the Parliaments declaring the People to be the originall of all lawfull power To this indeed they say nothing not reckoning it happily amongst the essentials or executive act of the change 2 Touching their laying aside the House of Lords which in effect they had done seven yeares before in declaring That if their Lordships refused to joyne with them in setling the Militia they would proceed to doe it without them To this their Reply is 1 That they are not cleare in the truth of this Report and if they be not we say there are severall of their corresponding friends the Ministers of London who after conference had with them by some of the Members touching that businesse did approve of it as a thing lawfull and necessary to be done these men we doubt not will abundantly cleare them 2 But thence we cannot inferre the justnesse of an act viz. because it was done many yeares since 'T is truth we confesse in case there was nothing else to justifie the thing but only the doing of it but it was accounted an wholsome resolve and justified then therefore the same thing cannot in it selfe be unjustifiable now 3 But supposing it to have been done and just in the doing yet as their last and surest hold they difference what the Parliament did in laying the Lords aside then from their laying them by now by this distinction Co-ordinates may exercise say they a cumulative or suppletive power upon the defectivenesse of one another but they cannot put forth a privative power to take away one the other which was done in this case Answ Nobis non licet esse tam acutis We cannot possibly divide the haire betwixt that suppletive act which the Commons did put forth and that privative act which they tell us is not allowed them to put forth we thinke them tantamount or equipolent and cannot but so judge of them till these distinguishers or some other shew us a difference betwixt co-ordinals acting without and against the consent of those that stand in an equality of power with them this the Commons did and their putting forth a privative power against them if it be said This was but once or twice done and in case of necessity too we say if the same necessity revert over and over the Lords might be laid aside againe and againe and if by their delayes and Negatives they continue to shew their implacable bent as they did doe against the sense of the Commons upon that account they were laid aside temporarily or at such a season upon the same account they may be laid aside for ever To their illustration we say that the Lords were not TRVSTEES but sate in Parliament for their owne interests and as Prerogative-supporters thus much we are told by such as understand Parliaments better then we doe in the Declaration March 17. 1648. 2 But what if the Lords laid themselves aside as some say they did by not meeting upon the period of their adjournment then they have no injury if they receded from their owne right what are we concerned in their being unhoused 3 Lastly supposing there has been injury done unto the Lords for we make not our selves Judges of their Priviledges and Rights yet we understand not how that injury can take away a Right from the Commons or absolve us of our subjection 3 Touching their bringing the late King to a Triall sentencing him and taking him away this we mention as approveable by consciencious men and instance in Knox c. but for the rendring this approveable they say our sole reason is Fiat justitia ruat coelum God is no accepter of persons he hath strictly commanded that we take no satisfaction for the life of a Murtherer Numb 35.30 31 33. c. Who hath he commanded say they all those who are called to execute wrath upon evill doers say we and it stands every man in hand to see that they doe it for at the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of man saith the Lord Gen. 9.5 After some preparatives of this nature they come to state the point in debate the question betwixt us will be say they not whether some are exempt from the sentence of the Law or no this it seems must needs be granted but who they are who sitting in the highest chair of Magistracy amongst us have none placed by God above them to take cognizance of and unsheath the sword of Authority against their offences upon this seat they would prove the King to be set from the Oath of Supremacy and the words of both Houses of Parliament thus declaring Exact Collat. Pag. 727. We did and doe say that the Soveraigne Power doth reside in the King and both Houses of Parliament Answ 1. It would be knowne indeed who they be that are elevated to such a seat of eminency as that no hand may touch them or whether there be any such menin the World or no what they here alledge lookes another way they should prove the King to be unaccountable and they prove him only the supreame Officer of State Ignoratio Elenchi unaccountablenesse is not a necessary adjunct of Supremacy the highest in the world doe or should Minister to others as Trustees for the Publique and this implyes their accountablenesse the wise King doth not