THE CITY-REMONSTRANCE Remonstrated.  
OR An answer to Colonel John Bellamy, his Vindication thereof, in justification OF The Moderate Reply to the CITY-REMONSTRANCE. By I. P.  18. MAT. 6. 
But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me; it were better that a Millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the midst of the Sea.  2 PET. 2. 20. 21. 
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them then the beginning.  
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, then after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  
London, Printed by Tho. Paine, for Henry Overton and are to be sold at his Shop at the entering into Pope's head alley out of Lombard street. 1646.   

❧ To his honoured Friend Colonel JOHN BELLAMY.  
Sir,  
FAwning Flattery spoils many; but plain dealing is every man's duty: The wounds of a Friend will heal, when the kisses of an Enemy will hurt. The City Remonstrance is no character of the Cities excellency: Nor your Vindication thereof, of your Perfection. And the truth is, the former Expresses of this worthy City, and the common observation of your old Profession, quitted our expectations of such a Remonstrance from them: And such a Vindication from you. For as we do not expect Grapes from thorns, so neither sour Sloes, from generous Vines, as not Figs from thistles, so neither prickles from Figge-trees; But it is the City above which is only pure, and the man at God's right hand, who is only Perfect: And therefore: As the Moon is not defineable by her Spots, Jewels by their flaws, nor Gould by its dross; so, is not the City by their Remonstrance, nor yourself by your Vindication thereof, (though I must needs say, the pleading for evil, is worse than the evil it pleads for, and therefore your Vindication, than the Remonstrance itself but yet the greatness of the temptation, (viz. your presumption of the Cities favour, and Popular applause) calls for more Grains of allowance concerning yourself, in the thoughts of your Friends. I confess you are once more assaulted with a fresh temptation, viz. to hate your friend, (even to revenge) for his plain deal, and how it prevails, your future deportment towards him and his Friends, I mean the Servants of God, differing in judgement from yourself will help men's intelligence were we to know men after the flesh, your former acquaintance, and your kindness to me, had held my hand from this present work, but Self denial is both your duty and mine; Your strange siding, and keen penning it against your Brothers, makes them afraid of you, lest you should be one of those many, who in the latter days shall be offended at the name, of Christ, betray one another, and bate one another; believe it, how ever you may flatter yourself, you are already come to a nearer degree of open persecution of the Saints of God, than Haza● was unto those bloody executions against Israel of old, when he said to the Prophet, (lamenting at the foresight thereof) Is thy Servant a Dog, that he should do this great thing, 2. Kings 8. 13. the present distance wherein you stand, from such proceed, is not so great as the former was from your present practices, during the time of your old profession; those that begin, not only to forsake the fellowships of their old Companions in the ways of God, but also to make them obnoxious to the Stroke of the Magistrate, as you have done, are posting apace to that irrecoverable sin, of doing despite to the Spirit of Grace, Heb. 10. 29. I know Sir, these are cutting words, but their  tendency, is your personal good, and the timely prevention, through God's mercy, of your future evil, for how ever you take me, my heart-knowing God, and my thoughts-knowing conscience can witness for me, that I am,  
Your real and faithful Friend J. P.   

THE CITY REMONSRANCE Remonstrated.  
First, Mr. Bellamy, Let us consider the title page of your Book.  
Secondly, We shall mind your book itself.  
Your Title page gins thus.  
A VINDICATION.  
WHat cause is so bad that an advocate cannot be had for gold or silver, or something equivalent, to plead the same? What Declarations or Remonstrances, were ever penned against the Parliament? Which had not some under the specious pretences and colour of Religion and liberty to abet the same? Absolom will find an Achitophel (a cunning Counsellor) to draw away the people in the simplicity of their hearts, knowing nothing to accommodate his rebellion against his own father, the Idolatrous Ephesians had their covetous Demetrius, to advance the greatness of their Diana, against the preach of the Apostles; and the superstitious Jews had their eloquent Tertullus to represent the Apostle Paul, for his zeal to his master a pestilent fellow, a pernicious incendiary, a notorious Sectary, Acts 25. 5. And as it was in the beginning so it is now, witness the present case. A moderate reply to the City Remonstrance, In justification of the Parliaments innocence, from the prejudice raised against them, by the said Remonstrance, (as shall fully be evidenced before we have done, being pressed hereunto) meets with Adversary upon adversary, representing the Author of the said Reply, a liar because he tells the truth, an Heretic, a Sectary, because a friend to the Parliament, an incendiary between the Parliament and City, because impleading the Remonstrance, he implores favour from the Parliaments hands in its Author's behalf, the Replyer is assaulted with keen oppositions, the Remonstrance justified by a double vindication, both coming forth in one day, striving for priority in the execution of vengeance, according to all their might, and length of their arm, against the said replyer, the one written by Mr. John Bellamy, a man (we presume) well known to us, the other, a partner in the same employment, whose learning and reading, whose stile and dialect, whose temper and genius, so far as perceivable by his profound vindication of the City Remonstrance, argues his birth, breeding and education, not far from Billingsgate, for he hath the perfect art of railing, and raving, and nonsense writing, calling men Sectaries, Heretics Scihsmatique Liars, Incendiaries, by rote, more befitting unreasonable scolds then rational men, and therefore shall take no farther notice of his nonsense scribbling.  
OF THE HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE, etc.  
Court Compliments are worth nothing, and the humility of of the Remonstrance is better discerned by the matter itself then the title thereof, your humble servant (saith the Cavalier) though his desire to serve you is by cutting your throat; the hand declares (when the tongue dissembles) the intentions of the mind. A Remonstrance invective against the Parliament, and yet humble, this is somewhat a kin to a contradiction, Epithets altars not the nature of Actions, the humility of the Remonstrance; will be ever an anon before our eyes, and as we apprehend it, we shall speak unto it.  
OR AN ANSWER TO TWO LATE LIBELS PUBLISHED BY TWO ANONYMUSSES.  
1, And why two libels Mr. Bellamy? you might have forborn that, until you had proved them so, but it seems this is a taste of your Presbyterial justice, we are like to find from you, when power is in your hands: First pass sentence, and after examine, what ever it is, because written (as you suppose) by an Antipresbyter,, it must needs be a Libel, is this Christian Mr. Bellamy, to condemn men's persons for Heretics: Sectaryes, Schismatics (though you never define the things you affirm, their doctrines for errors, untruths, blasphemies (though you hear not what they say) their writings for lies, falsity, libels, so soon as ever you look on their books.  
But Secondly, must they needs be libels, because reflecting upon the City Remonstrance, is not the Remonstrance itself reflecting upon the High Court of Parliament, (by this kind of arguing) what would follow?  
