as Egyptian reeds to run into your sides when you lean on them. I come in the third place to examine whether the solemn League and Covenant will stand you in any better stead than the Protestant Vow and Covenant hath done. You say,  
When Scripture, 
I. P. p. 26. l. 3.  reason, civility, justice, and honesty leave you, you make the solemn League and Covenant to go along with you, using it as you do the holy Scriptures themselves, dispossessing them of their true, natural and genuine meaning, and (as Satan once assumed Satan's body to d●ceive) you spirit them with your own opinion.  
Answ. 1. Is it not enough for you to walk in the counsel of the ungodly, and stand in the way of sinners, but will you sit in the seat of the scornful also? what contemptuous and contumelious calumnies are these which you cast on the grave, godly, and learned Ministers of London? could it not suffice your scornful and revengeful heart, to say that scripture, justice, and reason had left them, but impudently to affirm that civility and common honesty had left them also? The Lord rebuke thee, thou false and deceitful tongue.  
2 Whereas you say they do dispossess the Scriptures of their true, natural and genuine meaning, all that I shall say is this, if you had named the men who, the place where, the time when, and what particular part of the Scripture that is which they have dispossessed of its true natural and genuine meaning, I should then have been ready to have given you a fuller answer, but 'tis your manner to raise a general slander when you have no particular proof.  
3 You say further that they use the Covenant as they do the holy Scriptures, vi●. pervert the true, natural and genuine meaning of it, but how, or wherein, or against whom can you evidence this? they do not as you do, lay the Covenant on the rack of a tortured misinterpretation, 
See Testimony to the tr●●h● of Christ by the Ministers of London p. 28.  forcing it to speak what it never mean. The Ministers did formerly declare that neither the Covenant, nor any other O●th is otherwise to be interpreted then according to the common, plain, and true grammatical sense of it.  
By your example are all contrary parties taught to plead the Co●enant, 
I. P. p. 27. l. 1●.  those you call Sectaries, schismatics, &c. plead the Covenant, eng●ging each to go before others in matters of Reformation, the Presbyt●rian pleads Covenant engaging conformity with the Church of Scotland; the Parliamenteer pleads Covenant engaging to pre●erve the rights and privileges of Parliament; the Royalist pleads Covenant engaging to defend the King's majesty's person and authority; the Armists plead Covenant engaging to preserve the Liberties of the kingdom, &c. So that you have made the Covenant a mere contradi●●ious thing, &c.  
Answ. 1. I wish all contrary parties would plead Covenant and keep Covenant according to the good example of the Ministers.  
2. Because all contrary parties do plead the Covenant to different ends, must it needs be charged on the Subscribers that they make the Covenant a contradictious thing? because Prebyterian plead Scripture to warrant presbyterial Government, and Papi●●s, Prelates, erastian's, Seekers, and Independents plead Scripture too, to warrant quite contrary ways, must the Presbyterians bear all the blame that they make the Scripture a contradictious thing?  
3. 'Tis you and your party (not the Ministers) who make the Covenant a contradictious thing: the Covenant ties to preserve the King's person, yet you plead Covenant to destroy his person: the Covenant binds to preserve the privileges of Parliament, yet you plead Covenant to destroy their privileges: the Covenant engageth to extirpate heresy and schism, and you plead Covenant to tolerate them: the Covenant binds to preserve the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland, and you plead Covenant to cry up your own kind of Discipline and Government, and c●ie down theirs: the Covenant ties us to endeavour after an Uniformity in Religion, and form of Church Government, and you plead Covenant to allow men to be what Religion they list, and set up what form of Church Government they please. Now let the world judge who makes the Covenant a contradictious thing, or (to use your own phrase) like unto one of the diabolical Oracles of the Heathens to speak nothing certain, but ambigui●ies.  
4. I wish you would consider that the Malignants and you are equally partial in the Covenant, they cry out against schism and heresy, but not so zealous against profaneness and Prelacy; they cry up the preservation of the King's person, but not a word for the privileges of Parliament▪ and are not you altogether as partial? you cry out against malignity▪ but not a word against Schism and heresy, (though the Covenant is expressly against both,) you cry up the Liberties of the people, but not a word for the preservation of the King's person, and the privileges of the Parliament, though engaged by the Covenant to the one as well as to the other. But the Godly Ministers were impartial in the Covenant of their God, they held themselves bound. in their places and callings to oppose Malignity as well as heresy, to defend the King's person and the Parliaments privileges as well as the people's Liberties; in fine they hold themselves engaged to one thing in the Covenant as to another.  
But you go on. 
I. P. pag. 28. l. 8.  The obligation (say you) is for the preservation of His person and Authority. Not for his person simply, but his person and Authority; if both come in competition, than the greater is to be preferred before the less, that is, his authority before his person.  
Answ. I have answered this cavil when I cleared the Protestation from your gross mistakes▪ I shall say therefore the less here. I have but three things to say, by way of answer; viz.  
1. 'tis to be observed when the Covenant was made, not before the King had done acts contrary to his just authority, but long after the King had set up His standard, declared both Houses Traitors, and engaged in person in the head of His Army, yet I say after all this the Parliament thought fit to make this Covenant, to preserve his person, that all the world might bear witness with their Consciences, of their Loyalty, and that they had no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Maj●sties just power and greatness.  
2. I would as●, why would you take the Covenant to preserve the King's person, even than when His person & authority stood more in competition then afterward they did? for than He was in the Head of an Army, but since cast himself on His people; then unwilling to yield to any reasonable terms, but since offered more for the Parliaments safety & people's good (though I wished he had yielded to more) then ever any Prince that sat upon the English Throne.  
3 Is it not most inequitable that you should● take away the life of the King because His person and authority stood in competition, and yet you and your faction the only men that hindered the King's person and authority from a conjunction with His two Houses of Parliament? The truth is, the King's person, and the Armies designs stood both in competition; and therefore they must destroy the one to carry on the other. If the King in person would have had engaged in a combination or conjunction with the Armies Counsels▪ all the blood that had been spilled, or the evils that he had done would have been forgotten, you would not once have muttered that his person and authority had then stood in any ● Competition.  
But you plead, 
I. P. p. 28. l. 37.  that the Covenant binds us to preserve His Person in the preservation and defence of the true Religion; true Religion doth not say, if the Subject do kill and murder, &c. he shall be ●o and ●o punished, but if the King do these things● he must not be meddled withal by any but God alone; true Religion saith, he that shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, the murderer shall surely be put to death; if then the King be a murderer, true Religion commands that h●e be put to death.  
Answ. 1. Was the King's person, and religion's preservation so inconsistent, that there was no way to preserve the one, but by destroying the other? I am su●e the death of the King was a stain to Religion, I am not so sure that his life would have been such a wound to it; whether purposes were in his heart to alter it, I know not, yet if power were not in his hands, how could Religion be endangered?  
2. If true Religion doth not say, if the King kill or steal, etc he must not be meddled withal by any but by God alone; then surely John Goodwin must be of a false Religion, for he said, 
●●hn Goodwin Anticav. p. 11.  'tis the just Preregative of the Persons of the Kings, in WHAT CASE SOEVER, to he secure from the violence of men, and their lives to be as consecrated Corn, meet to be reaped and gat●ered ONLY by the band of God himself.  
3. The King had spilled much blood (by His Forces, for I know of none killed by His own hands) at Edgehill, and many other places, 
I. P. His Snapsack, p. 8.  long before you made your spiritual Snapsa●k, yet you told the soldiers that without Contradiction they did fight for the King, to rescue his Royal Person out of the hands of Malignants, and reinstate Him in His Royal Throne and dignity; if true Religion commands that the King should be put to death, what Religion then were you of when you said the contrary?  
4. Whereas you af●irm, that if the King be a murderer, true Religion commands that he be put to death. To this I have 3 things to say. 1. 'tis unknown to me, that ever the King murdered any in His own Person, what blood was spilled, was in a Military way, wherein he did contest for His seeming right. 2. The word of God which is the rule and standard of true Religion, doth not afford one instance, that ever any King was judicially tried or put to death for the spilling of blood. 3. If you stand so precisely upon this, that the murderer shall surely, be put to death, th●n are you bound to put every man to death, that bore Arms for the King; they were guilty of blood as well as he, yea was not the Lord Goring, and Sir John Owen guilty of death? if so (according to your Principles) did not true Religion command you to put them to death as well as the King?  