say Princes may not be stricken but it is not good to strike them for equity Prov. 17.26 2 Upon this ground they give us for the-the-Kings impunity if it hold good both the Houses of Parliament and every individuall Member of both come under a necessary unaccountablenesse and impunity likewise as having confessedly all of them a share in the Supreame Power if the residence of Soveraigne Authority in any person or persons makes them Justice-proofe and this Authority resides where we heard in the Houses as well as the King then we understand not the legality of questioning and condemning Strafford Laud Hotham c. or how any the Members of either Houses during their Membership should be questioned by any persons whatsoever and so the Houses of Parliament might become Cities of refuge or Sanctuaries to the vilest of men who could get within those walls as well as to the King Who can take away his Priviledge or Prerogative that is chosen to a share in the supreame Authority This is well argued Sirs and if any one say the Major part of either House may question the Minor we conceive not if the residence of supreame Authority in that part conjunctly with the other renders it unaccountable as we are taught it doth and as it must needs doe if any man whatsoever by reason of his share in Supremacy becomes invulnerable as annointed with the soveraigne Oyle of impunity therefore we contend that no man whatsoever is thus placed above the reach of Justice and consequently that such as are impowred by a call to judiciall Authority may and ought as the case may be to execute Gods Judgements
any more in their former capacity ours have the liberty to resume their places if they please as many have repented and done so that the Scotch Authority does not only depend upon a Force but upon a greater Force then ours in England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our in ference from this Force in Scotland so usefull to the Kirk there and so in-offensive as it seems to the Ministers in Lancashire Cheshire that they judge it no force was this Hence we conceive that Parliament priviledges may be sometimes looked at as formalities rather then sacred and indispensible rights viz. when the greater number of Parliament men set themselves in a way of utter ruining rather then of building up and establishing a Nation on the sure foundation of peace and righteousnesse Certainly Sirs if any Priviledges should enable a Parliament to ruine us as good we sate content under the mercies of a Lawlesse-Royall-Prerogative as of a Parliament so priviledged yet this inference of ours the Gentlemen take too much to heart that even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it stirres them out of measure Theecr so that incontinently they fall into a fierce Parexysme This glosse say they calls not so much for an answer as for admiration and execration and aske Is this all the reverence and force which we give to Vowes Protestations and Oathes truly as little as they say we reverence them we yet reverence them as highly as the Kirke of Scotland does which are sometimes we see dispenced with in its respect to Parliament Priviledges we Covenant for them as servants not as Masters to the Publique good though they be not such light formalities but they may be lawfully Covenanted for what is a sacred thing in its place becomes a shadow if mis-plac'd and unduly preferr'd it may be Sacriledge to pursue that which zeale and duty well inform'd let goe as inconfistent with what is most sacred the Scots allow of a subordination in the matters of the most solemne Covenant as we shew'd in our Plea and subordinates we know are in a sense formalities dispensable withall surely if set in ballance with the more sacred and superiour ends encovenanted for so are Parliament Priviledges though in themselves grave and grand realities if they stand in competition or be compared with reformation publique liberty and safety those SANCTA SANCTORUM of the Covenant And now let wise men judge whether this inference or glosse of ours as the Ministers call it be such an execrable heinous one as they would render it and whether it be a dangerlesse and religionlesse excuse of the Armies force 1 Is there danger in preferring publique good before the priviledges of any particular men or any sort of men whatsoever this would implead not only the Armies force but also the Selfe-denying Ordinance Sirs 2 Religion lets us not know to give flattering titles to men Job 32.21 22. much lesse to indulge them with undue Seraphicall inrespective priviledges this is reall and transcendent adulation how comes it to be religionlesse then to give publique weale and safety an higher roome in our Covenant then Parliament Priviledges every publique spirit savours such ir-religion as this Covenants are conservatories of these Priviledges whiles improv'd to publique service otherwise men might ruine a Nation cum privilegio and plead Covenant for their justification but this is prevented by that limitation in our Solemne League and Covenant