Thirdly, Are they therefore libels, because written by two Anonymusses? if so, how many Presbyterian Libels do you fell in a year? may it not as well be the modesty of some to forbear: as the impudence of others (as the case may stand) to affix their names to their writings, some men will blush even in a good cause, when others will brazen their foreheads, and audaciously set to their names to that which is bad, apprehension of self abilities, wit, and worth, and affectation of popularity being strong temptations hereunto, but what are names to things? the Author to the matter? doth this add or take away? it is the weakness of the Reader; when the knowledge of the Author helps his opinion, as touching the matter, he that shall judge the better of your vindication because john Bellamy appears in the frontispiece, or the worse of the reply because written by an Anonymus, is more acquainted with titles than books, and regards more the authority of men's persons than Arguments, but because some men cannot find fault with that that is, they will be quibbling at that that is not, and truly Sir, by that time your vindication hath been throughly examined; it willappeare to have been as much for your credit, if you had crowded yourself among the sect of Anonymusses; as to stand out by the name of john Bellamy. In the title page thereof. And the truth is of all Sects, that is the most innocent, for though they differ from one another in many points, yea all the heavens over, yet they never seek the ruin and destruction of one another, may not you learn of them Mr. Bellamy?  
Fourthly, In the fourth place, are they therefore, Libels because containing in them, lies, falsities, untruths? as for one of those books, viz. the Interest of England maintained, I never read, and therefore shall not at all intermeddle therewith, but leave it to the Author's justification, as for the other. viz. The moderate reply to the City Remonstrance. I confess I have read it over and over, once and again, and however there may possibly be mistakes more than enough (for the holy Scripture it self excepted, where is that writing without mistakes, surely neither this Vindication, nor the City Remonstrance are any) but I am so persuaded of that spirit that framed it, that he would not willingly write lies for all the estate and preferment either Civil or Martial that the City or Kingdom can confer upon him, but let us see what mistakes, untruths, or lies you can find therein, that so we may the better know the nature of a libel hereafter.  
Fiftly, In the last place, are they therefore Libels, because little books, though the word is always taken with us in the bad sense, yet it properly signifies nothing more, why then your Vindication, yea the Remonstrance itself, with those you speak of, may all pass for Libels, and the Authors of them all for so many Libelers.  
We have done with your title-page, wherein you have been very free in accusations and promises, but how short you are in the proof of the one, and performance of the other, your book will declare.  
It gins thus in Capital letters.  A VINDICATION OF THE CITY REMONSRANCE. 
That is,  
A Vindication of that which is invindicable, and therefore better it would be that both the City Remonstrance, and the Vindication thereof were written in Ashes, with the finger of vanity, then in marble with the pen of a Diamond, except men should look upon it as a beauty spot, the better to set off the other more fair, beautiful and praiseworthy expresses, from the City of London.  
But to come to your Book.  
You begin with a truth in the position and proof, to this purpose. Satan's instruments like Athaliah, 2 King. 11. have always accused others first, whereof themselves are chief guilty, even so the disturbers of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, viz. the Heretics and Sectaries, which of late in this Nation do so much abound, cry out upon those which endeavour their discovery, as the only perturbers of the Parliaments proceed.  
Ans. It was the observed custom of the Bishop's chaplains (great Apostates in their latter days) that they did very frequently carry on the Doctrinal part of their Sermons after a very solid and orthodox manner, but marred all in the Application thereof, bending the force of all that they said against the peaceable in the Earth, the sons and daughters of the most high God, under the black and ugly vizards of Heretics and Sectaries, disturbers of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, even so Mr. Bellamy, whose former ways were the very self same (as shall be proved anon) upon which the malice, ignorance, and envy of those present times writes. Heresies, Sectarisme, Disturbance of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, lays down a truth in the position, clears it by Scripture, but bends the application of it against others, though it turns back like a sharp sword into his own side, for see his application of the aforesaid truth.  
Mr. Bellamy. A● by two late libels put forth in answer to the City Remonstrance, and in defence, of Heretics, and Sectaries doth appear.  
But Sir, were you as wise, or rather conscientious in giving to every one his portion, and to divide the word of truth aright, as you seem to be able to observe truth from the word, you would apply it else where, and nor where you have done, for if you examine things by their nature, or by their effects, you shall not find the moderate Reply. but the City Remonstrance, to be the disturber of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, witness the divisions which it hath wrought in Bedfordshire. Hartfordshire, Norfolk, Suffol●● and in many other places▪ (an account whereof you may have in season,) raising up parties after London's example, to set forth such peremptory Remonstrances to the Parliament and people, as never were known in this Kingdom before, though (through the blessing of God) they have been crushed in most places, and the truth is, the printing of twenty thousands of the said Remonstrances; (as intelligence informs) the dispersions thereof, both in all the parts of this Kingdom, and beyond the seas, with the strong and powerful enforcements thereof; by the Ministers upon the people after London's example to do the like (as time and opportunity may evidence to the World) did argue the desires of many the prime promoters of the city Remonstrance, to be no less then to make divisions, and to disturb the peace and quiet of the Church and State.  
Mr. Bellamy, You proceed to make good your charge against two Libels, viz. the one a Moderate reply to the City Remonstrance: the other the Interest of England maintained, you encounter chief with the first: and I shall second the same, and leave the other; having never peruled it.  
First, you acknowledge the City Representative, is made up and chosen of the City Collective, and I likewise acknowledge the Kingdom Representative to be made up and chosen by the Kingdom Collective, neither is there any thing charged as criminal by the Reply in this constitution, you grant this likewise a truth that it is more common than commendable, for men trusted with other men's goods to behave themselves to their trusties hurt. But you demand, what doth this reflect upon the City Representative, or its Remonstrance? Since you will not see, you shall see; except with your tongu● you will deny, what you see with your eyes (a common thing in these back sliding times) you tell us against whom this charge is made good: and you tell us the truth, viz. against such, who being trusted with the souls of a people by their common consent and choice to be their Pastor. (Whether Presbyterian or Independent, Parrochiall or congregational) have in stead of feeding them with the sincere Milk of the word, that they may grow thereby fed them with the foolish fancies of their own brain, vi● that such a kind of government, (so and so disposed and digegested into a Parochial▪ Classical, Provincial and Synodiall constitution, with power and authority here and there placed, to compel and enforce men to submit thereunto, though against their own judgements and consciences, and that the Magistrate ought to exact uniformity from all that live under them) (is jure Divino) a mere fancy of their own brain and in stead of keeping them together in the bond of unity, have broken them to pieces with rents and divisions, viz. representing those who agree not with them, to be Heretics, Sectaries, Schismatics, and what not? and thus re●ding a sunder a people of as sweet nature, heavenly spirit, and loving conversation in former times, as the world hath known. It is confessed Mr. Bellamy, that these these are the men which behave themselves to their trusties hurt, you proceed to answer what the Replyer tells you, viz. that there are 4. cases wherein the City collective, is not bound to the City Representative, but aught in duty to descent from it, if not to protest against it.  
Moderate Reply. First when the City representative, acts, in a direct, evident & obvious manner, against the express will & word of God  
2. When in the like plain and direct manner, it acts against the apparent welfare, peace, and good of the Kingdom.  
3. When it acts after the same manner, against the proper end of its own being, the City's welfare.  
4. When it acts beyond the bounds, limits, and extents appointed, to the endangering of all its immunities, and freedoms.  
