Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	author_n	call_v	word_n	1,643	5	3.6294	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

saith will not reach to such a case as ours For 1. I read in his b●ok called the Appell●tion of John Knox pag. 78. that he pleads onely for the punis●ing of such Kings as are Idolaters and Tyrants against God and his known truth now our late King was not such a one Secondly he speakes of such Kings as were rashly and unadvisedly chosen by the People now our King was not meerly elective but had a title to the Crowne by succession and a just Hereditation Thirdly I do not read in his Book called the Appellation c. that he contends for bringing Kings to a judiciall Tryall and taking away their lives but onely in generall of punishing and deposing them Now what is said here by way of answer to what you alledged out of Mr. Knox may serve also for an answer to Goodman whom you call the great associate of John Knox The third Author you quote is Doctor John Ponnet in his Books called A Short Treati se of Politique Power Cap. 6. pag. 45. Answ. 'T is true Dr. Ponnet is of large principles in this point yet 1. 't is to be observed that when he made his booke it was in the reign of Queen Mary Ann. 1556. and so spake of Popish not Protestant Princes yea it was during the time of his banishment out of England at which time his discontent might make him to bee led more by passion then reason 2. Though hee holds it lawfull for a People to depose and kill a Tyrant yet he gives not this power abslutely to a particular party but to the body of the People The body saith he ●f every State may if it will yea and ought to r●dresse and correct the vi●●● of their Heads and Governours I am sure you cannot say the body of this State was for the execution of the King there were an hundred against it to one for it Yea 3 Though hee goes further that private men may kill a Magistrate yet he holds it with some speciall limitations In some cases private men saith he may kill their Magistrates as when a Governour shall with his sword run upon an innocent or go about to shoot him with a gun or if he should be found in bed with a mans wife or ravish a mans daughter or go about to make away his Country to Forraig●ers Now can you prove the King to be guilty of such things as these If not your quotation of Ponnet doth not reach our case To close this I would aske you Are you of Dr. Ponnets mind that any private man may kill a Tyrant do you thinke that Moses his practise in killing the Aegyptian and Ehud slaying Eglon is to be imitated by every private man It seemes you do so why else do you urge these instances out of Doctour Ponnet to justifie your King-killing Doctrine If you do I feare you will often times follow the Devils instigation to murder the innocent when you thinke 't is the impression of Gods spirit on your heart to do justice on the guilty Oh take heed that you be not given over to beleeve lies and then to worke wickednesse with greedinesse Before I leave this unsafe assertion in Dr. Ponnets Booke of which you approve viz. that private men may kill a Tyrant I desire that this might lye sadly on your heart suppose you should think such a Magistrate to be a Tyrant and a murderer and because none wil put to death that Tyrant therefore you hold your selfe bound to do it suppose againe another thinkes him to be a just Magistrate whom you slew and kils you that killed him and a third kils him that killed you and so ad infinitum Is not this the way to make us Cains not Christians one unto another and in the end not to leave so many men in the world as Cain did when he slew his brother A fourth Author you quote is Junius Brutus supposed by good Authors to be Beza's workes in his booke called Vindiciae contra Tyrannos c. Answ. 1. Indeed if you count the Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthewes to be a good Author who made that book intituled the Image of both Churches Jerusalem and Babylon by P. D. M. He saith it was Beza's works pag. 105. and yet herein he was no more ingenuous then you were for saith he if it was not Beza's it might be Hottomans pag. 107. and pag. 111. Do you deale candidly with so Orthodox a Divine as Beza was to receive the slanderous reports of Papists against so zealous a Protestant The same Author who said that Beza made that booke called Vindiciae contra tyrannos affirmed also that Beza usurpt another mans parish that hee was the husband of another mans wife c. the one is as true as the other 2. It may bee made demonstrable that Beza was not the Authour of that book which goes under the name of Junius Brutus for can it be imagined that so sober and learned a man as Beza was should be so inconsistent to his owne principles to write one thing in one book and the quite contrary in another throughout all the veins of his writings he calls for subjection to Magistrates but not a word of deposing or murdering of Kings which is the whole drift of that book called Vindiciae contra tyrannos I could produce multitudes of places out of Bezaes works utterly repugnant to what is in Junius Brutu● take for presnt one or two Nullum aliud saith he rememedium proponitur privatis hominibus tyranno subjectis preter vitae emendationem proeces lachrymas that is there is no other remedy left to private men being subject unto a tyrant besides amendment of life prayers and teares Yea Beza was of this judgment that though private men might disobey the sinful commands of a Prince yet he was utterly against taking up of Arms T is ane thing said he not to obey Magistrates and another to resist or take up Arms which God doth not permit thee If Beza was against private mens taking up of defensive arms can it be imagined that he would plead for offensive Arms against the life and person of a King Indeed Beza hath a learned Tract extant de Haereticis a Magistrati● puniendis but not a word de Magistratibus ab Haereticis puniendis Beza did hold that Magistrates should punish Hereticks but never held that Hereticks should punish Magistrates 3. This Iunius Brutus whom you say good Authours affirm to be Bezaes works is indeed and intruth no other then the work of a Jesuite I have it from good hands that Parsons the Jesuite was the Author of that booke there are now some alive that can witnesse it that one Rench a Printer was condemned to be hanged for printing it and another book of the same mans under the name of Doleman And here I cannot but give the world notice that one of the good members now sitting at

