Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	king_n	people_n	safety_n	1,796	5	9.5781	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88565	Illumination to Sion Colledge. Wherein, their calling to the Ministery (the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ) is dissipated, their arrogancy hereupon manifested, the extent of magistrates power in generall defined; the execution of the late King, and the seculusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified; the former declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite, explained; their objections from the Covenant, removed in the grammaticall sense thereof; and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated. Being for answer, to the representation of their judgments, in a letter to the Generall, January 18. last: serves also to their vindication: and in part to a pamphlet intituled, Essex Watchmens watch-word: likewise in effect to a later libell (supposed Mr. Loves, intituled, A vindication of the ministers from the aspersions (alias the Etymologies) of Mr. Price, in his Clerico Classicum, &c. To which latter pamphlet, is annexed a briefe answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers. / By J.L. as cordiall and fervent a thirster after the nations prosperity, as any.	J. L.	1649 (1649)	Wing L31; Thomason E558_4; ESTC R205842	44,054	37

sick yet is in order to the health of the Parliament in acting up to the fountain of their Priviledges let us not therefore imagine hardly of their proceedings since our cies have been witnesse of the justnes of them and the rather because they acted not alone very lawfull to do justly should none other appear thereto but contributed their assistance unto their solely lawfull authority which though for quantity the least yet for quality the best being in the right a minor Vote was then ●ver-powred by might a major Vote and yet this doth nor did not extenuate or lessen the equity of the minor part which to maintain as being bound in dutie thereunto the then appearance of the Armic must needs be justified in as much likewise as chusing the good and eschewing the evill is justifiable and therefore for farther confirmation hereof though the premises considered there needs none from Junius Brutus in as much as such reliques chiefely appear upon some upon the same subject cited by Mr Prinne in his book of the Soceraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 198. line 1. to the 18 from whom I gather them viz The King swears that he will seek the safety of the Realm the Nobles swe●r every one the same by himself whether therefore the King or most of the Nobles neglecting their Oath shall either destroy the Common-weale or desert it being in danger ought the rest therefore to desert the Republique or at least but rather then especially they ought to shews their fidelity when as others neglect it be lesse bound to defend it as if they were observed from their Oath Especially since they were principally instituted for that end like the Epho●● and every thing may then be reputed just when it attaines its end whether truly if many have promised the same thing is the obligation of the one dissolved by the perjury of the other whether if many be guilty of the same sinne are the rest freed by the fraud of one whether if many co-guardians ill defend their pupill shall one good man be lesse bound with the burthen of the wardship through their default but rather neither can those avoyd the infamy of perjury unlesse they ende ●●our to satisfie their trust as much as in them lieth neither can those exempt themselves from the danger and judgement of a Guardianship ill administred unlesse they implead the other Guardians suspected when as verily one guardian may not ●uely implead the rest suspected and take care of those to bee removed but also remove them The application of this passage I need not insert seeing the words themselves are clear and easie to be understood and that in generall it holds forth thus much That a minor party are bound in duty to discharge their trust though in opposition to the major party neglecting or falsifying it And although you would seem to take off an objection from the Parliaments own example in opposing the late King by th●se your words And although both Houses of Parliament who are joyntly together with the King intrusted with the supream authority of the Kingdome saw cause to take up Armes for their owne defence against the attempts made upon them by the King and his evill Counsellors and for some other ends which you cite though doubtlesse experience will produce sufficient testimony of better effected yet it hath been amply and satisfactorily proved that the Army have not acted as private persons since they assisted the lawfull authority though the least part of the Nobles yet the Kings superiour and so supream it being most unsafe to leave the supremacy undetermined as is largely demonstrated by that Author Iunius Brutus quoted by Mr. Prinne in the 196 197. pages of that his prenominated Booke in prosecution of the end of their ingagements the peoples libertie since likewise they were not instituted the Parliaments servants to pursue their end but the peoples good in as much as the Parliament represents and are but servants thereunto also And therefore whereas when the Parliament first took up Armes you would page the 7. plead their intentions then was not thereby to doe violence to the person of the King c. yet I answer that this was not binding either to the Army or to themselves in case of greater enormities committed by him for I had thought you had known the distinction between intentions and illimited determinations or conclusions because a man at the same time when he intends a thing may prescribe to himselfe the intervening of some other thing that shall divert his intended act therefore intention cannot proceed so farte as determination or resolution could the Parliament then intend should the late