I Desire not to make the breach wider betwixt the ministry and the Army, its an ill time to have the word and the sword of the Lord to differ, when both should helpe him against the mighty. That which is subtilly fastned upon the Army and their Councells, to wit, that they are Jesuited, I wish it were not applicable to all sorts of oppo­sers in this age, who have too little of Jesus and too much of the Jesuite in their transactions, savouring too much of calumny and policy.

Not to take up every thing, but to touch upon those that are of most weight and concernment in this Representative, which comming from a Colledge of Divines, may therefore carry credite to the discrediting the good work in hand, of settling the Kingdome in safety and peace, hitherto so vainly promised and contrarily indeavoured, that the hearts and hands of those concerned in it, and by it, may be upheld, and the Kingdome no more rendered miserable, with vaine hopes, nor peace impossible, which were a work worthy of a Jesuite indeed.

These London Ministers first relate upon what termes they would have consented to a conference, and tell us what o­pinions they would have delivered on the case, it seems what reasons soever might appeare to the contrary, for a confer­ence supposed, the result is conclusive, that the Armies courses are unwarrantable, pag. 2. against the direct rule of the word, and as they conceive, out of their sphere, p. 3. wherein they speak as if never any thing had been or could be spoken in the Armies justification, where as such reasons have been already given, and such authorities shown, both humane and divin, in trea­tises to that purpose, that are not satisfyingly refelled with bare affections, though from never so many; nor never so worthy men, whose disjunctions from the Army are not of yesterday, procured indeed by the Armies unadvised en­croachments upon their calling, and some disparagements cast thereupon, which were just provocations, but not to be had in everlasting remembrance, 2 Cor. 14.20 specially when the publicke peace is concerned in their love and union.

Then they reckon up the severall late proceedings of the Army, against (as they say) lawfull authority, especially by their Remonstrance (a sober, rationall, and convincing peece, not answerable by abrationall man, for I count Mr. William Sedgwicke none) imprisoning the King without consent of Parlia­ment (meaning the secluded Members) and the late unparaleld violence offered to the Members. Had these Divines condemned the Londoners, for imprisoning the Parliament (not some Members) making a prison of the Parliament House, and driving the Speaker &c. thence; they might then with much more candor have blamed the Army now, but some may better steal a horse then others looke over the hedge, if that was not a crime (as I never heard it laid to their charge) then this is no errour. Many of which Members they say, are known to be men of eminent worth and integrity, and have given ample testi­mony of their reall affections to the good of this Kingdome. It had been well they had always continued of that mind; then had they been neither imprisoned nor hindred, but if they be so good, and beare so good affection to the publicke; they will take it the lesse ill, to be hindred from doing so ill of­fices, [Page 3]as to hazzard the Kingdome in the hands of the King in freedome, honour, and safety, whose hands they could not bind by restraint. Next thing is, the Armies contriving of a new moddell of Lawes and Government, and the Representative. Its much, such men should stumble at Reformation, onely for alteration sake, as if old things, because old, were faultlesse; whereas our Lawes are (as they are made) our greatest burdens, insomuch as a man had as good take wrong, as seeke right, and our Government serving for lit­tle other then to furnish the times with newes, by doing and undoing, tossing the poore people between hopes and feares. Why may not alterations of Government bee as necessary in State as Church: Bishops were too old to bee good, and so may many things else, and therefore not for that reason to be insisted on. All which practises they judge to be against Authority (so are Pulpits too when they are dispos­ed) Oathes and Covenants, though they are sworn absolutely to the safety and liberties of Religion, and the Kingdom and to the Parliam and King, but relatively and in order to these; So that these Divines should either have forborne to cite those words of the Covenant, as the Scots were wont to doe or have demonstrated how Religion and Liberty could have been preserved without taking these courses: If they think the Treaty sufficient, let them speak out; and shew how a man of that perfidie and policy the King is off, could with safety to either, have been restored to freedome, ho­nour and safety, that notwithstanding all bonds of Mora­lity and duty, hath from time to time thrust at them, and hazzarded them, as he hath done: If we must have yeeld­ed our selves to slavery and ruine, better have done it at first then at last, we should have had more mercy then now we can look for. To let a Bear loose from the stake with his chaine hanging on him, such loose restraint is the way to make him the more fierce; If the Army should surcease, as they advise, the Members be restored, and peace setled, as was voted, and the King restored, (neither Episcopacy abolished, nor Delinquents punished) were the Covenant kept, and the Kingdome secured? These Divines would [Page 4]then be unsatisfied with themselves, when by their means, such horrid effects would follow, as would make both their ears to tingle, I would gladly know how the Army, into whose hands God hath put the power of prevention, could without breach of Covenant, have suffered all to goe to ru­ine (which they are sworn to preserve) by preserving those things (King and Priviledges) which inavoydably con­duced thereunto, and were become inconsistent therewith. Besides, their owne safeties, who else must alwayes have been fighting, or sure of hanging: Besides infinite honest men, who probably ere this had been crying woe worth the Parliament, if not these Divines themselves, considering the party in the Kingdome, that waited for the Kings Free­dome, Honour, and Safety. Giving out, that what he gran­ted in restraint, he might lawfully break at liberty.