If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way, 
I. P. p. 30. ●. 17.  why are they so angry that the late King was brought to condign punishment? if they say no Court by the laws of the Land had any auth●rity to judge Him, than it would he worth our enquiring, whether every man, even to the last man left, was not bound to lay his hands upon him, for the murderer must not be suffered to live, but must surely be put to death, the land must not be defiled and polluted with blood.  
Answ. 1. If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way, &c. here you beg the question, taking that for granted, which was denied by the subscribers; had you produced any one instance in the Word, that any Kings were judicially tried and put to death by their Subjects; or that there is any known Law of this l●nd, that the Kings of England should be arraigned and executed, it would the more advantage your cause.  
2. Because you ask, why were the Ministers so angry, that the late King what brought to condignpunishm●nt? I must answer you, they expressed no anger, but a holy indignation against so horrid a fact, and had they not reason? Considering, 1. That o●e end of the War was to preserve the King's person. 2. Many s●bsequent O●th●, Protestations and Declarations of the Parl●ament for the preservation of His person also. 3. He was the f●st Protes●ant King in the world, so put to death by His own S●●ject●. 4. That you could not put to death the King of England, but must kill the King of Scotland and Ireland also, who had as tru● right in Him as their King, as this Kingdom had. 5. That he had granted more for the good of the kingdom, than any King that sa●e upon the English throne▪ 6 The house of Commons if free and full (which now they are not) have no power to take away the life of any man, much less the li●e of the King; if they cannot administer an Oath, how can they take away the life of any man? seeing no man 〈…〉 but by the oath of two or● three witnesses. These and such like considerations might stir up a holy indignation in the Ministers against bringing the King to capital punishment.  
3. If the Ministers say there is no Court by the laws of the land that hath any authority to judge the King, (than say you) it would he worth our enquiring after, whether every man even to the last man left, was not bound to lay his hand●, upon him. All I shall say to this inquiry of yours, is to propose to you 3 other inquiries, viz. 1. Whether was every man in Israel, even to the last man, bound to kill Saul a bloody King? if you answer affirmatively, I am su●e you answer falsely, for David said, who can stretch forth his hand against him and be guiltless? 
1 Sam. 26. 9  2. If the Adulterer by the law of God was to be put to death as well as the murderer, and there is no Court by the laws of the Land that hath authority to put him to death, whether is every man in the land even to the last bound to lay hands upon the Adulterer? if you say yea, I am sure some of your greatest Grandees would not be long lived; if you say no, tell me a reason why you hold yourself bound to do so to the one and not unto the other. 3. If it be true that it is not the condemnation but the execution of blood-guilty persons that makes satisfaction for the blood they spilt, and keeps the land from being defiled, than I demand whether every man in the nation (according to your principles) is not bound to lay their bands upon the Lord Goring, and Sir John Owen, to put them to death, seeing those that are in power will not do it? I might add a fourth enquiry, viz. to know whence you had this notion, that if Courts of Judicature will not put a Murderer to death, that then every man even to the last man is bound to do it● I am sure the Scripture affords you no such notion; Paul puts the sword only into the hand of the Magistrate, and saith, that he is the Minister of God, 
Rom. 13. 4.  a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. If this loose Principle of yours should take place, that any man may kill a Murderer, if the Magistrate doth not; I fear there would be a hundred murders committed by private men, before one will be legally punished by the public Magistrate. Pareus hath a good note on those words; 
Pareus on Gen. 9 6.  He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Vt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem, non sane quemvis, sed gladio divinitus armatum, hoc est per magistratum; alioqui homicidiorum licentia daretur in immensum si intersiciendi homicide as potest as cuivit esset; that is, that the murderer be put to death by ma●, 'tis not meant truly by every man, but by him that is armed by God with the sword, that is, by the Magistrate; else a Licence of murder would be given beyond all measure, if the power were in the hands of any one to kill the Murderer. But to end this; by what you have here said, I do plainly pe●ceive, that if nobody would have put King Charles to death, you would have been the Executioner.  
You go on, 
I. P. pa. 31. l. 27.  That the people (say you) ought to punish● their King according to their demerits, hath been the declared judgement of many Protestant Divines.  
Answ. Before I come to clear those authors alleged by you in particular; I shall give you these advertisements (about your quotations) in the general.  
1. Many of the authors you quote do you belie in affirming that they plead for the killing of Kings by their Subjects, which they never did: thus you wrong ●ez●, Zuinglius, Pareus, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Pryn and m Love; as I shall evidently make appear anon.  
2. In your list of Protestant Divines, I find one Popish Priest, whom you call Junius Brutus, alias Parsons the Jesuit, as I shall prove when I come to answer your allegation of him.  
3. I have good reason to believe that you borrowed most of your quotations not from the Authors themselves, 
See a book ●ntituled the image of both Churches Ierusal●m and Baby by P. D. M.  but from a Popish writer (supposed to be Toby Matthews) his lies and slanders against Protestant Divines you take up for undoubted truths. He rails on Bez● p. 82. and saith that the book entitled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus was his, p. 105. & against Zuinglius, p. 81. & p. 115. against Knox, p. 134. and Goodman his associate, p. 134. brands Pareus in p. 225. rails on the Wieliffs and Waldenses, p. 250. These are most of the authors quoted by you, whom he represents unto the world, as rebels against, & murderers of Kings & Princes; yea doth impudently affirm, that the Protestants have deposed more Kings in 60. years; then was by the means of Catholics in 600. Ibid. p. 226. Now is it for your credit to gather such broken scraps, and tortured collections from so infamous an Author? That which induceth me to believe that you had these quotations not from the Authors themselves, but from that Popish writer, is this. 1. In reading those Authors I find some of them to be of a quite contrary mind to that which you allege them for. 2. Those very men, and that matter almost in terminis is quoted by that Popish writer; and may not this give some ground to believe what I assert?  
4 You must needs be put to a penury of proofs, when you pretend to allege Protestant Divines, yet among them mention Mr. Prynne a Lawyer but no Divine, and Junius Brutus a Jesuit but no Protestant; surely either your memory must be short, or your reading but small.  
5. In some of your quotations you only name the men, but do not mention the page where such a passage is to be found. Thus you deal with Zuinglius, Pareus, Dudley, Fenner, and Rutherford; which makes me think you never read their books, or else that you intended to pervert their words, and put your Reader to more pains before he shall find out your abuse of the Authors.  
6. Though some of the Authors alleged speak high of punishing tyrannical and idolatrous Kings, yet none of them (Unless the Jesuit, under the name of Junius Brutus) ever gave the least intimation of spilling the blood of a Protestant King.  
7. One solid Argument had stood you in more stead than a hundred quotations; not men's sayings, but their reasons are to be regarded.  
8. There is no opinion so gross, but there may be some particular men who will labour to maintain it; 'tis true, some particular men may plead for the putting of Kings to death, but is this the received opinion or declared judgement of any of the Reformed Churches? could you show that (which I know you cannot) it would be of more weight with me.  
9 Although some of the Authors speak high in this point, yet none of them come up to the present case. There were so many considerable and concurrent circumstances in the case of the king that varied it much from the case of Kings in former times; the business is so circumstantiated that were all the Authors alleged by you alive, none of them (I verily believe) nor any Casuists in the world would give their consent to the taking away the life of our King as the case stood with us. For, 1. He was a Protestant King. 2. The end of the Parliaments War against the Forces raised by him, was to preserve His person, as appears by their many Declarations in that behalf. 3. Many Oaths and Covenants made to the most high God for the preservation of His royal person. 4. The King of England could not be put to death, but they must kill the King of Scotland and Ireland also, who had as true a right in Him as this kingdom had. 5. That he granted more for the good of the kingdom then ever any King that sat upon the English Throne. 6. That he never personally shed blood. 7. That the Army must first force the Parliament before they could kill the King; which will be to after ages a lasting monument of the Parliaments Renown, and the army's Reproach. 8. That the House of Commons (if they sat free and full, which now they do not) have no power by law to erect a new Court to take away the life of any man, much less the life of the King. 9 That the General & his Officers declared in their Remonstrance, June 23. 1647. that they did clearly profess they did not see how there could be any peace to this Kingdom firm and lasting, without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights, Quiet & Immunities of His majesty's Royal family, &c. these and such like circumstances considered, can it be imagined that any could have their hands in the King's blood, unless they were led more by passion then reason, by design then conscience? Thus having given you these advertisements (touching the Authors by you alleged in the general) I come now a to particular survey of the several authors brought by you to maintain your King-killing Doctrine.  