King have acted never so high in tyranny to exempt him from accounting and so collude as the precited Author hath it and not be reputed in the number of Prevaricators or connive of desertors or not vindicate the Republick from his tyranny and not be traytors Now then 't is resolved upon the question That the intentions of the Parliament then could extend onely unto that present time wherein had he return'd they were willing to remit without as you term it violence to his person what he had then offended in viz. attempts upon their priviledges but the measure of his iniquity not being then full not unto that time wherein he prosecuted those attempts not onely on their priviledges but on the very foundation of Government the peoples liberties in the blood of thousands seeing they adjudged him by that their declaration you have precited no lesse then a publick enemy for practising such attempts might have justly proceeded accordingly but I say if then much more now are they to be justified in that justice o● frequently enjoyned in Scripture to be executed without respect of persons and so far from violence wherein therefore your accusation is very scandals us Again neither could the Parliaments intentions then as you affirm page 7. extend to the continuance of that government now for the constitution thereof must be considered either as good or bad if as good in the positive though the negative may be proved which I wave because the affirmative is indurable yet better or best is to be preferred before it Now then could the Parliament then intend or should they yet were it binding either to themselves or us the establishment of that or any other government when greater light in reference to the end for which government should be constituted viz. the peoples safety should be manifested nay could the accomplishment of such purposes be esteemed otherwise then a rejecting of the light and a loving of darknesse rather then light To instance this in one particular Episcopall government then constituted it 's likely in the greatest measure of light they had had it been binding either to future yeares or ages then your abolishing of it was illegall but through pretence of a greater light and so lawfully you have ex●irpated it therefore

the constitution of what government you mean was conditionall not upon yours but our own light and so not binding to us But whereas in the same page you say you apprehend your selves obliged thus to appeare for the maintenance of your Religion Lawes c. as against those that would introduce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King so on the other hand against the irregular proceedings of private persons as you terme them though I have shewed they are publick to introduce anarchy irreligion c. the former of which justifies the Army in that opposition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing by tolerating if not tyranny yet such a power in the King whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people and the cause of your obligation to the latter is taken away since you may enjoy under the government to be set led laying aside your principles of oppression as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any whereunder likewise as may be because the best way continued love and amity so in stead of irreligion a free religion most sutable to the Gospel not compulsive or constrictive may be introduced But now that your former matter might seem infallible you reinforce it with a Covenant though never intended for such an abuse you include the Army making them ●nparaleld Covenant-breakers as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such as you instance from Scripture who violated an absolute pure simple Covenant whereas ours was limited conditional only the bond or rye of both being alike the breach whereof was the cause that God powred down his judgements upon them In this therefore your hold-fast will prove as infirm as in the rest and according to the literali sense of it not to mention here your omission of the end your selves will be found more guilty of perjury then any and so your texts are misapplied You say then page 7. That you are the more strongly ingaged to adhere to your former just principles ●y reason of the severall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641 wherein as your words are We do in the presence of Almighty God promise vow protest according to the duty of our Allegeance to maintain and defend with our lives powers and estates his Majesties Royall person honour and estate and the power and priviledges of Parliament To this I answer first That your first ingagement upon these precedent principles as if they were independent and the peoples sole happinesse did consist in them as you positively cite was unjust and without understanding For mark you how the former particular in the oath doth depend upon the latter you did not sweare give me leave a little to inlighten lighten you it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance but a greater to continue ignorant of it to maintain and defend the late Kings Majesties person c. in case he should with his person make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and priviledges of Parliament which unlesse you be turned malignants obstinate you cannot but confesse is a limitation to the former clause in that oath and indeed with which you complied against the late King and never violated the oath as to that particular because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other as experience hath witnessed by cleaving to one and forsaking the other we break the oath unlesse we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other which was the late Kings case the Parliament being more intrusted and so more supream then himselfe This your selves have granted herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant Again as to that latter clause to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Parliament