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 â—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 peaâ—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 Dâ—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 Papâ—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
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 â—azard of the King if the King and Parliament should ingagâ— against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the â—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 Majâ—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 violenâ—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 bâ—â—h Certainly your speech bewraies you you that once utterd language of Loyalâ—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 Commonâ— 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 neitâ—er for hope or fear nor other respect relinquisht this Protestation How is it thâ—n that you are so shuffâ—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 theâ—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 becomeâ— 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 aboliâ—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 Modâ—ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the defâ—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
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 wiâ—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
they have prospered and the Church of God have been persecuted and kept under by them 3. You think that you have a shift that will help you out by saying that successes with their circumstances as praying and solemn appealing unto God vindicates the mind of God To this evasion of yours I shal say but this Successe may not alwaies fal to that side though just which doth pray and appeal to God but on that side which is unjust and doth neither As is clear in the case of the men of Judah they sought unto God and askt Counsell of God before they would fight with the children of Benjamin yet for all that they lost in two battails 40000 men yet their cause was good their prayers and appeals to heaven were solemn and serious 4. Consider God may give the Army successes not out of any love or approbation of their wayes but out of love to his own name and people whose work for some time they were imployed about Cyrus was successefull against the Chaldaeans these successes were given him not for his own sake but for the sakes of the children of Israel God may use the Army as a battail axe to break the enemies of his Church in pieces and yet neither love their persons nor own many of their actions but break them in the end Dionysius did ill to say because he had a prosperous voyage at sea that therefore the Gods did favour Sacriledge God neither favours nor loves Rebellion though they may prosper that are guilty of it If you do build so much on successes yet make not present but finall successe the ground of your confidence if the Army persist to justifie their sinfull actings mark what will become of them in the latter end He conclude this with the wish of the Poets Careat successihus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat That impulse of spirit and those impressions of heart that stirred up Jehoiadah the Priest to raise up severall parties to put Queen Athaliah to death for her cruelty and murthers did stirr up the Army Parliament and Court of Justice to put the late bloody Tyrant to death and wee may expect rest and peace as the issue thereof Answ. 1. Had the Army as good grounds to put to death King Charles as Jehoiadah had to kill Queen Athaliah I should not open my mouth Consider 1. Athaliaâ— was an usurper of the Crown of Israel but so was not King Charles of the Crown of England 2. What Jehoiada did do was by Authority derived from the young King Joash who was proclamed and crowned King by the consent of the whole realm 3. Iehoiada was not only a Prince of his Tribe and the young Kings uncle but also hee was as it were Lord Protector of the young King during his minority and therefore might without question legally put that usurper to death Prove the King to be such an usurper as Athaliah was or the High-Court and Army to have such an authority as Iehoiada had and I le be silent 1. If she had had a true and legall Title to the Crown as the King had 2. If he had solemnly swore to God to preserve her person as you did to preserve the Kings 3. If shee had been no Idolater as the King was not 4. If he had not authority from the young King for doing what he did would he have done it no doubtlesse 2. I shall pass that by that you put the Army before the Parliament and only speak to that impulse of spirit that stirred up the Army and Court of Justice to put the King to death I shall yeeld that they did by an impulse of spirit but yet I have reason to beleeve 't was by the impulse of that spirit that now works mightily in the children of disobedience because 't was done without and against the rule of the Word as I shewed before by which as the spirit so all the impulses of the spirit are to be tryed and if they agree not thereto they are Satanicall suggestions not the Spirits inspirations 3. And whereas you expect that the issue of putting the King to death will be rest and peace I must tell you the blood of Kings hath been oftentimes the seeds of dissentions commotions and desolations not of rest peace and establishment unto Kingdoms as I told you before so I say again that the children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah their last were never under such intolerable oppressions and miseries as in those times wherein their Kings though wicked and bloody were put to death by their Subjects That the murderer shall surely be put to death is a known Precept of God if this must be dispensed withall shew us the absolute present and clear necessity of it if you cannot will you speak wickedly for God c. As for the Armies proceedings if there was a necessity that the Land should be cleansed from blood-guiltynesse that the great ends of the Covenant and all our wars should be secured c. then was there a necessity on the Army to take that course they did Answ. 1. I may