IT is not long ago , since you gave the world a short Discourse concerning the Ministers not medling with State Matters ; and now you venture to break your own Rule : the onely difference is , you forbid them to meddle in the Pulpit , and your self do more publickly , by the Presse . And both almost with the like successe : For as there , you yeeld in the latter part as much as any Minister desires or practises ; so you here contradict in one place , what you assert in another ; as I shall give you to understand in due time . It is your unhappinesse , that in both , you mistake , and mis-state the Question . What the reason of your so eager undertakings should be , in the present case the world cannot imagine , unlesse it be , that having rashly ingulfed your self ( before you needed ) into a scandalous compliance , you desire ( like you know whom ) to fetch in as many partners as you can ; to bear the reproach the better . I beleeve , as you will hear ill abroad , ( as most known ) so you will have but little thanks at home , by them whose cause you plead ; having delivered some impolitique , and dangerous State Maximes , which may in time help to undermine and blow up their power , as well as others : I shall give you an account of them , as they fall in my way . And the first thing I meet with , is of this nature .

P. 2. f . As you were sworn to the King , so he was sworn to you . — If then he be found unfaithfull to his trust , you are ipso facto , absolved from your Allegiance unto him ; and if according to Law , he receives not his authority , you are not in law his subjects at all ;

1. This is both strange in politiques , and Heterodox in Divinity ; For the latter , reverend Calvin shall give you an answer ; towards the end of his Institutions , you shall finde your words , and his return ; speaking of this very case , thus he writes . Satis habeamus , quod eam , voluntate Domini , personam sustineant , cui inviolabilem majestatem impressit ipse & insculpsit . At mutuas ( inquis ) subditis suis vices debent praefecti . Id jam confessus sum , verum sex eo stauis , non nisi justis imperiis rependenda obsequia , insulsus & ratiocinator , &c.

2. This is very impolitique , for Magistrates ; If Subjects be absolved from their Allegiance , upon every unfaithfulnes in their Trust , ( which Subjects will easily conclude , may they be their own Judges ) no Magistrate shall stand long in his place : nothing but confusion follows .

3. This is dangerous for the present Powers ; For , 1. if they according to Law have not received their Authority , you are not in Law their Subject at all : 2. If unfaithf●lnes in their trust , absolves people from their Allegiance — then — But there is more of this .

P. 3. If the K. set himself wilfully to be above the reason of the Nation , and refuse obstinately the Laws , which they ( the Commons ) shall choose to be settled ; he put himself ipso facto , out of the capacitie of being any more a King to them , &c.

1. But then , how often , how long ago had many Kings , unking'd themselves ; by denying to confirm Laws , chosen , and presented by the Commons and Lords too ? And granting , King , Lords and Commons to be coordinate Estates , they must be allowed equally their negative voice ; and so upon deny all of any one , the fundamentall of the Kingdom had been destroyed .

2. The Reason of the Nation , if it be in the Commons onely , it must lye in the majoritie of voices : But then this arinoritie not yeelding to the Votes of the greater part ( passed the night before their breaking ) have put themselves ipso facto , out of the capacity of being any more the Supreame Power .

3. This is dangerous to the present Powers , to unpower them , who set themselves wilfully above the Reason of the Nation , the minde and choice of the people — But yet again you say :

P. 4. He refractorily either casting off those Laws , or seeming to yeeld in such a way , that no trust could be given him , that he would keep what he yeelded , the Parliament did actually lay him aside ; from which time he was to be lookt at as a private man , no object of Oath of Allegiance , &c.

A. But , 1. The Non-Addresse Votes were revoked by a fuller House , and a new Treatie agreed upon , and prosecuted far , with him as a King .

2. A full House , in the majoritie of it , voted his concessions a ground to proceed on for a concluding of a peace , &c.

3. They did not by their Votes of Non Addresses , actually lay him aside , as no King , or as freed from their Oath of Allegiance , but onely quoad hoc , to settle the Kingdom without him , till he should comply with them .

4. Your self did not ( I beleeve ) after those Votes , look upon him , as a private man , but waited on his Children as Children of a King .

P. 5. To have the use of the true Religion , and of the Nationall freedom , is absolutely necessarie , and essentiall to the being of a Common-wealth .

