Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	6,232	5	10.0779	5	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

other places long before you made your Spirituall Snapsa●k yet you told the Souldiers that without Contradiction they did fight for the King to rescue his Royal Person out of the hands of Malignants and re-instate Him in His Royal Throne and dignity if true Religion commands that the King should be put to death what Religion then were you of when you said the contrary 4. Whereas you af●irm that if the King be a murderer true Religion commands that Hee be put to death To this I have 3 things to say 1. T is unknown to mee that ever the King murdered any in His own Person what blood was spilt was in a Military way wherein he did contest for His seeming right 2. The word of God which is the rule and standard of true Religion doth not afford one instance that ever any King was judicially tryed or put to death for the spilling of blood 3. If you stand so precisely upon this that the murderer shal surely be put to death th●n are you bound to put every man to death that bore Arms for the King they were guilty of blood as well as Hee yea was not the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen guilty of death if so according to your Principles did not true Religion command you to put them to death as well as the King If Kings may be dealt withall in a judiciary way why are they so angry that the late King was brought to condigne punishment if they say no Court by the Lawes of the Land had any auth●rity to judge Him then it would he worth our enquiring whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his hands upon him for the murtherer must not be suffered to live but must surely be put to death the land must not be defiled and polluted with blood Answ. 1. If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way c. here you beg the question taking that for granted which was denyed by the subscribers had you produced any one instance in the Word that any Kings were judicially tryed and put to death by their Subjects or that there is any known Law of this l●nd that the Kings of England should be arraigned and executed it would the more advantage your cause 2. Because you ask why were the Ministers so angry that the late King what brought to condignpunishm●nt I must answer you they exprest no anger but a holy indignation against so horrid a fact and had they not reason Considering 1. That o●e end of the War was to preserve the Kings person 2. Many s●bsequent O●th● Protestations and Declarations of the Parl●ament for the preservation of His person also 3. He was the f●st Protes●ant King in the world so put to death by His own S●●ject● 4. That you could not put to death the King of England but must kil the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as tru● right in Him as their King as this Kingdom had 5. That Hee had granted more for the good of the Kingdome then any King that sa●e upon the English thron 6 The house of Commons if free and full which now they are not have no power to take away the life of any man much lesle the li●e of the King if they cannot administer an Oath how can they take away the life of any man seeing no man 〈…〉 but by the oath of two or● three witnesses These and such like considerations might stir up a holy indignation in the Ministers against bringing the King to capitall punishment 3. If the Ministers say there is no Court by the laws of the land that hath any authority to judg the King then say you it would he worth our inquiring after whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his hand● upon him All I shall say to this inquiry of yours is to propose to you 3 other enquiries viz. 1. Whether was every man in Israel even to the last man bound to kill Saul a bloody King if you answer affirmatively I am su●e you answer falsly for David said who can stretch forth his hand against him and bee guiltlesse 2. If the Adulterer by the law of God was to bee put to death as well as the murderer and there is no Court by the laws of the Land that hath authority to put him to death whether is every man in the land even to the last bound to lay hands upon the Adulterer if you say yea I am sure some of your greatest Grandees would not be long lived if you say no tell me a reason why you hold your self bound to do so to the one and not unto the other 3. If it be true that it is not the condemnation but the execution of blood-guilty persons that makes satisfaction for the blood they spilt and keeps the land from being defiled then I demand whether every man in the nation according to your principles is not bound to lay their bands upon the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen to put them to death seeing those that are in power will not doe it I might adde a fourth enquiry viz. to know whence you had this notion that if Courts of Judicature will not put a Murderer to death that then every man even to the last man is bound to do it● I am sure the Scripture affords you no such notion Paul puts the sword only into the hand of the Magistrate and saith that he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill If this loose Principle of yours should take place that any man may kill a Murderer if the Magistrate doth not I fear there would be a hundred murders committed by private men before one will be legally punisht by the publick Magistrate Pareus hath a good note on those words He that sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Vt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem non sane quemvis sed gladio divinitus armatum hoc est per magistratum alioqui homicidiorum licentia daretur in immensum si intersiciendi homicid as potest as cuivit esset that is that the murderer be put to death by ma● t is not meant truely by every man but by him that is armed by God with the sword that is by the Magistrate else a Licence of murder would be given beyond all measure if the power were in the hands of any one to kill the Murderer But to end this by what you have here said I do plainly pe●ceive that if no body would have put King Charles to death you would have been the Executioner You goe on That the people say you ought to punish● their King according to their demerits hath been the declared judgment of many Protestant Divines Answ. Before I come to clear those Authours alledged by you in particular I shall give you these advertisements about your quotations in the generall 1.