You begin with Mr. Love and so will I, 
I. P. p. 31. l. 31.  of whom you say, that in his Sermon preached at Uxbridg, and printed, having spoken before of the blood-guiltiness of the King, yea intimated u●●aturall and horrible blood-guiltiness in Him, as if he had been guilty of King James his death, and Prince Henry's death, the blood of the Prot●stant● in Rochel, and the Rebellion of ●reland, and all the Protestant bloodshed there. p. ●3. of the said Sermon styled England's distemper.  
Answ. 1. That Mr. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preached at Vxbri●ge is true, but that he spoke therein of the blood-guiltiness of the King is utterly false; I have read over his Sermon from the beginning to the end; and can find no mention of the King throughout his Sermon, but in two places, and there too, without the least reflection or accusation on the King, 
See Mr. love's Sermon entitled England's distemper. &c. pag. 16.  the first place is in p. 16. where he saith, that the rising (though now falling) Clergymen would serve up Prerogative to the highest peg (by which means they have cracked it, at least the credit of it) affirming that Kings might do what they list, that the lives, ●ives, liberties, and estates of Subjects, are to be disposed by the King, according to his own will, yea have they not taught the people, that if the King require the life of any or all his subjects, they must lay their necks to the block, they must not defend themselves by force of Arms in any case? Here Mr. Love doth accuse Court-preachers, & parasites of flattery bu● is there the least word here of accusing the King of blood-guiltiness? 
Ibid. p. 19  The second place where he makes mention of the King is in p. 19 and there he says nothing but this; Is not our King the head divided from his Parliament, the Representative body of this kingdom? and is not one member divided from another? and doth Mr. Love in this accuse the King of blood-guiltiness? These are the two places where m Love speaks about the King, I am sure there is not one word else touching the King in all his Sermon.  
As for your false charge against Mr Love, 
I. P. p. 31. l. 35.  that he intimated unnatural & horrible bloodguiltiness in the King, as if he had been guilty of K. James his death, & Prince Henry's death, the blood of the Protestants in Rochel, and the Rebellion of Ireland, and all the Protestant blood there; 
See Mr. love's Sermon entitled England's distemper. p. 23.  this you say in p. 23. of his Sermon. To this I have two things to answer in his behalf. 1. I need not become his Advocate; the Sermon may plead for him that made it, all that Mr. Love says is this, It would search to the quick to find out whether King James, and Prince Henry his son came to a timely death, yea or no? It would search to the quick to know whether Rochel and all the Protestants in it were not betrayed into the hands of their enemies; and by whom? it would go to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted, promoted and contrived in England, and by whom? Is here the least charge against the King? cannot a man speak of King James or Prince Henry's death, but must it be interpreted that he said King CHARLES had a hand in it? cannot a man wish that the betrayers of the Protestants in Rochel, the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland, may be discovered, but must all the guilt of that blood be needs laid upon the King's head? 2. But suppose he had intimated that the King was guilty of blood-guiltiness (which he did not) yet is there not the least intimation of that for which you allege him, viz. to prove that it was his decl●red judgement that the King was to be put to death: you labour to stain his reputation, but you do no way strengthen your▪ own assertion. I am sure Mr. Love declared his judgement against putting the King to death long before the Armies attempt to bring him to trial, as appears by that book mentioned before, entitled Works of darkness brought to light, printed about two years since.  
You say that Mr. Love made the King the Troubler of England as Achan was of Israel, 
I. P. pag. 32. l. 3.  and hath these words, p. 32. It was the Lord that tr●ubled Achan, because he troubled Israel; Oh that in this our State physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the land who have distempered it: M●lius est ut pereat unus, quam unit as.  
— Immedicabile vulnus  
Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trabatur.  
Answ. 1. Did not your heart give your hand the lie when you wrote these words? doth not your Conscience tell you that there is not the least syllable in m love's Sermon tending to this, that the King was the Troubler of England, as Achan was of Israel?  
2. Doth not m Love clearly express himself whom he meant by those achan's who were to be cut off; and that but three or four lines before those words you quote of Achan, where he saith that there are many malignant humers to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdom before we can be healed? but there is not in that place, nor in 13 pages before▪ any one word about the King; and what is said of him in p. 16 and 19 is not in the least disparagement to his royal person and authority, as I made appear before.  
3. The phrase by any grammatical construction cannot be referred to the King; for he wished that the State physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the land that had distempered it▪ now had it been meant of the King he would have wished that they would have cut him off (not those off) that distempered it. As for those Latin sayings, Melius est ut pereat unus quam unitas: and,— Imm●dicabile vulnus 
Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trabatur:  these expressions cannot be referred to the King unless something spoken either before or after (of which there is not a word) doth enforce such an inference. Besides, Mr. Love doth well know that although the cutting off one Malignant member may preserve the body, yet the cutting off the head (though there may be Malignant humours in it) is not the way to save the body, but to destroy it.  
You go on, 
I. P p. 32. l. 11.  But yet more plain, pag. 37. men who lie under the guilt of much innocent blood (saith M Love) are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the guilt of blood be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law, or law of the sword.  
Answ. 1. But yet more plain say you, truly you had need of something more plain say I, before you will be able to make it appear that ever Mr. Love did plead for killing the King.  
2. It seems this is the plainest passage in the Sermon, but doth this ●peak what you assert, that the King must be punished according to his demerits? Is there any clause to this purpose in the words you quote?  
3 Mr Love doth well consider that in the same Article or part of the Covenant wherein we promise to bring Delinquents to punishment, we engage ourselves to preserve the person of the King.  
4 I do verily believe Mr. Love is still of this mind (and I have some cause to know it) that the guilt of that innocent blood which hath been spilled, must be expiated and avenged on some of the chiefest Incendiaries either by the sword of the Law in a time of Peace, or (if that cannot reach them) by the Law of the sword in a time of war; and what is this more than we are all engaged to by Covenant? to bring Delinquents to condign punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme Judi●atories of both kingdoms, or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient. But for you to wrest and torture his words, as if he meant that the guilt of the blood shed could not be expiated unless KING CHARLES were executed; I am persuaded there was never such an expression from his mouth, nor motion in his heart.  
The second Author you allege is Mr. John Knox, 
I. P. p. 32. l. 25.  who in his book● called the Appellation &c. affirms (say you) that the people may depose their Princes and punish him &c.  
Answ. 'Tis true Mr. Knox spoke more freely in this point than any Scottish Divine that I know of before or since, yet let me tell you, that what he saith will not reach to such a case as ours. For 1. I read in his b●ok called the Appell●tion of John Knox, pag. 78. that he pleads only for the punis●ing of such Kings as are Idolaters and Tyrants against God and his known truth; now our late King was not such a one. Secondly, he speaks of such Kings as were rashly and unadvisedly chosen by the People; now our King was not merely elective, but had a title to the crown by succession, and a just Hereditation. Thirdly, I do not read in his Book called the Appellation, &c. that he contends for bringing Kings to a judicial trial and taking away their lives, but only in general of punishing and deposing them. Now what is said here by way of answer to what you alleged out of m Knox, may serve also for an answer to Goodman whom you call the great associate of John Knox.  
The third Author you quote, 
I. P. p. 32. l. 38.  is Doctor John Ponnet in his Books called A Short Treati se of politic Power, Cap. 6. pag. 45.  
Answ. 'Tis true, Dr. Ponnet is of large principles in this point, yet 1. 'tis to be observed that when he made his book it was in the reign of Queen Mary, Ann. 1556. and so spoke of Popish, not Protestant Princes; yea it was during the time of his banishment out of England, at which time his discontent might make him to be led more by passion then reason. 2. Though he holds it lawful for a People to depose and kill a Tyrant, yet he gives not this power abslutely to a particular party, but to the body of the People; 
See a short Treati se of Polit. Power. by Dr. I●●n Pennet, ●. 6. pag. 49.  The body (saith he) ●f every State may (if it will) yea and aught to r●dresse and correct the vi●●● of their Heads and governors. I am sure you cannot say the body of this State was for the execution of the King; there were an hundred against it to one for it. Yea 3, Though he goes further, that private men may kill a Magistrate, yet he holds it with some special limitations, 
See Dr. P●nnets Treatise of Polit. Power. cap. 6.  In some cases private men (saith he) may kill their Magistrates, as when a governor shall with his sword run upon an innocent, or go about to shoot him with a gun, or if he should be found in bed with a man's wife, or ravish a man's daughter, or go about to make away his Country to foreigners. Now can you prove the King to be guilty of such things as these? If not, your quotation of Ponnet doth not reach our case. To close this, I would ask you, Are you of Dr. Ponnets mind that any private man may kill a Tyrant? do you think that Moses his practice in killing the Egyptian, and Ehud slaying Eglon, is to be imitated by every private man? It seems you do so, why else do you urge these instances out of doctor Ponnet to justify your King-killing Doctrine? If you do, I fear you will often times follow the devil's instigation to murder the innocent, when you think 'tis the impression of God's spirit on your heart to do justice on the guilty. Oh take heed that you be not given over to believe lies, and then to work wickedness with greediness. Before I leave this unsafe assertion in Dr. Ponnets book (of which you approve) viz. that private men may kill a Tyrant: I desire that this might lie sadly on your heart, suppose you should think such a Magistrate to be a Tyrant and a murderer, and because none will put to death that Tyrant, therefore you hold yourself bound to do it: suppose again, another thinks him to be a just Magistrate whom you slew, and kills you that killed him, and a third kills him that killed you, and so ad infinitum: Is not this the way to make us Cains, not Christians, one unto another, and in the end not to leave so many men in the world as Cain did when he slew his brother?  
