Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	parliament_n	treason_n	2,197	5	9.2136	5	true

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

9 10. and the men of Bethshemesh 1 Sam. 6. 13 14. 19 20. with many others to satisfie you herein that honest intenteons cannot justifie sinfull actions Besides this plea were somewhat the more tolerable if the intentions of the Army had been for publick good but if we may guesse at their intentions by their own expressions in print they will then appeare to bee more sinfull treasonable and irreligious Were not their intentions exprest in their Remonstrance Novemb. 16. 1648. and other papers of theirs as against an accomodation with the King upon any tearms at all p. 57. though never so safe or just for the taking away the Kings life p. 62. that the Prince and Duke of York be made incapable of government that if they come not in render themselves that they stand exiled for ever dye without mercy if ever found or taken in this Kingdome pag. 62. that a Period be put to this Parliament that the supream power be put into the hands of the people pag. 65 66. that in stead of this all future Parliaments there may be a new kind of Representative that all professing faith in God shall have a Toleration whatever his opinion be that the Magistrate meddle not with matters of Religion these and such like are the declared intentions of the Army which must justifie all their irregular and unjustifiable procedings by this it appears that the ends they aim at are no more justifiable then the means they use Now whether such intentions can justifie their irregular actions let the world judg so that I may say of them as one did of men of the Popish Religion if these bee Saints who bee Scythians if these be Catholicks who be Caniballs 3. For the extraordinary necessity the Army pleaded for I have but three things to say in way of answer 1. T is apparent by what was mentioned before that the end the Army aimed at were no more justifiable then the means they used now what can be more unreasonable then to make necessity a plea to justifie not only irregular actions but corrupt ends also 2. The godly in former ages had a more conscientious tendernesse then to make necessity a plea and patron of impiety they thought it better to suffer the greatest evill then to commit the least sin Ferenda est magis omnis necessitas duam perpe●randa est aliqua iniquitas said Aug. in Ps. 73. yea it was a Maxime among the primitive Christiane Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi 3. I am of the same mind with the subscribers viz. that the necessity pleaded for is either meerly pretended or else contracted by their own misscarriages And this I am induced to beleeve because at one time they plead a necessity for treating with the King as they confest in a Letter to the House of Common● July 18. 1647. And at another time plead a necessity for their violence 〈◊〉 the Parliament because they did 〈◊〉 with the King must not this be a pretended necessity In one Remonstrance in June 23. 1647 they say There can be no peace in this Kingdome 〈◊〉 and lasting without a provision for the Rights Quiet and 〈◊〉 of His Majesties Royall family And in mother Remonstrance of November 16 1648. they declare that it can neither be just before God nor safe for the Kingdom to have any accommodation with the King upon any terms at all that shall imply His Restitution c. but that he must be brought to tryall and judgment for treason and blood he was guilty of Is not this ground sufficient to suspect that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended or contracted when they have done the quite contrary this year to what they did the last yet plead a necessity for doing of both though never so contrariant the one to the other So much at present to this plea of necessity I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more to this point I observe by pag. 16 17. that you are not content to vent your passions against the Ministers of London only but also against the secluded and imprisoned Members of Parliament whom you falsely accuse for countenancing the tumultuous violence of the Apprentices imbezling the 200000 l. appointed for the relief of Ireland corresponding with the revolted ships the Scots Army and the Insurrections in Kent c. For the taking off those scandalls from those renowned Gentlemen I referre the Reader to that clear and satisfactory Vindication of the imprisoned and secluded Members of the House of Commons printed January 20. 1648. Hoping that the Lord will bring forth their righteousnesse as the light and their just dealing as the noon day You have been as full of changes as the vannes of your steeples one while stirring up the people against the King and for the Parliament witnesse many of your Sermons preacht before the Houses and elsewhere Answ. 1. With what face dare you who have been tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrin accuse so many grave and godly Ministers of ●icklenesse who have still kept their first stedfastnesse turning neither to the right hand nor to the left Indeed you and your teachers have been as changeable as the Vannes but the Ministers of London as fixt and immoveable in their principles as the Steeples themselves 2. If you mean by stirring up the People against the King and for the Parliament that the ministers did being called thereunto plead for the lawfulnesse of defensive arms against the King with his forces this I grant for they were bound by a Solemne Oath to assist the Forces raised by the Parliament against the Forces raised by the King without their consent But if by stirring up the people against the King you mean the bringing of the King to capitall punishment or the taking away of his life then I flatly deny that any of the subscribers did stirre up the people to that end or that they have any books or Sermons in print to that purpose I am sure many of them in their Bookes and Sermons did expresse their utter abhorrency of any such intendment I 'le instance but in two of the subscribers though I could mention many more the one is Mr. Case who though he were a zealous Anti-cavalierist yet no Anti-carolist in a Fast Sermon before the House of Commons 26. October 1642. pag. 11 12. hath these words It is and hath been from ancient times the cursed policy of desperate malignant Courtiers and Counsellors when they would arme Princes and Potentates against the poore people of God to possesse their ears and hearts with this prejudice that they are enemies to Monarchy With such jealousies did the enemies of God and his people in the neighbour Nation of Scotland labour to possesse his Majesty towards those his loyall Subjects there they were represented to His Majesty as Traitours and Rebels that intended nothing else but to un-Crowne and