viz. in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome This we alledge in answer to that question of these Ministers whother there be such a condition as we speake to reserv'd out of the covenanted preservation of Parliament priviledges yea or no The letter of the Covenant notes out this reservation or condition providing for Parliament Priviledges as things subordinate and sub-servant to Religion and Liberty but say they Doe we finde any where in Scripture that subjects are dis-engaged from subjection to and maintaining of the rights or the Authorities lawfully placed over them in case of their maeleadministration Ans There were many such texts of Scripture to be found eight or nine yeares agoe when men cryed out To thy tents O Israel and Ministers cryed Curse ye Meroz c. Subjection was not with drawne from King Charles nor Armes raised against him and he beaten from one place to another without some Scripture warrant but if men vomit up their principles and build again what they destroyed they are to be dealt with upon another score 2 There are some rights or particular priviledges belonging to Magistrates in all constitutions we conceive which may undergo a dominution yea be pessundated Salva authoritate personall rights may at some feasons interfer with common safety and peace which authority never doth therefore in the question propounded there is fallacia compositionis But 3 T is a thorny solemne point and we dare not rush on unheedily in it let the grave and bold Lapinian lead us the way in his Treatise touching peoples withdrawing subjection from their King or otherwise called the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdoms he thus expresseth himself it can hardly seem probable much lesse credible that any * Negari non potest quin populus aliquis necessitate coactus possit se vendere Regi ut omnes sint plâ—ne servi ipsius Gen. 47.23 sed neque hoc unquam praesumi debet quando non est manifestum quia contra mores est contra naturae inclinationem neque licitè honesteve ab ullo principe quaeri potest quia ejus officium est communem utilitatem populi praecipué spectare neque denique civitas aut politia esset quae illum in modum constitueretur sed herile dominium servitium monstrosum Ames cas consc lib. 5. cap. 25. free people whatsoever when they voluntarily at first encorporated themselves into a Kingdom or set up an elective or hereditary King over them would so absolutely resign up their soveraign popular originall authority power and liberty to their Kings c. as to give them an absolute irrevocable uncontrolable supremacy over them superiour to irrestrainable irresistable or unalterable by their own primitive inherent national soveraignty out of which their regall power was derived for this had been to make the creator in ferior to the creature c. a most bruitish sottish inconsiderate rash action not once to be imagined of any people and had our Ancestors or any other nations when they first erected Kings and instituted Kingly government been askt this question whether they meant thereby to transfer all their National Authority Power and Priviledges so far over to their Kings c. as not still to reserve the supremest power and jurisdiction to themselves to direct limit restrain their Princes supremacy and the exorbitant abuses of it when they should see just cause or so as not to be able ever after TO ALTER or diminish this forme of Government upon any occasion
whatsoever or if their Kings should turn professed Tyrants c. patiently to submit themselves to their destructive proceedings without any restraint of them or calling them to account for those grosse irregularities I make no question but they would have joyntly answered that they had never any imagination to erect such an absolute irresistible unlimited Monarchy or plaine Tyranny over them and that they ever intended to receive the absolute originall soveraigne jurisdiction in themselves as their native hereditary Priviledge which they never meant to divest themselves of Well therefore presuming the truth of this doctrine as being true yesterday and comming from the pen of one so Orthodox and which is more a Non-Subscriber a Martyr for the Cause of the Covenant as they call it we shall adde but little the male-administration of Monarchical authority may be such saith Mr. Prynne as that it may dis-ingage duty-bound Subjects from submission and make them resume their owne native originall soveraignty and if this hold true against Kingly power and supremacy it holds true against power in any other forme whatsoever though lawfully plac'd over a people in a word if that soveraignty or Power concredited by a Nation to any person or persons as Trustees be forfeitable as our above-named author will affirme and avow then there may be such a thing as a dis-ingagement from subjection in the people so far as any authority is limited t is resistible This we dare tye our selves to make good and then the case is clear the dissolution of subjection necessarily followes but if our supposition