A fourth Author you quote is Junius Brutus supposed by good Authors to be Beza's works, 
I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30.  in his book called Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, &c.  
Answ. 1. Indeed if you count the Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthewes to be a good Author, who made that book entitled the Image of both Churches, Jerusalem and Babylon (by P. D. M.) He saith it was Beza's works pag. 105. and yet herein he was no more ingenuous than you were; for saith he, if it was not Beza's it might be Hottomans, pag. 107. and pag. 111. Do you deal candidly with so Orthodox a Divine as Beza was, to receive the slanderous reports of Papists against so zealous a Protestant? The same Author who said that Beza made that book called Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 
See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82.  affirmed also that Beza usurped another man's parish, that he was the husband of another man's wife, &c. the one is as true as the other. 2. It may be made demonstrable that Beza was not the author of that book, which goes under the name of Junius Brutus, for can it be imagined that so sober and learned a man as Beza was, should be so inconsistent to his own principles, to write one thing in one book, and the quite contrary in another? throughout all the veins of his writings, he calls for subjection to Magistrates, but not a word of deposing or murdering of Kings, which is the whole drift of that book called Vindiciae contra tyrannos. 
Beza lib. confes. Christianae fidei cap. 5. Ecclesia circa finem.  I could produce multitudes of places out of Beza's works utterly repugnant to what is in Junius Brutu●; take for presnt one or two: Nullum aliud (saith he) rememedium proponitur privatis hominibus tyranno subjectis, preter vitae emendationem proeces & lachrymas; that is, there is no other remedy left to private men being subject unto a tyrant, besides amendment of life, prayers and tears. Yea Beza was of this judgement, that though private men might disobey the sinful commands of a Prince, yet he was utterly against taking up of Arms: 
Beza in confess▪ fidei Christianae c. 5. Sect. 45.  'tis ane thing (said he) not to obey Magistrates, and another to resist or take up Arms, which God doth not permit thee. If Beza was against private men's taking up of defensive arms, can it be imagined that he would plead for offensive Arms against the life and person of a King? Indeed Beza hath a learned Tract extant de Haereticis a Magistrati● puniendis; but not a word de Magistratibus ab Haereticis puniendis; Beza did hold that Magistrates should punish heretics, but never held that heretics should punish Magistrates.  
3. This Junius Brutus whom (you say) good authors affirm to be Beza's works, is indeed and intruth no other than the work of a Jesuit; I have it from good hands that Parsons the Jesuit was the Author of that book; there are now some alive that can witness it, that one Rench a Printer was condemned to be hanged for printing it, and another book of the same man's, under the name of Doleman. And here I cannot but give the world notice that one of the good members now sitting at Westminster (whom I could name but that naming men now in the House would be accounted breach of privilege, when pulling Members out hath been esteemed none) did employ Walker the Mercury man (who writes the Perfect Occurrences) to get this book being translated into English to be printed; it seems themselves were ashamed of it, suspecting that it might be known to be Parsons the Jesuit, if it had continued still under the name of Junius Bru●us, and therefore they did make a new Title to this book; which is this.  
Four great Questions concerning the trial of the King, as it was delivered to the colonels and general Officers of the Army, and presented to the High Court of justice appointed by an Act of the Commons of England for trial of the King.  
I only mention this that it might appear unto the world, that the books, Principles, and counsels of the Jesuits had a great concurrence with, if not influence upon the late Transactions of the Army; and High Court in putting the King to death.  
You go on, and discerning a scarcity of Protestant Divines, you are beholding to Popish precedents to help you out; you say Christierne lost the Crown of Denmapke, 
I. P. p. 34. l. 29.  &c.  
Answ. True, he did so, but yet he did not lose his life; but you have made King Charles lose his Crown and life together. Christierne was only restrained as a Prisoner, but not adjudged to die. Besides the Kings of Denmark come in merely by election, but the Kings of England by a rightful succession. So that your instance of Christierne will not advantage you a whit.  
Edward the second (say you) lost the crown of England for the same misgovernment as our late King lost His crown and head. 
I. P. pa. 34. l. 31.   
Answ. 1. This was in the time of Popery; are Popish practices good patterns for Protestants to walk by?  
2. Edward the second did not lose His Crown by a judicial Deprivation, but by a constrained Resignation.  
3. He was never legally arraigned and brought to trial in Parliament for his life.  
4. 'tis to be observed that Mortimer (who had the chief hand in deposing King Edward the second) was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed as a Traitor, and guilty of High treason, for murdering Edward the second at Berkely castle, although he was deposed. It may be after Parliaments may call some of you to account for the King's death.  
That superior Magistrates may be put to death by the inferior, 
I. P. p. 35. l. 3.  because domestic Tyrants are chiefly to be repressed, was the opinion of Pareus in his Commentary on Judges. 
In casu necesstatis licita est defensio per magistratum infe●●oorem 〈◊〉 superiorem. D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262.   
Answ. Indeed in his Comment on the Romans he saith, that in case of necessity the inferior Magistrate may lawfully defend himself against the superior; but hath not a word in his Comment on the judges (that I can find) that superior Magistrates may be put to death by the inferior. Surely Pareus would not say one thing in his Comment on judges; 
Christianes' 〈◊〉 minus quam alios quos●unque potesta●●. subject●● esse debere non tantum fide ●lus sed etiam infidelibus sed, etc D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1.  and the quite contrary in his Comment on the Romans. He saith expressly, that Christians no less than others ought to be subject to the Powers, not only when believers but when Infidel●s, as all the powers than were, not only to the me●k and just, but to the froward and unjust, &c. 'tis true, Pareus pleads for defensive arms in case of necessity, (and so do I) but yet he never went in so high a strain to plead for the killing of Kings and Princes; yea when Pareus speaks of defensive arms he doth it with abundance of wisdom and caution: 
Vide Paraeum in explic. dubiorum. in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262.  Subditi (saith he) non privati sed in magistratu inferiori constituti, adversus superiorem magistratum se & Rempublicam & ecclesiam seu veram Religionem etiam armis defendere possunt. His positis Conditionibus, cum superior ma●istratus degenerate in Tyrannum. 2. Aut ad manifestam idolotatriam atque blasphemias ipsas vel subditos alios suae fidei commissos vult cogere, &c. The sum of what he saith is this, that it is lawful (not for private men but) for the inferior magistrates to defend the Church and commonwealth, against the superior Magistrate, yet he lays down 6 conditious or limitations; provided that the superior Magistrate degenerates into a Tyrant, that He compels His Subjects to manifest idolatry and blasphemy; and that they keep themselves in the bounds of self-defence according to the Laws, &c. Now can it be imagined that Pareus should lay down so many cautions to justify a defensive war in his Comment on the Romans, and yet affirm that the superior Magistrate may be put to death by the inferior? It makes me think that you never read Pareus his works; or if you did, that you intended to be lie him, as you have done many others. Besides, Pareus never made a Comment upon judges all his life; after he was dead there was found some short notes written in his own Bible, only for his own private use, which his son Philip Pareus did lately put among his other works.  
That famous Dudley Fennor affirms, 
I. P. pa. 35. l. 8.  that an evil Prince may be taken away in a time of peace, or by war, which they may do who are either Ephori or ordinum omnium conventus, saith he.  
Answ. 1. You use still your wonted stratagem, to allege Authors, mention their names, but give no notice in what page that passage is, which you quote of theirs, which must argue either your ignorance of such men's works, or else a purpose in you to deceive the Reader, and abuse the Authors you quote.  