This (you affirm) is the replyers platform, or groundwork of his after building, and scoffingly say it is suitable thereunto, though you except not against any one of these propositions, but say you, he dares not affirm that the City representative doth act in any one of the four cases, it may be it was more his modesty to forbear, than his impudence, in case he had charged the City by that Remonstrance, to act in them all, and had it been Mr. John Bellamy's act, as it was the act of the City, I would have undertook (and would have looked upon it as no great task) to have proved him acting against every one of them, and for that time made a separation, a schism, from the society of Anonimusses. You parallel the City Representatives, & the City Collective unto the Kingdom Representative and the Kingdom Collective, & I freely grant that the parallel holds good (I mean as touching the constitution of the Kingdom Representative, and City representative▪ viz. by the collective body of the one, and of the other, though not in respect of their power) and am not a afraid to grant it likewise, that if the Kingdom representative, should act in a direct, plain and obvious manner, against the express will, and word of God, against the apparent welfare peace, and good of the Kingdoms, etc. That the Kingdom collective, ought in duty not to consent unto it. As for the instance which you bring from Mr. Burtons' affirmation from his 51 & 52. pages of his book called the vindication of those Churches commonly called Independents, to make good your logic, had not your silver shrines of the Presbyterian Temple dazzled your eyes, and d●mmed your sight you might have found assertions in abundance from the Presbyterian Authors, which differ no more from what Mr. Burton saith in that point, than twelve pence differs from a shilling, please you Sir examine Mr. George Gillespy▪ in the 13. Page of his book called Nihil respondes, written against Mr. Coleman and Mr. Samuel Rutherford in the last page of the Epistle to the Reader, in his book called the divine right of Church government and Excommunication. And see if he saith not as much and more of Mr. Burtons' sense in that point, than Mr. 〈◊〉 himself hath said, I for bear to set down the words, as supposing you are not without the books I refer you to, and if th●se two will not suffice (as occasion is offered) you shall have 20 and 〈◊〉, of the Presbyterian party that shallbe produced to have sai● the same; but to the point in hand, suppose the representative Kingdom (that, I may give you an instance, in a case, as you have given to the replyer) should make a law for the hanging, burning, or banishing all such as shall deny the Pope's supremacy, the real presence in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, or other gross popish absurdityes; suppose they should establish Mahomatisme etc. Is not the Kingdom collective, bound in conscience: and duty, to descent from it, if not to protest against it, suppose they should command us to abjure jesus, Christ, and turn jews, ought not you & ●. & every man in the Kingdom to descent from it, if not to protest against it, nay suppose that they should set up a government in a direct and known opposition, to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches, ought we not to descent from it etc. For this (as Paul did refer the Athenians to one of their own Poets) so shall I you to your own Oracle, the City Remonstrance, where you do in express terms affirm, & from the bottom of your heart, you do seriously profess before Almighty God, that you do not conceive it in the power of any humane Authority (King, Lords, Commons, together or apart, in Parliament, or out of Parliament, to discharge or absolve you from adhering to the Covenant, see Mr. Bellamy, if you yourself with all your brethrens, Remonstrants; do not make good what I have affirmed viz. that when the Kngdome representative acts in a direct evident & obvious manner, against the express will & word of God, the Kingdom collective aught in duty to descent from it, if not to protest against it, and thus Mr. Bellamy your foot is taken in that very snare which you laid for your Brethren, & now Sir should I as weakly sult over you, as you, do over the Replier, I may say, what I pray you will tha● produce think you in the common Wealthier Kingdom of England, and anon after▪ if this be not, than I pray tell me, what is the highway to dissolution of Parliaments, and consequently to the distructon of the Kingdom, and therefore have not I as good reason to say to you, and the rest of the Remonstrants, as you had to the Replyer, either show me whether the Remonstrants have not said as much as the replyer, or else confess your error, and cry peccavimus, but to go on the Replier saith,  
All which granted as cannot be denied: You demand what he means by all which granted, as cannot be denied, I answer for him, that surely he means nothing but what he did affirm: Viz The undoubted truth of those 4 conclusions, for he had said no more, although he might have made it very good, that the Common cou●cell had acted in all and every one of the 4.  cases; I shall instance in the first of the 4 and if that be cleared that the Common-council, by their Remonstrance did act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner, against the express will and word of God, it will follow, that they did act against the apparent welfare of City and Kingdom, etc.  
LET US TRY THAN:  
WORD OF GOD. CITY REMONSTRANCE. Rom. 14, 5. 
Let every man he fully persuaded in his own minds.  That as we are subjects of one Kingdom, so all may be equally required (be they persuaded in their own minds, or not persuaded to yield obedience to the government 〈◊〉 forth, or to be set forth by Parliament. Rom. 14. 13. 
That no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall, in b● brothers w●y▪  
That all such Sectaries as conform not to the public Discipline established, or to See established may be fully declared against, and some effectual course settled for proceeding against such persons. 5. Petition.  
Hear is a stu●blingblock viz. a menace in a Brother's way.  Deut, 19 15. 
At the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every thing be established.  That Quarter-man may be brought to some exemplary punishment, for the affront done by him etc. Though no such thing was ever proved by one witness, or testimony, that what he did, was any affront done to the privileges, and government of the City. Hang him, hang him, what hath he done. Mat. 7. 12. 
As you would that men should do unto you, so do unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.  
Page 3. We will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant. Compare this with page the 7th.  
The 4. Petition. That no person disaffected to Presbyterian Government, may be employed in any place of public trust, but some effectual course settled to proceed against such persons, (as in the 3. Petition.  
Presbyterial government is not in the Covenant, therefore an interpretation; and this you force upon others, though you will receive no forced construction of the same yourselves.   
And thus the word of God, and the City Remonstrance, proclaim open war one against the other, and it is no hard matter to determine which shall get the victory, and take the spoil: And for the other 3. cases the Replyer hath said more than your Vindication (as substantial as it is) hath yet disproved: But let us hear what your Vindication further affirmeth: The Replier dealeth with your Remonstrance.  