In the next place, page 4. are severall Scriptures cited, which are all true in a Scripture sense, but misapplyed, like that in the frontise-peece, Prov. 24.11 If thou forbear to de­liver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to bee slain. Such wrestings of Scripture from Innocents to no­cents, will make Ministers in as bad a name as Lawyers.

After the naming of which Scriptures, they say, they are afraid of medling with those who without any colour of legall Authority shall attempt such changes. We have had too much colourable authority, under the cloake whereof hath been acted so much wrong and injustice to the publike, and infinite particulars so that its high time to see it native, and naked. With what co­lourable Authority did the Divines in Scotland take part with the Minor against the Major part of the Parliament there, and protest against the Acts of Parliament, but because they saw them fraudulent and destructive, notwithstanding all the spe­cious Declarations of the Parliament to the contrary, and wherein doe the proceedings of the Army towards our Parlia­ment differ from theirs; whose service in protecting the Mi­nor, and inabling them against the Major was in Scotland counted a vertue, and commendable, and the self-same thing in England, to the self-same purpose counted a vice and dam­nable; How Doctors differ? Put case his Excellency the Lord Fairfax having power in his hands, should have attempted to [Page 5]have set up the King in freedome honour and safety, and a con­siderable part of his Army should have opposed it, knowing they were raised to a quite other end. I doubt not these Di­vines would have thought well of and commended this their opposition to such a design, though acted by those under Au­thority against their chief Commander, without colour of Authority, only upon the equity of their intentions and justness of their cause. Such is the case of the Army towards the Par­liament, who not contrary to their trust as is after asserted, but in discharge of their trust and ingagements have against their wills taken these courses, for though they were raised by the Parliament, yet for the Kingdome, and its safety, His Excel­lencies Commission is the Card and Compasse that he must sail by, and not be turned out of his course, by every wind of Par­liamentary Doctrine, for so he should not have been the ser­vant of the Parliament, but of this or that Faction, and wrought about at last, by turning round, to fight for those he was Commissioned to fight against, and against those he was commissioned to fight for, well knowing that those of the Par­liament which were against the Armies raising, were for its destroying, though with the ruine of the Kingdom and resto­ring of the King, which was therefore laboured as the aptest means for it.

In the next place these Ministers compare the Act of the King in relation to the five Members, and this of the Army, in relation to the Secluded Members together, page 5. A compa­rison ill beseeming the candor of such and so many worthy Divines, knowing the different Actors, and their dif­ferent ends, they may as well compare the Execution Phi­nehas did, with the Murthers Joab committed, or Moses his zeale, in slaying those of the family of Ahab, for his own ends.