I answer that this likewise doth relye and depend upon something which though you insert not and if neither exprest in the oath yet is consequently and necessarily understood to be the top and end of both For in what you did ingage against an unquestionable and tyrannicall power in the King to set it up in a major vote of Parliament you did it voyd of understanding and a great deale of blood was shed to no purpose which upon such an ingagement for ought I know may as soon lie upon your account as elsewhere But to be short because before insisted on the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in such force above a Kings whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted and from whom the same end both did and doe receive their power which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdome particularly these words Iunius Brutus p. 154. A King exists by and for the people and cannot consist without the people and that all Officers are chosen by the people Severall other Authors to the same purpose he quotes but desirous to hasten to a conclusion I wave and proceed to discover how palpably your selves are guilty of the breach of this oath First as to that particular which you did sweare to defend the late Kings person c. you are guilty of perjuty for that you never ventured your lives persons and estates to preserve his person many times perhaps not intentionally yet accidentally in jeopardy from the Parliaments Forces against whom according to this clause in your oath with your temporall All you should have defended him Secondly as to the maintenance of his Honour you faile likewise since you have complied with the Parliament a● least by silence to detract from his honour by intending to dimini●h that Authority which formerly though unlawfully he had in the Kingdome I hirdly to be briefe by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament in depriving him of his because possest of it though it were and is the peoples former estate M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes in his seventh Observation his words are That Emperours Kings Princes are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands Revenues Forts Castles Ships Iewels Ammunition Treasure of their Empires Kingdomes to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures but onely the Guardians Trustees Stewards or Supervisors of them for their Kingdoms use and benefit from whom they cannot alien them nor may without their consents or privities lawfully dispose of them or any of them to the publick prejudice which if they doc their Grants are void and revocable Now as to this first clause in that oath in which I have shewed you are guilty of a breach the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant the peoples safety which they are principally to endeavour though against other subordinate inclusions that prove prejudiciall thereto as to the Oaths of Allegiance the

Parliament c. in the defence of the true Religion c. because this is one of your main accusations against the Army that you say they have not endeavoured to preserve Religion in as much likewise as that it is distinct from the Peoples civill liberties and the first thing necessary could it infallibly be determined I shall propound some things to your consideration as to clear the Army from your aspersions herein so likewise to illuminate your selves and stop if reason will your invectives And The first is this did we in covenanting to preserve and defend the true Religion swear to maintain your Religion Especially when we were not convinced of the truth of it and then though it were so if we knew it not how could we keep the Covenant in maintaining it as true And therefore I answer in the negative we did not weare to defend your way of Government because this were sinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it which your selves cannot make out to be Iure Divino so infallible and therefore not to be imposed upon others Again suppose we had ingag'd to have maintained your Government of Uniformity as being to our light the truest way then extant yet could this ingagement firmly extend to times of greater light not sinfully suppresse the truth As for instance Had you in the dayes of Episcopacy taken an Oath without any limitations exprest to maintain and defend it yet could you think your selves obliged to have kept it when convinced of the way that you are now in and not forget that a greater light alwayes extinguisheth a lesser as the light of a Torch that of a Candle Now then what I would inferre herefrom is That seeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true in that we expect and doe or should patiently wait according to Gods promises for a more perfect Religion which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man the best way to preserve this Covenant unviolated is to tolerate many opinions or if you will religions For by this meanes there will be a doore opened for the truest to have free passage which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph but otherwise constrain'd conformity to one way not the perfectest is to limit and consine the Spit of God to a generall illumination which limitation how sinfull and dispensation if at all how seldome let any reasonable men judge Therefore such a predicted toleration endevoured by any cannot be reputed a breach of covenant Now then the other particular viz. the peoples liberties in the end of our Covenant the first viz. true Religion being yet in obscurity doth appeare to be the sole and visible end of our engagement and therefore the Master-wheele upon which the motion of the power and priviledges of Parliament and the person of the King though by this Oath waving his Office being the cause of his greatnesse we are no more tied to his then a private mans person as being under and lesser wheeles doth depend Now therefore those that have complied with the two former which indeed are but instruments and