pretended to be be the Prophets of the Lord so the Pope Christs grand Embassadour and Vicar upon earth so the Popish Priests and Jesuites the Ministers of Christ c. Answ. 1. The Letter writers are as they say Ministers of the Gospel and doe not you say so too dare you say the contrary I am sure you were of this mind when you 〈…〉 Spirituall Snaps●ck for Parliament Souldiers there you 〈…〉 learned and conscientious Ministers in one place 〈…〉 godly Divines in another if you be otherwise 〈…〉 would better become you to have brought 〈…〉 throw their Calling then 〈◊〉 and slanders to 〈…〉 names 2. Because the false Prophets said they were Prophets of the Lord c. would you inserte hence the Subscribers are not Ministers of the Gospel Paul said he was an Apostle● false Teachers said they were Apostles when they were not was 〈◊〉 therefore no Apostle John Price saith he deals honestly in 〈◊〉 trade common cheaters will say that they deal honestly also will it therefore follow John Price doth not deal honestly this is all the force your reasoning hath with it which smel● more of the Exchange then the Universitie more of John Price his shop then John Goodwins study Surely who ever among them can vindicate their divine origination these men have administred cause sufficient to question their abilities hereunto Answ. 1. You that make a doubt whether the Ministers can vindicate their divine origination it were well you who presume to be a Teacher in Israel would make good your own tel me in your next whence had you it whether from the shop in the Exchange or the alley in Colemanstreet 2. Whereas you say they have administred cause sufficient to question their Minister●all abilities this is so palpable a calumny that I need not confute you therein because you confute your self In your Epistle you say of the subscribers in the generall that they are judicious grave and learned men and in pag. 12. in the body of your book you say of some of the subscribers that they are wise and good men now if the subscribers be judicious grave learned wise and good men what cause sufficient is administred to question their Ministe●riall abilities Surely were the Apostle Paul upon the earth hee would never question the Ministriall abilities of judicious grave learned wise and good men nor would hee approve them as fit for the Ministery who are injudic●ous raw illiterate indiscree● and bad men yet such are the Teachers you cry up and the others you cry down me thinks if you doubt of their office you should not question their gifts also Some of them have promoted incouraged and ●●etted the very selfe same actions done at another time by other persons as we shall speak to anon which here they 〈◊〉 and branded 〈◊〉 an ●●cursed thing Answ. You neither name the men nor mention the actions when you particular●i●e the men and specifie the actions which at one time they promoted and encouraged and at another anathemati●ed and branded it will then be time enough to give you a particular answer for the present I shall say but this to you by way of Retortion this Brat may be laid at your doores you promoted encouraged and abetted the forcing of the Parliament by the Army at one time yet condemned the violence offered by the King at another but the Ministers of London did not thus they mislik't it in the one as well as in the other Poor London thy Prophets make thee to erre c. Answ. 1. Poor London indeed and it is like to be poorer before you have done with it I could tell who have made themselves rich and the City poor 2. You would have said more truly if you had said thus London of late hath made her Prophets poor rather then the Prophets made London erre 3. You say her Prophets make her err had you named the men and particularized the errors it would have been more credible and demonstrable but generall accusations are no proofes I am sure one Prophet of your own hath vented more grosse and pernicious errors in one year then can be fastned upon all the subscribers throughout the Course of their Ministery None of the subscribers ever held that the English Scriptures or that book called the Bible is not the Word of God that no writings whatsoever whether translations or originalls are the foundation of Christian Religion that a natural man had free wil and power to do good supernatural that those without the Gospel written or preacht have sufficient means for beleeving that the sun moon and stars are the Apostles of Christ to preach the Gospel unto them But these with many others have been invented by Mr. J. Goodwin as may appear in his Hagiomastix and by Divine Authority of the Scriptures quoted in the Testimony of the London Ministers against errors c. I would fain know whether any or all the subscribers have taught any error that carries the least proportion to any of these let the world then judge what Prophets they are that make London to erre One while thou mayst take up arms by the instigation of thy Ministers to maintain the cause of God decency of wooship viz. the Prelaticall faction or the glorious interest of the Clergy thereof another while thou must arm thy self from the same instigations to sacrifice thy gold and silver thy monies and thy plate upon the happy promotion of the House of God the government of Christ c. Answ. 1. This is to notorious a falsity the very mention is a sufficient Confutation did ever any of the Letter-writers as you scoffingly call them ever instigate the people to maintain the Prelaticall faction or the Clergy thereof 't is well known the Prelates were nevee friends to them nor they to the Prelates wherefore the Lord rebuke thee thou lying tongue who goest about to belye their persons when thou canst not confute their doctrin 2. For the latter part of your charge that they did move the people to sacrifice their silver gold monies plate for the promotion of the House of God c. I verily thought that you would mention this as an ornament to the Ministery not a reproach to their persons I am sure you were of this mind when you made your Snapsack for the Parliament souldiers you encouraged the souldiers in the Parliaments war that all the learned godly orthodox conscientious Ministers did join issue with them justifie defensive arms did you commend the Ministers then and dare you blame them now by this I see you have a musty budget out of which at one time you can bring lyes and slanders against the Ministers as well as a Spirituall Snapsack wherein you have Encomiums of their praise The ancient love anion and goodnesse of thine i.e. Londons inhabitants is turned into hatred division and bitternesse each against other causing thy foundations to shake and thy

