First, Mr. Bellamy, Let us consider the title page of your Booke.

Secondly, We shall mind your booke it selfe.

Your Title page begins thus.

A VINDICATION.

WHat cause is so bad that an advocate can­not be had for gold or silver, or some­thing equivalent, to plead the same? What Declarations or Remonstran­ces, were ever pen'd against the Parlia­ment? Which had not some under the specious pretences and colour of Reli­gion and libertie to abet the same? Absolom will find an Achitophel (a cunning Counceller) to draw away the people in the simplicitie of their hearts, knowing nothing to accommodate his rebellion against his owne father, the Idolatrous Ephesians had their cove­teous Demetrius, to advance the greatnesse of their Diana, against the preachings of the Apostles; and the superstitious Jewes had their eloquent Tertullus to represent the Apostle Paul, for his zeale to his master a pestilent fellow, a pernicious incendiary, a notorious Sectary, Acts 25. 5. And as it was in the beginning so it is now, witnesse the present case. A moderate reply to the City Remonstrance, In justification of the Parliaments innocencie, from the prejudice raised against them, by the said Remon­strance, (as shall fully be evidenced before wee have done, being pressed hereunto) meets with Adversarie upon adversarie, re­presenting the Author of the said Reply, a lyer because he tells the truth, an Heretique, a Sectary, because a friend to the Parliament, an incendiary between the Parliament and Ci­ty, because impleading the Remonstrance, he implores favour from the Parliaments hands in its Authors behalfe, the Replyer is assaulted with keene oppositions, the Remonstrance justified [Page 4] by a double vindication, both comming forth in one day, stri­ving for prioritie in the execution of vengeance, according to all their might, and length of their arme, against the said replyer, the one written by Mr. John Bellamy, a man (we presume) well known to us, the other, a partner in the same imployment, whose learning and reading, whose stile and dialect, whose tem­per and genius, so far as perceivable by his profound vindicati­on of the Citie Remonstrance, argues his birth, breeding and education, not far from Billingsgate, for he hath the perfect art of railing, and raving, and non-sence writing, calling men Se­ctaries, Heretiques Scihsmatique Lyers, Incendiaries, by roat, more befitting unreasonable scoulds then rationall men, and therefore shall take no farther notice of his non-sence scribling.

OF THE HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE, &c.

Court Complements are worth nothing, and the humilitie of of the Remonstrance is better discerned by the matter it selfe then the title thereof, your humble servant (saith the Cavaleer) though his desire to serve you is by cutting your throate; the hand declares (when the tongue dissembles) the intentions of the mind. A Remonstrance invective against the Parliament, and yet humble, this is somewhat a kinne to a contradiction, Epithites alters not the nature of Actions, the humilitie of the Remonstrance; will be ever an annon before our eyes, and as we apprehend it, we shall speake unto it.

OR AN ANSWER TO TWO LATE LIBELLS PUBLISHED BY TWO ANONYMUSSES.

1, And why two libells Mr. Bellamy? you might have forborne that, untill you had proved them so, but it seemes this is a tast of your Presbyteriall justice, we are like to find from you, when power is in your hands: First passe sentence, and after examine, what ever it is, because written (as you suppose) by an Anti­presbyter,, it must needs be a Libell, is this Christian Mr. Bella­my, to condemn mens persons for Heretiques: Sectaryes, Schis­matiques (though you never define the things you affirme, their doctrines for errours, untruths, blasphemies (though you heare not what they say) their writings for lyes, falsity, libells, so soone as ever you looke on their bookes.

But Secondly, must they needs be libells, because reflecting [Page 5] upon the City Remonstrance, is not the Remonstrance it selfe re­flecting upon the High Court of Parliament, (by this kind of arguing) what would follow?

Thirdly, Are they therefore libells, because written by two Anonymusses? if so, how many Presbyterian Libells doe you fell in a yeare? may it not as well be the modesty of some to for­beare: as the impudency of others (as the case may stand) to affix their names to their writings, some men will blush even in a good cause, when others will brazen their foreheads, and au­daciously set to their names to that which is bad, apprehension of selfe abilities, wit, and worth, and affectation of popularity be­ing strong temptations hereunto, but what are names to things? the Author to the matter? doth this adde or take away? it is the weakenesse of the Reader; when the knowledge of the Author helpes his opinion, as touching the matter, he that shall judge the better of your vindication because Iohn Bellamy appeares in the frontispiece, or the worse of the reply because written by an Anonymus, is more acquainted with titles then bookes, and re­gards more the authority of mens persons then Arguments, but because some men cannot find fault with that that is, they will be quibling at that that is not, and truly Sir, by that time your vindication hath been throughly examined; it willap­peare to have been as much for your credit, if you had crouded your selfe among the sect of Anonymusses; as to stand out by the name of Iohn Bellamy. In the title page thereof. And the truth is of all Sects, that is the most innocent, for though they differ from one another in many points, yea all the heavens over, yet they never seeke the ruine and distruction of one another, may not you learn of them Mr. Bellamy?

Fourthly, In the fourth place, are they therefore, Libells be­cause containing in them, lyes, falsities, untruths? as for one of those bookes, viz. the Interest of England maintained, I never read, and therefore shall not at all intermeddle therewith, but leave it to the Authors justification, as for the other. viz. The moderate reply to the Citie Remonstrance. I confesse I have read it over and over, once and againe, and however there may pos­sibly be mistakes more then enough (for the holy Scripture it [Page 6] selfe excepted, where is that writing without mistakes, surely neither this Vindication, nor the City Remonstrance are any) but I am so perswaded of that spirit that fram'd it, that he would not willingly write lyes for all the estate and preferment either Civill or Martiall that the Citie or Kingdome can conferre up­on him, but let us see what mistakes, untruths, or lyes you can find therein, that so we may the better know the nature of a li­bell hereafter.

Fiftly, In the last place, are they therefore Libells, because little bookes, though the word is alwayes taken with us in the bad sence, yet it properly signifies nothing more, why then your Vindication, yea the Remonstrance it selfe, with those you speake of, may all passe for Libells, and the Authors of them all for so many Libellers.

We have done with your title-page, wherein you have been very free in accusations and promises, but how short you are in the proofe of the one, and performance of the other, your booke will declare.

It begins thus in Capitall letters.

That is,

A Vindication of that which is invindicable, and therefore bet­ter it would be that both the City Remonstrance, and the Vindica­tion thereof were written in Ashes, with the finger of vanitie, then in marble with the pen of a Diamond, except men should looke upon it as a beauty spot, the better to set off the other more faire, beautifull and praise-worthy expresses, from the Ci­ty of London.

But to come to your Booke.