should prove groundlesse and our assertion weake if Power or Authority be an unforfeitable free-hold and absolutely irresistable all our lawes for Publique Safety Advantage and Freedome which any way tye the hands of our Rulers are meer mock-guardians of property and most perfect nullities yea we may then write folly upon the very wisdome of our Progenitors their capitulations and taking security from Princes and Magistrates for their good behaviour by any Parchment devices this would be but ridiculous vanity if the persons empowred or intrusted may not be withstood in their incroachments exorbitances and wretched expilations wherewith they exercise the people under them Yea if they may not be unpowred as the late King was some years before he dyed in case they persist in a ruining way He viz. the Magistrate is the minister of God to thee for good saith the Apostle And if he ministers to our ruine whose vice-gerent is he in that ministration Must we needs be held under the bond of duty notwithstanding he thus ministers yea and that habitually and inflexibly too our paying Custome Honour Tribute is inforced as we have noted before from the Magistrates Ministering to our good and if this argument be taken away his claime to subjection is a poor seeble thing Thus we have re-inforced our Arguments for ingaging with the present Authority over us and past the brow of the hil the heat of the Encounter it remaines only that we see how their Reserves against ingaging will stand the dispute We examined the validity of these in our Plea to that purpose they are urged against us One of them viz. The Oath of Allegiance we found had no life in it and with the other viz. the Covenant after some short debate we parted friends as we met But these men putting life into the one and emnity into the other against us presse them into their service a new and give them the advantage of a full blow at the Engagement leaving it not any shift or guard at all to save it selfe by not any salve invented as they say by us to clude the force of these Oathes Well First Touching the Oath of Allegiance We do still insist that the ground of it is our protection and that it binds us not but to our actuall protectors successively They acknowledge That Protection is a secondary ground of Allegiance and consequently of the Oath But contend that Gods ordination and image imprinted upon the Magistrate as his deputed Vice-gerent is the first and cheif ground Answer What if this be granted their advantage against us will not be much greatned in applying these notions to our present purpose we aske Where is that Magistrate that bears this image spoken of is he in being amongst us or not And how shall we know this Why do we receive due and legall protection and by whose mediation is it conveyed to us Now by satisfying our selves in these last Queries we come to a resolution in the two former We cannot separate Gods Ordination of any person or power from that which is the very office and end of that power nor understand the impression of his image any where without some argument of it Faine would we see some Rules that may instruct and inable us to judge of Gods ordinance or helpe us to find it out when there is no ministery for a peoples good We are utterly to seek how to discern this image they speake of without its shining forth upon us by protective emanations t is to little purpose to tell us of a man in the clouds a deputed vice-gerency if we have no feeling at all of its activity as to our well-being nor see any thing like the beamings forth of Gods image upon us in goodnesse and righteousnesse Metaphysicall Magistracy is a thing we cannot skill of and the case which these Divines put viz. Of Subjects rising up in arms and dis-inabling the Magistrate from protecting them and so freeing themselves from Allegiance helpes us very little in the businesse t is a thing begged of us not following upon our Principles that a people in so doing discharge themselves of the debt of Allegiance if they fall under the Magistrates captivating power in this case they loose the benefit of Subjects we affirme but not that the Magistrate looses his title to their Allegiance because they put from themselves his supposed Protection which if they may have it is all one to conscience as if they had it But now they must shew us how we may come by protection from any other powers then those that are over us or else they say nothing to our case nor convince us that the debt of our Allegiance is due to any other but those to whom we pay it notwithstanding the Oath urged against us it is not any mans pretended power or obligation to protect us that can be satisfaction to us in the condition we now are we say That people is in danger to be very miserable whose well fare is no otherwise secured then by a Kings obligation to protect them In Answer whereto instead of shewing us the compleatnesse of this provision for a peoples safety they shoot at Rovers and tell us that by the Oath of Allegiance the King not the people is secured Truly we never thought that this Oath was provided for the peoples security but being told that the Magistrates