2. Though I am not bound to answer you in every Author you quote at large, yet for disputes sake I shall yield to your weakness; 'tis true Dudley Fennor hath some such words in his Sacra Theolog. cap. 13. 
Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor. c. 13. de Politeiae-civili. p. 80.  de Politeia civili. p. 80. though you pervert them woefully; you had showed your ingenuity had you quoted all that Dudley Fennor spoke touching the point in hand. He doth distinguish of a Tyrant, there is Tyrannus sine titulo, and tyrannus exercitio. Tyrannus sine titulo est qui imperium ad se absque legitimâ ratione rapit, huic quisque privatus resistat, & si possit è medio tollat. that is, A Tyrant without a title, is such a one who by force and fraud hath got the Government of a kingdom into his hands, when he hath no legal claim thereto; now such a one (saith he) any private man may resist and take him out of the world. Put case O. Cromwell or any other man who hath no legal claim to the Crown, should by force and fraud usurp to himself the kingdom, such an one is Tyrannus fine titulo, and if you will follow Dudley Fennor he gives liberty that any private man may resist such a one, yea if he can take him out of the world. I hardly believe that Dudley Fennor's doctrine (whom you call famous) would please at Whitehall. Again, when he comes to speak of a Tyrant (not in title, but) in the exercise of his government, he doth not plead for popular tumults, but saith (which you have unworthily left out) that such a tyrant may be punished, but yet only by them (qui ea potete donati sunt) who are endued with such an authority; now that is most true, that if the laws and constitutions of a kingdom or commonwealth be such, that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant; in such a case 'tis unquestionably lawful. And if you can show that the House of Commons have power by the known laws of this Land, to condemn and execute any man, much less the King, I shall then be silent.  
When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people, 
I. P. p. 35. l. 15.  fit Deo auspice saith, Zuinglius.  
Answ. 1. Here you name the man, and mention the words, but quote not the place where such a passage is to be found; in Zuinglius his works (who hath four large volumes extant.) I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains, to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader.  
2. 'tis true, there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you, yet I must tell you, as the devil did with that scripture he quoted to Christ; so do you with Zuinglius words, viz. leave out the most considerable clause, and grossly pervert the meaning of his words, which I shall evidently demonstrate: His words are these: 
x Consensu & suffragi●s totius an● certe 〈◊〉 is multitudinis, Tyr●annus tol●itu●r, deo fit auspice. Zuingl. in explanatione Articuli 42. p. 85. Tom. 1.  When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people, it is done God disposing it. Now you have left out these words [of the whole or better part of the people] It may be your conscience told you you, that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King, and therefore you have done it without them, never desiring their consent, so that what Zuinglius saith will not justify your practice, which was done by the lesser (and not the better neither) of the people. Besides, you grossly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words; as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant, which he was utterly against, as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound. 'tis true, he was for the deposing of Tyrants, so it were done by the whole or better part of the people, but yet against the killing of them, as he saith expressly. Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare, 
Zuingl●●●… exp. Arn● 42 p. 84. Tom 1.  non est ut ●umtrucides, nec ut bellum & tumultum quis excitet, quia in pace vocavit nos Deus, sed aliis viis res tentanda est, &c. that is, after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture, 'tis not that thou mayst kill him, or raise war or tumult against him, because God hath called us in pea●e, but the thing is to be assayed by other ways, &c. Yea 'tis further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant, viz. to be such an one (qui vi regnum accepit, & per ambitionem irrumpit) who hath gotten a kingdom by force, and breaks it by ambition. There is no doubt but such may be deposed, yea destroyed too, if the people have strength to do it.  
See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out, 
1. P. p. 35 l. 17.  as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland, called Lex Rex, and especially in M Pryn's works, &c.  
Answ. 1. You still use your old device, name the man but not quote the place. I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex, yet this I will maintain, that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capital punishment; I am sure in many places he is against it, in answering that objection which Royalists made, that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, therefore the King being the Lord's anointed cannot be resisted. To which he gives this answer: 
Lex, Rex. quest. 31. p. 330.  David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul; no man in the three kingdoms did so much as attempt to do violence to the King's PERSON; 
Il. p. 104, 105.  and in another place, 
Quest. 14.  he saith, one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his royal Right; and a little after he saith, any man is obliged to honour him as King whom the people maketh King, though he were a bloodier, and more tyrannous man than Saul; 
Ib. p. 233. qu. 26  & in p. 233. he saith, That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others; if therefore he be unpunishable, it is not so much because His royal power is above all Law-coaction, as because one and the same man, cannot be both the punisher and the punished, &c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex, Rex. Is it like that m Rutherford (if he be the Author of it) should plead for putting the King to death, in one place, yet declare himself against it in so many places throughout his book?  
2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion, I need say nothing in his vindication, he is alive, and now among us, more able than I to vindicate himself; 'tis true, in his Appendix to his fourth part of the sovereign power of Parliament and kingdoms, he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punished their Princes. Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so; yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D●cemb. 4. 1648. 
M. Prynne's speech in the House of Common, Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77.  he saith expressly, that though there be some precedents of Popish States and Parliaments, deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home & in foreign parts, in an extraordinary way, by power of an Armed party yet there is no precedent of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose, or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad, whether Protestants or Pap●sts, &c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first precedent in this kind, nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King, &c.  
And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted, most of them make against you, none speak for you, I leave the Reader to judge. As you quoted some few authors who seemingly might speak for you, but really against you, I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point, not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation, against killing Kings in the general, but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular; as the Ministers beyond the Seas, the Ministers of Scotland, the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire, and of many other places of the kingdom besides the London Ministers, who have unanimously declared their abhorrency of that horrid fact of taking away the life of the King; But I forbear quotations, only to manifest the levity and inconstancy of you and men of your faction, I shall mention some few who have in print declared against the cutting off the King, yet have been of late great sticklers for the spilling of His blood. I shall begin with yourself, not that I think you deserve the honour of Priority, but that your ownmistake may be the more obvious unto observation. 
John Price his Snapsack. p. 8.  In your spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament soldiers, p. 8. you tell the soldiers thus, You fight for the recovery of the King's royal person out of the hands of those Miscreants, and reinstate Him in His royal throne and dignity, that both he and His Posterity may (if the Lord will) yet flourish in their Royalty; so that without all contradictions you sight for your King. By this it appears that since you have separated from the Ministers Churches, you are like the vannes of their steeples full of changes, one while to bring the King to His royal throne, another while to bring Him to a doleful scaffold; one while that His Posterity may flourish in their Royalty, another while for the extirpation of the royal family root and branch. The next I shall quote shall be your goodly Pastor John G●o●win, that the world may see you are like people, 
John Goodwin Anticaval. p. 10, 11.  like priest. In his anticavalierism, p. 10, & 11. he saith: As for offering violence to the person of a King, or attempting to take away his life, we leave the proof of the lawfulness of this to those profound disputers the Jesuites, who stand engaged by the tenor of their professed doctrine and Practice, either to make good the lawfulness thereof, or else to leave themselves and their Religion an abhorring and hissing unto the world: As for us who never travailed with any desires or thoughts that way, but abhor both mother and daughter, doctrine and practice together, we conceive it to be a just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men, and their lives to be as consecrated Corn, meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himself: David's Conscience smote him, when he came so near the life of a King, as the cuttiag off the lap of his garment. notwithstanding these high expressions of his against taking away the life of Kings in any case whatsoever, yet had this wretched Apostate a great hand in bringing the King to death. It would be endless to mention all that could be found in their books in print to this purpose; 
See the army's Remonstrance of June, 23. 1647. p. 12.  I shall only quote the army's judgement touching the preservation of His Person; their words are these, we clearly profess we do not see how there can be any peace to this kingdom firm or lasting, without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights, Quiet, and Immunities of His majesty's royal family, and His late Partakers; and more fully in their proposals of Aug. 1. 1647. 
See the Armies proposals. Aug. 1. 1647.  they propose, that His Majestic● person, Queen, and royal Issue, may be restored to a condition of safety, honour and freedom in this Nation, without Diminution of their personal Rights, or further limitation to the exer●ise of their regal power then according to the particulars aforegoing. Yet there very men in their late Remonstrance, desired that the capital and grand Author of our troubles, the Person of the King, may be brought to justice for the treason, blood, etc he was guilty of. What lasting settlement can be expected from th●●● men who at one time desire one thing, and at another time the quite contrary?  
If so be the saving of the King's person being a murderer, 
I. P. p. 37. l. 25.  &c. be the destruction of the Command of true Religion, that the murderer shall surely be put to death, we must by the obligation that lies upon us from the Solemn League and Covenant, cut off the King's head for the Preservation of true Religion.  