You begin with a truth in the position and proofe, to this purpose. Sathans instruments like Athaliah, 2 King. 11. have al­wayes accused others first, whereof themselves are chiefly guilty, even so the disturbers of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, viz. the Heretiques and Sectaries, which of late in this Nation doe so much abound, cry out upon those which endeavour their discovery, as the only perturbers of the Parliaments proceedings.

Ans. It was the observed custome of the Bishops Chaplins (great Apostates in their latter dayes) that they did very fre­quently [Page 7] carrie on the Doctrinall part of their Sermons after a very sollid and orthodox manner, but mar'd all in the Applicati­on thereof, bending the force of all that they said against the peaceable in the Earth, the sons and daughters of the most high God, under the black and ugly vizards of Heretiques and Secta­r [...]es, disturbers of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, even so Mr. Bellamy, whose former wayes were the very selfe same (as shall be proved anon) upon which the mallice, ignorance, and envie of those present times writes. Heresies, Sectarisme, Disturbance of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, layes downe a truth in the position, cleares it by Scripture, but bends the application of it against others, though it turnes back like a sharpe sword into his owne side, for see his applycation of the aforesaid truth.

Mr. Bellamy. A [...] by two late libells put forth in answer to the City Remonstrance, and in defence, of Heretiques, and Sectaries doth ap­peare.

But Sir, were you as wise, or rather conscientions in giving to every one his portion, and to devide the word of truth aright, as you seeme to be able to observe truth from the word, you would apply it else where, and nor where you have done, for if you examine things by their nature, or by their effects, you shall not find the moderate Reply. but the City Remonstrance, to be the disturber of the quiet and peace of the Church and State, witnesse the divisions which it hath wrought in Bedfordshire. Hartfordshire, Norfolke, Suffol [...] and in many other places▪ (an accompt whereof you may have in season,) raising up parties after Lon­dons example, to set forth such peremptory Remonstrances to the Parliament and people, as never were known in this King­dome before, though (through the blessing of God) they have been crusht in most places, and the truth is, the printing of twenty thousands of the said Remonstrances; (as intelligence informes) the dispersions thereof, both in all the parts of this Kingdome, and beyond the seas, with the strong and powerfull enforcements thereof; by the Ministers upon the people after Londons example to doe the like (as time and opportunitie may evidence to the World) did argue the desires of many the prime [...]romoters of the city Remonstrance, to be no lesse then to make [Page 8] divisions, and to disturbe the peace and quiet of the Church and State.

Mr. Bellamy, You proceed to make good your charge a­gainst two Libells, viz. the one a Moderate reply to the City Re­monstrance: the other the Interest of England maintained, you en­counter chiefly with the first: and I shall second the same, and leave the other; having never perul'd it.

First, you acknowledge the City Representative, is made up and chosen of the City Collective, and I likewise acknowledge the Kingdome Representative to be made up and chosen by the Kingdome Collective, neither is there any thing charged as cri­minall by the Reply in this constitution, you grant this likewise a truth that it is more common then commendable, for men trusted with other mens goods to behave themselves to their trustees hurt. But you demand, what doth this reflect upon the City Representa­tive, or its Remonstrance? Since you will not see, you shall see; except with your tongu [...] you will deny, what you see with your eyes (a common thing in these back sliding times) you tell us against whom this charge is made good: and you tell us the truth, viz. against such, who being trusted with the soules of a people by their common consent and choice to be their Pastor. (Whether Pres­byterian or Independent, Parrochiall or Congregationall) have in stead of feeding them with the sinceere Milke of the word, that they may grow thereby fed them with the foolish fancies of their owne brain, vi [...] that such a kind of government, (so and so disposed and dige­gested into a Parochiall▪ Classicall, Provinciall and Synodiall constitution, with power and authority here and there placed, to compell and enforce men to submit thereunto, though a­gainst their owne judgements and consciences, and that the Magistrate ought to exact uniformitie from all that live under them) (is jure Divino) a meere fancie of their owne braine and in stead of keeping them together in the bond of unity, have broken them to pieces with rents and divisions, viz. representing those who a­gree not with them, to be Heretiques, Sectaries, Schismatiques, and what not? and thus re [...]ding a sunder a people of as sweet na­ture, heavenly spirit, and loving conversation in former times, as the world hath known. It is confest Mr. Bellamy, that these these are the men which behave themselves to their trustees hurt, you pro­ceed to answer what the Replyer tells you, viz. that there are 4. [Page 9] cases wherein the City collective, is not bound to the City Representa­tive, but ought in duty to dissent from it, if not to protest against it.

Moderate Reply. First when the City representative, acts, in a di­rect, evident & obvious maner, against the expresse wil & word of God

2. When in the like plaine and direct manner, it acts against the apparent welfare, peace, and good of the Kingdome.

3. When it acts after the same manner, against the proper end of its owne being, the Cities welfare.

4. When it acts beyond the bounds, limits, and extents appointed, to the endangering of all its immunities, and freedomes.

