Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	death_n	king_n	treason_n	2,761	5	9.5559	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

aspersions 2. I appeal in their behalf to the righteous Judg of al the world to give sentence between them and you who kindled the second war did not they whoat one time * cryed up the King closed wth the malignants pleading for the Immunities of the Royall family and a moderate Composition for Delinquents yet at another time forc't the Parliament to the Vote of Non-addresses this ficklenesse and falsnesse in the Army being so palpably discerned by all did so irritate and provoke the malignant party that hereupon many tumults and insurrections did arise in many parts of the Kingdome yea the Mariners at sea did take the Souldiers on land for their example and did revolt from and refuse obedience to the Parliament yea the Lord Inchequeene in Ireland also made the Armies disobedience to the Parliament to be the cause and President to him why hee did dispute their Commands and refuse subjection as appears by the Relation made to the House of Commons publisht in print by this you may see who they were that did kindle the flames of a second Warre 3. May not you now well be ashamed for charging that on others which only you and others of your faction are guilty of do not you doe just as Nero did set Rome on fire yet charged the Christians with it or as the Papists did contrive the gunpowder-Gunpowder-treason yet lay the blame of it on the Puritans you have put the whole land on a flame yet lay it on the godly Ministers who would live quietly and peaceably in the land Your letter standt though faintly upon 4 feet Answ. As faintly as it stands on 4 feet in your esteem yet it is able to travail up and down the world when your Pamphlet is hung with cobwebs on the Stationers stall and speak in many languages besides its own the Piety Loyalty and Charity of the London Ministers May wee not behold the domineering Lordly and Prelaticall pride of these unchrist-like Ministers of Jesus Christ that would not vouchsafe such a condescention as to give them viz. the Generall and his Councell of War a meeting then a few lines after you say these Ministers of the Gospel these zealous and hot disputers against the errors heresies and blasphemies of the Army cannot be prevailed withall by severall applications by writing by verball messages to advise counsel and direct them in the matters of the greatest concernment to the whole nation c. Answ. 1. Your aspersions on the Ministers will not prove them unchrist-like they rather prove your self to be unsaint-like 2. You would by this endeavour to make the world beleeve as if the Ministers were guilty of the greatest act of incivility that is imaginable to refuse a meeting with the General and his Ofcers that when invited but if the whole transaction of the business were clearly understood their refusall of a meeting would turn to their honour and your reproach I shall therefore give you a brief narrative of the whole businesse to rectifie your mistake as I have received it from those who have very good reason to know all the particulars of it which was thus Col. Titchbourne came to Mr. Ash as from the Councell of the Army desiring that hee and other Ministers would come to a debate concerning the Coercive power of the Magistrate in matters of Religion soon after a letter was written by Mr. Peters directed to Mr. Calamy wherein he with other Ministers were desired in the name of the Councell of the Army to meet at White-hall about somewhat to be held forth by them about liberty in worship To the first invitation by Col. Titchbourne Mr. Ash did in the name of the Ministers declare to him that if the Councell of the Army would come to a debate whether they had sinned or no in entring upon those wayes wherein they were unduly ingaged in seizing on the Members of Parliament c. he professed the Ministers would be willing to meet where and with whomsoever to labour to satisfie them therein but this offer was declined they that do evill hate the light lest their deeds should be made manifest I need say no more because the letter it self saith so much for the Ministers vindication in refusing such a conference as was desired read pag. 2. of the Serious Representation that may stop your mouth Had a conference been desired with us only to have given you resolution whether the wayes wherein at the present you are walking are agreeable to the word of God wee should most willingly have delivered our judgments c. And if only for the clearing of this case a conference had been desired it was from the first profest that we should be ready and willing to meet where and with whomsoever to assert and maintain our judgment therein but as if the justnesse of your way were already granted by us we were only invited to contribute our assistance in prosecution of what you had undertaken which we conceive to be out of your sphear and for us to have joyned in any consultations of this nature would have made us accessory unto them guilty of the evill that is in them c. Thus was the letter And because you are but of a vulgar capacity I shall relate a comparison Mr. Ash used to Col. Titchbourne Suppose said he to the Colonell your servants should offer you violence and lay you under restraint and should then come to a Minister and pray him to advise them how they shall distribute their Masters goods and what or how much each of them should take to themselves now should that Minister consult with those servants hee should bee an abettor in their horrid insolencies against their Master the Minister should rather tell those undutifull servants that it were more proper for them to ask whether they had not sinned in thus abusing their Master and to charge them to restore their Master to his liberty and the enjoyment of his authority by them unduly usurped to obey him for time to come c. The drift Mr. Ash aimed at is easy to conjecture the Army who are as servants to the Parliament did lay violent hands on and restrain their Lord and Master the Parliament of England whose Army they were raised by their authority for preservation of their priviledges c. and when the Army had done that they sent to Ministers to advise what was yet further to be done and how they must manage their Masters work I mean dispose of the affairs of the Kingdome but never desire to be resolved whether they had done well or ill in offering violence to their Masters the Parliament but as if it were to be taken for granted that the Army had done well in forcing the Parliament the Ministers are only desired to join in consultations with them to advise about those things which are not legally within their cognizance to settle what ever satisfaction they should receive from the Ministers