as men cannot build without tools so a people cannot rule without some elected and compendious form yet as the instrument cannot ascribe any thing to it self in the work it is appointed unto being made guided and acted by man even to the Parliament or any others 〈◊〉 whom the people shall contract themselves to govern and prescribe them Rules accordingly cannot ascribe the good discharge of their trust according to those rules unto themselves so much as to the people that instituted them since likewise that the burthen of the ill managing of their power if not redressed by would most of all be laid upon the people I say these that have complied with the two former that are but as instruments in the peoples hands and herein have preferred the shell before the kinnell the effect before the cause their motion before the suggestion and this against the liberties of the people the very end of their and our Covenant those are the onely persons that have violated their oath For in all Obligations as well temporall in which the liberties of the people as in this of ours is principally aimed at as in spirituall in which the glory of God is or should be chiefly intended the end the thing aimed at the cause of the obligation is above the bond or tye thereof because not endeavouring or neglecting to attain the end doth occasion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant And therefore the use of an oath in this case is onely to incite in that there is an ingagement lies upon the spirit of those that sweare firmly and undauntedly to prosecute their end which they cannot doe as that Oath against Conspiracies testifieth but in opposition to all the enemies thereof therefore if Parliament as your faction therein did and the King not onely desist from endeavouring that end of the Covenant viz. The peoples liberties upon which condition they were included in preservation but also turn enemies though intended for the former end to the good of the same the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of connivance and perjury unlesse they couragiously in prosecution of their cathes end notwithstanding all other literall conditionall and subordinate inclosions therein oppose them as enemies thereunto But now unto this effect the Army in their late transactions hath manifested their opposition unto the two former therefore they have performed the Covenants insomuch that the world may beare witnesse with their consciences that they had no th●ughts the premises considered to diminish his Majesties just power and greatnesse Now then your grand objections from the Covenant being fully answered and the Army from your aspersions hereupon vindicated as I hope all reasonable men will clearly discern it were an easie thing to reply all your subsequent quotations of examples of Gods judgements upon Covenant-breakers upon your selves since you have neglected the end and so are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant but I wave this and shall with more brevity and lesser pains prove the said quotations misapplied and impertinent And therefore to the first of them viz that oath of Zedekiah Ezek. 17.14 15 16 19 King of Jerusalem of obedience to the King of Babylon I answer that his oath was absolute and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylons part so is not ours as hath been amply proved Againe the end of his Covenant was perfect obedience as to civill affaires ours limited to the peoples liberties his attempt of the peoples freedome or perhaps his own rather then theirs being against the will of God in that his oath was inconditionall and he had no such superiour relation and power above the King of Babylon and so exposed the people more unto his tyrannicall will and power then before ours being agreeable to the will

Illumination to Sion Colledge WHEREIN Their calling to the Ministery the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ is dissipated their arrogancy hereupon manifested the extent of Magistrates power in generall defined the execution of the late King and the seclusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified the former Declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite explained their Objections from the Covenant removed in the grammaticall sense thereof and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated Being for answer to the Representation of their judgments in a Letter to the Generall January 18. last Serves also to their Vindication And in part to a Pamphlet intituled Essex Watchmens watch-word Likewise in effect to a later Libell supposed Mr. Loves intituled A Vindication of the Ministers from the aspersions alias the Etymologies of Mr. Price in his Clerico Classicum c. To which latter Pamphlet is annexed a briefe answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers By J. L. as cordiall and fervent a thirster after the Nations prosperity as any F●●k 22.25 There is a conspiracy of her Prophets in the mids thereof like a roaring Lyon ravening the prey they have devoured souls they have taken the riches and precious things c. Micah 3.6 Therefore night shall be unto you for a Vision and darknes shall be unto you for a divination and the sun shall go down over the Prophets and the day shall be dark over them 2 Colloss 8. Beware lest there be any man that spoile you through Phylosophy and vain deceit through the traditions of men according to the rudiments of the world and not after Christ Mr. Will. Prinne pag. 201. Soveraign power of Parliaments c. To that Objection that Kings are of div●ne institution and therefore impunishable His second answer viz. All Ministers of the Gospel are as much if not more jure divino and by God● own ordination as Kings are as our Kings Writs to Bishops in the words rex eadem gratia episcopo attest but they for their offences and misdemeanours contrary to their function may be both forcibly resisted censured deprived degraded yea and executed notwithstanding their divine right and institution as the Cannons of most Councels the practise of all ages yea the expresse letter of the 26. Article of the Church of England with all our Episcopall Cannous and Cannonists arrest therefore tyrannicall degenerating Kings may be so too by the self same reason in some cases LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons and are to be sold by Giles Calvert at the Black-spread Eagle at the West end of Pauls June 1. 