This (you affirme) is the replyers plat-forme, or ground-work of his after building, and scoffingly say it is sutable thereunto, though you except not against any one of these propositions, but say you, he dares not affirme that the City representative doth act in any one of the foure cases, it may be it was more his mode­sty to forbeare, then his impudency, in case he had charged the City by that Remonstrance, to act in them all, and had it been Mr. John Bellamies act, as it was the act of the City, I would have undertooke (and would have looked upon it as no great task) to have proved him acting against every one of them, and for that time made a separation, a schisme, from the society of Anonimusses. You paralel the City Representatives, & the City Collective unto the Kingdome Representative and the Kingdome Collective, & I freely grant that the paralel holds good (I mean as touching the constitution of the Kingdome Representative, and City representative▪ viz. by the collective body of the one, and of the other, though not in respect of their power) and am not a fraid to grant it likewise, that if the Kingdome representa­tive, should act in a direct, plaine and obvious manner, against the ex­presse will, and word of God, against the apparent welfare peace, and good of the Kingdom [...], &c. That the Kingdome collective, ought in duty not to consent unto it. As for the instance which you bring from Mr. Burtons affirmation from his 51 & 52. pages of his book called the vindication of those Churches commonly called In­dependents, to make good your logick, had not your silver shrines of the Presbyterian Temple dazled your eyes, and d [...]m­med your sight you might have found assertions in abundance from the Presbyterian Authors, which differ no more from [Page 10] what Mr. Burton saith in that point, then twelve pence differs from a shilling, please you Sir examine Mr. George Gillespy▪ in the 13. Page of his book cal'd Nihil respondes, written against Mr. Coleman and Mr. Samuel Rutherford in the last page of the Epi­stle to the Reader, in his book called the divine right of Chu [...]ch g [...]vernment and Excommunication. And see if he saith not as much and more of Mr. Burtons sence in that point, then Mr. [...] hims [...]fe hath said, I for beare to set downe the words, as supposing you are not without the books I referre you to, and if th [...]se two will not suffice (as occasion is offer'd) you shall have 20 and [...], of the Presbyterian party that shalbe produced to have sai [...] the same; but to the poynt in hand, suppose the re­presentative Kingdome (that, I may give you an instance, in a case, as you have given to the replyer) should make a law for the hanging, burning, or banishing all such as shall deny the Popes supremacy, the reall presence in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, or other grosse popish absurdityes; suppose they should establish Mahomatisme &c. Is not the Kingdom collective, bound in conscience: and duty, to dissent from it, if not to protest against it, sup­pose they should command us to abjure Iesus, Christ, and turne Iewes, ought not you & [...]. & every man in the Kingdome to dis­sent from it, if not to protest against it, nay suppose that they should set up a government in a direct and knowne opposition, to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches, ought we not to d [...]ssent from it &c. For this (as Paul did referre the A­thenians to one of their owne Poets) so shall I you to your own Oracle, the City Remonstrance, where you do in expresse terms af­firme, & from the botome of your heart, you do seriously professe before Almighty God, that you do not conceive it in the power of any humane Authority (King, Lords, Commons, together or apart, in Parlia­ment, or out of Parliamēt, to discharge or absolve you from adhering to the Covenant, see Mr. Bellamy, if you your self with al your bre­then, Remonstrants; do not make good w ^ht I have affirm'd viz. that when the Kngdome representative acts in a direct evident & obvious manner, against the expresse will & word of God, the King­dome collective ought in duty to dissent from it, if not to protest against it, and thus Mr. Bellamy your foot is taken in that very snare w ^ch you laid for your Brethren, & now Sir should I as weakly [Page 11] sult over you, as you, do over the Replier, I may say, what I pray you will tha [...] produce think you in the common Wealth [...]er Kingdom of England, and anon after▪ if this be not, then I pray tell me, what is the highway to desolution of Parliaments, and consequently to the distru­cton of the Kingdome, and therefore have not I as good reason to say to you, and the rest of the Remonstrants, as you had to the Replyer, either shew me whether the Remonstrants have not said as much as the replyer, or else confesse your error, and cry pec­cavimus, but to go on the Replier saith,

All which granted as cannot be denied: You demand what he meanes by all which granted, as cannot be denied, I answer for him, that surely he meanes nothing but what he did affirme: Viz The undoubted truth of those 4 conclusions, for he had said no more, although he might have made it very good, that the Com­mon cou [...]cell had acted in all and every one of the 4. fore-menti­oned cases; I shall instance in the first of the 4 and if that be clea­red that the Common-councell, by their Remonstrance did act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner, against the expresse will and word of God, it will follow, that they did act against the apparent welfare of City and Kingdome, &c.

LET VS TRY THEN:

And thus the word of God, and the City Remonstrance, proclaime open warre one against the other, and it is no hard matter to determine which shall get the victory, and take the spoyle: And for the other 3. cases the Replyer hath said more then your Vindication (as substantiall as it is) hath yet disproved: But let us heare what your Vindication further affirmeth: The Replier dealeth with your Remonstrance.

• 1. In the Narrative Part of it.
• 2. Petitionary Part of it.
• 3. The tendency and dangerous effects of both.

1. In the Narative part of it, he tels you the phrase, and Di­alect [Page 13] of it, carried afull complyance with his Majesties wonted declarations against the Parliament; to this you answer; it com­plies in verbis with a declaration of the House of Commons, and re­ferres your reader to the Remonstrance of the state of the Kingdome, Page 19. where there are in deed the same words with your Re­monstrance; the Replier tels you that the phrase, stile, and dialect of your Remonstrance agrees with the Kings wonted declarations against the Parliament, infinuating into the people, that all manner of Here­sies, and Sectaries, &c. are tolerated by the Parliament &c. you doe not seem to deny such things in the Kings Declarations, but you deny any such things in the City Remonstrance, and for this you compare the words, of the Remonstrance, with the words of the Replyer, and demand whether the words of the Remon­strance, be the same with the words of the Replier, I answer you, the Replier did not say they were the same, but yet they were in­sinuations, for the boldest and brazen [...]ac'd Malignant that is, durst not positively affirme it in the Parliaments quarters, and should we produce (as a very little labour will serve to doe it) se­veral passages and expressions from the tongues, pens, and pulpits of severall and divers sorts of men, who had no small influence in the businesse of the City Remonstrance, and reference unto it since it came out, it would very easily appeare what were the Insinuations of the phrase, stile, and dialect thereof, you say the Sectaries are incouraged by their misconstruction of that expression in the late declaration, concerning tender consciences, but how doe you know they are incouraged? Surely it must be your observation of them and their expressions, as you have occasion to converse with them, give us but this ground to build assertions upon, and we can boldly affirme that the phrase, stile, and dialect of the City-Remonstrance, insinuates, that the Parliament under a pre­tence of their respects to tender consciences, designes a toleration of Sectaries, Heretiques &c. and more, that Malignants, Royalists, Cavaliers, Ignorant, Scandalous, Prophane, Lewd, and wicked persons, are more imboldned, encouraged, tickled, and com­forted, by this Remonstrance, then by anything that ever came out against the Parliament, blessed be God, the Parliament hath still respect unto tender consciences, surely the Remonstrants consciences were not very tender, in taking any offence thereat, [Page 14] and if they were not offended, why is there not one word in all the Remonstrance: arguing some care in reference to Tender con­science, nay if there be but disaffection unto Presbyteriall govern­ment in any, though never so holy, Godly, learned, fit, able; yet let them not have any place of trust in martiall or civill affaires, saith this hard hearted Remonstrance. You bid the Replyer tell you which are the words in the Remonstrance, which intimates to the peo­ple, that a sacred obligation lyeth upon them from the solemne league, and covenant unto a downe right suppression of all those, who out either of weake or tender conscience cannot submit to Presbyteriall govern­ment. He tell you; they are the words of the Second, Third and Fourth Petition, wherein you desire that all non-conformists to Presbyterie, may be proceeded against and put out from any place of publique trust, and this you inferre to be the intent of the Covenant, by comparing these petitions with the third page of the Remonstrance, upon which you build the same.

In the next place you except against the Replyer, for saying the Parliament hath promised in severall Declarations a graci­ous respect unto Tender Conscience. You bid him shew those Declarations, it seemes you are wi [...]ing to hide your eyes from such observations, in the Parliaments Declarations, as though this were an abomination to you that they should have any respect to Tender Consciences, have you fo [...]gotten the very last Declaration of the 17▪ of Aprill 1646▪ page, 5, Pray you mind it, it is worth your imitation, it is the Parliament of Englands Declaration by your own assertion, for you call the House of Commons the Parliament: In the 4▪ page of this Vindication and the last Line, and were I as well furnished with bookes as your selfe, doubtlessed I could shew you severall other Declarati­ons, where they promised a Christian respect unto Tender Con­sciences, I am sorty Mr. Bellamy, you should be so apt now a­dayes to [...]ast out of your memory, the praise worthy acts of the Parliament.