1. In the Narrative Part of it.  
2. Petitionary Part of it.  
3. The tendency and dangerous effects of both.   
1. In the Narative part of it, he tells you the phrase, and Dialect of it, carried afull compliance with his Majesty's wont declarations against the Parliament; to this you answer; it complies in verbis with a declaration of the House of Commons, and refers your reader to the Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdom, Page 19 where there are in deed the same words with your Remonstrance; the Replier tells you that the phrase, stile, and dialect of your Remonstrance agrees with the King's wont declarations against the Parliament, insinuating into the people, that all manner of Heresies, and Sectaries, etc. are tolerated by the Parliament etc. you do not seem to deny such things in the King's Declarations, but you deny any such things in the City Remonstrance, and for this you compare the words, of the Remonstrance, with the words of the Replyer, and demand whether the words of the Remonstrance, be the same with the words of the Replier, I answer you, the Replier did not say they were the same, but yet they were insinuations, for the boldest and brazen ●ac'd Malignant that is, durst not positively affirm it in the Parliaments quarters, and should we produce (as a very little labour will serve to do it) several passages and expressions from the tongues, pens, and pulpits of several and divers sorts of men, who had no small influence in the business of the City Remonstrance, and reference unto it since it came out, it would very easily appear what were the Insinuations of the phrase, stile, and dialect thereof, you say the Sectaries are encouraged by their misconstruction of that expression in the late declaration, concerning tender consciences, but how do you know they are encouraged? Surely it must be your observation of them and their expressions, as you have occasion to converse with them, give us but this ground to build assertions upon, and we can boldly affirm that the phrase, stile, and dialect of the City-Remonstrance, insinuates, that the Parliament under a pretence of their respects to tender consciences, designs a toleration of Sectaries, Heretics etc. and more, that Malignants, Royalists, Cavaliers, Ignorant, Scandalous, Profane, Lewd, and wicked persons, are more emboldened, encouraged, tickled, and comforted, by this Remonstrance, then by anything that ever came out against the Parliament, blessed be God, the Parliament hath still respect unto tender consciences, surely the Remonstrants' consciences were not very tender, in taking any offence thereat, and if they were not offended, why is there not one word in all the Remonstrance: arguing some care in reference to Tender conscience, nay if there be but disaffection unto Presbyterial government in any, though never so holy, Godly, learned, fit, able; yet let them not have any place of trust in martial or civil affairs, saith this hard hearted Remonstrance. You bid the Replyer tell you which are the words in the Remonstrance, which intimates to the people, that a sacred obligation lieth upon them from the solemn league, and covenant unto a down right suppression of all those, who out either of weak or tender conscience cannot submit to Presbyterial government. He tell you; they are the words of the Second, Third and Fourth Petition, wherein you desire that all non-conformists to Presbytery, may be proceeded against and put out from any place of public trust, and this you infer to be the intent of the Covenant, by comparing these petitions with the third page of the Remonstrance, upon which you build the same.  
In the next place you except against the Replyer, for saying the Parliament hath promised in several Declarations a gracious respect unto Tender Conscience. You bid him show those Declarations, it seems you are wi●●ing to hid your eyes from such observations, in the Parliaments Declarations, as though this were an abomination to you that they should have any respect to Tender Consciences, have you forgotten the very last Declaration of the 17▪ of April 1646▪ page, 5, Pray you mind it, it is worth your imitation, it is the Parliament of England's Declaration by your own assertion, for you call the House of Commons the Parliament: In the 4▪ page of this Vindication and the last Line, and were I as well furnished with books as yourself, doubtlessed I could show you several other Declarations, where they promised a Christian respect unto Tender Consciences, I am sorry Mr. Bellamy, you should be so apt now adays to ●ast out of your memory, the praise worthy acts of the Parliament.  
You proceed again, affirming the Replyer chargeth another falsehood upon the Remonstrants, by this interrogation, is it not most abjurd that the Parliament shall compose and enjoin the Covenant, and other shall put their sense upon it, and endeavour the enforcement of their own sense, both upon them, and the whole Kingdom, for no less is insinuated (saith he) in this Remonstrance, page 3. I pray you Sir, do not you enforce both upon the Parliament, and whole Kingdom, this to be the sense of the Covenant, viz. such an universal settlement of the Presbyterial government, as that all that will not submit thereunto, should be by some effectual course proceeded against, admitted into no place of public trusts, and yet you say you will not receive any forced construction thereof, and do not you (in your own judgement) walk according to the word of God in so doing, and yet you endeavour to enforce all Annabaptists, Brown●usts▪ Sectaries, etc. to receive this for a reformation, viz. Presbyterial Government, and is there such a word in the Covenant? is it not therefore a forced interpretation? You go on and tell the Replyer he jeers you, in saying you told the People in print, as well as the Parliament in their written Remonstrance, what vows you have made in the Covenant, and bring in the order of the House of Lords for the printing thereof, together with their gracious answer thereunto, as your justification for your princing the same; and hereupon you quibble, and insult over the Replyer, as if now you had met with him to purpose, but I'll answer for him, by ask you a question, or two: Did the House of Lords command or order the printing of your Remonstrance, before it was ever tendered to them? I am confident they did not, and as confident I am, and can prove it by a cloud of witnesses, that a copy of that Remonstrance of which the Replyer speaks, was printed, come forth of the Press and many of them sold when you were at Westminster with the Original thereof, yea several hours before you came home.  
Secondly I demand further, did their Lordship's order that Remonstrance to be printed which you tendered to the House of Commons? If they did not, you do but falter and baffle, as if you had children to deal withal, by urging their Lordship's order, to print that that was delivered to them, as a justification of printing the other, and the Replyer speaks of that which was tendered to the Commons, not of that which was tendered to the Lords. Page 3. You said the Replyer deals like a juggler, who juggles now Mr. Bellamy? Doubtless juggling better becomes an Anonymus than a Colonel.  
In the next place you demand of the Replyer wherein the Remonstrance discourageth the Parliament, and it is answered to your hands by pressing them to a sudden enfeebling of their strength, by crushing a considerable party of as Cordial friends, as ever they had since the wars began. And is not this evident when you desire an effectual course might be taken for the suppression of all those (whereof there are many thousands in the Kingdom as cordial friends to the Parliament, as any the Remonstrants whatsoever) who cannot submit to Presbyterial government.  