Answ. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and and's, begging the question, taking that for granted which was still denied; say not if the saving of the King's person being a murderer, be the destruction of the Command of true Religion, but prove that he was a murderer, and that the saving of His person would be a destruction to true Religion; a convincing Argument would stand you in more stead than a confident assertion of the one, or a naked supposition of the other.  
2. I would demand of you, whether the saving of David's person, who killed Uriah the Hittite; and of Saul's, who slew 85 of the Priests of the Lord; and of Manasseh's, who made the streets of Jerusalem run down with blood, were a destruction of the Commands of true Religion? if you say it was, are not you a very charitable man to stigmatize the children of Israel, that they destroyed the Command of Religion, that the land was defiled with blood, and that to many generations, for not executing all their Kings who had spilled blood; if you say no, give me one cogent reason why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Israel (as well as the good) should live, and yet our late King die.  
3. You are the first (and I hope will be the last) that ever I could hear of, that pleaded an obligation by the Covenant to cut off the King's head for the preservation of true Religion: unless to preserve his person, can be interpreted to cut off his head, I am sure the Covenant lays upon you no such obligation; was the King's person, and religion's preservation so inconsistent, that you must needs destroy the one to preserve the other? were there no veins to be opened to let out malignant blood from any part of the body, but must you cut off the head? could no person be found but the King alone to expiate the guilt of blood? I remember indeed you say in p. 23. that the cutting off the King's head was the most acceptable and fattest sacrifice unto justice, that ever was offered in this kingdom. I do verily believe it was so fat a sacrifice that it will overturn your stomachs, it may be something else too.  
4. I grant 'tis the Command of God that a murderer should be put to death; yet is there a great difference to be put between one that kills another maliciously, and between a multitude who shed blood only in a Military way in a time of civil war; as for instance, 
Judg. 20.  in the bloody war betwixt Judah and Benjamin; though the men of Judah (who had the best cause) lost 40000 men in two battles, yet upon a third attempt when God gave them the day over the Tribe of Benjamin; though they do slay them in the pursuit and heat of the battle (which was lawful) & smote 25000 of the children of Benjamin; yet when the war was ended, and a full and final victory gotten by the men of Judah; they did not bring the residue of the children of Benjamin to a judicial trial, nor executed them, though they slew of the men of Judah 40000; but the sword having determined the controversy in the field on their side, by a very full and final conquest, the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty; as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin, that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them, or as it is in the margin, to proclaim peace to them; yea 'tis said that the people (even those that slew them) repented them for Benjamin, because the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Israel. c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions, they had been bound not to have suffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was engaged in the war against them, especially considering that they had spilled so much blood, no less than 40000 men slain by the Benjamites. I could produce many instances in scripture of the like nature; but this may suffice, I shall only mention that the Army was not in time past so high flown, as to put no difference between shedding blood maliciously, and in a Military way, else how could they say, that tender, equitable and moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and royal family, 
See a Letter from Sir Tho. Fairfax to both Houses of Parliament Dated from Redding, July, 6. 1647. which he declared to be the general sense of all or most part of the Officer in the Army.  and late party, so far as may stand with the safety of the kingdom, and security to our Common rights and liberties, is the most hopeful course to take away the seeds of War, or future seeds among us for Posterity, and to procure a lasting peace, and a government in this distracted nation. The Army you see became Petitioners for the King and His party, yet believed them to be guilty of blood; if they had believed that the Law of God had reached them they should have petitioned that all might die, not that any might live: I am sure you will say the King and His party were murderers, if so, why would you cut off the King, yet spare His Party? when they in your esteem are guilty of blood as well as He? doth your Religion teach you to punish the King and spare the Subjects? Now in regard I shall meet with but little or no further occasion in the following part of your book, to con●ute that bloody practice you pleaded for; viz. the putting the King to death, I shall therefore before I leave this subject give you these 6 scriptural advertisements, if it may be, to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine.  
1. That there is no precedent in all the scripture, that the Sanhedrin of the Jews, or Rulers of Israel did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Judah or Israel, though many of them were most gross Idolaters, and tyrannous Princes, who shed much innocent blood, and oppressed the people sundry ways. 'tis true indeed, some of the idolatrous Kings of Israel were slain by private conspiracies, and popular tumults in an illegal way, but none were ever arraigned, condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins, or general Assemblies. So that in putting the K to death, you have done that for which you have no Scripture precedent. 
2.  2. The servants of God in scripture did hold it lawful to take up defensive arms to withstand the rage and tyranny of their Kings, yet did not count it lawful to destroy the persons of their Kings; thus David did by force of Arms defend himself against the raging and tyrannical invasion of Saul, by possessing many strong holds and fortified places, 
1 Sam. 24. 6, 7. 13.  yet thought it not lawful to kill him; God forbid (said David) that I should do this thing to my master the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, 
1 Sam. 26. 8, 9  &c.— and said he to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against him, and be guiltless. If many circumstances had been considered, David had much to plead why he should take away the life of Saul, (more I am sure than you had to take away the life of our late King) for 1. Saul was in actual pursuance of David for his life, 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King, 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Israel, 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had lost his governing abilities, the spirit of government was departed from Him, 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood; He slew 85 Priests of the Lord; and put to the sword, both men, women, children and sucklings in the City of Nob, 1 Sam. 22. 18, 19 6. He was earnestly urged to kill Saul by the men that were about him, 1 Sam. 24. 4. & 1 Sam. 26. 9, 10. 7. Saul was the only man that stood between him and his actual possession of a kingdom, yet all these considerations did not take with David; he was still of this mind that none could stretch forth their hands against him, 
1 Sam. 26. 10, 11.  and be guiltless; His day (said David) shall come to die, or he shall descend into hattail, and perish, the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against him, &c. Another scriptural instance that I may give you (to name no more) you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Jonathan to death, the people rose up and rescued Jonathan out of the hands of Saul, that he died not, yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himself. I shall conclude this advertisement with a good observation m Prynne hath, 
Mr. Prynne's third part of the sovereign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, p. 95.  That we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe Conscience, th●se whom we may not wilfully slay, &c.— The King may not with safe Conscience be wittingly slain by His Subjects; but that therefore he and His Cavaliers may not be forcibly resisted for their own defence, is a gross inconsequent, &c.  
3. To spill the blood of any (especially Royal blood) merely out of a Political design, is in the account of God murder (not justice) although the men may deserve to be put to death. The scripture affords a pregnant proof of this, the Lord commanded Jehu to smite the house of Ahab, 
2 King. 9 7.  to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets; 
2 Kings 10. 6.  according to the command of the Lord, Jehu caused 70 of the sons of Ahab to be slain by the Rulers of Jezreel; God commends him for doing this, the Lord said unto Jehu, because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the House of Ahab, according to all that was in my heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. Yet for all this, because Jehu had a political design in smiting the House of Ahab, viz. the emolument and establishment of his kingdom, not a conscientious respect to the command of God, 
Hosea 1. 4.  therefore the Lord by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith, that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu. That is, the blood of Ahab's 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Jezreel at Jehu's command: I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death, would consider whether a political design, rather than a conscientious respect to justice, was not a chief motive engaging them to that horrid attempt.  
4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings (although wicked) did not die a natural death, but came to an untimely end. 'tis said in 2 King. 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him, 
2 Kings 21. 23, 24.  and slew the King in His own House; then 'tis said in the very next verse, the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon. Again Elah King of Israel was slain by Zimri a captain of his chariots, 
1 Kings 16. 8, 9  as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk, 'tis said Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him; But what became of Zimri? Jezabel could ask, had Zimri peace that slew his master? 2 King. 9 31. No, he had not, for when 'twas told in the camp of Israel, that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King; 
1 Kings 16. 16.  upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny, made Omri King, and came against Zimri, 
1 Kings 16. 18.  who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the King's house, put the house on fire about his ears, and was there burnt to ashes, that was the end that Zimri came to: Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Jehoash King of Judah; 
2 Kings 12. 19, 20, 21.  'tis said, his servants arose and made a conspiracy, and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo. But what became of these men that slew Jehoash? 
2 Kings 14. 5.  'tis said expressly 2 King. 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash, that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father. 
2 Kings 15. 10. 14.  So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel, but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the son of Gadi, as 'tis storied, 2 King. 15. 10, 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel, and soon after he himself was killed by Hoshea, as 'tis recorded 2 King. 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might be alleged, if I should exactly look over the Histories of the Kings of Israel; but these may suffice.  