1649. To the Reader Reader ACcording to my promise in a former Book intituled The Execution of the late King justified being a chiefe cause hereof I now tender thee this ensuing discourse desiring according to the Title the intended effect thereof which if through obstinacie diverted and repelled yet I shall patiently acquiesce in its truth knowing that light and truth are so even when rejected of those they are offered to as some more Orthodox assertions hereof have been though their labour is not in vain in the Lord However whilst thou readest it shake off the inclination of thy opinion doe it impartially and let truth and reason take impression upon thy heart where ever they be according to the desire of thy affectionate friend herein J. L. Errata PAge 9. line 42. for lest read least p. 11. l. 39. for appear r. operate and p. 11. l. 45. is in the place of 46. and 46. in the place of 45. p. 12. l. 46. for o frequently r. so frequently p. 13. l. 29. for a Covenant r. the Covenant p. 14. l. 21. for the same end r. to the same end p. 15. l. 17. for raign r. raignes p. 21. l. 37. for imputed r. reputed p. 22. l. 41. for dutty r. duety p. 24. l. 2. for a cupting r. attempting p. 25. l. 47. for band r. brand p. 27. l. 24. for this r. thy and l. 43 for did reprove r. did then reprove p. 28. l. 7 for that r. that p. 30. l. 41 for his law r. the law p. 31. l. 7. for out r. ought and l. 11. for when r. where and l. 30. for overaigne r. soveraigne p. 32. l. 7. for satisfie r. satisfie Illumination TO SION-COLLEDGE O yee self terming and so imposing Ministers of the Gospel It is not or at least should not be unknown to you what selfe Intere●t appears in your assuming so great a power onely by virtue of that Title through which you exceed the sounds of ministeriall liberty and many of you being blinded with self by whom the rest may be spur don or else the same lust will appear uppermost in all are so furious that you transgresse the law of Christian meeknesse which I shall proceed more clearly to discover avoiding a long Preamble in the subsequent Answer to the subject matter of your Letter And therefore in the Preamble to the following matter in your Letter you confesse divers applications have been made as well in writing as by verball messages inviting the Ministers of London or some of them to meet with the Officers of the Army in their consultations about matters of Religion which you say is most suitable to you Profession And a delay in the propagation whereof your selves hath often decryed as a sin in others and yet now are guilty of the same by urging civill though groundlesse reasons as will appear in that your concurrence which amongst the rest you make one ground of this your writing with your quoted Brethren in their dislike which you say you were willed to signifie of those mentioned proceedings of the Army For your refusall of such meetings which refusall had it indeed proceeded from right principles of fore-sight that such a meeting would have inevitably through your own busie dispositions produced a controversie about civill government with which authoritatively you are not to meddle and so have frustrated the end of your meeting viz to consult about matters of Religion or from insight to your own unworthines of so indulgent an invitation in preference of what you professe viz. Ministers of the Gospel though your calling thereunto is unwarrantable men of parts and the like through those many unjust and publique contradictions and Pulpit aspersions many of you chusing subjects for that very purpose that you have cast upon their proceedings upon these grounds it had been acceptable and laudable in you to have refused a meeting but on the contrary not being contented with that preassu●●d title but soaring to be Ministers of the State likewise to which your ambition the Army having put a stop or at least because they would not depend upon your fallible judgements and so limit the spirit of God and their own reason and consciences to your way of government and interpretation of the scripture thereto for these reasons which are the main to

the peoples liberties tending to subvert the end and cause of their trust an offence in any sole power much more in them who were but joyntly intrusted the feare of God did oblige them though the minor part as a happy and most desirable civill change from darknesse unto light communion wherewith we should most cover to enjoy free from discontent since we should rather secondarily admire the courage and magnanimity of the Army then trustfully to adhere to their authority The first man that preached at Alderman-bury on the 31. L●●●try last being then Fast-day when there was the lest yet lawfullest part thereof which I have shewed we must rather obey appearing to discharge their duty Now then that can be no plea though asserted by one of your * Brethren upon that subject of universall obedience to Magistrates seeing he made no exceptions the effect of it viz. that magistrates are of divine institution that they bear Gods image that God himself cals them Gods and therefore disobedience to them is an eternall dan mage whereas to disappoint the peoples safetie is but a temporall losse and so to be lesse esteemed then an eternall I say this can be no plea craving leave a little to digresse from your matter for satisfaction sake more formally though this is effectually already answered since that the office or duty of the Magistrate not his own person is onely of divine institution in the execution of which office viz. 