Next they say p. 6. both Houses of Parliament (who are joynt­ly together with the King, intrusted with the supream Authority of the Kingdome) an observable Parenthesis at the latter end of a seven yeers war betwixt the King and Parliament, though they saw cause to take up Arms against the King, yet that does not justifie the Armie to usurpe an authority over King and Parlia­ment. [Page 6]If either the defence of themselves or the preservation of the Kingdome, or both, justified the Parliament, then doe they also justifie the Army in what they do, for they have both those apparently on their side; the Plots and practices of the King and secluded Members being above all things to level this Army, and so to make way for the Kings restoration, or the Kings restoration to ruine the army: The consequence of which two is undisputably the Kingdoms (I mean all the well-affected) destruction, and if defence be allowed to a private man in behalfe of himselfe, it is much more allowable to a considerable community of men, lawfully put into arms in behalf of the whole whereof they themselves are a part.

In the next place they say page 7. the Parliament when they took up armes did not intend to divest the King of his authority, as appears by their Declarations, much lesse to overthrow the frame of Government. The Parliaments chief intention was, according to their trust, to preserve the Lives and Liberties of the people, and that in an orderly and unaltered course, if it were possi­ble, and therefore did they make so many supplications to the King to return to them, and rule by their advice according as he ought to doe, and accompanied them (the more to move him) with those Declarations, all which hardned, in stead of softned him towards them, and thereby thinking them to doubt their cause, and himselfe to be unresponsible: sets up his standard and commences first one War, proclaims them Traitors (the insolentest and treasonablest act that e­ver was committed by a King of England) yet they offer a­gain and again, to be friends upon conditions of peace and safety tendred, he refuses and will have no friendship but upon his own terms, so ended the first war, by a defeat of his pur­poses and restraint of his Person; and then began a second, after which never issued out any more of those Declarations spoken of, but seeing him incorrigible, they resolve in pursu­ance of their trust and discharge of their Consciences to the Publique weale, to settle the Peace of the Kingdome without him, which they saw could never be setled with him:

In order whereunto they vote no more addresses, as a neces­sary expedient thereunto, which upon a recruit of Lords, and secluded Members was unvoted again, and all new to seek, the King as bad as he was, and had been, must be trusted, and his own tearms granted, against Covenant, and Publick-Faith, to ground a Peace upon in order to his restoration, as the onely probable means to ruine the Army, by putting him into a ca­pacity to raise another against them, an attempt of that nature having been put in practice at London, but not effected for want of the King, and thus is necessity brought home to our doors of doing what is done, both to the King and present govern­ment, by Lords, and secluded Members. These things conside­red, it shews how well they by this their Representation, doe appear for maintenance of Liberties, as they say they doe against ma­lignant designes of an arbitrary tyrannicall power in the King, and introduction of Anarchy by private persons; but it is not enough to say so, it is not wise mens parts to cry up the ends, and de­cry the means, how to suppresse tyranny, and not Tyrants is a hard lesson. The most excellent Mathematicians are to seeke when they goe to Sea; Theory and Practise are two things, one may better make a Ʋtopia, then manage a Commonwealth: Book learned men are apt to thinke it as easie for others to do, as for them to think. But Statesmen and Souldiers know bet­ter then Students what belongs to settlement, and finde it not so easie to bring both ends together, as these Divines imagine, and therefore are forced to doe like Alexander, cut the knot when they cannot unlose it, for the peace and safety of the Kingdome, must not alwayes hang in the briars. It is to be ho­ped, that though the House be pulled downe, there will be pro­vision made we shall not lye out of doors, but a mean be found out betwixt Tyranny and Anarchy, and more then meer pri­vate persons to bear rule.

The next thing insisted on, is the obligation that lyes upon us by Oath and Covenant, Pag. 8. To preserve the Rights and priviledges of Parliaments, the Kings Majesties person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdome. This last conditionall clause, In preservation of Reli­gion [Page 8]and Liberties, is made to serve but as a cypher in the Cove­nant, the Scots Commissioners were wont to leave it out, the better to blinde the people, and cite the preceding part with­out it: These Divines do tant', amount, for though they cite them joyntly, yet they urge the other abstractly, and as superi­our to this, never telling us how these may be provided for, in case the other should not be granted, notwithstanding the ap­parent inconsistency of them both. For the King (in whom the present Government of Lords and secluded Members are in­volved, they voting a settlement upon his non-concessions, and refusing that of non-addresses, and bringing him to justice; thereby to put a period to delayes) both in liberty and restraint, hath twice put Religion and Liberties to such an hazard, as had not God miraculously preserved them, they had perished irre­coverably, and we with them in lives and estates, and no bet­ter can be expected from him, justifying his wayes now at his Triall, at last, as at first, labouring to confront, and not to re­lent, which is a mercy of God, that he retains his nature with­out dissembling it, lest the hypocrite should reigne, and so the people be insnared.