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

of Judah they did not bring the residue of the children of Benjamin to a judiciall Tryall nor executed them though they slew of the men of Iudah 40000 but the sword having determined the controversy in the field on their side by a very full and finall conquest the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon and to call peaceably unto them or as it is in the margin to proclaim peace to them yea 't is said that the people even those that slew them repented them for Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Israel c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions they had been bound not to have suffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was ingaged in the war against them especially considering that they had spilt so much blood no lesse then 40000 men slain by the Benjamites I could produce many instances in scripture of the like nature but this may suffice I shall only mention that the Army was not in time past so high flown as to put no difference between shedding blood maliciously and in a Military way else how could they say that tender equitable and moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and Royall family and late party so far as may stand with the safety of the Kingdome and security to our Common rights and liberties is the most hopefull course to take away the seeds of War or future seeds among us for Posterity and to procure a lasting peace and a government in this distracted nation The Army you see became Petitioners for the King and His party yet beleeved them to be guilty of blood if they had beleeved that the Law of God had reacht them they should have petitioned that all might dye not that any might live I am sure you will say the King and His party were murderers if so why would you cut off the King yet spare His Party when they in your esteem are guilty of blood as wel as He doth your Religion teach you to punish the King and spare the Subjects Now in regard I shal meet with but little or no further occasion in the following part of your book to con●ute that bloody practice you pleaded for viz. the putting the King to death I shal therefore before I leave this subject give you these 6 scripturall advertisements if it may be to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine 1. That there is no President in all the scripture that the Sanhedrin of the Jews or Rulers of Israel did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Iudah or Israel though many of them were most gross Idolaters and tyrannous Princes who shed much innocent blood and oppressed the people sundry wayes T is true indeed some of the idolatrous Kings of Israel were slain by private conspiracies and popular tumults in an illegall way but none were ever arraigned condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins or generall Assemblies So that in putting the K to death you have done that for which you have no Scripture president 2. The servants of God in scripture did hold it lawful to take up defensive arms to withstand the rage and tyranny of their Kings yet did not count it lawfull to destroy the persons of their Kings thus David did by force of Arms defend himself against the raging and tyrannicall invasion of Saul by possessing many strong holds and fortified places yet thought it not lawfull to kill him God forbid said David that I should do this thing to my master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him c. and said he to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against him and be guiltlesse If many circumstances had been considered David had much to plead why he should take away the life of Saul more I am sure then you had to take away the life of our late King for 1. Saul was in actuall pursuance of David for his life 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Israel 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had lost his governing abilities the spirit of government was departed from Him 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood He slew 85 Priests of the Lord and put to the sword both men women children and sucklings in the City of Nob 1 Sam. 22. 18 19. 6. Hee was earnestly urged to kil Saul by the men that were about him 1 Sam. 24. 4. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. 7. Saul was the only man that stood between him and his actuall possession of a Kingdome yet all these considerations did not take with David he was still of this mind that none could stretch forth their hands against him and be guiltlesse His day said David shall come to dye or he shall descend into hattail and perish the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against him c. Another scripturall instance that I may give you to name no more you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Ionathan to death the people rose up and rescued Ionathan out of the hands of Saul that he dyed not yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himselfe I shall conclude this advertisement with a good observation Mr. Prynne hath That we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe Conscience th●se whom we may not wilfully slay c. The King may not with safe Conscience be wittingly slain by His Subjects but that therefore Hee and His Cavaliers may not bee forcibly resisted for their own defence is a grosse inconsequent c. 3. To spill the blood of any especially Royal blood meerly out of a Political designe is in the account of God murder not justice although the men may deserve to be put to death The scripture affords a pregnant proof of this the Lord commanded Iehu to smite the house of Ahab to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets according to the command of the Lord Iehu caused 70 of the sons of Ahab to be slain by the Rulers of Iezreel God commends him for doing this the Lord said unto Jehu because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the House of Ahab according to all that was in my heart thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel Yet for all this because Iehu had a Politicall design in smiting the House of Ahab viz. the emolument and establishment of his Kingdome not a conscientious respect to the command of God therefore the Lord