is as to the persons comming in and sustaining it unjustifiable as it is Hab. 1.12 then it cannot make the Text pregnant to our purpose Answer We neither say that the word makes the Text full and pregnant to our purpose the Scripture indeed we say is so nor doe we deny but our present powers may be ordained for judgement and ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Euseb praepar Evangel li. 8. established for correction Lord saith the Prophet thou hast ordained them the Chaldean powers for judgement this Text therefore confirmes what we have to prove viz. That the Powers in being over any people are Gods Ordinance though they may be as most commonly they are both attained unto as to mans agency and sustained unjustifiably thus they have not dis-favoured our argument at all by this septuagint-allegation After this velitation anent the word Ordained they come to a proposition of ours which they say we formed out of it viz. In what ever series of events God manifests his speciall concurrence or appearing that cause he ownes and authorizeth mans Agency in it This they deny But before wee joyne issue wee must needs gratifie them with some what which they would faine know from us by the way and it is this why we call the powerful working of God unto events flowing from the efficacious decree his speciall concurrence or appearing after wee had thus paraphrased the words the Powers that be are ordained of God as the first and cheife cause of all Beings but all Beings are not by his speciall concurrence Answer All those beings we speak of are viz. All positive futuritions determined by him and well pleasing to him Is it another contradiction to say the cheife cause of all Beings may both generally and specially concur to the production of the same event When we looke back unto the years of the right hand of the most high God and consider what great things he has done in England Ireland and Scotland and by what means we conclude thus Not by might nor by power but by the spirit of the Lord and cry grace grace to them intituling the special out-goings Isa 41.15 and unbareings of his holy arme to these effects wherein he made the worme Jacob a threshing instrument with teeth to beat the mountaines like chaffe every work morally good all the gracious actings of his Saints and Servants are drawne forth and his creatures inabled to them by a twofold divine concourse Twist vindic Gratiae li. digres or assistance the one Phisicall the other supernaturall but that we shall make use of in this debate is onely the speciall exertions of his divine power and the might of his arme unto naturall effects with his generall providence in the support of instruments these signall and observable exercions of his might in weake meanes we call his speciall appearings or efficiency Now to the businesse We must needs tel them they do us wrong in assuming that for the sinews of our argument which neither the argument it selfe nor our judgements any way befriend viz. That Gods efficatious decree and hand in powerfull working is conversant or operative in no humaine affaires or actions but what are in man lawfull or agreeable to the rule of Gods word and therefore this elaborate digression of theirs touching the Metaphisicall derivation of all Actions and Beings with their morall state and qualifications and touching Gods agency in all the affaires and actings of men without the least ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes tincture of sinne might have wel been spared we acknowledge with them that if the present power over us have no more from God then a Metaphisicall existence or a naturall existence or a natural power and production by his concourse or co-operation with second causes it is dis-owned by him with abomination wee plead not Gods ordinary workings but his speciall appearings in favour of our present Authority as by our above mentioned proposition appeares though they would cajole it to speake their sence who make no distinction betwixt Gods ordinary operations and those workings of his which are marvellous in al mens eyes Surely Sirs you may acknowledge some kind of language in Gods lifting up of his arme to a wonder as well as the Psalmist does in all the works of his fingers day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night telleth knowledge there is no speech nor language where their voyce is not heard Saith David and if his wonders upon earth speake any thing it is the might of that God whose workes they are and his favour towards that people on whose behalfe and that cause in which they are wrought Hath God essayed saith Moses to goe and take him a Nation from the middest of a Nation by temptations by signes and by wonders and by war and by a mighty hand according to all that the Lord did for you and what followes because he loved thy Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt Moses argues from the great things God did for