You proceed againe, affirming the Replyer chargeth another falsho [...]d upon the Remonstrants, by this interrogation, is it not most abjurd that the Parliament shall compose and enjoyne the Covenant, and other shall put their sense upon it, and endeavour the enforcement of their owne sense, both upon them, and the whole Kingdome, for no [Page 15] lesse is insinuated (saith he) in this Remonstrance, page 3. I pray you Sir, doe not you enforce both upon the Parliament, and whole King­dome, this to be the sense of the Covenant, viz. such an universal settlement of the Presbyteriall government, as that all that will not submit thereunto, should be by some effectuall course proceeded against, admitted into no place of publique trusts, and yet you say you will not receive any forced construction thereof, and doe not you (in your owne judgement) walke according to the word of God in so doing, and yet you endeavour to enforce all Annabap­tists, Brown [...]usts▪ Sectaries, &c. to receive this for a reformation, viz. Presbyteriall Government, and is there such a word in the Covenant? is it not therefore a forced interpretation? You goe on and tell the Replyer he jeares you, in saying you told the Peo­ple in print, as well as the Parliament in their written Remonstrance, what vowes you have made in the Covenant, and bring in the order of the House of Lords for the printing thereof, together with their gracious answer thereunto, as your justification for your princing the same; and hereupon you quibble, and insult over the Replyer, as if now you had met with him to purpose, but Ile answer for him, by asking you a question, or two: Did the House of Lords command or order the printing of your Re­monstrance, before it was ever tendered to them? I am confi­dent they did not, and as confident I am, and can prove it by a cloud of witnesses, that a copy of that Remonstrance of which the Replyer speakes, was printed, come forth of the Presse and ma­ny of them sold when you were at Westminster with the Origi­nall thereof, yea severall houres before you came home.

Secondly I demand further, did their Lordships order that Remonstrance to be printed which you tendered to the House of Commons? If they did not, you doe but falter and baffle, as if you had children to deale withall, by urging their Lord-ships order, to print that that was delivered to them, as a justification of printing the other, and the Replyer speakes of that which was tendered to the Commons, not of that which was tendered to the Lords. Page 3. You said the Replyer deales like a juggl [...]r, who juggles now Mr. Bellamy? Doubtlesse juggling better be­comes an Anonymus then a Colonell.

In the next place you demand of the Replyer wherein the [Page 16] Remonstrance discourageth the Parliament, and it is answered to your hands by pressing them to a suddain enfeebling of their strength, by crushing a considerable party of as Cordiall friends, as ever they had since the wars began. And is not this evident when you desire an effectuall course might be taken for the suppression of all those (whereof there are many thousands in the Kingdome as cordiall friends to the Parliament, as any the Remonstrants whatso­ever) who cannot submit to Presbyteriall government.