1 Kings 10.9 to do equitie and righteousnesse in as much as therein consists holines he bears Gods image but when Magistrates shall act quite contrary to the cause which take away and the event will be nothing of their authoritative being by oppression injustice Covenant-breaking exaltation above their brethren subjects and all this with that great aggravation of self respect herein they deface the Image of God in reference as to holinesse so unto dominion which is to rule in righteousnes meeknes and mercy in which defect they cease to be either the ordinance of God or man and the people are disobliged from obedience to them and so by consequence and contrary may lawfully resist their evil practices Nay lawfull magistrates enjoining things that may ordinarily in themselves be lawfull in all extraordinary cases may sometimes erre and lawfully be resisted therein in as much as they obstruct a greater good let all remember therefore that as of two evils the least so of two goods the greatest is to be chosen but the example of David may more fitly insert hereafter at present I therefore wave it and proceed to your fifth page and there your words are Wee have not forgotten those declared grounds and principles upon which the Parliament first took up Arms and upon which we were induced to joyne with them c. Which though you say you have not declined yet will prove the contrary for the grounds that the Parliament first did or at least should have done take up arms upon was not so much their own priviledges as the peoples liberties and therefore their * Iaintry 17 1●●1 Declaration which you instance for confirmation will prove the confutation of all your matter upon that attempt which the King made upon their Priviledges putteth such an assault as an offence against the liberty of the Subject before a breach of their own priviledges whose priviledges to preserve indeed were the instrumentall cause of our first taking up Armes but we not you unlesse you confirm this truth rested not here this was not our end the onely thing we aimed at but we had respect to some thing beyond and yet then through the priviledges of Parliament viz. the Peoples liberties the very end wherefore they sit and the grounds of our assistance to them was not so much though our liberties were apparently because we had no other power to appear for us and whose miscarriage would have been ours not subordinately wrapt up in their Privileges as our own liberties therefore consonant to this is the conclusion of the precited Declaration wherein they declare the Person that shall so Arrest any member or members of Parliament to be a Publique enemie to the Common-wealth which clearly shews that such members must be acting for the good of the common wealth or else the Person or Persons so arresting them will be so far from enemies as that they will bee friends to the Common-wealth in so doing therefore from hence this flows clearly by way of use that those are no Priviledges but usurped of Parliament that are inconsistent with the Peoples l●borties As likewise this undeniable conclusion that to arrest or seclude as was then endeavoured by the late King any Person or Persons in the Parliament acting for the peoples liberties is contrary thereunto and a breach of the priviledges of Parliament But the Army with the consent of those onely lawfull ones and so the house left behinde secluded the late members of Parliament for infringing the peoples liberties Therefo●● it was no breath of their Priviledges But it is most manifest by all your precedent arguments and quotations that you would make the people the Packhorse to all your imposed burthens and slaves to no lesse then three powers the King his Honour and Prerogative the Parliament their Priviledges which you make distinct from though if they are so they must concu● in the peoples liberties above them and you your Ecclesiasticall government above all but your complying with the two former from all evidences is onely that they may assist in advancing yours when in truth though you indefinitely enjoin obedience in all cases at all times upon all occasion all three would center in the peoples liberties they being ordained for the people and not the people for them but herein you preferre the Box before the Ointment the Raiment before the body and you are blinded with self yet confidently you say you see but therefore your blindenes remaineth and no wonder if you occasion your own fal● Now in what you would have prohibited the Army from acting because in your 6 page 25. line you say that in reference to the power of Magistracy they are but private Persons it seems strange that you should so forget the priviledge that both you and we when united in a then thought just cause against the King by suing out our liberties took notwithstanding the contrary numerous party both of Nobles and Subjects in the kingdom to esteem our selves the kingdom as witnes your own words in the 5 p. of your pamphlet line 12. upon the attempt of the late King destructive to the good of the Kingdom and shall the Army and their party which in comparison to yours are more numerous then both of us then were to the Kings be esteemed as private Persons and lesse justifiable in the prosecution of the same end against the proceedings of your Party onely and can this be a breach of the Priviledges being onely a Purge which though it makes