A. This is incautelously spoken ; For , 1. This implyes , that no Common-wealth can subsist , without true Religion ; which is evidently false in heathenish and Popish Countreys : It is for the well-being , not necessary for the being . 2. This afterwards is left out , as none of the things we are bound to by Covenant , p. 10. To preserve the publick in peace and safetie , is the main end of all the promises of the Covenant , whereunto all particular matters are subordinate ; ergo not essentiall .

P. 6. If you did , when time and place was , what in you lay to prevent the breach of those priviledges , you did observe your Covenant , &c.

A. True , so far ; But the Covenant binds to the future , all the dayes of our life , to preserve the Kings Authority , which respects his posterity , though he be taken away .

P. 7. By the Act of Engagement , you are so far from breaking your Covenant , that except you take it , and observe it faithfully , you will formally break that Act of the Covenant .

A. This proceeds from a grand mistake , which runs through all your book , ( as appears p. 5. 11. 20. ) That the direct and only matter of the Ingagement binds only to procure the good of the Commonwealth as now it stands ; though without King and Lords . But , 1. None , or very few , beside your self , understand it so : They that tender it , I am confident , intend more : For to be true to the Common wealth as now established , &c. hath reference to that Act of theirs , that established this a Common-wealth without King and Lords : and so binds to be true to that absolute abnegation of King & Lords , clean contracy to the Covenant , which vows the preservation of them . 2. They entend also , that you be true and faithfull to them , without King and Lords ; so much your self yeeld , when you say , the end of it is , to give the Supreme Power assurance , that we shall not betray it , maintain all good intelligence for publick Government , with it ; which , is to be true and faithfull to the Government by them established , as well as to the Common-wealth . 3. The 3d . Article of the Covenant ( which you say was not opposite to the Oath of Allegiance ) being agreeable to that Oath ; must needs intend more then the preservation of the Common-wealth , viz : the preservation of the King , and his posteritie , with the Authority of both : if then the Engagement binde to no more then the preservation of the Common-wealth , it agrees not with the Oath of Allegiance , or third Article of the Covenant : and so a man may take the Engagement in your sense , and break the Oath and Covenant : and if he take it in the sense intended the present Power , he breaks it then much more : which ought not for to be . Let th●● declare publickly that to be the sense , which you put upon it , that they intend n● more , but to binde men to procure the good of the Common-wealth , and many will be easily perswaded to take it : though it were as easie to make out , that the taking of it , in their sense , will in a short time destroy the welfare of it .

P. 8. If the Engagement settle something in the Commonwealth which is contrary to the intention of the Covenant , yet you break not your Covenant ; because your obligation to those matters by virtue of the Covenant , was extinct , before you were called to take this Engagement : promises are void , when become impossible or unlawfull .

A. 1. This is a fine way to elude all Oaths and Covenants ; do but take away the matter of them ( as here King and Lords ) and so freed from them : may not the like be done by this present Engagement , by destroying the present Power , by a stronger ?

2. This supposes , a man cannot be guilty of a sin before the fact is past : whereas consent , approbation , compliance with an unrighteous Power , makes men partakers of it . Psal . 50.18 .

3. The things promised in the Oaths and Covenant , are not impossible , though the Kings person and life is irrecoverable , yet his Heirs are existent , to whom bound by Oath of Allegiance , ( which you say intends the same thing with the 3d . Article : ) A●d the Lords are alive to receive their right ; Nor yet unlawfull ; for private men to endevour in their place and calling , the restoring of the right Heir , who is by force and unjust violence , kept from it , at least to joyn with him in recovering of his right , being sworn to it ; cannot be unlawfull : more then for a private man oppressed in his possessions , to endevour the recovery of it .

P. 9. Your calling is to acquiesse at the abolition of that which is made void ; and not to declare the abrogation of the Lords , &c.

A. But Sir ; 1. If theeves had taken possession of your house and goods , would you think it your calling to acquiesce in their possession , ( there is a providence of God in this ) and not to seek the restauration ?

2. The Engagement , in all mens reason but your own , declares , and more binds to maintain the abrogation of the King and Lords , and ( as I said ) to be true and faithfull to the establishment against them , if they attempt the recovery of their right .

Ibid : If any should now prosecute ( the Oath ) by force , it is evident , he would by a new war hazard the ruining of all , &c.

A But , 1 If the Prince , or any right Heir should make a strength to recover his right , ( which I think you will not say is unlawfull for him to do ) there would be a new war ; but who are the Authors of the war and ruine , but those that usurp the right ?