answer you by way of Retortion that the murderer should be put to death is a known Precept that Goring and Owen had murdered many was a known practice for their pardon there is a known Vote now if they were innocent why were they condemned if guilty of blood why were they spared can you despence with blood and none else 2. Though murdering of one personally and maliciously cannot be dispensed withall yet God never required that all who in a military way shed blood should be put to death as is clear in the case of Absolons Rebellion and the Benjamites unjust war with many others neither David nor the men of Iudah when the sword had determined the controversy in the field on their sides and had cut off many of the evil doers held themselves bound to cut off the remainders that was left of the Armies either in the one or the other If you think that this Precept viz. that the murderer be put to death reaches to all blood spilt in a military way then are you bound that every man that was in the Kings Armies should bee put to death else according to you the land would be defiled with blood 3. To what you say in the last place that there was a necessity on the Army to take that course they did if there was a necessity that the Land should he cleansed from blood c. I shall return this briefe answer 1. The Army pleaded a necessity in the year 1647. for things of a quite contrary nature to what they pleaded a necessity for in Nov. 1648. 2. Who are the most competent judges the Parliament or the Army to judge of this necessity if you say the Parliament they saw no such necessity why did not the army then acquiesce in their judgments as they once promised to do If
pillars to tremble which is all the ben fit thou hast received by the exchange of thy late Diocesse for the Province of London Answ 1. I perceive you are a chip of the old block like master like man Iohn Goodwin indeed said that all the successe the Ministers of London had in converting of soules for three or foure years last past unlesse from God to Satan may be cast up with a Cypher and measured with a reed that never grew One may see by this you are his scholar to fasten on the London Ministers so notorious a falsity that all the benefit the City hath received by them is but to turn its ancient love union and goodnesse into hatred division and bitternesse each against other 2. This is so notorious a calumny that many of your own party blush to read it and acknowledge it ever God did theâ—e soules good it was by the Ministery of those men whom you falsly accuse 3. It were well that you and others who say the labours of the London Ministers are insuccessefull would consider whether the spirit of the Lord be not departed from your Congregations since you have fallen into separation whether more hath not been perverted then converted by your Ministers For my part I cannot discern any signalls or seals to the Ministery of many of your separated congregations of bringing sheep to Christs fold but of stealing sheep out of the flock brought in by the blessing of God upon other mens labours 4. Whereas you say that all the benefit London hath received by the Ministers is but to turn the ancient love and union of the inhabitants thereof into hatred and division all that I shall say to the slander is this the Lord bee Judge between them and you London was once a City at union within it self and did serve the Lord with one consent and carry on the work of the Lord with one shoulder untill men of your turbulent faction and humour fell to schisme and separation gathering Churches out of Churches and that not when declining but when reforming a practice never heard of before late years these and such like practices of yours have turned Londons ancient love union and goodnesse into hatred division and bitternesse one against another 5. By these last words viz. which is all the benefit thou hast received by the exchange of thy late Diocesse for the Province of London by this I perceive Iohn Price had rather have London a Diocesse then a Province and thinks London in a better condition under Prelacy then with Presbytery of this I say no more I wish you had not said so much That which Gregory wrote to Mauritius concerning the ambition of the Prelaticall Patriarchs of Constantinople may be as truly said of our present Clergy men exclamare compellor ac dicere O tempora O mores c. that is I am compelled to cry out Oh times Oh manners behold in all the parts of Europe Townes are destroyed Castles overthrown Provinces are spoyled no labourer inhabiteth the land notwithstanding the Priests who should lye in aâ—heâ— upon the ground weeping they are seeking to themselves names of vâ—nity c. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 323. Answ. 1. Who would have thought that Iohn Price had studyed Pope Gregâ—â—y That he that cries out against all ordained Ministers as having the mark of the Beast should study the language of the beast 2. The passage you quote out of Gregory is said to be in the fourth book Epist. 323. whereas Gregory hath but 56 Epistles in all in his fourth book if Iohn Price should quote the third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians when Paul wrote but two Epistles to them I would say he were as ignorant in Pauls Epistles as in Gregories Epistles As I know Pope Gregory never saw your face so this mistake makes me think you never saw his Epistle let me tell you though you mistake Gregory to have more Epistles then he had yet Gregory the Executioner may not mistake you to have more necks then you have if you persist to justifie the Killing the King forcing the Parliament imprisoning the Members altering the fundamentall government of the Kingdom as you have done already 3. Let me know in the next whence this grosse mistake did arise either from the carelesnesse of the Printer or the ignorance of you the Authour that I may help this poor Ignoramus at a dead list I shall let you know that it is true indeed there is such an Epistle of Gregories to Mâ—â—ritius and such words as you mention but 't is in lib. 4. Epist. 