In the next place, you begin with an Interrogation, and as if you had gotten a commission to insult, thus, What? Is Londons care to keep their Covenant, now become Londons ruine? &c. Doubt lesse these are doctrines of a new date, and neere a kinne to those new lights, which so many now a dayes doe so much boast of. Whether now Mr. Bellamy? I professe my heart akes, and my hand trem­bles, shall I write, or shall I forbeare? I passed by your scoffing at new lights, page 10. once before, and tooke no notice of it. But I meet with it againe yea with an additionall scoffe, Doctrines of a new date and new Lights, well Sir, are you not ashamed to appeare as you doe against your brethren, under the name of Heretiques, Sectaries, Schismatiques, in Common-Counsell, in the City Remonstrance: and in print after such a jearing and scoffing manner▪ what can the world judge of your selfe, who have made so many turnings in matters of Religion as you have made? How can you scoffe at new lights; since your selfe have been of so many various, and contrary opinions in matters of Religion? If intelligence speakes true, you are that Mr. John Bellamy, who was borne at or neere Oundle in North-Hampton­shire, a Sonne of the Church of England, under Episcopasie: who (after breeding, yeares and capacity had made you meet) was brought up to London, and bound Apprentice to Mr. Nico­las Bourne, Citizen and Stationer of London, and in a considera­ble part of the time of your Apprentice-ship. As concerning Religion (for thereto only I ref [...]rre) was a very zealous profes­sor even to a very popular observation, exercising such strict­nesse, and exactnesse, in keeping and preserving (that rich Jew­ell) a quiet and tender conscience; as that you would not perso­nally sell such bookes; (as prayer bookes &c.) w ^ch were ordina­rily sold by other Stationers, & in your Masters shop, in so much as that your name grew famous, for a most pious and consci­entious [Page 17] man, to the multiplying of your acquaintance, and the begetting, and increasing your customers; when you set up shop for your selfe, and studying to know more of the mind, and will of God, as touching the dispensation of his publique Or­dina [...]c [...]s & worship; the businesse of infants baptisme came into your consideration, and in that point, you fel into the opinion of Anabaptists, (but whether rebaptized or no, I cannot tell) after this, still respecting (so far as men could judge) the main duty of christ [...]anity, viz. not to sin against your conscience; condem­n [...] [...] your selfe in the thing that you allowed, according to the [...] of your own judgement and conscience, you applied your s [...]ll to a [...]eparate congregation, whereof Mr. Jacob was Pa­stor and desired admission thereunto, and (upon your acknow­ledgemen [...] o [...] your error, concerning Anabaptism) you were ad­mitted; with whom continuing, and frequen [...]ing, to walk with them in their more private meetings; through the tyranny of those times, you were by the Bishops officers apprehended & so had up into the High-Commission Court, at which time your godly friends (as was their duty) came unto you, and gave you brotherly exhortations, & encouragements unto Christian cou­rage and fortitude, not to sh [...]inke but to honour God, by suf­fering according to that present call which you had thereunto, but it seemes you had not yet received strength to abide such a temptation; and therefore grievously tooke on, wishi [...]g you had never beene borne; and in short, by the mediation of some friends, and upon the giving of your bonds that you would no [...] goe a­mong that separate Church, & congregation any more &c. you were set free againe, and being called in question by some of your brethren, for so doing, you endevoured to satisfie them; as cōcerning your giving bonds, to come among them no more, with this consideration, viz you could better give bonds (therby only hazarding your purse) then your verball promise to doe so nomore, to the hazard of the peace of your conscience insinua­ting thereby, that it was not the care of your purse, but of your conscience, that made you run that course; at which answer, your friends being satisfied for the present, (as judging the best of you) they expected your Communion and fellowship as before, but considering (it seemes) the danger thereof you [Page 18] withdrew from them, made a Schisme, and went away: and (as some say) after along tymes forbearance, and many admoni­tions was at last excommunicated, which act of theirs (it is pre­sumed) is the maine sourse of those bitter proceedings of you [...]s against these wares, revenge (its feared) putting you on worke.) After your separation and rent from them, you became againe an obedient and dutifull child to the Canons of Episcopacy: giving ample testimony hereunto by singular observance of one of their great Commandements: viz. the frequent and decent pub­lique use of the Common prayers of the Church: observing their injunctions even to a tittle, standing whē they bid you stand, kneeling whē they bid you kneel, & so observing your postures to the life, yea, your dutiful obeysance to the fathers of the Church (falsely so called) (I meane) the Prelates, was abundantly testi­fied by your exact performance of another of their great lawes like unto the former, viz receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling at the high Altar: as intelligence affirmes, if men may beleeve their eyes; but before your stomach could digest a high Alter, you prepared your self for it by degrees, first, refusing to come to common Service, but going only to heare Sermons, after this common prayer would down with you, but not if read by any with a Surplisse, a while after neither Common Prayer, nor Surplesse, nor high Altar it selfe was to hard meat for you, to the great griefe and amazement of godly non-Conformists, who were never in the separate Churches; and the rather consi­dering your Christian dial [...]ct, and language of Canaan which was yet (notwithstanding all this) often found to proceed from you, and not very long since, (the glory of Christian society, and brightnes of such a fellowship dashing upon your cōscience) you betook your self to a very precious select company of christians who met togetherin a coutsary maner according to agreeme [...], for the mutual com [...]ort & edification of one another by pra [...]er, exhortation, and the exercise of one anothers gifts, in which company, none more free frequent, and forward then Master Bellamy, and indeed according to their acknowledgements ex­ceeding and excelling them all, in delivering many lushious soule-refreshing, and heart-quickening truths, both in pra [...]er and other exercises, the sweetnesse, benefit, and comfort, thereof [Page 19] being yet as Manna in their palates, & the dew of Heaven upon their hearts; who with much griefe of soule assert these things. Now sir, I beseech you take notice that I doe not in the least re­flect upon you, for your difference in judgement from what you have beene heretofore your selfe, nor from your brethren, nor yet for your so often altering your judgement and practice, but this is that that I would you, & all others, should observe in you, how you have made a personall experiment of all those waies; have been for Bishops & against Bishops: for Anabaptists and against Anabaptists: for Sepatates and against Separates: for Bish: [...]gain, and against Bish: for Common prayer book and against Common-prayer book, for conformity & against con­formity, and now (as it were halfe facing) you are for Presbyte­ry: viz. jure humano, and so left to the wisdom of Parliament. and the prudence of Christian Magistrates; this is the profession of your lips, and yet (you act and that to the utmost) with those that hold it Jure divino, and seekes the establishment of it in that cōsideration, so that your tongue complements with the Parliament, and sayes as concerning the power of Church go­vernment: let the Crowne be set upon the head of Civill autho­rity, the high Court of Parliament sitting at Westminster, and yet your hands endevour to lift it up and fix it upon the Tem­ples of the Episcopall Corporation the London Ministers sitting at Sion Colledge, and so you are likewise. for Presbytery & against Presbytery, and yet that you should scoffe and jeere at your bre­thren that differ from you, (though you agree not even with your selfe) as men intoxicated and elevated with new Lights, do­ctrines of new date, Sectaries, hereticks, more beseeming a Judas, a Julian, a Baalamite; then Master Bellamy, oh Sir, whither are you fallen? Master Bellamy, what is salt worth that hath lost its sav [...]u [...]? will you that have beene enlightned and ta­sted of the Heavenly gift and beene made partaker of the Holy Ghost tasted, the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, crucifie to your selfe the Sonne of God afresh in his members, by seeking for, and endevouring after an effectuall course of pro­ceedings against such persons, whom your owne soule and consci [...]ce cannot but know to be as tender unto God as the apple of his eye, will you put the Lord Iesus againe to open shame [Page 21] by representing his Servants and redeemed ones in the eyes of the world for Sectaries: Schismaticks Hereticks, will you prove the earth that drinketh the rain [...] that commeth oft upon it, (I meane one of those, who have been so ancient a professor, conversant in so many precious meetings, heard and received so many glorious truths of God, powred forth so many prayers and tears unto Cod, made so many Covenants of love & tendernes to the Saints of God, professing such indeered & intimate re­spects to godly men, retained such noble resolutions to follow God, according to your light &c) not bringing forth [...]earbs (I mean meat for him, his children, & family, viz. Glory to God, love kindnesse, gentlenesse, meeknesse, mercy, goodnesse to his children) meet for him by whom it is drest, that you might receive a blessing; but contrary wise, bring forth thornes and briers, scratch­ing, galling and vexing your brethren in the faith, undermining their peace and comfort, not only joyning with, but stirring up the Magistrates against them, and appearing in print in the vin­dication thereof, is not the end of such ground everlasting bur­nings? God deliver you from it, consi [...]e [...] Sir, your master is com­ming, if you smite your fellow servants, he will call you to an ac­compt for it, and how will you answer it? I know you doe not thinke that you persecute the Saints; but what is persecu [...]ion, if this is not? To seeke for a suppression by an effectuall course, of those Saints and servants of God, that submit not to Presbyte­riall Church Government, which your selfe (except altered of late in your judgement) will not acknowledge of divine institu­tion? If you doe the same things which the Bishops did, is it persecution in them, & not in you? I hope Mr. Bellamy you have yet those sparkes in you of divine heat and fire, which may yet kindle into a glorious flame, quench [...]t not, I confesse it will be a great piece of selfe-denyall in you to retract such unworthy pro­ceedings, especially lying under such great temptations to the contrary, as you doe, but Sir, the world to come is the everla­sting world, the riches thereof the durable substance, the praise of God, and not of men the chiefest honour, consider of it, and doe as God shall perswade your heart, but listen then unto his per­swasions, and stifle not the motions and dictates of your owne light hereunto. Consider Sir, the day wasteth, the night is com­ming, [Page 20] your house of clay cannot last long, your soule must shortly sit upon your trembling lips, you have a precious soule in a vile body, and your Antagonist loves it (what ever you sup­pose) who is more bold with you in this kind of dialect, because you very well know the meaning thereof, I have more to say concerning your booke, otherwise I would be more pressing and urgent with you th [...]n I am.

But you demand What, is Londons care of keep their Covenant, now become Londons ruine?