that people to his owning of them as about seven year agoe these Ministers at least some of them made no bones to do when God shewed us any great salvation or gave us any notable victory over the late Kings forces though now the same presence of God with our Councells and Armys speaks nothing at all yet we confesse this Plea of Gods mighty workings towards a people would be very weak if it went alone but we plead the Law and Testimony for Gods owning our present Authority and their cause as the witnesse beyond exception His workes we mention in the second place as a good comment upon the word only Having thus righted our selves we need say little to their needlesse and exhojudiciall digression only it seemes strange to us that they should insinuate as if our present Powers derived from God only as a Metaphysicall entity when as his giving a Kingdome into any mens hands imports clearly another thing viz. Gods making them Rulers which in so doing he ownes notwithstanding he may dis-owne their interests in grasping of power and the sinfull or indirect courses whereby they may become possest of it It creates us not any carefull thoughts that in taking their leave of our second Medium they call our Paraphrase or glosse on Rom. 13.1 a wide one unlesse they could make it appeare we restraine Gods Ordination of the Powers that are to Divine concourse we have shewed that our Powers are from God by way of Authorization and that his disposall of the Kingdome into their hands conferring thereby his right unto them has made the Authority lawfull in the Subjects wherein it rests let us see now how it fares with our third Medium Their third Medium say
provides indispencably for Kingly Government in the letter of it we are satisfied but we see these Gentlemen quit the letter and retire to the preface of it certainly Sirs Adâ—triarios deventam est you are shrewly thrust at if none of the Covenants Articles will stand by you but you must needs fall unlesse the Preface lend you an hand 't is a pretty kinde of argument this The Kings Posterity is mentioned in the Preface ergo Kingly Government is provided for in the Covenant or that which is to be seene in never an Article of the Covenant yet must needs be there because something which sounds like it is in the Preface How could the honour and happinesse of his Majesties Posterity be before our eyes in Covenanting say they if they were no where included in or provided for by the Covenant Now instead of asking this question they should have argued thus viz. the happinesse of the Kings Posterity is provided for in such or such an Article therefore it s certainly covenanted for and this would have stricken us stone dead we thinke the Articles of the Covenant are the Covenant and the Preface only an introductory no essentiall part of it the frame thereof being only declaratory of the Covenanters then conceptions and resolutions not running like an Obligation as the Covenant Articles doe inforceth to a grant of this but since we are put upon answering an Interrogatory instead of an Argument this shall be said to their question 1 It is not necessary that whatever men have before their eyes in Covenanting especially when the subject is Arbytrary should be provided for or included formally in their Covenant put case a man be highly injured by some unworthy person and having him under his power promiseth to deale as favourably with him as may be out of respect to his Family and Posterity because if he falls they are like to fall too now though the Promiser hath before his eyes the happinesse and welfare of his Posterity in whose behalfe he makes the promise yet his Posterity is not formally and expresly concluded interessed in or provided for by that his promise 2 Let us grant for this once that provision is made by the Covenant for the honour and happinesse of the Kings posterity it cannot hence follow which is the point in question that Monarchy comes within the compasse of the Covenant or that it makes provision for the everlastingnesse of Kingly Government for the Kings Posterity or Children may be both honourable and happy and yet neither Kings nor Queenes 3 But in case provision be made for King-ship by the Covenant yet this provision cannot be deemed absolute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Medit. on the Covenant but conditionall so the late Kings person and personall Authority were provided for and yet both of them now laid in the dust Salvo foedere Nationali that clause in the preservation of Religion c. which the King said was of a dangerous limitation as to his Person must be acknowledged of as dangerous a limitation as to King-ship the being whereof maybe suppos'd as much inconsistent with Religion Liberty c. as the late Kings personall safety so that still we are where we were The Preface thus shrinking from the service it was call'd to one help at maw they have yet left and that is the Declaration of April 1646 which without faile will make the Covenant open its mealie mouth and speake aloud for Monarchy but