In the next place, you begin with an Interrogation, and as if you had gotten a commission to insult, thus, What? Is London's care to keep their Covenant, now become London's ruin? etc. Doubt less these are doctrines of a new date, and near a kin to those new lights, which so many now a days do so much boast of. Whether now Mr. Bellamy? I profess my heart aches, and my hand trembles, shall I write, or shall I forbear? I passed by your scoffing at new lights, page 10. once before, and took no notice of it. But I meet with it again yea with an additional scoff, Doctrines of a new date and new Lights, well Sir, are you not ashamed to appear as you do against your brethren, under the name of Heretics, Sectaries, Schismatics, in Common-counsel, in the City Remonstrance: and in print after such a jeering and scoffing manner▪ what can the world judge of yourself, who have made so many turn in matters of Religion as you have made? How can you scoff at new lights; since yourself have been of so many various, and contrary opinions in matters of Religion? If intelligence speaks true, you are that Mr. John Bellamy, who was borne at or near Oundle in North-Hamptonshire, a Son of the Church of England, under Episcopasie: who (after breeding, years and capacity had made you meet) was brought up to London, and bound Apprentice to Mr. Nicolas Bourne, Citizen and Stationer of London, and in a considerable part of the time of your Apprentice-ship. As concerning Religion (for thereto only I refer) was a very zealous professor even to a very popular observation, exercising such strictness, and exactness, in keeping and preserving (that rich Jewel) a quiet and tender conscience; as that you would not personally sell such books; (as prayer books &c.) which were ordinarily sold by other Stationers, & in your Master's shop, in so much as that your name grew famous, for a most pious and conscientious man, to the multiplying of your acquaintance, and the begetting, and increasing your customers; when you set up shop for yourself, and studying to know more of the mind, and will of God, as touching the dispensation of his public Ordinances & worship; the business of infant's baptism came into your consideration, and in that point, you fell into the opinion of Anabaptists, (but whether rebaptised or no, I cannot tell) after this, still respecting (so far as men could judge) the main duty of christianity, viz. not to sin against your conscience; condemn●●● yourself in the thing that you allowed, according to the 〈◊〉 of your own judgement and conscience, you applied your s●ll to a ●eparate congregation, whereof Mr. Jacob was Pastor and desired admission thereunto, and (upon your acknowledgement o● your error, concerning Anabaptism) you were admitted; with whom continuing, and frequenting, to walk with them in their more private meetings; through the tyranny of those times, you were by the Bishop's officers apprehended & so had up into the High-Commission Court, at which time your godly friends (as was their duty) came unto you, and gave you brotherly exhortations, & encouragements unto Christian courage and fortitude, not to shrink but to honour God, by suffering according to that present call which you had thereunto, but it seems you had not yet received strength to abide such a temptation; and therefore grievously taken on, wishing you had never been borne; and in short, by the mediation of some friends, and upon the giving of your bonds that you would no● go among that separate Church, & congregation any more etc. you were set free again, and being called in question by some of your brethren, for so doing, you endeavoured to satisfy them; as concerning your giving bonds, to come among them no more, with this consideration, viz you could better give bonds (thereby only hazarding your purse) than your verbal promise to do so nomore, to the hazard of the peace of your conscience insinuating thereby, that it was not the care of your purse, but of your conscience, that made you run that course; at which answer, your friends being satisfied for the present, (as judging the best of you) they expected your Communion and fellowship as before, but considering (it seems) the danger thereof you withdrew from them, made a Schism, and went away: and (as some say) after along times forbearance, and many admonitions was at last excommunicated, which act of theirs (it is presumed) is the main source of those bitter proceed of you●s against these wares, revenge (it's feared) putting you on work.) After your separation and rent from them, you became again an obedient and dutiful child to the Canons of Episcopacy: giving ample testimony hereunto by singular observance of one of their great Commandments: viz. the frequent and decent public use of the Common prayers of the Church: observing their injunctions even to a tittle, standing when they bid you stand, kneeling when they bid you kneel, & so observing your postures to the life, yea, your dutiful obeisance to the fathers of the Church (falsely so called) (I mean) the Prelates, was abundantly testified by your exact performance of another of their great laws like unto the former, viz receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling at the high Altar: as intelligence affirms, if men may believe their eyes; but before your stomach could digest a high Altar, you prepared yourself for it by degrees, first, refusing to come to common Service, but going only to hear Sermons, after this common prayer would down with you, but not if read by any with a Surplice, a while after neither Common Prayer, nor Surplice, nor high Altar itself was to hard meat for you, to the great grief and amazement of godly non-Conformists, who were never in the separate Churches; and the rather considering your Christian dialect, and language of Canaan which was yet (notwithstanding all this) often found to proceed from you, and not very long since, (the glory of Christian society, and brightness of such a fellowship dashing upon your conscience) you betook yourself to a very precious select company of christians who met togetherin a coutsary manner according to agreeme●, for the mutual com●ort & edification of one another by pra●er, exhortation, and the exercise of one another's gifts, in which company, none more free frequent, and forward then Master Bellamy, and indeed according to their acknowledgements exceeding and excelling them all, in delivering many luscious soule-refreshing, and heart-quickening truths, both in pra●er and other exercises, the sweetness, benefit, and comfort, thereof being yet as Manna in their palates, & the dew of Heaven upon their hearts; who with much grief of soul assert these things. Now sir, I beseech you take notice that I do not in the least reflect upon you, for your difference in judgement from what you have been heretofore yourself, nor from your brethren, nor yet for your so often altering your judgement and practice, but this is that that I would you, & all others, should observe in you, how you have made a personal experiment of all those ways; have been for Bishops & against Bishops: for Anabaptists and against Anabaptists: for Sepatates and against Separates: for Bish: ●gain, and against Bish: for Common prayer book and against Common-prayer book, for conformity & against conformity, and now (as it were half facing) you are for Presbytery: viz. jure humano, and so left to the wisdom of Parliament. and the prudence of Christian Magistrates; this is the profession of your lips, and yet (you act and that to the utmost) with those that hold it Jure divino, and seeks the establishment of it in that consideration, so that your tongue compliments with the Parliament, and says as concerning the power of Church government: let the Crown be set upon the head of Civil authority, the high Court of Parliament sitting at Westminster, and yet your hands endeavour to lift it up and fix it upon the Temples of the Episcopal Corporation the London Ministers sitting at Zion College, and so you are likewise. for Presbytery & against Presbytery, and yet that you should scoff and jeer at your brethren that differ from you, (though you agree not even with yourself) as men intoxicated and elevated with new Lights, doctrines of new date, Sectaries, heretics, more beseeming a Judas, a Julian, a Baalamite; then Master Bellamy, oh Sir, whither are you fallen? Master Bellamy, what is salt worth that hath lost its sav●u●? will you that have been enlightened and tasted of the Heavenly gift and been made partaker of the Holy Ghost tasted, the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, crucify to yourself the Son of God afresh in his members, by seeking for, and endeavouring after an effectual course of proceed against such persons, whom your own soul and conscience cannot but know to be as tender unto God as the apple of his eye, will you put the Lord jesus again to open shame by representing his Servants and redeemed one's in the eyes of the world for Sectaries: Schismatics Heretics, will you prove the earth that drinketh the rain● that cometh oft upon it, (I mean one of those, who have been so ancient a professor, conversant in so many precious meetings, heard and received so many glorious truths of God, poured forth so many prayers and tears unto Cod, made so many Covenants of love & tenderness to the Saints of God, professing such endeared & intimate respects to godly men, retained such noble resolutions to follow God, according to your light &c) not bringing forth ●●earbs (I mean meat for him, his children, & family, viz. Glory to God, love kindness, gentleness, meekness, mercy, goodness to his children) meet for him by whom it is dressed, that you might receive a blessing; but contrary wise, bring forth thorns and briers, scratching, galling and vexing your brethren in the faith, undermining their peace and comfort, not only joining with, but stirring up the Magistrates against them, and appearing in print in the vindication thereof, is not the end of such ground everlasting burn? God deliver you from it, consider Sir, your master is coming, if you smite your fellow servants, he will call you to an account for it, and how will you answer it? I know you do not think that you persecute the Saints; but what is persecution, if this is not? To seek for a suppression by an effectual course, of those Saints and servants of God, that submit not to Presbyterial Church Government, which yourself (except altered of late in your judgement) will not acknowledge of divine institution? If you do the same things which the Bishops did, is it persecution in them, & not in you? I hope Mr. Bellamy you have yet those sparks in you of divine heat and fire, which may yet kindle into a glorious flame, quenched not, I confess it will be a great piece of self-denial in you to retract such unworthy proceed, especially lying under such great temptations to the contrary, as you do, but Sir, the world to come is the everlasting world, the riches thereof the durable substance, the praise of God, and not of men the chiefest honour, consider of it, and do as God shall persuade your heart, but listen then unto his persuasions, and stifle not the motions and dictates of your own light hereunto. Consider Sir, the day wasteth, the night is coming, your house of clay cannot last long, your soul must shortly sit upon your trembling lips, you have a precious soul in a vile body, and your Antagonist loves it (what ever you suppose) who is more bold with you in this kind of dialect, because you very well know the meaning thereof, I have more to say concerning your book, otherwise I would be more pressing and urgent with you th●n I am.  