unto the manner of this defence while the King was in Person against the Parliament we were by this Protestation to defend the Parliament and People though with the ●azard of the King if the King and Parliament should ingag● against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the ●azard of both Answ. 1. I told you but even now both Houses of Parliament did hold themselves bound by the Protestation to preserve the Kings Person as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned even after the King had ingaged in person against the Parliament as wel as before so that your limitation of the Protestation to such a period of time is invalid 2. T is true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament as if they could not legally withstand any Forces to be raised by the King against Parliament Kingdom but only by it they were bound up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Person of the King yea to manifest that they had no evill intention to His Maj●sties Person when they chose the Lord of Essex to be General raised an Army under his conduct before any blow was given they sent a humble Petition to the King to be presented by the Lord Generall That His Majesty would not put His Royall Person in danger but remove Himself from His Army and come in person to His Parliament where he should be sure to remain in honour and safety So that if the King would indanger His Person in being in the head of his Army 't was He that put himself upon hazard the Parliament stil declared their hands should not be upon Him to offer Him any violen●e 3. And whereas you say in the last place that if the King and Parliament should ingage against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the hazard of b●●h Certainly your speech bewraies you you that once utterd language of Loyal●y in your Snapsack can speak nothing but Levelling language now you are not a friend either to King or Parliament unlesse they will patronize your party and favour your faction though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome besides But I would ask you and pray resolve me in the next Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good or what for the hurt of the people if you say King and Parliament why did you not acquiesce in their judgments in their late transactions of the Treaty tending to the settlement of the Kingdome but if you say your Soveraign Lords the People then why doe you not give them their power and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole if you would leave them to bee Judges there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army Alas what tyrannicall Usurpers are you a few Members in the House of Common● when 200 are forc't away must rule King and Lords the people must rule the House of Commons and the Army must rule the people have not you brought the Kingdom to a fine passe that in stead of having it governed by the Lawes which should administer an equall right to all the Land should be overruled by the sword which wil give right to none neither King Parliament or People Have you neit●er for hope or fear nor other respect relinquisht this Protestation How is it th●n that you are so shuff●ing changing and uncertain for the King and against the King for the Parliament and against the Parliament for the Army and against the Army for justice and against justice c Answ. 1. The Reverend Ministers are stil the same they were 't is you and your Teacher who hath made you to erre are the shufflers and changelings one while for the King to re-instate to his Throne another while against the King to bring Him to the scaffold one while that it is the just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and the●r lives to he as consecrated corn meet to be reapt gathered only by the hand of God Yet at another time that the axe of the Executioner must cut off the King or cut down this consecrated corn let the world judge who are shufflers or changelings the Ministers or you 2. I grant that Ministers were for the King and against the King but in this sense for the Person of the King never against it and against the forces of the King never for them I hope this will not make them Changelings 3. I yeild the subscribers are for the Parliament and against the Parliament but clearly in this sense for the Parliament when they sit free and ful although they should expresse frailty as men yet would the subscribers live submissively as become● Ministers And if you mean nothing but this when you say the Ministers are against the Parliament viz. that they cannot in their Consciences beleeve that the Members sitting at Westminster are a free Parliament seeing they are under the power of the sword nor a full Parliament in regard above 200 Members of it are forc't away nor a compleat Parliament when two States are aboli●ht viz. King and Lords if only in this sense you say they are against the Parliament I shall not contend with you 4. I grant further that the Ministers were for the Army and against the Army yet only in this sense for the Army whilest obedient to the Parliaments commands and followed their directions but against them when they did dispute the Parliaments Authority and disobey their commands for the Army whiles they used the sword to subdue Malignants in arms but against them when they used the sword to cut off the King and force the Parliament And have not the Ministers cause to be against them in regard they go against those ends for which they were first raised For that Ordinance by which this new Mod●ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the def●nce of the King and Parliament the true Protestant Religion the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome and to be from time to time subject to such orders and directions as they shall receive from both Houses of Parliament 5 I yeild in the last place that the Ministers are for justice and against justice for justice on chiefe delinquents that they may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judicatories of both kingdomes respectively or others having power from for that effect shall judge convenient yea are they against the trying condemning and ekecuting the King which is that

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.

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.

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

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

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