5. 'tis to be observed, that Omri who did succeed Zimri (who came to so untimely an end) was made King by the soldiers or Army of Israel; and was he better than the rest? no, he was rather worse, 
1 King. 16. 25.  'tis said expressly, that Omri wrought evil in the sight of the Lord, 
Micah. 6. 16.  and did worse than all that were before him. It is my wi●h that those Rulers or Representatives, or call them what you will, who have the rule of the kingdom now in their hands, and have gotten it by the power of an Army, do not worse than all the Kings that ever went before, that we feel not their little finger's heavier upon us then the King's loins.  
6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King, to Zedekiah the last (which was about 480 years) were never under such intolerable oppression and misery, 
2 King. 16. 21.  as in the times of those Kings before mentioned, 
Mr. Arth. ay ackson in his pious and learned Annotations hath a good observation; It seems (saith he) the people misliking the King the soldiers chose this Ti●ni to be their K. between whom there was continual war for three years and upwards, &c.  who were so put to death; such violent removals of their Kings made such strange alterations, and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel, that the people had not peace or settlement, but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars; thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the King's house; then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession, or claim to the kingdom; upon this 'tis said, the people of Israel were divided into two parts, half to make Tibni King, another half followed Omri to have him King, upon which a bloody war followed, for three years and upward. 'tis my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel. This instance may suffice in stead of many, 
I. P. p. 38. l. 34.  I shall mention no more.  
It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London, I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King, &c. than a little after, the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London, plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport, which (by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland) acquiesced in, would destroy both Religion and Covenant.  
Answ. 1. 'tis no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors, should make no more of speaking falsehood; and that not only against the Ministers, but against the Parliament also; you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the King's concessions, which they did not; yea they did wholly wave that question, Whether the King's Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory? and like men of wisdom, honour and conscience they voted only this; That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses, are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.  
2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the King's concessions, (I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them) the Ministers did hope and believe the Parliament would have demanded more, and the King yielded to more for the good of the Kingdom.  
3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland, did not say, that the Parliament did, or would acquiesce in the King's concessions as satisfactory, but only they gave a timely caution, that if they should be acquiesced in, it would be dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant.  
Look back into your former course of life, 
I. P. pa. 40. l. 16.  and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time, over and over, &c. And how have you directly for sworn yourselves against the light and sense of your own judgement and conscience? have we not cause to judge better of many of the prelatical party? who being men of learning and conscience, and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as yourselves, &c.  
Answ. 1. Is it not more than enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity, vainglory, malignity, but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also?  
2. Suppose any of them (I am sure all did not) did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops, and to the book of commonprayer, (for 'tis of that you speak) and should now renounce them, yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badge of their glory, and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing. 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love, or rules of Christianity, to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forswear themselves against the light and sense of their own judgements and consciences in so doing? 3. Although the Ministers did subscribe to Bishops and the book of Common prayer, yet cannot they justly be accused of Perjury, though they did afterwards swear to extirpate them, because Bishops (and commonprayer) were settled not by a Divine but merely a political institution in this kingdom; the same power that established them, might either for a while suspend, or totally abolish them without the least show of Perjury: I suppose when you were made free you took an oath to maintain the privileges and Charter of the City; if that Power that made that Charter think fit to abolish or alter it, you will not think yourself under the guilt of Perjury, for subscribing to another Charter somewhat different from the former. 4. If the subscribers have forsworn themselves, than I am sure John Goodwin and the rest of your Independent Teachers (if Ministers) are as deeply guilty of Perjury as they are; the one subscribed to no more than what the others did.  
3. Whereas you declare, that you have cause to judge better of the prelatical party, who are men of learning and conscience, and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as the Ministers. To this I have 2 things to say, 1. This malicious and malignant language of yours, shows you to be a follower of Pragmaticus or Aulicus, rather than a disciple of Anticavalierism●. 2. It seems, the Prelatical party are in your esteem men of learning and conscience, 
John Price his Snapsack. p. 8.  but the Presbyterian party are men of neither; you say in p. 2. 
All the godly, learned & conscientious Ministers are for defensive arms, & few there are of the contrary judgement, but Papists, Atheists, Prelates, Delinquents, and profane wretches.  they want ministerial abilities, and here in pag. 40. that they forswore themselves against conscience, &c. and if so, you account them to be men neither of learning or conscience. I am sure you were once of another mind, when you reckoned the prelatical party among Papists, Atheists, Delinquents and profane wretches, and the Ministers to be learned, godly, and conscientious, &c. O quantum mutatus ab illo! Surely you are not the man that you were. Would one think that you should be the man to cry up the prelatical Clergy, and cry down the godly Ministry; to publish those unto the world to be men of peace, but these to be violent disturbers both of Church and State? do not you justify the wicked, and condemn the innocent, both which are an abomination to God: Alas! what wrong have the Ministers done? what violence to any have they ever offered? it may be you who will not be ruled by the golden red of Presbytery, may have your neck under the iron y●ke of Episcopacy, and then you will feel who will be most violent against their opposers, whether the prelatical party, or the godly Ministry.  
The truth is, 
I. P. p. 41. ● 24.  (i. e. the Army) have spread the sweet savour of Religion abroad throughout this kingdom, more than thousands of those who style themselves Ministers of the gospel, &c.  
Answ. The truth is, the stink of the camp, both for their practices and opinions, is come up into the nostrils of the Lord of hosts as an abhorring to him as for their practices, disobeying the Parliaments commands, disputing their authority, imprisoning many of their persons; using the sword for the destruction of the person of the King, & privileges of Parliament, which was put into their hands for the preservation of both; such practices as these, with many others, have no sweet savour of religion in them. And for their opinions, are there not among them multitudes who deny the mystery of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Authority of the Scriptures, the Immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, & such like; and is this to spread the sweet savour of Religion throughout the Kingdom? If the Jews were banished out of England for poisoning our fountains & springs of water, what do such men as these deserve, who labour to poison the pure fountains of the Scriptures? Many are of opinion, they have done more hurt by their errors, then good by their swords. Yet are not you ashamed to say, they have spread the savour of Religion abroad, more than thousands of the Ministers of the gospel. To conclude, I shall ●ay but this, that many who when they came first into the Army had sweet and savoury affections, whose gifts are now withered, and are but as stinking snuffs; As it was a Proverb in Queen Elizabeth's time, If you would spoil a Preacher make a Bishop of him; so it will become a Proverb in our time, If you will spoil a Professor of Religion, make a soldier or an Armyman of him, he will then soon turn heady, heretical, and what not?  
Many of your own party being more moderate, meek and considerate than yourselves, 
I. P. pa. 42. l. 5.  have declined you and are ashamed of you, &c.  
Answ. I know no moderate, meek and considerate men who have declined them: indeed some rash, passionate, inconsiderate men have done to them, 
2 Tim. 4. 10.  as D●mas did to Paul, forsaken them to embrace this present evil world, they could not get followers and advantage enough in being the Disciples of the Truth, and therefore would be Masters of an error to draw disciples after them, that so many might follow their pernicious ways and 'tis no wonder if such as have declined and are ashamed of the Truth, are ashamed also of the Ministers that preach it.  
Why may not they (i.e. the Army) conclude from successes as well as you, 
I. P. p. 44. l. ●2. p. 45, 46.  &c.— 2. Though successes are not always infallible testimonies of the goodness of the cause on which side they fall, yet successes with their circumstances, do sometimes most evidently vindicate the mind of God. As 1. when both parties appeal solemnly to God, &c. 2. When th●se succ●sses are carried on in an uniform manner, the Lord giving several years' success upon their appeals unto him. 3. When the glorious Majesty, power and presence of God doth appeal after such appeals, when he shall with a small Army of 16000 men destroy near an 100000 men in Arms, as if the Scots Army, the Welsh Army, the Kentish Army, the Essex Army, were considered, it would appear. This is the sum of what you say about the point of success in three pages.  
Answ. 1. The Ministers did never conclude successes to be the infallible testimonies of the goodness of the Cause, on which side they fall; they know that oftentimes they that work wickedness are set up, 
Mal. 3. 15.  and they that tempt God are delivered; yea that a just man may perish in his righteousness, 
Eccl. 7. 15.  and that a wicked man may prolong his life in his wickedness.  
2. In this the Papists and you are not much unlike, they make Prosperity a note of the true Church, and you make success an evidence of a good cause; if it were so, the Heathen Emperors might plead their Cause to be good, and the primitive Christians to be bad; yea the Turk and the Pope might borrow an Argument from you that their ways are good, because they have prospered, and the Church of God have been persecuted and kept under by them.  