I answer, Sir, did our Covenant bind us to suppresse all the holy, godly, conscientious sons & daughters of God, which were but even di [...]affected to Presbyteriall government? if so; bold I am to affirme, that Londons care to keep the Covenant, Will now become Londons ruine; a bloody, cruell, cursed, Covenant, if that be the meaning of it, but confident I am, as there is no such thing ex­prest in the Covenant, so no such meaning can be rationally ga­thered there from, and therefore it is not the Covenant, but such an interpretation that is here impleaded, can wee think that the present Parliament of England (the great benefactors of tender consciences) for which the good will of him that dwelt in the Bush, be ever amongst them) would ever bind the inhabitants of this Kingdome, in such amonstrous designe? if persecution of tender consciences evidenced, but by so much as disaffection [...]o the Presbyterian government, be the matter of the Covenant, what have wee done, but even struck hands with the Devill, and said a confederacy, with all his cursed seed that we will root out a great part of as holy, harmelesse, and blessed a generation as is in the world, is this the meaning of the lifting up of your hands unto the most high God, to give the greater blow upon the head of his servants here upon earth? Surely Sir, if I had lifted up my hand in taking the Covenant with such an intention, I should have expected the withering of it, and better it should be so, then ever it should be found performing such a cursed thing, but the truth is, the holy Scripture it selfe, by a wicked in­terpretation proves the bane and ruine of some, and so may this Covenant, upon such an interpretation; but who ever it is, that maketh such an interpretation of the Covenant, let him be for ever numbered among the Cananites; covenanted Ene­mies [Page 22] against the Isralites, but let the Heavens be astonished, and the earth tremble, that ever any professing Christ (not fild with malice and despite against the Spirit of grace) should take such a covenant, with such an interpretation.

You goe on with more interrogatories, which are little more then meer flourishings, and that which any impartiall man may answer, even in reading them, and therefore I shall wave them.

In the next place, where you deale with the Replyer (for I observe nothing else) you take upon you to decide a State que­stion, and that none of the meanest neither; I confesse, some Common-councell men need to be states-men; for they inter­meddle with States-matters; more I presume then ever any, that were before them, and more (I beleive) then ever God or man gave them authority to doe; I feare some of them doe much forget themselves, and take themselves to be Londons Parliament and not Londons Common-councell; for it is the Kingdome, the Church, the State-affaires that they intermedle with, not confining themselves unto their City-Charter, but acting according to Parliament principles, in time they may be better instructed; but to the question, and that is this;

Wherein resides the Supreame power of this Kingdome?

Mr. Bellamy answers thus,

The two Houses of Parliament, viz. the Lords and Commons, with the King, who is alwaies in his Kingly power present with them, though in person somtimes as now) is absent from them, are those three Estates, of which the fundamentall constitution of this Kingdome is made up, and have in them ioyntly and together, all the Supreame power of this Kingdome, and not any one of those three E­states considered apart, and by it selfe, can properly be said to have the whole Supreame power of the Kingdome residing in it, and therefore the House of Commons being but one of those three estates, well might the Remonstrants say that they are betrusted but with a share of the Supreame power of the Kingdome, and for proofe of all this his reading, referres us to a Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, of the second of Novem. 1642. to these words, wee did and doe say, that the Soveraigne power, doth reside in the King and both Houses of Parliament.

[Page 23] Here you thinke you have given the Replyer a faire fall, and therefore insult over him ever and anon upon this point, but forbeare Mr. Bellamy, turpe insultare jacenti, for however you thinke you have given the Replyer such a full and ample satis­faction yet all the world cannot so easily be satisfied, and there­fore though for my part I was never yet a Common Counsell man, and therefore cannot so possitively speak to such deep states businesse, yet since you are so willing to satisfy the igno­rant, what I shall say herein, shall be by way of quere.

First then I quere Mr. Bellamy;

What meane you by three Estates? I have heard the tearme once by the Bishops friends when they were a falling, and they concluded that there were three Estates in this Kingdome, viz. the King, and the Lords temporall were the first, Lords spi­rituall were the second; the Commons the third Estate; and they gave this reason, that the King and the Lords were but one Estate because the King made the Lords, but though the King conferr'd the Honours, and profits of Bishops, yet did not make the Bishops themselves, they as Bishops, were jure divino, you determine it otherwise, I pray you Sir a little more satisfaction to that point.

2. What meane you by fundamentall? you say the King Lords▪ and Commons are the three Estates, of which the fundamentall con­stitution of this Kingdome is made up, are there three fundamentals? I confesse I have not understood so much, I ever thought there had been but one, and that I took to be the Commons, and these reasons made me think so.

First, because I ever thought, that the Commons made the King, and the King made the Lords, and s [...] the Commons were the Prime foundation.

Secondly, I ever took this for a truth likewise, that both the King and the Lords, were advanced for the benefit, quiet, and welfare of the Commons, and not the Commons made for them, and if I was deceived, the Common maxim of salu [...]-po­puli suprema lex deceived me.

You see my doubt, you see my reason, a little satisfaction here also Mr. Bellamy.

Thirdly, I quere, whether (upon this supposition) that the [Page 24] Kingdome is made up three Estates (as you say) and so wee must not understand the Parliament consisting of so many men, but of three Estates distinct, quatenus estates apart by themselves, those are your termes. I quere (I say) whether that the King, and suppose the major part of the Lords, which make up two Estates, doe agree together; suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative, and the Commons will not assent here un­to, whether the major part of Estates, must not conclude the mi­nor, the two conclude the third, and so as for the Commons, will they, nil they, slaves they must be, and slaves they shall be, your judgment here likewise good Mr. Bellamy.

Fourthly, Whereas you say the King is present in Parliament, viz. in his Kingly power, though absent in person. I quere whe­ther he is present with them as a distinct Estate, I know Sir hee is present in power in all his inferiour Courts of justice, as well as in the parliament, but is he present as a distinct estate? If so, if one distinct Estate, may be present in power, quatenus an estate, and absent in person, may not a second Estate be so present, though absent in body? yea a third Estate so present, and yet ab­sent in body? and so we shall have three Estates in Parliament, and not a man amongst them; this is a Riddle indeed Mr. Bella­my: I pray you unfould this also.

Fiftly, The Replyer observing the Remonstrants ascribing only a share of the Supreame power to the House of Commons, propo­seth this question to them, will not you allow so much power to the Kingdome Representative, in reference to the Kingdom, as to the repre­sentative City, in reference to London: see page 13. And so do I que­re, wil not the Cōmons of London, yeild of ascribe unto the Com­mons of England, as the Cōmons of London to thmselves wil as­cribe? Therefore Mr. Bellamy, to make your absurdities the better appeare, in your paralel between the Kingdome Representative, and the City Representative; I come upon you thus.

First, you grant that the Common-councell is the City Represen­tative: page the 2. of your Vindication.

Secondly You grant that, the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, is the Kingdome Representative, in the same page.

Thirdly, You say, the City Representative, hath power to make a Law for those whom it Represents: in the 12. page of your plea for the Cmonalty of London

[Page 25] Fourthly, I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdome Representative, the same power to make a Law for those whom it re­presents, if so, then let us examine your argument: May wee reason after your Logick Mr. Bellamy, see your Sillogisme; Sir in the said book called a plea for the Comonalty of London (I think I hit the right name of it, though the Replyer was mistaken before) in the 12. page it stands thus:

That Court which hath a power to make a Law, and by that Law, to conferre a power upon the Lord Major, and Aldermen, which as Lord Major and Aldermen, the [...] had not befor [...], must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law, above the Lord Major and Alder­men.