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

by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu That is the blood of Ahabs 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death would consider whether a Politicall design rather then a conscientious respect to justice was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt 4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings although wicked did not dye a naturall death but came to an untimely end T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is said in the very next verse the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon Againe Elah King of Israel was slaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is said Zimri went in and smote him and killed him But what became of Zimri Jezabel could ask had Zimri peace that slew his master 2 King 9. 31. No he had not for when 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings house put the house on fire about his ears and was there burnt to ashes that was the end that Zimri came to Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoash King of Iudah 't is said his servants arose and made a conspiracy and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo But what became of these men that slew Iehoash 't is said expresly 2 King 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 2 King 15. 10 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel and soon after he himselfe was killed by Hoshea as 't is recorded 2 King 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might bee alledged if I should exactly looke over the Histories of the Kings of Israel but these may suffice 5. T is to be observed that Omri who did succeed Zimri who came to so untimely an end was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Israel and was he better then the rest no he was rather worse 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord and did worse then all that were before him It is my wi●h that those Rulers or Representatives or cal them what you wil who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands and have gotten it by the power of an Army doe not worse then all the Kings that ever went before that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins 6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah the last which was about 480 yeares were never under such intolerable oppression and misery as in the times of those Kings before mentioned who were so put to death such violent removalls of their Kings made such strange alterations and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel that the people had not peace or settlement but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the Kings house then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession or claime to the Kingdome upon this 't is said the people of Israel were divided into two parts half to make Tibni King another halfe followed Omri to have him King upon which a bloody war followed for three years and upward T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many I shall mention no more It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King c. then a little after the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport which by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland acquiesced in would destroy both Religion and Covenant Answ. 1. T is no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors should make no more of speaking falshood and that not only against the Ministers but against the Parliament also you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the Kings concessions which they did not yea they did wholly wave that question Whether the Kings Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory and like men of wisdome honor and conscience they voted only this That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome 2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the Kings concessions I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them the Ministers did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom 3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland did not say that the Parliament did or would acquiesce in the Kings concessions as satisfactory but only they gave a timely caution that if they should be acquiesced in it would bee dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant Look back into your former course of life and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time over and over c. And how have you directly for sworn your selves against the light and sense of your own judgment and conscience have wee not cause to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves c. Answ. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity vain-glory malignity but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also 2. Suppose any of them I am sure all did not did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops and to the book of Common-prayer for 't is of that you speak and should now renounce them yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against