These Oaths were never intended by maker or taker against the Laws and duty of God and Nature, which indeed no oaths can violate: The reason is rendred why we swore the preserva­tion of his person, to wit, to expresse our Loyalty, that those wars were not undertaken upon any rebellious or personall purposes, but of necessity in respect of Religion and Liberty, upon the point to be utterly subverted, and that we were ready to lay downe Armes, and receive him with those respects be­longed to him, whensoever it did appear that those might be se­cured, which never did yet since those oaths were taken, and therefore notwithstanding them, the Parliament went on to fight him, to the just hazard of his person, and now judicially to proceed against him, as not otherwise able to discharge that great trust that lyes upon them, touching the wellfare of this, and succeeding generations.

Page 9. They say, They dare not by the violation of this oath provoke the wrath of God. But put case your advice should be [Page 9]followed as to the King and Parliament priviledges, dare you thereupon affirme the oath to be kept, if Re­ligion and Liberties should suffer, and the Kingdome be undone thereby, our Oath is not categoricall, but hypotheticall, so that if the keeping of the one part, be the breaking of the other (for so is our case) then the question is, which must be kept, and which must be broken; whether to satisfie you we should keep it on the Kings part, or to satisfie our own reason and con­science, we should keep it on the Commonwealths part; and if in your sense, it doe binde so strictly for the Kings preservation: why did you suffer war to be made upon him without like advice, wherein his per­son might have perished, nay did perish as to the oath, he running the like hazard with other men, without difference or distinction, so that rationally in the use of means (though not actually) his person was de­stroyed, notwithstanding the Parliament it selfe had sworne to preserve him, and no fault found.

In the same Page, they dehort the Army from proceeding any further (I will not say a Jesuit is in it) and tell them they were once Honourable with them and others, whilst they kept in Gods way, and within their sphere (there lay their fault indeed) but they have eclipsed their own glory, & brought a cloud over all their excellencies. It seems these Divine thinks the Country to be spirited towards the Army like the City: Indeed the Malignants and Newters thinke as hardly of them for this, as they can wish; but the godly and sincere (I meane those of no faction, and without byasse) who in conscience to God, and with publicke spirits, under­tooke [Page 10]this cause for Religion, Liberty, and to bring Delinquents to condigne punishment; doe blesse them in the Name of the Lord in this, and for this, as a deliverance equall to the first or second Warre, and are not a little afflicted in spirit to see you to bee become the rejoycing of the Cavaliers, and the lifter up of the heads of those prophane wretches, in the day that God hath humbled them, and glorified himself upon them. God keep your own glory, and the Gospell engaged in you, from being eclipsed, and your excellency from being beclouded in the wayes of contradiction that you are in, neither help­ing the Lord, nor strengthning them that doe. Be more sensible of the City sins, over-looke not their faults that are under you, their defection and back­sliding from publicke principles, setting up the worst men in the best places, pressing the Parliament with clamorous, and menacing Petitions to destructive pur­poses, imprisoning the whole House in the House, till they had voted the King to London, and threatning worse things if they came againe, forcing away the Speaker, and the faithfullest Members, refusing to aid their honest Major Generall against the common Enemy, though as it were at Townes end, and scoffing those few that did, barely looking on, and worse at the siege of Col­chester. Why then beholdest thou the more that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beame that is in thine owne eye: Are these and such like veniall in your owne Parishioners, and mortall in the Army, judge with righteous judge­ment.