But this Court of Common-councell hath &c. Ergo, this Court of Common-councell so farre as to the making of a Law, must needs be above the Lord Major and Aldermen.

Now Sir I quere only (for I cannot presume such skill) may not I reason thus, after your patterne.

That Court, that hath a power to make a law, and by that law, to conferre that power upon the King, and Lords, which as king and Lords they had not before, must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law, above the King and Lords.

But the House of Commons (which say you is the Kingdome R [...] ­presentative, even as the Common-councell is the City Representative, upon your supposition) hath a power &c. Ergo, the House of Com­mons so farre as unto the making of a Law &c.

May I not reason thus likewise, according to your example, from your owne supposition still, that Court which hath a power, to make or repeale what lawes they judge meet, for the Common wealth, and whereunto the King himselfe is bound by his oath (and therefore ought in duty) to consent, must needs be quoad hoc, unto the making and repealing Lawes, the Supream Court.

But the House of Commons ( which say you is the Kingdome Re­presentative, as the Common-conncell is of the City of London) upon your supposi [...]ion, hath such a power &c. therefore.

Or may I not reason thus, for I doe not conclude any thing; I doe but (as a Pupill to his Tuter) propound queres to Master Bellamy

[Page 26] That Court which hath a power to make Lawes and rules, for all the Courts and people in the Kingdome, to be steered, and acted by, and whereunto the King is bound b [...] oath to con­sent; must needs have the supreame power of the Kingdome re­siding in it.

But the House of Commons in Parliament assembled (which say you as the Kingdome Representative, even as the Common-councell is the City Representative) upon your supposition hath such a power &c.

Therefore the House of Commons hath (it seemes, even by your owne arguing) the Supreame power of the Kingdome lesiding in it.

One touch mo [...]e Mr▪ Bellamy, from your Plea for the Como­nalty of L [...]n [...]on [...] Mr. B [...]llamy, you grant this arguing, from your for [...], of the Kingdome and City Representa­tive to [...], or [...]r [...]se I may reason upon you and that thus Sir:

He th [...] sh [...]ll a [...] be that power unto the City Representa­ti [...]e, in ref [...]ence to the government of the City, which he shall deny unto the Kingdome Representative, in r [...]ference to the Government of th [...] Kingdom, doth quoad hoc, preferre the City Representative in its power, before the Kingdome representa­tive in its power.

But Mr. Bellamy ascribes that power unto the City Represen­tative, in reference unto the government of the City, which he denyes unto the Kingdome Representative, in reference un­to the government of the Kingdome.

Therefor [...] [...] B [...]llamy doth quoad hoc preferre the City Re­presentative, above the Kingdome Representative.

The Major proposition I think will not bee denyed, for the proofe or the minor, I must doe two things.

First, shew what power Mr. Bellamy asc [...]ibes unto the City Representative, in reference to the government of the City.

Secondly, shew what he denies the Kingdome Representa­tive, i [...] reference to the government of the Kingdome.

Forth▪ first Mr. Bellamy ascribes so much power unto the City Representative, in reference unto the government of the City; that the Lord Maj [...]r and Aldermen must have no nega­tive vote, as Lord Major and Aldermen, out must be conside­red [Page 27] as so many distinct persons together with the Commons, concluding by the major vote of the whole Conjunctim, and as unto such conclusions, regarding the Lord Major and Al­dermen but as so many distinct persons, a [...] is the whole drift of the 15. and 16. pages of the said Plea for the Comonalty of Lon­d [...].

Secondly, let us consider what he deni [...] the Kingdome Re­presentative, in reference unto the government of England, and that is in term [...]is, that the Supr [...]am [...] [...] of this Kingdome, doth not r [...]side there, neither wi [...] he [...] the King, Lords & Commons in Parliament to be con [...]er [...] pe [...]sonaliter, and as so many distinct persons, but [...] so then, this [...] case; The City is govern [...] [...]joy Common-coun­cell consisting of Lord Major, [...] Commons of the City, but not three distinct Esta [...]e, but as [...] men amount­ing to such a number the may [...] concluding; but the King­do [...] is govern [...] by a Parliament [...] s [...]tting of King, Lords & Commons▪ not consider [...] pers [...]ns who have their equall vot [...], [...] Mr. Bellamy, and so the two Estates, being the major part of Estate, must conclude the third.

Now I appeale to all, whether according to Mr. Bellamyes Logick, the Kingdom representative, which he himself saith is the House of Commons be not qu [...]ad hoc, [...] in its power, in [...] government of the Kingdome, then the City [...] in [...]ference for the government of the City.

Well Mr. Bellamy, [...] the case be so (I only quere for my fur­ther satisfaction) and unti [...] you have answered these que [...]es, do not insult over [...], nor charge him with destroying the power of two [...]stat [...]s o [...] the Kingdome, when he did [...] d [...]sire you [...]o [...] him the t [...]uth; as concerning the residence of the supr [...]ame power of the Kingdome, until I heare your answers I shall never in [...] of your [...] to vn [...]ou [...]d Riddles and by [...] your selfe th [...] questions will be no [...], unto you nei­ther are they intended so to [...] Take heed you doe not make a N [...]t of your answers.

Here, you slide [...]rom the Replyer and deale with others, as Lieu. Col. John Lilburn, and anon after with Mr. [...] [Page 28] Burroughs, and the truth is, I wonder how you can write so ir­reverently of him as you doe, you call him one of the most mo­derate opposers of Presbyteriall Government, and (as if your bitter­nesse, and unworthinesse of Spirit, did resolve to be master) you checke your soft saying with ( if any of them may truly be so cal­led) well Sir, what say you of Mr. Burroughs? thus in his book which he writ against Doctor Ferne page 125. of the first im­pression of his book called the glorious name of the Lord of Hosts, but in the last impression, the 9. page.

(It seemes by the way, that Doctor Ferne and you are a­greed, and now what was written against Doctor Ferne, proves written against you, is this becomming a christian, thus in your Spirituall warfare, at the command of the world, to face, to the right, to the left, to the front, to the reare, halfe face, face about, and as you were;) but what saith Mr. Bur­roughs in the place before quoted, thus:

But if the Parliament should degenerate, and grow tyrannicall, what meanes of safety could there be for a State.