but one But it may be you will object That the Army it selfe in their last Remonstrance confest this 〈◊〉 col●●●ing to be a miscarriage Then I answer the more shame for you so to neglect your duty in forgiving and forgetting as to upbraid them with it But if your words be 〈◊〉 that this was a cause of a second warte how comes it that so many of your owne party are found guilty I shall proceed little further to answer circumstances and indeed had I ●une it would be ill spent justly to aggravate your folly in them it being more easie to judge of the rest by what is already spoken therefore I passe over to your 32. page where I wave that Ordinance of Parliament you cite to speak further to it then before seeing likewise the expresse ends as the conditions of the Armies service therein is demonstrated as likewise in the Covenant to be in the Grammaticall sense thereof as limits to their defence either of King or Parliament both being servants and to command the Army in nothing derogatory from the peoples liberties and therefore that your objection that we are but a party of the people is invalid since you can dee no lesse then allow us as much power as your selves and in number we are more yet you a●●ume the power of the people to your selves in the 16. page where you seem to make the Malignants and us e●ill Instruments and therefore as well to be brought to condigne punishment as they Surely there is none left their to be Executioners but your selves and me thinks you should not offer to blame the Armies party for assuming a power as the people when more interested therein then your selves who was likewise their example But to your Concession in the 32 page viz. that the Ministers are for justice and that according to the Covenant on the chiefe delinquents For answer then Mr. Love with all his Divinity cannot it being no part thereof to exempt the King from justice since none was so great a Delinquent as himselfe the rest had not been so but for him countenancing and abetting them therein else they could not have subsisted so long unpuni●●ed as they did And did not the late executed Lords plead his authority for their actions that what they did was in obedience to him their Master Doth it not appeare by this that he was their evill counsellour they not his And might not this be a reason why he so much insisted to have them indemp●●●●ed because he know himselfe to be their chiefe seducer And yet Mr. Love from the Covenant would have the King exempted when it runs expresly to bring chiefe Delinquents to punishment and the King so in the superlative degree and yet freed Were not this indeed to make the Covenant a contradictious thing But now this being granted that the King was the cause of all that opposition and bloodshed in the Kingdome that your supposition page 16. to clear Mr. Love that if he had laid the guilt of the bloodshed upon the King yet that there was nothing in that his Sermon touching his punishment I say this supposition is fully answered by your own words th●ugh you declare not your intentions whether to the King or no That men of blood are not meet persons to be at ●ene with till all the guilt of blood be exp●ated and avenged either by the sword of the law or the 〈◊〉 of the sword c. Chr Love in his Englands distemper page 37. Their it followes from these words that it the King were guilty of blood the expiation thereof by the sword of the law was just upon him But this point being largely discussed in that late Book The ex●●●tion of the King justified I shall for hea●e to speak much yet a little more because so much opposed by you unto it and therefore proceed to your 39. page where you say First that one end of the warre was to preserve the iugsperson Answ But conditionally to be in our protection and to act nothing against his trust being to give an account thereof as any subordinate officer Secondly in defence of the Kings person you say many ful sequent oathes of the Parliament c. for the preservation of his person Answ These oathes could not extend to greater deserts of his as in the precedent answer to your brethren is largely demonstrated But further if in all cases they swore to maintain his person then in sinfull ones likewise and so they would have become preservers of sin and p●●●ably a constant course of sin even the introducing of Popery it selfe by him Your third aggravation of his death is That he was the first Protestant King as you say though in the former page you were uncertain whether he was so or no but suppose it that he were so the first so put to death of his own subjects yet you mean in such a regular way and would you find fault with that but rather have more condemned them had they literally and directly followed the example of Iehu for so farre as judiciall proceeds by way of lega●●●●ll are prefer'd before immediate execution are they not the rather justifiable th●r●m Y●●● fourth objection is That in killing him they likewise kil'd the King of Scotland and Irel●●● who had as much right in him as their King as this kingdome had For answer First w● 〈◊〉 to walk especially a Nation by other mens light but our own Secondly that the ●●ne Rule upon transgression by which an Israelite was punished the same likewise ●xtended to a stranger inhabiting among them which the late King was not altogether 〈◊〉 unto us Your fifth objection That he had granted more for the good of the Kingdome c. then any before him Answ For the people to expose themselves to his grants is to confesse themselves slaves and to yeeld up their rights and liberties into his wil and power the which likewise the●● he might ●eca●● when he pleased Your sixt Objection with your eighth in the 43. pag. viz. That the House of Commons if full and free cannot take away the life of a King seeing they cannot administer an oath c. And your eighth That the House of Commons if full and free cannot by law erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the Kings I answer the last first viz. That the Pa●●ament being full as to the number requisite for their being and free having no ●est●●●●t upon them is not limitted unto the law neither is it obligatory unto them where d●●●●●ent e●s● they cannot discharge their trust and their assembling would be to no purpose● the chiefest put thereof being to redresse and amend what is amisse or prejudic●all to the Peoples welfare as to establi●h what is good now then if neither the law would as you say and likewise did we the Parliaments hands that they could not execute justice upon the late King though his Person acted never so