32. yet what was then said by him concerning Iohn Bishop of Constantinople other Bishops cannot as truly be said of our present Clergy men as you falsly affirm for it will evidently appear to you if you read the whole 32. Epistle that the name of vanity that some did desire was to be Universall Bishop 〈…〉 then hee comes in with the words you quote O tempora O 〈…〉 then he goes on Quiâ— est qui contra 〈…〉 Now I leave it to your self to be Judg 〈◊〉 be said of our present Clergy men as your reproachfully 〈◊〉 them at Gregory of thâ—se Bishops did ever any subscribers of the letter affect the name of Bishop in the Prelaticall sense did any of them arrogate the Title of Universall Bishop or any other name of vanity of the like nature if not then what Gregory said of those Bishops cannot as truely be said of our present Clergy men as you slanderously affirm Besides what names of vanity do the Ministers seek to themselves are they any other then Ministers of the Gospel Preachers of the Word Embassadors of Christ if these be the names of vanity do not you count Christ vain in giving these names unto his Ministers Which if you doe I shall esteem you a man of vanity and blasphemy too To conclude my answer to this Quotation out of Gregory I shall only give you this counsell that it would better become such a raw novice to study Perkins Principles then Gregories Epistles Was not the late second Warre and the flames thereof kindled and blown up by the Pulpit Incendiaries the like Ministers of the Gospel Embassadours of Iesus Christ viz. the ambitous Presbyters who are now again by their fiery tongues and furious pens scattering their furious Pamphlets among the people and hissing them on to a third war resolving as it appears to see the Kingdom in ashes but they will have their wishes Answ. 1. Surely you think your tongue is your own else you durst never be so frolick of your slanders the blame of the first warre nay of the second yea of instigating to a third you lay upon the godly Ministers of the City I wonder your heart did not tremble and you hand shake when you wrote these lines had you not a brow of brass you would blush and be ashamed for raising against them such improbable and incredible
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 earâ—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 shâ—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.
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 perpeâ—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 Commonâ— 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 â—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
did they pulled out Mr. Stevens and Collonel Birch by force and violence out of the House 3. The King was one of the three States who together with the two Houses was entrusted with the Supreame Authority of the Kingdome but the Army can lay no legall claime to any such authority 4. The King relinquiâ—ht the prosecution of the Members and promised to have a tenderness of the Parliaments Priviledges for the future but the Army avowes the act and perâ—ists in their force to this very day Again for the violence offred by the Apprentices on July 26. 1647. though I goe not about to extenuate it yet consider 1. They came unarmed to the Houses the Army came in a Hostile manner 2. They pulled none of the Members out of the House but the Army plucked Mr. Stevens and Col. Bâ—rch out of the House where they were doing their Countrey service 3. They hindred none of the Members from comming to fit in the House but the Army excluded and kept by force above a hundred Members from â—itting in the House 4. They when they heard of an Oâ—der forbidding â—hem to coâ—â— to Westminster the next day did desist did so no more but the Army persists in what they have done to this very day If these things were compared together John Price had as good bâ—at the air yea his brains too against the wall as to goe about to justifie that unparalleld violence offered the Parliament by the Army yet condemne a lesser violence offered by the King and the Apprentices 4. Whereas you say you are like to hear no Reply to it I would ask you did you think your self such a stout champion and potent Goliah that none durst come forth and encounter with you The reason why you have had no Reply sooner waâ— that some wise men esteem your self so unworthy and your book so weak that neither deserves an answer I am almost perswaded you did not look for a Reply if you had surely you would never have written so rawly weakly falsely and inconsiderately as you have done ever and anon exposing your nakednesse to the lash of any adversary that should deal with you Supposing that when Argument Scripture and reason cannot helpe you yet the Protestation Vow and Covenant will do it these like the Egyptian reeds run into your â—ides and do no service at all for you but discover your nakednesse Answ. 1. There is a sufficiency in scripture and reason to justifie them and condemne you now if ex abundanti they can plead the Protestation the Vow the League and Covenant also this makes their cause more strong and yours more weak 2. If these sacred oaths were well considered it will appear they are as pillars of Marble on which the Ministers safely stand but like Egyptian reeds run into your sides and cause the shame of your nakednesse to bee made manifest You begin with the Protestation whereby you say wee are tyed to His just Authority and not abstractively to His Person if acting contrary to his just Authority and that the Protestation iâ— complexâ— for the priviledges of the Parliament and liberties of the Subject as well as the Person of the King if the Person of the King be ingaged against the priviledges of the Parliament or Liberties of the Subjects the Protestatioâ— cannot be obligatory Answ. 1. I see you are a pregnant scholar in the Jesuites school you have learnt their Art of Equâ—vocation and Mentall reservation in all that you say or swear an oath hath no more hold upon your conscience then a loose collar about an Apes neck which hee can put on and off at pleasure 2. Why did not you tell the world this your mentall reserve that if the King did any thing contrary to his just authority that then the Protestation was not obligatory but you might destroy