there was an Ordinance of both Houses wherein it was ordained that no person who contrived abetted perswaded or entred into that ingagement called the Agreement of the People should bee capable of bearing office in the City of London for the space of one whole year The other falsity you would fasten upon the Marginall note is that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting of it This you say is a most notorious untruth Answ. To convince you that you not the Minister have spoken an untruth I shal produce against you a threefold Testimony 1. Of the Honorable House of Commons who on November 23. 1647. voted a Letter to be sent to the Generall to give him thanks for the execution of that mutinous person for promoting the Agreement of the People and to desire him to prosecute the examination of that businesse to the bottome and to bring such guilty persons as he shall think ●it to condign and exemplary punishment now surely the House of Commons then sitting at Westminster was more likely to have true intelligence why the man was shot to death then John Price could have at his shop in the Exchange 2. Of the full Relation in print having Gilbert Mabbots Imprimatur pag. 5. of the proceedings of the Randezvouz Nov. 15. 1647. held in C●rkbush heath neer Ware wherein 't is fully declared that for dispersing sundry scandalous and factious papers as the Agreement of the People c. for this 3 of them were tryed and condemned to death and one of them was shot to death at the head of a Regiment Yea to give a third testimony the Generall and divers of his Officers who acknowledged it yea and did commit to safe custody Col. Eyre and Major Scot for abetting and promoting this Agreement yea afterward did not the Generall write a Letter to the Parliament against Col. Rainsborow who was the man that presented this Agreement of the People to the Generall Is not all this proof evident enough that the Generall and his Officers then did dislike the Agreement of the People and did put the man to death for promoting it Yea I might quote a fourth testimony also if it were of any credit viz. Lilburne and his Agitators who with one mouth have exclaimed against the Army for voting that man viz. White to death But suppose it were true as you relate it in p. 12. that he was shot to death for mutinying against his Ensign and taking away his Colours from him and beating him with his own Colours What will this advantage you I would ask you which deserves death most whether a Souldiers mutinying against an inferiour Officer an Ensign or the Armies mutiny against the Supream Councell the Parliament Whether he that takes away the Colours from an Ensign or they that take away the fundamentall laws from a Kingdom Whether he that beats an Ensign with his own Colours or they that offer violence to a Parliament with their own swords If you say that 't was not only for his mutinying against his Ensign but against the Generall and his Officers Commands who ordered him to goe to New-castle If it were so I would ask you but this one question more Whether doth deserve death most either he that disobeyes a petty Councell of Warre or they that disobey the Parliament the great Councell of State Had you been ingenuous and candid as you would seem to bee you would have said Nicholas Prophet Minister at Fosters aliàs at Marlborough in Sommerset-sheet and Stanley Gower Minister at Martins Ludgate aliàs Pastor of Dorchester in Dorset-shire c. Answ. What poor cavills are these I see you had rather wrangle then dispute To rectifie your mistake about Mr. Prophet let me tell you first that he was never a Minister in Somersetshire indeed he was about three years since Minister of Merlborough in Wilt-shire but hath now left the place and hath received not since that time any profit thence besides there is a Minister chosen by them now among them Moreover hee was fairly chosen Minister at Fosters where still hee is now what blemish is it to the Ministers ingenuity if Mr. Prophet is said to be Minister at Fosters would you count it want of ingenuity in John Goodwin to call himself Pastor of the Church at Swanalley because about three years since he was Minister of Stephens Colemanstreet And to inform you better about Mr. Gower I must tell you that he was never setled at Dorchester yea when the Letter was made hee was not fully resolved to remove from Martins Ludgate to my knowledg now was it not more proper for Mr. Gower to subscribe himselfe Minister of Martins Ludgate where he had been so long then of Dorchester where he was not then setled at all You stain your Reputation with the mention of Thomas Bedford Paster of Martins Outwich carried from Plimouth for his notorious Delinquency and worthily sequestred for the same Answ. 1. It seems you want ability to confute the matter subscribed that one while you must be forc't to exclaim against the persons subscribing and at another time against a marginall note 2. Whether Mr. Bedford is a Delinquent or sequestred I know not yet this I know that the Ministers in a generall meeting did manifest their dislike that any should subscribe the Letter or Vindication but such as had owned the Parliament from the beginning 3. Whether his name was subscribed I know not in the printed Copies which I have seen his name was not annexed yea the Printer told me that to above 2000 Copies his name was not printed how it came subscribed hee could not give an account You still insist upon the Armies proceedings against the Members which themselves do acknowledg simply considered irregular and not justifiable but by honest intentions and an extraordinary necessity for the same end leading them thereunto Answ. 1. If the Army who are but partiall Judges in their own case are forc't to confesse their proceedings to be irregular and unjustifiable may not indifferent Spectators say they are sinfull and abominable 2. Surely the Army are put to their shifts when they are constrained to make honest intentions their main plea to justifie irregular actions this was no good Divinity in Pauls time for any to say Let us do evill that good may come Rom. 3. 8. nor in the time of the Old Testament Saul had a good intention in offering a sacrifice to the Lord which was the Priests office not his yet his good intention could neither acquit him from sin or punishment 1 Sam. 13. v. 9. to 15. nor could it excuse Saul that he had a good intention for the publick viz. his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah in staying the Gibeonitel whose lives by Covenant he ought not to take away but the Lord punished that iniquity upon his posterity though Sauls intentions were honest 2 Sam. 21. 2. I could instance in Vzzah 1 Chr. 13.

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

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. Athalia● 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