The Ministers goe on in the same Paragraph, and say, We feare you are opening a doore to desperate and damnable Errours and Heresies: Truely I doubt so too, but never the more for suppressing the King, and secluding the Members: one thing I am confident of, that it will not be a crime to be an honest man as it was heretofore, when the King was King, and would have been so, had he been so againe.

Next they tell the Army, Pag. 10. What threat­nings are in Scripture against contemners of Magistrates, and judgements denounced on the opposers of this Ordi­nance of God.

But they should distinguish betwixt Magistrates and Magistracie, the one may be disobeyed, and the other not contemned, nor opposed; the first being the Ordinance of man, the other of God, and who are meerely men, and not Magistrates in those things wherein they prevaricate.

I question whether they did greater contempt in secluding the Members, or they that owne not the remainder (out of a sullen humour) for the House of Commons, which the Army doe with all respect, which shewes them not to bee against Magistracie, though against corrupted and seduced Magistrates, that by falsifying their trust have justly forfeited it.

But for to strike the greater stroke, they afterwards vouch the terrible examples of Corah, Dathan and Abi­ram, upon their mutiny against Moses and Aaron, compar­ing the act of these rake-hells who in ambition and en­vy against Gods faithfull Ministers and Servants, meer­ly [Page 12]for their horour and preferment sake, into those offices wherein God himselfe had set them, and mira­culously confirmed them, mutinied against them, not for any miscarriages of injustice, or impiety in the execu­tion of those their places, who no doubt might law­fully have opposed Aaron, when at Horeb hee made the golden Calfe, this act I say, they compare to the Armies secluding the noxious members (as will short­ly appeare to those without, and which hath long been known to them within the walls of the House of Commons) and the bringing the King to tryall in or­der to the Kingdomes settlement. It is wonderfull to see so loose and unweighed a passage drop from the pen of so many learned Divines: But nothing is strange in this age, but an Orthodox Independent, and a Presby­terian Patriot.

Afterwards they protest against (pag. 11.) these practises of the Army in opposing Magi­strates and murthering the King (so they call their bringing him to justice) as concurrent with Jesuiticall Principles, it is strange that Jesu­ites should bee of the plot against the King and Queen, they have deserved better from them, and no doubt would have done had they been in power, or against the secluded Members, the best friends to Bishops next to Cavaliers in armes. Iesuits are not wont to [Page 13]be so good English men as to go against the interest of Rome, nor to forsake their adhe­rents, a Son and Daughter of his holinesse to strike hands with another party. But doubtlesse there is great difference betwixt murtherous massacring of Protestant Princes eo nomine, and just araignment of Delinquent Kings before the Senate and people. Had the Army killed the King in fight, would you have abhorred it as a murtherous act, under a specious pretence? and is it more lawfull to kill him violently then judicially?

Then in the same page they advise the Army to consult themselves (and so do you your selves of the affirmative) if some other party, whose principles had not been concurrent with theirs, should have attempted the seizeing of the Kings person, how they would have constru­ed it, and so for securing and prohibiting the Members. If the party ment by non concur­ence of principles be Cavalerish Londoners, doubtlesse the Army would have thought ve­ry ill of it, or for any to have done it, that had done it to those publicke ends they doe [Page 14]it for, fearing whioh, therefore they did it; knowing what desire there was to set him at liberty to begin the warres againe, but if any confiding men would have eased them of this work for publick purposes, I dare answer for them, it would have been thankfully tak­en, as you saw it was when they so chear­fully and humbly, seconded the votes of setl­ing peace without him, seeing it could not bee done with him.

For securing and inhibiting Members, o­thers have done that as well as they, I meane the Citizens when they drive the Speaker, &c. from the Parliament to the Army, who in­deed restored him, without damnifying the City the worth of one gold chaine.

Afterwards they compare againe the King and his wicked Instruments, subversion of Lawes, and dissolving Parliaments, with the Armies laudable indeavours of the peace­full settlement of the Kingdome, in its liber­ties, and the people in their Rights, extorted from them by the King, and his Creatures, as ecclesiasticall rights had of long time been by Bishops.