His Person 3. The Protestation did bind us to preserve the Kings Person according to the duty of our Allegiance wherein you swore to defend the KINGS PERSON and that oath you took according to the expresse words and their plain and commonsense without any Equivocation or mentall Evasion or secret Reservation whatsâ—ever 4. It seems you your selfe did once deem the Protestation to be obligatory in reference to the Kings person notwithstanding Hee should act contrary to His just authority for long after the Person of the King was ingaged against the priviledges of Parliament and liberties of the Subject in demanding the 5 Members setting up His Standard and in His own Person ingaging in a War against His Subjects yet I say after all this in your Spirituall Snapsack pag. 8. you tell the Parliaments Souldiers that without all contradictions they did fight for the King to rescue him out of the â—ands of Malignants and re-instate him in his Royall Throne c. With what an impudent face and traiterous heart can you at one time plead for the Souldiers to bring the King to a dolefull scaffold when at another time you tell the Souldiers they fight to re-instate Him in His Royal throne 5. Yea the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament who are the best interpreters of the Protestation declared that notwithstanding His Majesties Proclamations against their Generall and Army as Traytors yet they will preserve His Majesties Person and Crâ—wn from all dangers yea that they would suffer farre more for and from their Soveraign then they hoped God would ever permit the malice of His wicked Counsellors to put them to yea when the Houses were taxt that their intent was to murder and depose the King they declared that the thoughts of it never entred nor should enter into their Loyall hearts and they hoped the Contrivers of these scandalouâ— reports or any that professed the name of a Christian could not have so little charity as to raise such a scandall especially when they must needs know the Protestation made by the Members of both Houses wherby they promise in the presence of Almighty God to defend preserve his Majesties Person By al which it appears both Houses thought the Protestation obligatory though you doe not touching the defence of the Kings Person notwithstanding His doing many acts contrary to His just Authority to the priviledges of Parliament or Liberties of the People 6. When the Trained-bands Seamen of London did wear the Protestation in their hats on their pikes ingaging themselves to King and Parliament can it be imagined that they had this mental reservation that if the King should go about to infringe the priviledges of Parliament or liberties of the People they were no longer bound to preserve His Person but might cut off His head Had you then made this Paraphrase upon the Protestation you should have lost your head and not the King His But you go on We are bound say you by this Protestâ—tion to maintain and defend the King Parliament and People so farre aâ— lawfully we may which referres
grammaticall sense of it By your example are all contrary parties taught to plead the Coâ—enant those you call Sectaries Schismaticks c. plead the Covenant engâ—ging each to go before others in matters of Reformation the Presbytâ—rian pleads Covenant engaging conformity with the Church of Scotland the Parliamenteer pleads Covenant engaging to preâ—erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament the Royalist pleads Covenant engaging to defend the Kings Majesties person and authority the Armists plead Covenant engaging to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdome c. So that you have made the Covenant a meere contradiâ—â—ious thing c. Answ. 1. I wish all contrary parties would plead Covenant and keep Covenant according to the good example of the Ministers 2. Because all contrary parties do plead the Covenant to different ends must it needs be charged on the Subscribers that they make the Covenant a contradictious thing because Prebyterian plead Scripture to warrant Presbyteriall Government and Papiâ—â—s Prelates Erastians Seekers and Independents plead Scripture too to warrant quite contrary wayes must the Presbyterians beare all the blame that they make the Scripture a contradictious thing 3. 'T is you and your party not the Ministers who make the Covenant a contradictious thing the Covenant tyes to preserve the Kings person yet you plead Covenant to destroy his person the Covenant bindes to preserve the priviledges of Parliament yet you plead Covenant to destroy their priviledges the Covenant engageth to extirpate Heresie and Schisme and you plead Covenant to tolerate them the Covenant binds to preserve the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland and you plead Covenant to cry up your owne kinde of Discipline and Government and câ—ie downe theirs the Covenant ties us to endeavour after an Uniformity in Religion and forme of Church Government and you plead Covenant to allow men to be what Religion they list and set up what forme of Church Government they please Now let the world judge who makes the Covenant a contradictious thing or to use your owne phrase like unto one of the Diabolicall Oracles of the Heathens to speake nothing certain but ambiguiâ—ies 4. I wish you would consider that the Malignants and you are equally partiall in the Covenant they cry out against Sâ—hisme and Heresie but not so zealous against Prophanenesse and Prelacy they cry up the preservation of the Kings person but not a word for the priviledges of Parliament and are not you altogether as partiall you cry out against malignity but not a word against Schism and Heresie though the Covenant is expresly against both you cry up the Liberties of the people but not a word for the preservation of the Kings person and the priviledges of the Parliament though engaged by the Covenant to the one as well as to the other But the Godly Ministers were impartiall in the Covenant of their God they held themselves bound in their places and callings to oppose Malignity as well as Heresie to defend the Kings person and the Parliaments priviledges as well as the Peoples Liberties