3. You think that you have a shift that will help you out, by saying, that successes with their circumstances, as praying, and solemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God. To this evasion of yours, I shall say but this, success may not always fall to that side (though just) which doth pray and appeal to God, but on that side which is unjust, and doth neither. As is clear in the case of the men of Judah, 
Judg. 20. 18. 23.  they sought unto God, and asked counsel of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin, yet for all that they lost in two battles 40000 men; yet their cause was good, their prayers and appeals to heaven were solemn and serious.  
4. Consider God may give the Army successes not out of any love or approbation of their ways; but out of love to his own name and people, whose work for some time they were employed about. Cyrus was successful against the Chaldaeans; these successes were given him not for his own sake, but for the sakes of the children of Israel; God may use the Army as a battle axe, to break the enemies of his Church in pieces, and yet neither love their persons, nor own many of their actions, but break them in the end. Dionysius did ill to say, because he had a prosperous voyage at sea, that therefore the Gods did favour sacrilege; God neither favours nor loves Rebellion, though they may prosper that are guilty of it. If you do build so much on successes, yet make not present but final success the ground of your confidence; if the Army persist to justify their sinful actings, mark what will become of them in the latter end. He conclude this with the wish of the Poets.  
— Careat successihus opto,  
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.  
That impulse of spirit, 
I. P. pa. 49. l. 8.  and those impressions of heart, that stirred up Jehoiadah the Priest to raise up several parties, to put Queen Athaliah to death, for her cruelty and murders, did stir up the Army, Parliament, and Court of Justice, to put the late bloody Tyrant to death, and we may expect rest and peace as the issue thereof.  
Answ. 1. Had the Army as good grounds to put to death King Charles, as Jehoiadah had to kill Queen Athaliah, I should not open my mouth. Consider 1. Athalia● was an usurper of the Crown of Israel, 
Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12, &c.  but so was not King Charles of the Crown of England. 2. What Jehoiada did do was by Authority derived from the young King Joash, who was proclaimed and crowned King by the consent of the whole realm. 3. Jehoiada was not only a Prince of his Tribe, and the young King's uncle, but also he was as it were Lord Protector of the young King, during his minority; and therefore might without question legally put that usurper to death. Prove the King to be such an usurper as Athaliah was; or the High-Court and Army to have such an authority as Jehoiada had, and I'll be silent.  
1. If she had had a true and legal Title to the Crown, as the King had. 2. If he had solemnly swore to God to preserve her person, as you did to preserve the Kings. 3. If she had been no Idolater, as the King was not. 4. If he had not authority from the young King for doing what he did, would he have done it? no doubtless.  
2. I shall pass that by, that you put the Army before the Parliament, and only speak to that impulse of spirit, that stirred up the Army and Court of Justice to put the King to death; I shall yield that they did by an impulse of spirit, but yet I have reason to believe 'twas by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience, because 'twas done without and against the rule of the Word (as I showed before) by which as the spirit, so all the impulses of the spirit are to be tried, and if they agree not thereto they are satanical suggestions, not the Spirits inspirations.  
3. And whereas you expect that the issue of putting the King to death will be rest and peace; I must tell you the blood of Kings hath been oftentimes the seeds of dissensions, commotions, and desolations, not of rest, peace and establishment unto Kingdoms; as I told you before, so I say again, that the children of Israel from Saul their first King, to Zedekiah their last, were never under such intolerable oppressions and miseries as in those times wherein their Kings (though wicked and bloody) were put to death by their Subjects.  
That the murderer shall surely be put to death, 
I. P. p. 50. l. 1.  is a known Precept of God, if this must be dispensed withal, show us the absolute, present, and clear necessity of it; if you cannot, will you speak wickedly for God, &c. As for the Armies proceedings, if there was a necessity that the Land should be cleansed from blood-guiltiness, that the great ends of the Covenant, and all our wars should be secured, &c. then was there a necessity on the Army to take that course they did.  
Answ. 1. I may answer you by way of Retortion, that the murderer should be put to death, is a known Precept; that Goring and Owen had murdered many, was a known practice; for their pardon there is a known Vote; now if they were innocent, why were they condemned? if guilty of blood, why were they spared? can you dispense with blood and none else?  
2. Though murdering of one personally and maliciously cannot be dispensed withal; yet God never required that all who in a military way shed blood should be put to death; as is clear in the case of Absalon's Rebellion, and the Benjamites unjust war (with many others) neither David, nor the men of Judah, (when the sword had determined the controversy in the field on their sides, and had cut off many of the evil doers) held themselves bound to cut off the remainders that was left of the Armies either in the one or the other. If you think that this Precept (viz. that the murderer be put to death) reaches to all blood spilled in a military way, then are you bound that every man that was in the King's Armies should be put to death, else (according to you) the land would be defiled with blood.  
3. To what you say in the last place, that there was a necessity on the Army to take that course they did, if there was a necessity that the Land should he cleansed from blood, &c. I shall return this brief answer. 1. The Army pleaded a necessity in the year, 1647. for things of a quite contrary nature, to what they pleaded a necessity for in Nov. 1648. 2. Who are the most competent judges, the Parliament or the Army, to judge of this necessity? if you say the Parliament, they saw no such necessity, why did not the army then acquiesce in their judgements as they once promised to do? If you say the Army may be judges (which is most inequitable for them to be judges in their own Cause) then why may not any other 20000 men in the kingdom plead necessity to oppose the Army, as they did to oppose the Parliament? should any party, (whose principles are not consistent with, but contrariant to the Armies proceedings) plead a necessity for their appearing for the interest of Religion, laws of the land, privileges of the Parliament, and Liberties of the People, &c. how can you justify the Army, yet blame them? 3. If the necessity pleaded for, was so clear, present, and absolute as you pretend; how it comes to pass that it can be discerned by none but by the Army themselves & their own party? This makes me of the same mind with the subscribers, that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended, or else contracted by their own miscarriages; the Army that prevailed against the sharpest weapons of their enemies, were overcome by this own poor dart of pretended necessity; true is that Proverb, durum telum necessitas; could the Army have overcome their groundless fears and jealousies, they would never have done what they did; yea could they have trusted God, they would have been of Austin's mind, (Ferenda est magis omnis iniquitas quam perpeiranda est aliqua iniquitas) viz. to endure the greatest evil, rather than commit the least sin.  
If your Temple work goes on slowly, 
I. P. p. 55 l. 8.  than the City is set on work, the Country is excited, the Apprentices encouraged to offer violence upon the two Houses, forcing them to Vote and Vnvote at pleasure, and encouraged by some of your Tribe and subscribers, as shall be made good if occasion be.  
Answ. 1. It will turn to your reproach that you are builders of Babel, but to their renown, that they are employed about Temple work, which though it go on slowly, yet safely, you have no cause to despise the day of small things; he that hath laid the foundation stone, will rear up the top of the building, that all the people may cry Grace grace unto it.  
2. And whereas you say, that they had excited men to offer violence to the two Houses, forcing them to Vote and Vnvote, &c. I answer, you measure other men's corn by your own bushel, and other men's hearts by your own practices, you and your faction have offered violence to the two Houses, forcing them to Vote and Unvote at your pleasure, and yet you do the evil and other men must bear the blame.  
3. As to that you say, that it shall be made good if occasion be, that some of the subscribers did encourage the Apprentices to offer violence to the Houses, I shall give you but this answer, viz. to give you a challenge and offer you an occasion to make it good if you can; that you have not done it all this while, I impute not to your lenity but their innocency.  
And thus I have returned you an answer to the most material passages in your book; I shall not meddle with those fond Queries you propose in the latter end thereof; I know one fool can ask more questions in a day, then twenty wise men can answer in a year.  
You conclude your book with a profane descant on a serious and savoury Sermon of Mr. Calamy's; you who were once, when you wrote your Snapsack, so humble as to say you were neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet, are now so proud as to become a Lord & judge of the Prophets? yet those that know you will count your tongue to be no slander; m Calamy's person is so well esteemed, and his Ministry so approved, that all your revilings will turn to his glory, and your shame: m Calamy only affirmed that Anarchy, Perjury, Toleration, &c. are such deeps able to sink a kingdom, if you say the contrary, you will show yourself a simple and shallow fellow. To conclude all, the counsel I shall give you is this, that you would be more in the shop, less in the pulpit, more in your dwelling house, less in the Printing-house, then will the Church be less disturbed and your family better provided for.  
FINIS.