What the meaning is of those words in the 12. Page: If through Gods permission (for reasons best knowne to him­selfe) you have had, or may have successe in an evill way, &c. I understand not, I hope it neither meanes their Victories a­gainst the King or Soots; and therefore they inferre Gods Provide nce is no safe Rule to walke by; and to confirme it, bring the example of Davids sparing Saul when he was in his hands. Providence is no Rule to justifie any thing that is a­gainst the Rule rightly understood; for there may be a mis­understanding of right Rules, according to that of Christ in behalfe of his Apostles accused of Sabbath breaking: Have yee not heard what David did when he was an hungry, to wit lawfully, which yet was unlawfull by the Rule: So when these Divines quote Davids Example towards Saul, they should state the case aright, not of David a private person, taking up Armes for his owne defence against Saul (marke that by the way) whom he was not to kill, that he might succeed him; upon which motive they incited him to doe it, but to stay Gods time, not to snatch the blessing like Jacob before it was ripe: I say they should not put the case of such a David, but they should suppose him in Armes by Au­thority of the Magistracy, or people against Saul, declared a Violator of his Trust, and Israels just Liberties, as the King hath been by Parliament, to suppresse his exorbitancies, and defend them against him; this is the David that runnes pa­tallell with our Army, and the case thus put, the question is, what David would have done against Saul towards bringing him to justice, it providence had favoured him? Who it seemes though a private person, would forceably have defen­ded himselfe (as by taking Armes appeares) if he had beene put to it by Providence, for all the promise, which notwith­standing he relied upon to the uttermost extremity; but in extremity would not have tempted God by a faith without meanes: But as I say David was not to come by the King­dome by King-killing, that would have cut God short of a­bundance of Glory, and therefore he saith, The Lord forbid that I (to wit a private person, and Sauls Successor) should [Page 16]do this thing unto my Master, the Lords Anoynted; that I a ser­vant and subject should for mine own ends and ambition, take away the life of the King, who is anoynted and appoynted by God to Reigne out his time, notwithstanding the pro­mise made to me of the Kingdome after him: Soe I may come to lose it, which if I waite Gods leisure, I shall be sure of in Gods good time: But where doe these Divines finde that when a wicked King of Israel was by the Magistrates or people for his owne wickednesse and publique good, taken a­way (though they also were the Lords Anoynted) that ever they were blamed for it? I am sure neither for Athaliah, nor Amaziah. nor I doe not remember any else; though I know many private persons are condemned for doing so for base and unwarrantable ends.

And as not by Providence, so nor is it safe they say to be guided by impulses of spirit against the Rule, to wit rightly understood; and they desire the Army to consider whether if there be upon Record any example of an impulse of spirit upon multitudes of persons, putting them to act against morall Precepts: When the Israelites saved Jonathan against their owne Vow, and the Authority of Saul, this seemes some­thing like one; but whether it will be allowed, I know not: when the Londoners told the Parliament they must take such courses as God and Nature put into their hands: What call you this, and were they blamed for it? Then by the way upon occasion, Page 14. They tell the Army, they themselves confesse their wayes to be irregular, and not justifiable, wherein the Armies ingenuity is commendable, and their Cause never the worse; for a thing may be irregular, and not justifiable by the Letter of the Law, and formallity of Rule, that yet is lawfull enough. Have yee not read in the Law, how on the Sabbath dayes the Priests in the Temple prophane the Sabbath, and are blamelesse? Politicks and Ju­dicialls must yeeld to moralls, municipall Lawes to Religion and safety: Order is good till it become disorderly, and then corruptio optimi est pessima, no such oppression as Authority corrupted and abused, when Government is poynted at the [Page 17]Governours, and not at the governed, driving sinister interests by vertue of their Offices, neither fearing God, nor hating covetousnesse. In matters of reall publique concernment, as to Politicks, God will have mercy and not sacrifice, safety preferred above Formes, and Lawes of Nature above those of Art and Pollicy.