But you demand What, is London's care of keep their Covenant, now become London's ruin?  
I answer, Sir, did our Covenant bind us to suppress all the holy, godly, conscientious sons & daughters of God, which were but even disaffected to Presbyterial government? if so; bold I am to affirm, that London's care to keep the Covenant, Will now become London's ruin; a bloody, cruel, cursed, Covenant, if that be the meaning of it, but confident I am, as there is no such thing expressed in the Covenant, so no such meaning can be rationally gathered there from, and therefore it is not the Covenant, but such an interpretation that is here impleaded, can we think that the present Parliament of England (the great benefactors of tender consciences) for which the good will of him that dwelled in the Bush, be ever amongst them) would ever bind the inhabitants of this Kingdom, in such amonstrous design? if persecution of tender consciences evidenced, but by so much as disaffection ●o the Presbyterian government, be the matter of the Covenant, what have we done, but even struck hands with the Devil, and said a confederacy, with all his cursed seed that we will root out a great part of as holy, harmless, and blessed a generation as is in the world, is this the meaning of the lifting up of your hands unto the most high God, to give the greater blow upon the head of his servants here upon earth? Surely Sir, if I had lifted up my hand in taking the Covenant with such an intention, I should have expected the withering of it, and better it should be so, then ever it should be found performing such a cursed thing, but the truth is, the holy Scripture itself, by a wicked interpretation proves the bane and ruin of some, and so may this Covenant, upon such an interpretation; but who ever it is, that maketh such an interpretation of the Covenant, let him be for ever numbered among the Canaanites; covenanted Enemies against the Isralites, but let the Heavens be astonished, and the earth tremble, that ever any professing Christ (not filled with malice and despite against the Spirit of grace) should take such a covenant, with such an interpretation.  
You go on with more interrogatories, which are little more than mere flourishings, and that which any impartial man may answer, even in reading them, and therefore I shall wave them.  
In the next place, where you deal with the Replyer (for I observe nothing else) you take upon you to decide a State question, and that none of the meanest neither; I confess, some Common-council men need to be statesmen; for they intermeddle with States-matters; more I presume then ever any, that were before them, and more (I believe) then ever God or man gave them authority to do; I fear some of them do much forget themselves, and take themselves to be London's Parliament and not London's Common-council; for it is the Kingdom, the Church, the State-affairs that they intermeddle with, not confining themselves unto their City-Charter, but acting according to Parliament principles, in time they may be better instructed; but to the question, and that is this;  
Wherein resides the Supreme power of this Kingdom?  
Mr. Bellamy answers thus,  
The two Houses of Parliament, viz. the Lords and Commons, with the King, who is always in his Kingly power present with them, though in person sometimes as now) is absent from them, are those three Estates, of which the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom is made up, and have in them jointly and together, all the Supreme power of this Kingdom, and not any one of those three Estates considered apart, and by itself, can properly be said to have the whole Supreme power of the Kingdom residing in it, and therefore the House of Commons being but one of those three estates, well might the Remonstrants say that they are betrusted but with a share of the Supreme power of the Kingdom, and for proof of all this his reading, refers us to a Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, of the second of Novem. 1642. to these words, we did and do say, that the Sovereign power, doth reside in the King and both Houses of Parliament.  
Here you think you have given the Replyer a fair fall, and therefore insult over him ever and anon upon this point, but forbear Mr. Bellamy, turpe insultare jacenti, for however you think you have given the Replyer such a full and ample satisfaction yet all the world cannot so easily be satisfied, and therefore though for my part I was never yet a Common Counsel man, and therefore cannot so positively speak to such deep state's business, yet since you are so willing to satisfy the ignorant, what I shall say herein, shall be by way of quere.  
First then I quere Mr. Bellamy;  
What mean you by three Estates? I have heard the term once by the Bishop's friends when they were a falling, and they concluded that there were three Estates in this Kingdom, viz. the King, and the Lords temporal were the first, Lords spiritual were the second; the Commons the third Estate; and they gave this reason, that the King and the Lords were but one Estate because the King made the Lords, but though the King conferred the Honours, and profits of Bishops, yet did not make the Bishops themselves, they as Bishops, were jure divino, you determine it otherwise, I pray you Sir a little more satisfaction to that point.  
2. What mean you by fundamental? you say the King Lords▪ and Commons are the three Estates, of which the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom is made up, are there three fundamentals? I confess I have not understood so much, I ever thought there had been but one, and that I took to be the Commons, and these reasons made me think so.  
First, because I ever thought, that the Commons made the King, and the King made the Lords, and s● the Commons were the Prime foundation.  
Secondly, I ever took this for a truth likewise, that both the King and the Lords, were advanced for the benefit, quiet, and welfare of the Commons, and not the Commons made for them, and if I was deceived, the Common maxim of salu●-populi suprema lex deceived me.  
You see my doubt, you see my reason, a little satisfaction here also Mr. Bellamy.  
Thirdly, I quere, whether (upon this supposition) that the Kingdom is made up three Estates (as you say) and so we must not understand the Parliament consisting of so many men, but of three Estates distinct, quatenus estates apart by themselves, those are your terms. I quere (I say) whether that the King, and suppose the major part of the Lords, which make up two Estates, do agree together; suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative, and the Commons will not assent here unto, whether the major part of Estates, must not conclude the minor, the two conclude the third, and so as for the Commons, will they, nile they, slaves they must be, and slaves they shall be, your judgement here likewise good Mr. Bellamy.  
Fourthly, Whereas you say the King is present in Parliament, viz. in his Kingly power, though absent in person. I quere whether he is present with them as a distinct Estate, I know Sir he is present in power in all his inferior Courts of justice, as well as in the parliament, but is he present as a distinct estate? If so, if one distinct Estate, may be present in power, quatenus an estate, and absent in person, may not a second Estate be so present, though absent in body? yea a third Estate so present, and yet absent in body? and so we shall have three Estates in Parliament, and not a man amongst them; this is a Riddle indeed Mr. Bellamy: I pray you unfold this also.  