Your ingenuity and ●andor appears by your submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament and as at all times so chiefly when they contend not though with the ruine of all for your greatnesse and interest then your Ministeriall ingenuity and candor appears calling them an Apostatizing Parliament a Covenant-breaking Parliament Answ. 1. Generall accusations are no certain proofes si sufciat accusare qui● erit innocent if you mention the time when the place where and the Ministers who did call the Parliament an Apostatizing Covenant-breaking Parliament for I know none did so I shal then blame them and acquit you therein 2. Notwithstanding your slanders 't is well known what submissive and christian respects to Authority especially the Parliament the Ministers of the Presbyterian judgment have expressed yea if the Lords and Commons should sit full and free in Parliament though in some things God might leave them to act sinfully yet would the Ministers live quietly and submissively if not in doing what they command yet in patient suffering what they inflict and not expresse such a spirit of Turbulency as many have done in the imprisoning of the chief Magistrates altering of our Laws and putting the whole Land into a conflagration 3. If the Ministers will not with you cry up a faction must they therefore needs be charged by you to cry down a Parliament suppose they should not acknowleg 60 members of the House of Commons now under the power of the Sword to be a free Parliament when above two hundred Members are forc't away or the Supream Authority of the Nation are they therefore disingenuous and unsubmissive to all Authority Doth not your ingenuity and candor further appear by your abetting countenancing and encouraging violence and force upon the two Houses by company of loose prophane and wicked fellows at one time is some of you did falling in with the dis●ffected delinquent and malignant party and at another time crying out and exclaiming against the Army c Answ. 1. It would make more for your honor and their shame had you named those Ministers that did abet and encourage the violence and force upon the two Houses Yea it would more have advantaged you if in stead of a perempory and naked assertion you had given in some plain and evident demonstration that any of the Ministers had done so 2. I can truly say that those Ministers with whom I have had most occasion to converse have exprest their utter abhorrency of that force and violence Yea to my knowledge many of them did declare against it in their Pulpits 3. For the other part of your accusation that they fell in with the disaffected delingquent and malignant party that 's most notoriously false as well as the rest 'T is well known the Ministers have never been friends to Malignants nor they to the Ministers 4. Whereas you say they did at another time declare against the Army for S●izing on the Members of the Commons House I grant they did so and had they not cause to do it considering that the Parliament had long before declared that if any person should offer to arrest or detain any member of Parliament that it was against the libe●ties of the Subject and a breach of the Priviledges of Parliament and such a person is declared a publick enemy of the Common-wealth And considering also the Vow and Covenant when the Lords and Commons declared a horrid design to surprise the City and by armes to force the Parliament they did then vow and covenant to resist the same and all other of the like nature so the Ministers have dealt most impartially in blaming the violence offered the Houses as well in the one as in the other Indeed it may be said of you that you are the most partiall judge in this matter that can bee in the world to countenance and encourage the Armies forcing the Parliament at one time yet condemn it in the Apprentices at another for my own part I must professe I condemn it in both The ingenuity and cand●r of London Preachers in fam●us throughout the whole Kingdome doth not it further appear by setting the people at first against the King and his party And now having raised mens spirits to a resolution of requiring just and scripturall satisfaction that blood may be avenged in cry out in your pulpits of staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King c Answ. 1. You did once count it a vertue in the Ministers to excite the people against the King and His party and doe you now esteem it a vice are you turned malignant after so many turnings 2. 'T is true the Ministers did excite the people to cleave to the two Houses of Parliament who were necessitated to take up defensive arms against the forces of the King but never against the person of the King 3. But did they ever stirre up any to bring the King to a judiciall Tryal and to take away his life The Ministers understood themselves better then for they know 't was lawfull in David to take up defensive arms to fortifie Ziglag and other places of strength against Sauls fury yet that it was unlawfull for David to kill Saul when he had him in his hands yea though hee were a most bloody and tyrannicall King The Ministers doe well consider that it is one thing to take away the life of a King and another thing to withstand the violent execution of the unjust commands of a King And this distinction your Mr. Goodwin did well know when hee wrote his Anticavalierisme pag. 10. 'T is one thing saith he to offer violence to the person of a King or to attempt the taking away of his life another to secure a mans own life or the life of another whom we know to be innocent and much more the publick safety by strengthning a mans selfe towithstand the violent execution of any unjust Command from a King M●. Goodwin justified the withstanding the violence of the King yet condemned all attempts of taking away the life of the King The Ministers are still of this mind though he be revolted from these his first Principles 4. Whereas you say the Ministers cry out against staining the Protestant Religion with the blood of the King had they not cause to do so considering that people of the Protestant Religion did never take away the life of their King till now Blessed be God and blessed be they that it was in their hearts to vindicate themselves to the world to bee clear in this matter If you deny this I shall shew you severall of your owne Bookes and Sermons preaching the one and the other and for a tast at present take one instance of Mr. Chr. Love Pastor of Anne Aldersgate c. Answ. 1. I deny it absolutely that any of the subscribers did ever stirre up the people to take away the life of the King for ought I could