Many of the authors you quote do you belie in affirming that they plead for the killing of Kings by their Subjects which they never did thus you wrong ●ez● Zuinglius Pareus Mr. Rutherford Mr. Pryn and Mr. Love as I shall evidently make appeare anon 2. In your list of Protestant Divines I find one Popish Priest whom you cal Junius Brutus aliàs Parsons the Jesuit as I shall prove when I come to answer your allegation of him 3. I have good reason to beleeve that you borrowed most of your quotations not from the Authors themselves but from a Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthews his lies and slanders against Protestant Divines you take up for undoubted truths He railes on Bez● p. 82. and saith that the book entituled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus was his p. 105. against Zuinglius p. 81. p. 115. against Knox p. 134. and Goodman his associate p. 134. brands Pareus in p. 225. rails on the Wieliffs and Waldenses p. 250. These are most of the Authours quoted by you whom he represents unto the world as Rebells against murderers of Kings Princes yea doth impudently affirm that the Protestants have deposed more Kings in 60. years then was by the means of Catholicks in 600. Ibid. p. 226. Now is it for your credit to gather such broken scraps and tortured collections from so infamous an Author That which induceth me to beleeve that you had these quotations not from the Authors themselves but from that Popish writer is this 1. In reading those Authors I find some of them to be of a quite contrary mind to that which you alledg them for 2. Those very men and that matter almost in terminis is quoted by that Popish writer and may not this give some ground to beleeve what I assert 4 You must needs be put to a penury of proofs when you pretend to alledg Protestant Divines yet among them mention Mr. Prynne a Lawyer but no Divine and Junius Brutus a Jesuite but no Protestant surely either your memory must be short or your reading but small 5. In some of your quotations you only name the men but do not mention the page where such a passage is to be found Thus you deal with Zuinglius Pareus Dudly Fenner and Rutherford which makes me think you never read their books or else that you intended to pervert their words and put your Reader to more pains before hee shall find out your abuse of the Authors 6. Though some of the Authors alledged speak high of punishing Tyrannicall and idolatrous Kings yet none of them unlesse the Jesuite under the name of Junius Brutus ever gave the least intimation of spilling the blood of a Protestant King 7. One solid Argument had stood you in more stead then a hundred quotations not mens sayings but their reasons are to be regarded 8. There is no opinion so grosse but there may be some particular men who will labour to maintain it t is true some particular men may plead for the putting of Kings to death but is this the received opinion or declared judgment of any of the Reformed Churches could you shew that which I know you cannot it would be of more weight with me 9. Although some of the Authors speak high in this point yet none of them come up to the present case There were so many considerable and concurrent circumstances in the case of the king that varyed it much from the case of Kings in former times the businesse is so circumstantiated that were all the Authors alledged by you alive none of them I verily beleeve nor any Casuists in the world would give their consent to the taking away the life of our King as the case stood with us For 1. Hee was a Protestant King 2. The end of the Parliaments War against the Forces raised by him was to preserve His person as appears by their many Declarations in that behalf 3. Many Oaths and Covenants made to the most high God for the preservation of His Royall person 4. The King of England could not be put to death but they must kill the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as true a right in Him as this Kingdome had 5. That he granted more for the good of the Kingdome then ever any King that sate upon the English Throne 6. That Hee never personally shed blood 7. That the Army must first force the Parliament before they could kill the King which wil be to after ages a lasting monument of the Parliaments Renown and the Armies Reproach 8. That the House of Commons if they sate free and ful which now they do not have no power by law to erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the life of the King 9. That the General his Officers declared in their Remonstrance June 23. 1647. that they did clearly professe they did not see how there could be any peace to this Kingdom firm and lasting without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights Quiet Immunities of His Majesties Royal family c. these and such like circumstances considered can it be imagined that any could have their hands in the Kings blood unless they were led more by passion then reason by design then conscience Thus having given you these advertisements touching the Authors by you alledged in the general I come now a to particular survey of the severall authors brought by you to maintain your King-killing Doctrine You begin with Mr. Love and so will I of whom you say that in his Sermon preacht at Uxbridg and printed having spoken before of the blood-guiltinesse of the King yea intimated u●●aturall and horrible blood-guiltinesse in Him as if Hee had been guilty of King James his death and Prince Henries death the blood of the Prot●stant● in Rochell and the Rebellion of ●reland and all the Protestant blood-shed there p. ●3 of the said Sermon stiled Englands distemper Answ. 1. That Mr. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preacht at Vxbri●ge is true but that hee spake therein of the blood-guiltinesse of the King is utterly false I have read over his Sermon from the beginning to the end and can find no mention of the King throughout his Sermon but in two places and there too without the least reflexion or accusation on the King the first place is in p. 16. where he saith that the rising though now falling Clergymen would serue up Prerogative to the highest peg by which means they have crackt it at least the credit of it affirming that Kings might do what they list that the lifes ●ives liberties and estates of Subjects are to be disposed by the King according to his own will yea have they not taught the people that if the King require the life of any or all his subjects they must lay their necks to the block they must not defend themselves by force of Arms in any case

A MODEST and CLEAR VINDICATION Of the Serious Representation and late Vindication Of the Ministers of London from the Scandalous Aspersions of JOHN PRICE In a Pamphlet of his Entituled CLERICO-CLASSICVM OR The Clergies Alarum to a third War WHEREIN His King-killing Doctrine is confuted The Authors by him alledged as defending it cleared The Ministers of London vindicated The follies and falsities of Iohn Price discovered The Protestation Vow and the Covenant explained By a friend to a regulated Monarchy a free Parliament an obedient Army and a Godly Ministry but an enemy to Tyranny Malignity Anarchy and Heresie Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in heaven for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you Mat. 5. 