as we insisted in our Plea so we doe still that we are not bound by the Covenant to maintaine any thing besides the letter and obvious sence of it it being unreasonable to fasten any Post-nate or occasionall Declarations upon mens Consciences in this case Here these Ministers finde out two contradictions sure they are very full of contradictions ‖ Ictericis quibusdam lutca videntur omnia item vertiginosis omnia circumagi cui amarer in lingua est amara videnter omnia Seal Exercis 265. within that they thus pluck the straitest lines without to make them lye crosse but these aeriall crosses vanish like Antipherons Image which had a being meerly in his fancy First say they This seemes to us not only to crosse what the Commons in their Declaration April 17. 1646. assume to them at their peculiar viz. That the Covenant in case of any doubt arising is only to be expounded by them by whose authority it was setled in this Kingdome Ans 1. What makes this to the weakning of our Position We suppose that the sence of the Commons expounding the Covenant otherwise then the Letter will beare may without presumption be deem'd unreasonable and their exposition especially if it be postnate unreasonably impos'd upon the Consciences of Covenantiers wil these Ministers judge themselves reasonably bound by any mens sense when in Conscience they conclude it not the Covenant sense we conceive no because 2 They will not admit the present sense of our Commons touching the Covenant notwithstanding they are as authentick Interpreters of it as any we know or as any they tell us of Secondly We contradict our selves pag. 18. where for the sense of this very clause say they you will not leave men to their owne judgement of the Letter but referre it to the Parliament to unfold it Deale ingeniously Sirs did we so we speake indeed there to this purpose viz. That we account not our selves but the House of Commons competent Judges whether the Kings Person and authority could have been preserved and the maine ends of the Covenant obtain'd yea or no Is this to allow them a power or latitude of binding mens consciences to what sense of the Covenant they please by a postnate Declaration Here is an unpardonable sayling in this deduction we speake nothing at all in that place touching the sense of the Covenant our words are these If the Kings preservation was conditionall we must leave it to the determination of those who are chosen to judge and conclude what is consistent with our Liberties and what not whether the things mainely Covenanted for or the condition of the Covenant could have been obtained and preserved with the preservation of the Kings Person yea or no And now Sirs Let the world know upon your second thoughts whether in these words by our owne confession we can be concluded to judge it reasonable that the Parliament should fasten postnate and occasionall declarations upon mens consciences touching the sense of the Covenant we conceive you will find your selves heavenly wide and besides the book in raising the inference that which followes therefore in these authors instead of an answer to what we aver touching the alterable nature of Declarations is full as wide from the businesse they had to speake to they say the sense of an Oath or Covenant is unalterable and we say the letter of the Covenant no after-declaration makes that sense out to us here is no clashing betwixt these propositions Therefore hastning
towards a conclusion we shall briefly vindicate what we sub-joyned in our Plea for the clearing our Averment touching the alterablenesse of that Declaration 1646. viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be so altered as that in the judgement of wise men those who promised or declared ought cannot be thought to have willed the including such or such an event in the promise Here say they is a little missing the marke Answer Not of the marke we aimed at the frame of that objection to which in our Plea we undertooke a reply forcing us to speake both to the Parliaments interpretation of the Covenant in reference to Kingly power and likewise to their Promise that they would maintain the government of the Nation by King Lords and Commons as to the former of these we affirme that no postnate interpretation that may be suppos'd to have more or lesse in it then the letter of a Covenant can be reasonably imposed upon the conscience neither do we see cause to judge that the Parliament by their above named Declaration intended to elucidate or interpret the letter of the Covenant To the latter we say that although such and such things were declared for yet declarations as they here acknowledge are alterable pro re nata and therefore are of no perpetuall obligation Let us hear what they say to our reason or evidence brought to prove this viz. The obligation of a promise must needs cease if the state of things and persons be c. after a distinction premised to very little purpose about * Touching their instance in the case of the Gibeonites Jos 9. see Ames Cas consc l. 4. cap. 22. Quest 