Fiftly, The Replyer observing the Remonstrants ascribing only a share of the Supreme power to the House of Commons, proposeth this question to them, will not you allow so much power to the Kingdom Representative, in reference to the Kingdom, as to the representative City, in reference to London: see page 13. And so do I quere, will not the Commons of London, yield of ascribe unto the Commons of England, as the Commons of London to thmselves will ascribe? Therefore Mr. Bellamy, to make your absurdities the better appear, in your parallel between the Kingdom Representative, and the City Representative; I come upon you thus.  
First, you grant that the Common-council is the City Representative: page the 2. of your Vindication.  
Secondly You grant that, the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, is the Kingdom Representative, in the same page.  
Thirdly, You say, the City Representative, hath power to make a Law for those whom it Represents: in the 12. page of your plea for the Cmonalty of London  
Fourthly, I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdom Representative, the same power to make a Law for those whom it represents, if so, then let us examine your argument: May we reason after your Logic Mr. Bellamy, see your syllogism; Sir in the said book called a plea for the Comonalty of London (I think I hit the right name of it, though the Replyer was mistaken before) in the 12. page it stands thus:  
That Court which hath a power to make a Law, and by that Law, to confer a power upon the Lord Major, and Aldermen, which as Lord Major and Aldermen, the● had not befor●, must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law, above the Lord Major and Aldermen.  
But this Court of Common-council hath etc. Ergo, this Court of Common-council so fare as to the making of a Law, must needs be above the Lord Major and Aldermen.  
Now Sir I quere only (for I cannot presume such skill) may not I reason thus, after your pattern.  
That Court, that hath a power to make a law, and by that law, to confer that power upon the King, and Lords, which as king and Lords they had not before, must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law, above the King and Lords.  
But the House of Commons (which say you is the Kingdom Representative, even as the Common-council is the City Representative, upon your supposition) hath a power etc. Ergo, the House of Commons so fare as unto the making of a Law etc.  
May I not reason thus likewise, according to your example, from your own supposition still, that Court which hath a power, to make or repeal what laws they judge meet, for the Common wealth, and whereunto the King himself is bound by his oath (and therefore ought in duty) to consent, must needs be quoad hoc, unto the making and repealing Laws, the Supreme Court.  
But the House of Commons (which say you is the Kingdom Representative, as the Common-conncell is of the City of London) upon your supposition, hath such a power etc. therefore.  
Or may I not reason thus, for I do not conclude any thing; I do but (as a Pupil to his Tutor) propound queres to Master Bellamy  
That Court which hath a power to make Laws and rules, for all the Courts and people in the Kingdom, to be steered, and acted by, and whereunto the King is bound b● oath to consent; must needs have the supreme power of the Kingdom residing in it.  
But the House of Commons in Parliament assembled (which say you as the Kingdom Representative, even as the Common-council is the City Representative) upon your supposition hath such a power etc.  
Therefore the House of Commons hath (it seems, even by your own arguing) the Supreme power of the Kingdom lesiding in it.  
One touch mo●e Mr▪ Bellamy, from your Plea for the Comonalty of L●n●on 〈…〉 Mr. B●llamy, you grant this arguing, from your for 〈…〉, of the Kingdom and City Representative to 〈…〉, or ●r●●se I may reason upon you and that thus Sir:  
He th●● sh●ll a●●● be that power unto the City Representative, in ref●ence to the government of the City, which he shall deny unto the Kingdom Representative, in reference to the Government of th● Kingdom, doth quoad hoc, prefer the City Representative in its power, before the Kingdom representative in its power.  
But Mr. Bellamy ascribes that power unto the City Representative, in reference unto the government of the City, which he denies unto the Kingdom Representative, in reference unto the government of the Kingdom.  
Thereforth B●llamy doth quoad hoc prefer the City Representative, above the Kingdom Representative.  
The Major proposition I think will not be denied, for the proof or the minor, I must do two things.  
First, show what power Mr. Bellamy asc●ibes unto the City Representative, in reference to the government of the City.  
Secondly, show what he denies the Kingdom Representative, i● reference to the government of the Kingdom.  
Forth▪ first Mr. Bellamy ascribes so much power unto the City Representative, in reference unto the government of the City; that the Lord Maj●r and Aldermen must have no negative vote, as Lord Major and Aldermen, out must be considered as so many distinct persons together with the Commons, concluding by the major vote of the whole Conjunctim, and as unto such conclusions, regarding the Lord Major and Aldermen but as so many distinct persons, a● is the whole drift of the 15. and 16. pages of the said Plea for the Comonalty of Lond●●.  
Secondly, let us consider what he deni●● the Kingdom Representative, in reference unto the government of England, and that is in term●●is, that the Supreme 〈◊〉 of this Kingdom, doth not reside there, neither wi●● he 〈◊〉 the King, Lords & Commons in Parliament to be con●●●er●● pe●sonaliter, and as so many distinct persons, but 〈…〉 so then, this 〈…〉 case; The City is govern●●joy Common-council consisting of Lord Major, 〈…〉 Commons of the City, but not three distinct Estate, but as 〈…〉 men amounting to such a number the may 〈◊〉 concluding; but the Kingdo● is govern●● by a Parliament 〈◊〉 s●tting of King, Lords & Commons▪ not consider 〈…〉 pers●ns who have their equal vot●, 〈…〉 Mr. Bellamy, and so the two Estates, being the major part of Estate, must conclude the third.  
Now I appeal to all, whether according to Mr. Bellamyes' Logic, the Kingdom representative, which he himself saith is the House of Commons be not qu●ad hoc, 〈…〉 in its power, in 〈◊〉 government of the Kingdom, than the City 〈◊〉 in ●●ference for the government of the City.  
Well Mr. Bellamy, 〈◊〉 the case be so (I only quere for my further satisfaction) and unti●● you have answered these queres, do not insult over 〈…〉, nor charge him with destroying the power of two estates o● the Kingdom, when he did 〈◊〉 desire you ●o 〈◊〉 him the truth; as concerning the residence of the supreme power of the Kingdom, until I hear your answers I shall never in 〈◊〉 of your 〈…〉 to vn●ou●d Riddles and by 〈…〉 yourself th● questions will be no 〈◊〉, unto you neither are they intended so to 〈◊〉 Take heed you do not make a N●t of your answers.  
Here, you slide ●rom the Replyer and deal with others, as Lieu. Col. John Lilburn, and anon after with Mr. 〈◊〉 Burroughs, and the truth is, I wonder how you can write so irreverently of him as you do, you call him one of the most moderate opposers of Presbyterial Government, and (as if your bitterness, and unworthiness of Spirit, did resolve to be master) you check your soft saying with (if any of them may truly be so called) well Sir, what say you of Mr. Burroughs? thus in his book which he writ against Doctor Ferne page 125. of the first impression of his book called the glorious name of the Lord of Hosts, but in the last impression, the 9 page.  