11 12. You fight for the recovery of the Kings Royall person out of the hands of those misereants and reinstate Him in His Royal throne and dignity that both he and His Posterity may yet flourish in their Royalty so that notwithstanding all contradictions you fight for your King John Price in his Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliaments Souldiers p. 8. London Printed for Stephen Bowtell and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the Bible in Popes-head-alley 1649. To the Reverend and learned Ministers of the Gospel within the Province of London subscribers of the Serious Representation and late Vindication REVEREND SIRS YOu are those whom I honour and love in truth for the truths sake that dwels in you and is so faithfully promoted by you Many besides my selfe rise up and call you blessed for that Serious Representation of your judgments c. and seasonable Vindication of your persons and Ministry which were lately published in print T is true 't is your lot that you who are Embassadors of peace are now lookt upon as men of contention they who once counted your feet beautifull say now the mark of the Beast is on your forehead yea they who would have pulled out their eyes to have done you good are now so filled with prejudice and passion that they would pull out your eyes to doe you hurt this is the best requitall the more you love the less you are loved of them though the people are in such a distempered Phrensie yet I know this provokes your pity not your fury I perceive you are made the But of Satans malice because you make the glory of God and good of souls the mark you aim at in the course of your Ministry the Devill will not let you be at rest because you will not suffer the sins of the times to be at quiet Since the publication of your Letter and Vindication there are many scurr●lous Pamphlets spread abroad which labour to stain the integrity of your hearts and the truth of your testimony among the rest there is one written by John Price which is stuffe● with such falsities absurdities tautalogies calumnies and animosities with such railings and revilings as if he were of the race of Rabs●ekah or the linage of Shime● the Lord rebuke him and clear you He presents you to the world as guilty of malignity perjury hypocrisie as wanting Ministeriall abilities and void of the ingenuity that becomes Ministers of the Gospel as men of falshood deceit dissention and what not but what you are It may be your comfort to consider that so persecuted they the Prophets who were before you Elijah was called a troubler of Israel in the Old Testament Paul a mover of sedition in the New When I considered what August said that a Ministers good conscience is sufficient for himself yet his good name is necessary for others I thought fit to endeavour the Vindication of your names and Ministry from those unjust aspersions cast upon you by many sons of slander your names which are as precious oyntment poured forth spreading the sweet savour of the knowledg of Christ in many places will not want sons of Belzebub as so many flies to corrupt them yet this may be your confidence that although they make their mouths as open sepulchers to bury your names and reputations in yet there shall be a resurrection of names as wel as bodies at the last day at which time all your reproach shall be wiped away and your Revilers made ashamed who have fasly accused your good conversation in Christ This is the prayer and confidence of him who is 〈◊〉 CHRIST-LOVER I HOPE and a Lover of you in him Dated this 13 March 1648. from my house about the middle way between Whitehall and Whitechappell A MODEST and CLEAR VINDICATION Of the Serious Representation and late Vindication Of the Ministers of London from the Scandalous Aspersions of JOHN PRIC● In a Pamphlet of his Entituled CLERICO-CLASSICVM OR The Clergies Alarum to a third War John Price WOULD one imagine that you who thought your self once so good an Alchymist as to extract * honey out of the rock should now such poyson out of a flower I cannot compare you to a Bee unlesse for your sting but to a Spider for sucking poyson from that savory and serious Representation and late Vindication of the Ministers of London against whom you have spit so much of your venome I shal not return you rayling for rayling slander for slander but in a spirit of meekness indeavour to discover your sin to recover your soul Before I shal take a survey of your book in particular I shall give you this observation in the generall That either I was not my self when I read your book or you were not your self when you made it The latter I am induced to beleeve upon this ground in your book you declare your judgment for taking away the li●● of the King and blame the Ministers of London for expressing themselves to the contrary now had you been your self undoubtedly you would not have declared your self for killing the King in this book yet professe against it in another made by you when you were of a more sober sp●●it In your book entituled * A Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers you speak to them in these words You fight for the Recovery of the Kings Royall person out of the hands of these mis●r●ants and re-instate him in his Royall Throne and Dignity that both Hee and His Posterity if God will may yet flourish in their Royalty so that notwithstanding all contradictions you sight for your King 〈◊〉 forbear to descant upon your words he that will compare your two books together must think you if not out of your wit● yet at least out of your way Oh that I might reclaim you that is all the hurt I wish you Passing by your slanderous Title and Epistle I come to a particular survey of your book it self You say The Letter writers are as they say Ministers of the Gospel so the false Prophets of old

ever yet understand You pretend you can shew their books and Sermons for it but I am very confident you can shew none 2. I observe you promise in your book more then you make good you promise as if you would shew severall bookes and Sermons of the subscribers yet you quote but one viz. Mr. Loves Sermon at Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no lesse then ten times in your Clerico-Classicum yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cause for bringing the King to Capitall punishment his words you quote are these Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with til all the guilt of blood be expiated avenged either by the sword of the Law or the law of the Sword else a peace can neither be safe nor just Chr. Love in his Englands distemper pag. 37. Answ. To which I have four things to say 1. There is no mention at all of the King either in that passage or any other part of his Sermon that Hee should be cut off 2. Mr. Love doth clearly expresse himselfe whom he means by those men of blood viz. not the King but as he saith pag. 32. of Englands distemper Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed 3. T is true Mr. Love then was and still is of that mind that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace or if not reach them that way by the law of the sword in the time of war and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after according to the fourth Article of the Covenant wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve or the supream Iudicatories respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judg convenient Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider that in that very part of the Covenant where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment we promise to preserve the person of the King as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condigne punishment whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evill instruments viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion divide the King from his people and have not you done that or one of the Kingdomes from another or that make any factions or parties among the people of all which your selfe and the men you plead for have been most notoriously guilty as wel as the malignant therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they As for that other passage of Mr. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote It will search to the quick to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would ear●h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed and by whom It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Mr. Love in his Englands Distemper pag. 23. To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication viz. Mr. Loves desire is that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest he often wisht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henrys death if they did come to an untimely end might be found out 2. I demand of you is there any clause in that Sermon or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King which he did not yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon that you should bring the King to Capitall punishment Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly against cutting off the King I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print against that horrid attempt Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to assert several notorious falsities and untruths as to instance pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin where you say the Agreement of the people was the same for substance with that of the Armies and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth again you say that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting it this is first a most notorious untruth and secondly a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man the man that was shot to death was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement but being sent with his Company by the Generall to New-castle did with others make a mutiny resisted and beat their Officers tooke away the Colours from their Ensigne beat him with his own Colours for which this fellow that was sh●t to death was condemned c. Answ. 1. You who are so pragmaticall as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers will shew your self to be I say not the father of lies yet a son of falsehood 2. It seems you are put to your shifts in searching out any accusation against the subscribers for from their Representation you run to their Vindication and leap as far as the sixth page at once and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book that you are forc't to pitch upon a small marginal note which I need not answer yet I shall and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly but you falsly for you say it is said in the marginall note that the Agreement of the People is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army I affirm 't is true though you say 't is false I have compared the one and the other together and find them for substance the same only I must confesse the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament 9. November 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome And afterwards in December 17. 1647.

un-King him when power shall be in their own hand And is not the same designe practised upon his faithfull Parliament and Subjects here in England Do not these Rehums and Shim●hies fill his Royal ears with this odium that the Parliament and the Puritans are enemies to Monarchy and intend nothing but to bring all into a parity and after they have pulled down Bishops then down with King too with a world of such calumnies invented by the father of lies truely the Land is not able to beare their words If Mr. Case then thought the Land could not beare such words blame him not though he be so pathetick and compassionate as you say he was that he cannot beare your deeds in imbruing your hands with the bloud of your Soveraigne as you affirme he said Yea Mr. Love also whom you slanderously report to be for cutting off the King hath a booke in print neare two yeares since entituled Works of darknesse brought to light c. wherein he doth clearly expresse himselfe to the contrary he having shewed that the designe of the Army was first to new mould the House of Commons next to destroy the House of Lords their third designe he laid downe in these words viz. To cut off the King if he sides not to the Independent party 't is true of late they seem to appeare for him to gaine Malignants on their side but 't is notoriously knowne how their principles are directly against Monarchy what desperate speeches have some Independent Members uttered against the King yea it will never be forgotten how inraged the Independent Members of the House and Sectaries of London were against the City Remonstrance chiefly because there was this passage in it for the preservation of the Kings person according to the Covenant Yea the Sectaries publish to the world in print that the King for his misgovernment must lose his life By this it appears that the Sectaries intend as the 32 Syrian Captains did 1 King 22. 31. to fight neither with smal nor great but with the King of Israel In laying downe this their design I would have none conceive as if I were a Malignant Royalist I hate Arbitrary power and tyranny in Princes as much as any I onely mention this that malignants might not be brought to fools Paradise to joine with the Army as conceiving them to be for the Kings honour and safety who are the greatest enemies of both These are Mr. Loves own words then he concludes with these verses Malignants all beleeve this thing Sectarians would destroy the King Yea they do wish there might be none For to succeed him on the Throne All this Mr. Love declared neare two years since however you may account him a mean Preacher yet I am sure he was in this a true Prophet One while stirring up the People against the King another while stirring up the People against the Parliament and for the King as you did of late in your prayers and preaching expressing greater malignity against the Parliament and their party and greater zeale for the King and his interest then those very Ministers whose places you possesse they being sequestred and cast out for the Tenths of that Anti-parliamentary malignancy which you have vented Answ. 1. 