in fine they hold themselves engaged to one thing in the Covenant as to another But you goe on The obligation say you is for the preservation of His person and Authority Not for his person simply but his person and Authority if both come in competition then the greater is to bee preferd before the lesse that is his authority before his person Answ. I have answered this cavil when I cleared the Protestation from your grosse mistakes I shall say therefore the lesse here I have but three things to say by way of answer viz. 1. T is to be observed when the Covenant was made not before the King had done acts contrary to his just authority but long after the King had set up His standard declared both Houses Traitors and engaged in person in the head of His Army yet I say after all this the Parliament thought fit to make this Covenant to preserve his person that all the world might bear witnesse with their Consciences of their Loyalty and that they had no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majâ—sties just power and greatnesse 2. I would asâ— why would you take the Covenant to preserve the Kings person even then when His person authority stood more in competition then afterward they did for then He was in the Head of an Army but since cast himself on His people then unwilling to yeeld to any reasonable terms but since offred more for the Parliaments safety peoples good though I wisht hee had yeelded to more then ever any Prince that sate upon the English Throne 3 Is it not most inequitable that you shouldâ— take away the life of the King because His person and authority stood in competition and yet you and your faction the only men that hindred the Kings person and authority from a conjunction with His two Houses of Parliament The truth is the Kings person and the Armies designes stood both in competition and therefore they must destroy the one to carry on the other If the King in person would have had ingaged in a combination or conjunction with the Armies Counsels all the blood that had been spilt or the evills that Hee had done would have been forgotten you would not once have muttered that his person and authority had then stood in any â— Competition But you plead that the Covenant binds us to preserve His Person in the preservation and defence of the true Religion true Religion doth not say if the Subject do kill and murder c. he shall be â—o and â—o punisht but if the King do these thingsâ— he must not be medled withall by any but God alone true Religion saith he that shed mans blood by man shall his blood be shed the murderer shall surely be put to death if then the King be a murderer true Religion commands that hâ—e bee put to death Answ. 1. Was the Kings person and Religions preservation so inconsistent that there was no way to preserve the one but by destroying the other I am suâ—e the death of the King was a stain to Religion I am not so sure that his life would have been such a wound to it whether purposes were in his heart to alter it I know not yet if power were not in his hands how could Religion be indangered 2. If true Religion doth not say if the King kill or steal c he must not be medled withall by any but by God alone then surely John Goodwin must be of a false Religion for he said T is the just Preregative of the Persons of the Kings in WHAT CASE SOEVER to he secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reapt and gatâ—ered ONLY by the band of God himselfe 3. The King had spilt much blood by His Forces for I know of none kill'd by His own hands at Edgehill and many
other places long before you made your Spirituall Snapsaâ—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 afâ—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 thâ—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 authâ—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 lâ—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 condignpunishmâ—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 oâ—e end of the War was to preserve the Kings person 2. Many sâ—bsequent Oâ—thâ— Protestations and Declarations of the Parlâ—ament for the preservation of His person also 3. He was the fâ—st Protesâ—ant King in the world so put to death by His own Sâ—â—jectâ— 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 truâ— 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 saâ—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 liâ—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 orâ— 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 handâ— 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 suâ—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 itâ— 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 maâ— 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 peâ—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 punishâ— 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 â—ezâ— 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 alià s 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 Bezâ— 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 uâ—â—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 Protâ—stantâ— in Rochell and the Rebellion of â—reland and all the Protestant blood-shed there p. â—3 of the said Sermon stiled Englands distemper Answ. 1. That Mr. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preacht at Vxbriâ—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 â—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 buâ— 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 declâ—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 trâ—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 Mâ—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 Immâ—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 â—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 Judiâ—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 bookâ— 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 Gâ—oâ—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 Majesticâ— 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 exerâ—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 thâ—â—â— 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