(It seems by the way, that Doctor Ferne and you are agreed, and now what was written against Doctor Ferne, proves written against you, is this becoming a christian, thus in your Spiritual warfare, at the command of the world, to face, to the right, to the left, to the front, to the rear, half face, face about, and as you were;) but what saith Mr. Burroughs in the place before quoted, thus:  
But if the Parliament should degenerate, and grow tyrannical, what means of safety could there be for a State.  
Answ. I confess the condition of such a State would be very dangerous, and like to come to confusion, particular men could not help themselves, and the whole State ought to suffer much, before it should help itself by any ways of resisting, but if you can suppose a Parliament so fare to degenerate, as all to conspire together with the King to destroy the Kingdom, and to possess the lands and riches of the Kingdom themselves; in this case, whether a law of nature would not allow of standing up to defend ourselves, yea, to reassume the power given to them, to discharge them of that power they had, and to set up some other, I leave to the light of nature to judge.  
You will say, This cannot be, because the higher Powers must not be resisted by any.  
Answ. This is not properly to resist the power, but to discharge the power, and to set the power elsewhere (hitherto Mr. Burroughs) and is this all you can say of Mr. Burroughs? It is well malice itself can pick no worse from his writings; and truly Sir, you might have spared your marginal hand and finger, except you intended to direct the Reader to observe your ignorance and envy in collecting his saying, for first Mr. Burroughs did assert nothing, but left it to any man's determination whether the Law of Nature would not allow of such and such a course, in such and such a case; and it seems you the State case resolver general, undertakes the decision: Once more Mr. Bellamy● give us but this foundation to build upon (as none but malignant-royalists will deny it) viz. salus populi suprema lex, and then I think you will hardly like a wise and solid man speak otherwise to that point; the rest of your proceed in your Vindication is of little worth, granting almost what the Replyer required, only I see you most extremely shuffling in one point, that (were you nor so well skilled in face might make men wonder at you) and that is where the Replyer chargeth an untruth in the Remonstrance, and bring in yourself to stand by him, and that is about the displacing or casting out of Mr. Quarterman from his Marshal ship of London, the Remonstrance saith the City did cast him out, the Replyer saith the City did not cast him out, but it was the Lord Major, and Court of Aldermen which are not the City either collective or representative, & in no sense the City, as having power hereunto, and he produceth you to stand by him. What, Master Bellamy, will you not stand by him; in your book called a Plea for the Commonalty of London, we have your judgement under your hand in black and white, and will you falter now, you are called out to make it good? Had you not better been an Anonymus when you writ that book: Then Master John Bellamy, what kind of man are you? They that observe your say, what they have been formerly concerning the King, concerning the Lords, concerning the power of the Commons, (whispering your thoughts in the ears of many that now speak of it) what your carriages have been, not very long since, in the Common Council, in or among your brethren the Stationers, the Committee appointed for the keeping up and maintaining the expository Lectures, and what your carriages are now, stand with admiration and amazement at your wheeling thus about.  
You say little more to the Replyer, only I find you once more in an extreme heat of passion against him because he told the Remonstrant, s of their pressing the Parliament, to a sudden payment of their debts etc. you take on thus.  
What, is it now come to that pass, that when the City, and citizens of London who have lent and expended, for the use and service of the Parliament more and greater vast sums of●money, than ever any, if not all the Cities in the Land have done, nay then ever any City in all the world (a great word Mr. Bellamy, and you need to be as able and diligent a Reader as seller of books to make good what you say) have done at any one time to and for the service of that State in which it stood, and yet must it now by an Anonymus, a Libeler, be taxed, etc. Hold Mr. Bellamy, le●'s have less of your passion and more of your reason, do not you give as just an occasion for others to say, if they should steer their pens by your compass, What? is it now come to that pass? Shall not only the City (overtaken as the best of City's may sometimes be) see forth as strange a Remonstrance, reflecting prejudice upon a Parliament, that have done more, and suffered more for them and by whom they have received more good, then by any Parliament that ever they had, nay (it is verily believed) then ever any Parliament in the world ever did, for a City in any state where it hath been, but must a private person, a John Bellamy, an Episcopal man, an anti-episcopal man, an An●baptist▪ an Anti-Anabaptist, a Separate, an Anti Sep●rate, an Episcopal man again, an Anti Episcopal man, a Presbyterian, a half Presbyterian, so bifronted, as to deny Presbytery to be Jure Divino, and y●t helping on the pressing and enforcing of it upon his brothers, that cannot submit unto it, because they cannot see it Jure Devino, a Sectary, an Anti-Sectarie, a schismatic, an Anti Schismatique, a Scoffer at new lights, Doctrines of a new date, a some thing, an any thing, an every thing, must such a man as this stand forth in print with his vindication of such a Remonstrance?  
You have a few words more yet to the Replyer he tells you, he knows not your meaning by private and separate Congregations, you tell him what the City means, but truly Sir, except you show your commission to be the City Interpreter, you must give men leave yet to scruple what they meant thereby, he tells you again, he knows not your meaning by: An●baptists and Brownists, you tell him they mean those so called by the Parliament (not by the King) printed in the book of Declarations, pag 659. What ever the Replyer thinks, I believe the Remonstrantes' means those who ever they be, that are but disaffected to Presbyterial Government, as will easily appear by comparing that second Petition of the Remonstrance, with the third and fourth, which next follows.  
You find fault with the Replyer, because he will not join with you in the third Petition, viz. that as we are all subjects of one Kingdom, so all may be equally required to yield obedience, to that government, set forth, or to be set forth by the Parliament; The Re●●yer saith, that such a thing is against Religion and reason; you answer no, the meaning of this Petition, is that one Law may equally ob●ieg● every Subject in this Kingdom, and for this you give us a cluster of proofs, you bid the Replyer make it out i● he can, ●f there was any more than one Law, that did bind the Church of Israel of old, in the times of any of the Pattiarches, the Judges the Kings, the Governors, either before, in, or after the Captivity, o● since the coming of Christ, or of the Apostles, either in the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalovica, and the seven Churches of Asia etc. But what is all this to the point in hand? were any of these Churches you speak of, governed by a politticall government? according to the prudence of the States wherein they were or, according to a divine rule given unto them from God? do yond Mr. B●llamy, with your brothers Remo●strants desire the Parliament to settle that platform of government which Christ hath appointed, or no●l● no al● your great scap of Scripture ●nstances are not to the purpose, 〈◊〉 so be you do so; Why then one turn more Mr. Bellamy, and conlesse that though yesterday you did not own any plat form of Church government to be Juredi●ino yet to day you have new light (and if so, do no longer jeer at new ●ight) 〈◊〉 so be you hold Church government to be Jure politice, why then i●●he Parliament judge Jus politicum, to permit u●en differing in judgement in that point, let them alone.  
You have here done with the Replyer, and ●un to his Partner, and let him answer you, for I neither know him, nor his Book.  
FINIS.