'T is true they stirred up the people indeed according to the Vow and Covenant to assist the forces raised and continued by both Houses of Parliament against the Forces raised by the King but never stirred any up against the person of the King 2. As for the other part of your charge that another while the Ministers did stirre up the People against the Parliament and for the King this is so manifest a falsity that the very mention is a sufficient confutation of it 3. For the last part of your charge viz. that the Subscribers expresse greater Malignity against the Parliament and greater zeale for the King and his interest then those very Ministers whose places they possesse this is so palpable a calumny that I should have more adoe to hide and cover your folly then to vindicate their innocency in this matter Will not all that know the London Ministers acquit them and blame you could you not be contented to charge them with falsities with the want of Ministeriall abilities and of that candor and ingenuity that becomes Ministers but must you now tax them with Malignancy also yea were you not ashamed to tell the world that Malignant Ministers were sequestred for the Tenths of the Anti-parliamentary Malignancy which the London Ministers vented when you know that one century of sequestred Ministers is printed and the rest recorded which will remaine a lasting monument of their shame and your falshood If you think as you write in time you may become the Malignant Ministers Advocate to have them brought into their places and the godly Ministers to be throwne out And now being come to pag. 19. of your booke I cannot but give you notice wherein you discover palpable weaknesse for you set your selfe to answer what makes most for your ease though not for your cause you stand much upon circumstantials the Title page a Marginall note and such like but speak not a word to the most grave weighty and most material passages of the Representation or vindication This I can easily and plainely demonstrate for when the Ministers did strongly reason that if the Kings comming to the House of Commons to demand but five Members was deemed such a horrid violation of the Parliaments Priviledges that they thereupon Ordered that any person that did seize upon any Member of Parliament was declared a publicke enemy of the Common-wealth Then how might the Armies forcing the Parliament be aggravated by many more heinous circumstances yet you have not a word in way of cleare answer to this all that you say is this I ●ay answer you that you never mentioned that Order of the House in aggravating the Apprentices forcing the House the last yeare and to give you any other answer were but to beat the air for we are like to hear no reply to it Now to this s●eight and shallow answer of yours to that strong and weighty objection of theirs I have but four things ●o say 1. The Ministers did sufficiently declare against and aggravate the evill of that act of the Apprentices 2. Suppose the Ministers had not declared against that act of the Apprentices yet doth that any way extenuate that act of the Army 3. Whereas you say that to give any other answer were but to beat t●e aire I 'le say so too I verily beleeve you had as good beat the aire as go about to justifie the Armies forcing the House of Commons and yet condemn the violence offered by the King at one time and the Apprentices at another For 1. the King demanded but 6. the Army imprisoned 42. secluded 100. and forc't away 100. Members more 2. The King did take away none out of the House but that they Army

Here Mr. Love doth accuse Court-preachers Parasities of flattery bu● is there the least word here of accusing the King of blood-guiltinesse The second place where he makes mention of the King is in p. 19. and there he saies nothing but this Is not our King the head divided from his Parliament the Representative body of this Kingdome and is not one member divided from another and doth Mr. Love in this accuse the King of blood-guiltinesse These are the two places where Mr. Love speakes about the King I am sure there is not one word else touching the King in all his Sermon As for your false charge against Mr Love that he intimated unnatural horrible bloud-guiltiness in the King as if he had been guilty of K. James his death Prince Henrys death the blood of the Protestants in Rochell and the Rebellion of Ireland and al the Protestant blood there this you say in p. 23. of his Sermon To this I have two things to answer in his behalf 1. I need not become his Advocate the Sermon may plead for him that made it al that Mr. Love saies is this It would search to the quick to find out whether King James and Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would search to the quick to know whether Rochell and all the Protestants in it were not betrayed into the hands of their enemies and by whom it would go to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Is here the least charge against the King cannot a man speak of King Iames or Prince Henries death but must it bee interpreted that he said King CHARLES had a hand in it cannot a man wish that the betrayers of the Protestants in Rochel the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland may be discovered but must all the guilt of that blood be needs laid upon the Kings head 2. But suppose he had intimated that the King was guilty of blood-guiltynesse which he did not yet is there not the least intimation of that for which you alledg him viz. to prove that it was his decl●red judgment that the King was to be put to death you labour to stain his reputation but you do no way strengthen your own assertion I am sure Mr. Love declared his judgment against putting the King to death long before the Armies attempt to bring him to tryall as appears by that book mentioned before entituled Works of darknesse brought to light printed about two years since You say that Mr. Love made the King the Troubler of England as Achan was of Israel and hath these words p. 32. It was the Lord that tr●ubled Achan because he troubled Israell Oh that in this our State Physitians would resemble God to cut off those from the land who have distemperd it M●lius est ut pereat unus quam unit as Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est ne pars sincera trabatur Answ. 1. Did not your heart give your hand the lye when you wrote these words doth not your Conscience tel you that there is not the least syllable in Mr. Loves Sermon tending to this that the King was the Troubler of England as Achan was of Israell 2. Doth not Mr. Love clearly expresse himself whom he meant by those Achans who were to be cut off and that but three or four lines before those words you quote of Achan where he saith that there are many malignant humers to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdom before we can be healed but there is not in that place nor in 13 pages before any one word about the King and what is said of him in p. 16 and 19. is not in the least disparagement to his Royall person and authority as I made appear before 3. The phrase by any grammaticall construction cannot be referred to the King for hee wisht that the State Physitians would resemble God to cut off those from the land that had distempered it now had it been meant of the King he would have wisht that they would have cut him off not those off that distempered it As for those Latin sayings Melius est ut pereat unus quam unitas and Imm●dicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est ne pars sincera trabatur these expressions cannot bee referred to the King unlesse something spoken either before or after of which there is not a word doth inforce such an inference Besides Mr. Love doth well know that although the cutting off one Malignant member may preserve the body yet the cutting off the head though there may be Malignant humours in it is not the way to save the body but to destroy it You goe on But yet more plaine pag. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood saith Mr. Love are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or law of the sword Answ. 1. But yet more plaine say you truely you had need of something more plaine say I before you will be able to make it appeare that ever Mr. Love did plead for killing the King 2. It seemes this is the plainest passage in the Sermon but doth this ●peak what you assert that the King must be punished according to his demerits Is there any clause to this purpose in the words you quote 3 Mr Love doth well consider that in the same Article or part of the Covenant wherein we promise to bring Delinquents to punishment we engage our selves to preserve the person of the King 4 I do verily beleeve Mr. Love is still of this minde and I have some cause to know it that the guilt of that innocent bloud which hath been spilt must be expiated and avenged on some of the chiefest Incendiaries either by the sword of the Law in a time of Peace or if that cannot reach them by the Law of the sword in a time of Warre and what is this more then we are all ingaged to by Covenant to bring Delinquents to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judi●atories of both Kingdomes or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient But for you to wrest and torture his words as if he meant that the guilt of the bloud shed could not be expiated unless KING CHARLES were executed I am perswaded there was never such an expression from his mouth nor motion in his heart The second Author you alledge is Mr. John Knox who in his book● called the Appellation c. affirms say you that the people may depose their Princes and punish him c. Answ. 'T is true Mr. Knox spake more freely in this point then any Scottish Divine that I know of before or since yet let me tell you that what he

his government he doth not plead for popular tumults but saith which you have unworthily left out that such a tyrant may be punisht but yet only by them qui ea potete donati sunt who are indued with such an authority now that is most true that if the laws and constitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be such that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant in such a case 't is unquestionably lawfull And if you can shew that the House of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land to condemn and execute any man much lesse the King I shall then be silent When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people fit Deo auspice saith Zuinglius Answ. 1. Here you name the man and mention the words but quote not the place where such a passage is to bee found in Zuinglius his works who hath four large volumes extant I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader 2. T is true there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you yet I must tell you as the Devill did with that scripture he quoted to Christ so do you with Zuinglius words viz. leave out the most considerable clause and grosly pervert the meaning of his words which I shall evidently demonstrate His words are these When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people it is done God disposing it Now you have left out these words of the whole or better part of the people It may be your conscience told you you that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King and therefore you have done it without them never desiring their consent so that what Zuinglius saith will not justifie your practice which was done by the lesser and not the better neither of the people Besides you grosly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant which he was utterly against as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound T is true he was for the deposing of Tyrants so it were done by the whole or better part of the people but yet against the killing of them as he saith expresly Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare non est ut ●umtrucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet quia in pace vocavit nos Deus sed aliis viis res tentanda est c. that is after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture t is not that thou mayst kill him or raise war or tumult against him because God hath called us in pea●e but the thing is to be assayed by other wayes c. Yea t is further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant viz. to be such an one qui vi regnum accepit per ambitionem irrumpit who hath gotten a Kingdome by force and breaks it by ambition There is no doubt but such may be deposed yea destroyed too if the people have strength to do it See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland called Lex Rex and especially in Mr. Pryns works c. Answ. 1. You still use your old device name the man but not quote the place I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex yet this I will maintain that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall punishment I am sure in many places he is against it in answering that objection which Royalists made that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be resisted To which he gives this answer David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON and in another place he saith one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right and a little after he saith any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodyer and more tyrannous man then Saul in p. 233. he saith That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others if therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because His Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex Rex Is it like that Mr. Rutherford if hee be the Author of it should plead for putting the King to death in one place yet declare himselfe against it in so many places throughout his book 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion I need say nothing in his vindication he is alive and now among us more able then I to vindicate himself 't is true in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D●cemb 4. 1648. he saith expresly that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home in foraign parts in an extraordinary way by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad whether Protestants or Pap●sts c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King c. And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted most of them make against you none speak for you I leave the Reader to judge As you quoted some few Authours who seemingly might speak for you but really against you I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation against killing Kings in the generall but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular as the Ministers beyond the Seas the Ministers of Scotland the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire and of many other places of the