But then it followes, that no necessity can oblige a man to sinne, but when by vertue of necessity it becomes lawfull, then it is no sinne; as in the foregoing instances of Davids eating the shewbread, and the Priests prophaning the Sab­bath: necessity justified our partaking with the minor against the major in Scotland, which yet was breach of priviledge.

Further, Pag. 15. they say, that if a Precept of God may be dispenced upon a necessity, yet it must be absolute, present, and cleare, not doubtfull, uncertaine, and conjecturall, as that which is aledged in your case must needs be, it being discerned only by your selves, and your owne party; it being apparent to us that there was no necessity, the Parliament (till forced by you) being full and free, acting what was covenanted for. Doe they meane by absolute necessity, that the Scots must be come as far as Lancashire before we ought to beleeve they will in­vade us? or that Wales, Kent, with the adjacent parts, and the ships at sea must Rebell actually, and revolt declaratively before we ought to beleeve that the King (when in restraint) can do us any harme; when they say it must be present, mean they it must be Acted before it be prevented; in matters of war and businesse of State, if they stay for present and abso­lute necessity, it is the way to be deprived of remedy. Though David was hungry and the Apostles, when the one eate the shewbread, and the other rubbed the eares of corne, yet nei­ther of them probably was upon the point of famishing, their necessity was not absolute. Shall the Army never be allowed to be wise, onely valiant, still put to play after games, and God to worke miracles by our imprudence; know wee not yet what manner of men we deale with? hath not the King, and his Parliamentary complices yet made necessity cleare? There are none but you and your party (as you say by [Page 18]the Army) that thinks otherwise but what they meane by the Army, and their Party is as little intelligable as are these three foresaid properties of necessity: do they meane by party the Parliament now sitting, of whom this Repre­sentation takes no notice, or doe they meane the unbiassed godly and true hearted Patriots in the Land, for I thinke their party goes no further? The King and his Members, the Ca­valiers, and Londoners, being indeed no Partizans of the Ar­my, nor competent Judges of the Kingdomes necessity, which is absolute enough if thereby bee meant important. These Divines themselves looking with London spectacles, say, they saw none: its well for you you did not, and its as well that o­thers did, since youl admit of no necessity to be cleere, but whats absolute and present, thats as much as to say you will never see till your eyes be out. I am confident had our State or Army seazed on Barwicke and Carlile, and pleaded necessity for it before the Cavaleers and Scots were possessed of them, you would have condemned it as neither absolute, nor present, and so a cleere breach of agreement; notwithstanding the o­vertures of invasion made in Scotland by preparations there­unto. Nor doubtlesse did you see any prevaricating in the Scotch Commissioners when they were in England, but thought it a meere Artifice to suspect them, in so much as I have seene a booke licensed by — that saies their memory was sweet for their keeping Covenant, when to others they stunke above ground for breaking it. Nor did you see a need of the Armies refusing to disband, it may be that's it you meane when you say this necessity pleaded is contracted by their owne miscarriages: if you do meane so, there are not many out of London of your minde, except some that came from thence and thereabouts; for it is absolutely uncleare to others that are not of the Kings party, that the disbanding of the Ar­my is the securing of the Kingdome. In a word, it seemes you will allow no Eye of Reason, onely that of Sense.

They say there was no necessity, the Parliament being free (till forced by the Army) and not by the Londoners, and Ac­ting what was Covenanted for; to wit, a settlement of the [Page 19]Kingdomes Peace upon his Majesties noncon-cessions of aboli­tion of Bishops, and bringing Delinquents to condigne pu­nishment: Then they tell the Army they engaged themselves by Oath to preserve His Majestios person, and the Priviledges of Parliament; yea, and the liberties of the people too, but that's not here, and it seemes is not worth regarding, compa­red with the other two; for its apparent their advice tends to break this by keeping those severall interests at such a distance, and contrariety being impossible to be preserved; the very pre­servation of the one being the destruction of the other. Now say they no necessity can justifie perjury, or dispence with lawfull Oathes, and for example instanceth the judgement which befell Saul and Israell for breach of Covenant with the Gibeonites: But the question is if the Gibeonites had raised a first and se­cond war, or taken parts and shared in Councels with the Cavalerish Canaanites their enemies, what then Saul and Is­raell would have done, or might have done for all their Co­venant. But to spenke a little to the Position it selfe, That no necessity can dispence with Lawfull Oathes, not to insist upon the forementioned Act of the Israelites in saving Jonathan, I answer two things. 1. That no Oath binds, when through want of foresight, by time or accident it come to crosse a morrall duty: as if that I am sworne to prove, be against my owne, or the publicks preservation, and so a violation of the Lawes of nature; nor if it prove an impediment to the proceed of justice, and so prove a violation of the Lawes of Righteousnesse. Nor if it prove (though Lawfull in itselfe) a wrong to another, as that of Saul to Jonathan, for so it is against the Law of Charity. 2. That when the Oath becomes disputable, then the intent of its giving, and the occasion of its taking, is to give light in the solution.