Answ. I confesse the condition of such a State would be very dan­gerous, and like to come to confusion, particular men could not helpe themselves, and the whole State ought to suffer much, before it should helpe it selfe by any wayes of resisting, but if you can suppose a Parlia­ment so farre to degenerate, as all to conspire together with the King to destroy the Kingdome, and to possesse the lands and riches of the Kingdome themselves; in this case, whether a law of nature would not allow of standing up to defend our selves, yea, to reassume the power gi­ven to them, to discharge them of that power they had, and to set up some other, I leave to the light of nature to judge.

You will say, This cannot be, because the higher Powers must not be resisted by any.

Answ. This is not properly to resist the power, but to discharge the power, and to set the power else-where (hitherto Mr. Burroughs) and is this all you can say of Mr. Burroughs? It is well malice it selfe can pick no worse from his writings; and truly Sir, you might have spared your marginall hand and finger, except you inten­ded to direct the Reader to observe your ignorance and envy in collecting his saying, for first Mr. Burroughs did assert nothing, but left it to any mans determination whether the Law of Na­ture [Page 29] would not allow of such and such a course, in such and such a case; and it seemes you the State case resolver generall, under­takes the decision: Once more Mr. Bellamy [...] give us but this foundation to build upon (as none but malignant-royalists will deny it) viz. salus populi suprema lex, and then I thinke you will hardly like a wise and solid man speak otherwise to that point; the rest of your proceedings in your Vindication is of little worth, granting almost what the Replyer required, only I see you most extreamely shuffling in one point, that (were you nor so well skil'd in facings might make men wonder at you) and that is where the Replyer chargeth an untruth in the Remon­strance, and bring in your self to stand by him, and that is about the displacing or casting out of Mr. Quarterman from his Mar­shall ship of London, the Remonstrance saith the City did cast him out, the Replyer saith the City did not cast him out, but it was the Lord Major, and Court of Aldermen which are not the City either collective or representative, & in no sense the City, as having power hereunto, and hee produceth you to stand by him. What, Master Bellamy, will you not stand by him; in your booke called a Plea for the Commonalty of London, wee have your judgement under your hand in blacke and white, and will you faulter now, you are called out to make it good? Had you not better been an Anonymus when you writ that booke: Then Master John Bellamy, what kind of man are you? They that observe your sayings, what they have been former­ly concerning the King, concerning the Lords, concerning the power of the Commons, (whispering your thoughts in the ears of many that now speak of it) what your carriages have been, not very long since, in the Common Councel, in or among your brethren the Stationers, the Committee appointed for the keep­ing up and maintaining the expository Lectures, and what your carriages are now, stand with admiration and amazement at your wheeling thus about.

You say little more to the Replyer, only I find you once more in an extreame heat of passion against him because he told the Remonstrant,s of their pressing the Parliament, to a sud­daine payment of their debts &c. you take on thus.

What, is it now come to that passe, that when the City, and Cityzens [Page 30] of London who have lent and expended, for the use and service of the Parliament more and greater vast sums of [...]money, then ever any, if not all the Cities in the Land have done, nay then ever any Citie in all the world (a great word Mr. Bellamy, and you need to be as able and dilligent a Reader as seller of bookes to make good what you say) have done at any one time to and for the service of that State in which it stood, and yet must it now by an Anonymus, a Libeller, be tax­ed, &c. Hold Mr. Bellamy, le [...]'s have lesse of your passion and more of your reason, doe not you give as just an occasion for others to say, if they should steer their pens by your compasse, What? is it now come to that passe? Shall not only the City (over­taken as the best of Ci [...]ies may sometimes be) see forth as strange a Remonstrance, reflecting prejudice upon a Parliament, that have done more, and suffered more for them and by whom they have received more good, then by any Parliament that e­ver they had, nay (it is verily believed) then ever any Parlia­ment in the world ever did, for a City in any state where it hath been, but must a private person, a John Bellamy, an Episcopall man, an Anti-Episcopall man, an An [...]baptist▪ an Anti-Anabap­tist, a Separate, an Anti Sep [...]rate, an Episcopall man again, an Anti Episcopall man, a Presbyterian, a halfe Presbyterian, so bi-fronted, as to deny Presbyterie to be Jure Divino, and y [...]t helping on the pressing and inforcing of it upon his bret [...]ren, that cannot submit unto it, because they cannot see it Jure De­vino, a Sectary, an Anti-Sectarie, a Schismatique, an Anti Schis­matique, a Scoffer at new lights, Doctrines of a new date, a some thing, an any thing, an every thing, must such a man as this stand forth in print with his vindication of such a Remonstrance?

You have a few words more yet to the Replyer he tells you, he knowes not your meaning by private and separate Congrega­tions, you tell him what the City meanes, but truly Sir, except you shew your commission to be the City Interpreter, you must give men leave yet to scruple what they meant thereby, he tells you again, he know [...]s not your meaning by: An [...]baptists and Brownists, you tell him they mean those so called by the Parlia­ment (not by the King) printed in the booke of Declarations, pag 659. What ever the Replyer thinkes, I believe the Remon­strantes meanes those who ever they be, that are but dis [...]ffected [Page 31] to Presbyteriall Government, as will easily appeare by compa­ring that second Petition of the Remonstrance, with the third and fourth, which next followes.

You find fault with the Replyer, because he will not joyne with you in the third Petition, viz. that as wee are all sub [...]cts of one Kingdome, so all may be equally required to yeild obedience, to that government, set forth, or to be set forth by the Parliament; The Re [...]yer saith, that such a thing is against Religion and reason; you answer no, the meaning of this Petition, is that one Law may equal [...]y ob [...]ieg [...] every Subject in this Kingdome, and for this you give us a cluster of proofes, you bid the Replyer make it out i [...] he can, [...]f there was any more then one Law, that did bind the Church of Israell of old, in the times of any of the Pattiarchs, the Judges the Kings, the Governors, either before, in, or after the Captivity, o [...] since the comming of Christ, or of the Apostles, either in the Churches of Jerusa­lem, Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Co­losse, Thessalouica, and the seven Churches of Asia &c. But what is all this to the point in hand? were any of these Churches you speake of, governed by a politticall government? accor­ding to the prudence of the States wherein they were or, accor­ding to a divine rule given unto them from God? doe yon Mr. B [...]llamy, with your bretheren Remo [...]strants desire the Parliamēt to settle that p [...]at [...]forme of government which Christ hath ap­pointed, or no [...]l [...] no al [...] y [...]ur great [...]cap of Scrip [...]ure [...]nstances are not to the purpose, [...] so be you doe so; Why then one turne more Mr. Bellamy, and conlesse that though yesterday you did not own any plat forme of Church government to be Juredi [...]ino yet to day you have new light (and if so, doe no longer jeare at new [...]ight) [...] so be you hold Church govern­ment to be Jure politice, why then i [...] [...]he Parliament judge Jus po­liticum, to permit u [...]en differing in judgment in that point, let them alone.

You have here done with the Replyer, and [...]un to his Part­ner, and let him answer you, for I neither know him, nor his Book.