9. particular and generall willing the inclusion of an event in any promise they come to this conclusion Such events as may make the performing of the promise a sinne in the Promiser infringe the obligation these in the judgements of wise men are deem'd to be excluded to the Promiser but the event brought in by us as falling out in the Parliaments case viz. The Kings implacability and inexoriblenesse as we grosly enough stile it they say is not to be ranged amongst events of that nature they might have performed their promise without sinne and it seemes they did intend to include the Kings persistency thus they mollifie our expression not excepting against it after severall of those addresses made to him divers of them before the Covenant most of them before the Declaration April 17. 1646. so that the greatest part of his persistency was precedent to the making some of those promises c. Ans 1. If after all their experience had of the Kings presistency in a ruining way and all their hopes of bowing him to a complyance with their just desires extinct the House of Lords by their delayes and Negatives in matters of highest moment making it appeare too that they drew the same way with him if after these sad experiences the Parliament had sacrific'd the peace and welfare of the Nation to the interests of King and Lords we cannot but deeme it had been a very sinfull thing a betraying their trust a ruining the Nation a giving us up to a seven-times worse slavery then at their first convention they found us in and we can see nothing here alledged by these Divines though we looke longly for it to perswade us of the contrary they only say it had not been matter of sinne in the Commons to have made good that Declaration of which we are speaking but for this we want evidence 2 The Kings persistency in his way was that very event which put the Commons out of a capacity or possibility of serving the Publique with his advancement an event to be wondred at by all wise men Declar. of March 17. 1648. and therefore in the judgements of wise men not includible in the promise The Commons themselves tell us that upon their making that Declaration they were confident the King would have conformed himselfe to the desires of his people in Parliament and that the Peers who remained with the Parliament would have been a great cause of his so doing and therefore certainly they intended not to include his presistency or the House of Lords declining the publique cause in their promise Si aliquid incautius aliquem jâ—â—â—sse contigerit quod observatum inpejoreÌ„ vergat exitum illud salubri consilio mutandum noverimus c. Soter Epist ad Episc Ital. Charsum Concil Ann. 163 Concil Toler 8. Can. 2. we conceive they were not bound at that instant expresly to except these events they shewed what their exception was very reasonably when after all their fruitlesse endeavours to win the King they voted no more addresses to him peradventure this vote is interpreted one of the Parliaments swervings from their principles which these Ministers minde us of but we cannot so judge of it that principle which respects the Kings Person and Authority having an expresse condition joyned with it ever since the Covenant was entrâ—d into therefore for ought we know they might have voted no more addresses sooner then they did that famous and safe limitation saving the Covenant harmlesse had they done so and the emergency of an event as if confest a warranting the change of Lawes and Declarations may justifie the Commons in receding from what they had declared about governing the Nation by King Lords and Commons yet these assaylants have not done with us but ere they leave us will get betwixt the joynts of our harnesse by a pretty sleight blow a pure subtilty the Kings inexorablenesse was not any change say they but a going on in the way he was when the promise was made and therefore cannot be urged truly as a change of a person or thing to release the Parliament of their promise in his behalfe truly this is subtile nihil for we must tell them that as to our case in the judgement of wise men there is not any imaginable difference betwixt the failing of an event fully and confidently expected and the failing out of an event utterly unexpected the Kings flexiblenesse was the event confidently presumed and made the ground of what was declared concerning him by the Parliament and his not changing to their minde together with the House of Peers changing from their mindes viz. their sence may be tollerably called a change of Persons subverting the foundation of that promise the one not doing what was expected the other doing what was not expected but the King was not so stiffe as is pretended it seemes for he did not hold out after seaven addresses We suppose say they that Treaty at Newport was one of the seaven no Sirs it was the eighth Declar. March 17. 1648 p. 12. if they keep a true account who declare it so to the whole world neither was he then inexorable but contrarily yeelded to more then had been desired of him in former