Now what was our intent in protesting and covenanting the preservation of the King? Why, to testifie to the World that it was for no sinister end, nor to drive no designe, that the Wars were undertaken, no lack of Loyalty, but meere ne­cessity to preserve the people, and their Liberties; and there­fore was the Wars prosecuted against the King, notwithstand­ing [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] [...] [Page 20]the Protestation and Covenant for him, which loyalty may be and is still the same in giving him up to justice, the Impulse of necessity, In regard of publike safety being the same, wofull experience having made it manifest that he cannot be, and the Kingdome safe, nor the Covenant kept in the maine, if not broken in the Branches; and so of Parliament Privilidges and Authority, as wee sweare not the Kings safety to their wrong; so not their preservation to the peoples ruine and destruction; but the intent of our swearing to defend them, was, that being joyntly asserted by the two Houses, wee would maintaine them against the King, that then was in Armes against them; but when they come to be contested betwixt the two Houses, and the question be, to which wee are to adhere, whether to the Commons affirmative, or the Lords negative? 1. Wee are not tyed to impossibilities, wee can­not make good contradictions. 2. Wee are to consider in our judgements and consciences which is most conducing to the ends for which those Priviledges were granted; to wit, the promotion of publique good, and accordingly to cast the scales. But 3. Caeteris paribus, the judgement of the Com­mons is to be adhered to, and preferred above the Lords, they being more, more concerned in the Kingdomes Liberties, the peoples creature, and not the Kings, a Representative of Trustees, and to be reduced againe into a private condition; for though in the formality of Authority the Lords be above the Commons, yet in the materiall and substantiall parts, they are above the Lords

The next thing insisted upon in this 15 Page, after an ex­hortation to the Army to recede, is some threats from Mr. Pe­ters, (not unlike his discretion) in case they persisted to stirre up the people to sedition: For so it seemes, say they, our bewai­ling your sinnes before the Lord is interpreted: It's well you be­waile their sinnes (I hope it is not with a spitefull, but a spi­rituall sorrow) for too many of your Parishioners bewaile their successes; I hope in the Lord you doe not so, and yet I perceive not a like spirit of jealousie in you over the sinnes of your owne people (as over the Army;) for I call them sinnes [Page 21]because you doe so: If your cause were good your resolution were commendable in that which followes, when you say, that if you must suffer, yet in the discharge of your duties you will commit the keeping of your soules to the Lord, as to a faith­full Creatour: But I hope the Army will be as they have been, as eminent for their meekenesse as their valour, and con­vince their gainesayers by their owne long suffering, and not your suffering; and yet take heed of being the cause of other mens sufferings though you are carelesse of your owne, either by your advice to the Army to recede, who I hope will be twice advised before they take your counsell, or by your insti­gations, which if it should happen, may more afflict you then any personall sufferings of your owne: But I hope God will open your eyes, and restraine the Armies hands.

I will end with a saying of Queene Elizabeth to her Se­cretary Walsingham, when in a conspiracy against her, but in part discovered, he advised her for further evidence to delay the seizing on the Conspirators, and to let the businesse leng­then out it selfe: But she refused, lest (as she sayd) in not ta­king heed of a danger when she might, she should seeme more to tempt God then to hope in him.