Kingdome besides the London Ministers who have unanimously declared their abhorrency of that horrid fact of taking away the life of the King But I forbear quotations only to manifest the levity and inconstancy of you and men of your faction I shall mention some few who have in print declared against the cutting off the King yet have been of late great sticklers for the spilling of His blood I shall begin with your self not that I think you deserve the honour of Priority but that your ownmistake may be the more obvious unto observation In your Spirituall Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers p. 8. you tel the Souldiers thus You fight for the recovery of the Kings Royall person out of the hands of those Miscreants and re-instate Him in His Royall throne and dignity that both Hee and His Posterity may if the Lord will yet flourish in their Royalty so that without all contradictions you sight for your King By this it appears that since you have separated from the Ministers Churches you are like the vannes of their steeples full of changes one while to bring the King to His Royall throne another while to bring Him to a dolefull scaffold one while that His Posterity may flourish in their Royalty another while for the extirpation of the Royall family root and branch The next I shall quote shall bee your goodly Pastor John G●o●win that the world may see you are like people like priest In his Anticavalierisme p. 10 11. he saith As for offering violence to the person of a King or attempting to take away his life we leave the proof of the lawfulnesse of this to those profound disputers the Iesuites who stand ingaged by the tenour of their professed Doctrin and Practice either to make good the lawfulnesse thereof or else to leave themselves and their Religion an abhorring and hissing unto the world As for us who never travailed with any desires or thoughts that way but abhor both mother and daughter doctrine and practice together we conceive it to be a just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himself Davids Conscience smote him when hee came so neer the life of a King as the cuttiag off the lap of his garment notwithstanding these high expressions of his against taking away the life of Kings in any case whatsoever yet had this wretched Apostate a great hand in bringing the King to death It would be endless to mention all that could be found in their books in print to this purpose I shall only quote the Armies judgement touching the preservation of His Person their words are these wee clearly professe wee doe not see how there can be any peace to this Kingdome firm or lasting without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights Quiet and Immunities of His Majesties Royall family and His late Partakers and more fully in their Proposalls of Aug. 1. 1647. they propose that His Majestic● person Queen and Royall Issue may be restored to a condition of safety honour and freedome in this Nation without Diminution of their Personall Rights or further limitation to the exer●ise of their Regall power then according to the particulars aforegoing Yet there very men in their late Remonstrance desired that the Capitall and grand Author of our troubles the Person of the King may be brought to justice for the treason blood c he was guilty of What lasting settlement can be expected from th●●● men who at one time desire one thing and at another time the quite contrary If so be the saving of the Kings person being a murderer c. bee the destruction of the Command of true Religion that the murderer shall surely be put to death we must by the obligation that lies upon us from the Solemn League and Covenant cut off the Kings head for the Preservation of true Religion Answ. 1. Here you come in with your Ifs and Ands begging the question taking that for granted which was still denyed say not if the saving of the Kings person being a murderer bee the destruction of the Command of true Religion but prove that he was a murderer and that the saving of His person would be a destruction to true Religion a convincing Argument would stand you in more stead then a confident assertion of the one or a naked supposition of the other 2. I would demand of you whether the saving of Davids person who killed Vriah the Hittite and of Sauls who slew 85 of the Priests of the Lord and of Manassehs who made the streets of Jerusalem run down with blood were a destruction of the Commands of true Religion if you say it was are not you a very charitable man to stigmatize the children of Israel that they destroyed the Command of Religion that the land was defiled with blood and that to many generations for not executing all their Kings who had spilt blood if you say no give me one cogent reason why many of the wicked and bloody Kings of Israel as wel as the good should live and yet our late King dye 3. You are the first and I hope will be the last that ever I could hear of that pleaded an obligation by the Covenant to cut off the Kings head for the preservation of true Religion unlesse to preserve his person can be interpreted to cut off his head I am sure the Covenant laies upon you no such obligation was the Kings person and Religions preservation so inconsistent that you must needs destroy the one to preserve the other were there no veins to be opened to let out malignant blood from any part of the body but must you cut off the head could no person bee found but the King alone to expiate the guilt of blood I remember indeed you say in p. 23. that the cutting off the Kings head was the most acceptable and fattest sacrifice unto justice that ever was offered in this Kingdome I do verily beleeve it was so fat a sacrifice that it wil overturn your stomacks it may be something else too 4. I grant 't is the Command of God that a murderer should be put to death yet is there a great difference to be put between one that kills another maliciously and between a multitude who shed blood only in a Military way in a time of Civill war as for instance in the bloody war betwixt Judah and Benjamin though the men of Judah who had the best cause lost 40000 men in two battails yet upon a third attempt when God gave them the day over the Tribe of Benjamin though they do slay them in the pursuit and heat of the battle which was lawful smote 25000 of the children of Benjamin yet when the war was ended and a full and finall victory gotten by the men