2. We are bound to prevent war and ruine , not by all wayes possible , but ( as you say ) lawfull , righteous and just ; Fiat justitia , ruat coelum , was said of old : but you begge the question , if you say , this Engagement is a lawfull way to prevent it : an unjust peace , is secure unrighteousnesse . But that which follows is more strange .

P. 10. If the 3d . Article be yet in force , it binds to preserve the priviledges of Parliament that now are ; as well as those that then were .

A. But , 1. you beg the question again that this is a Parliament ; for wise men think the Parliament is destroyed , at least that Parliament which we swore to defend : and then that Article cannot binde us to defend another Parliament , which is usurped .

2. Suppose the Army had turn'd all the Members out , and taken upon themselves to rule the Kingdom by their Counsell of War , though according to the former Laws ; I pray Sir , had not the Parliament been utterly broke ? or had we by that 3d . Article been bound , to preserve their Power ? yet we were bound by the Law of Nature ( not by that Article directly ) to seek the welfare of the Common-wealth , which may be done , otherwise then by this Engagement , to be true and faithfull to them : yea to engage to ●●e true and faithfull to them , had been as contrary to that Article as darknes to light , ●c . How hardly will you perswade rationall men then , to beleeve , that they make themselves transgressors of the 3d . Article , if they take not the present Engagement ?

P. 12. This is a rule for private men ; That it doth not belong to us to judge definitively of the rights , which the Supreme Powers over us pretend to have unto their places , I finde it no part of profession of Christianity , to meddle with this , &c.

I pray consider , 1. If Oaths of Allegiance , or Engagements be lawfull to be taken by Christians , it concerns them to know in some measure , the rights of them to whom they so engage : else they swear not in Judgement and Righteousnesse .

2. Apply this to the present Supreme Powers the Army , who of late were Subjects as well as we , under the same Engagements ; yet they not onely questioned , and judged , but quite destroyed the rights ( the clear determined rights ) of their superiors .

3. Are not those that pretend to power unjustly , to behave themselves as spirituall men , strangers and pilgrims , as well as men ? perswade them they are so , and then they will not usurp anothers right , or defend themselves in an unjust power , but ( as you advise us ) take things as they finde them , and studie how to behave themselves without blame and offence to God and man , with a good conscience .

4. If this be a character of Antichrist to exalt himself above all that 's called God , &c. hath not the Army too much of that spirit among them ( and in them ) who hav - exalted themselves above all that 's called God , King , Lords and Commons ; by becomeing Judges of all their Rights ? The Jesuites ( Antichrists eldest sons ) are in the bottome of this designe , for certain .

P. 13. But that you should make Usurpers , the ordinance of God , and ergo to be obeyed for conscience sake , from Rom. 13. and the other texts ; is to me the strangest paradox , yea heterodox asserted of all : you say , these commandments delivered without any limitation of their rights to rule , or of our obedience , I suppose do oblige all Subjects , either to obey , or suffer patiently , &c.

But , 1. it s evident by 1 Pet . 2.13 , 14. and Tit . 3.1 . that the Apostles do clearly presuppose the lawfulnesse of the powers , and therefore needed not to name that limitation : whether is the King as supreme , &c. a King lawfully established .

2. For Rom. 13. there is more colour , because that Epistle was written to the Romans , over whom Claudius or Nero then reigned , supposed ( perhaps unjustly ) to be usurpers : yet that the Apostle , doth intend it of a lawfull Authority , may be suggested upon many irrefragable reasons , from the text .

1. To be of God , must not mean onely , by a way of providence , for so are plagues and famines , and tyrants equally : but by divine approbation ; and it s not likely the Apostle would speak no more of a Magistrate , then of all evils in the world . And then , there had been no force in the argument to perswade obedience , and no resistance : submit to the powers , for they are of God , by way of providence ; but so are plagues and enemies , &c. yet I may lawfully resist , and endevour their removall .

2. The powers here are said to be ordained of God ; but nothing is an ordinance of God , but by way of institution and warrantable approbation : That not onely the office be ordained , but the person designed , and put in by Gods wayes and rules : either immediately , or by those who have the power of settling them . Hence of Usurpers he saies , They have set up kings , but not by me : Hosea . 8.4 . taken of Jer●b●am and his successors .

3. The Powers here spoken of may not be resisted , under pain of damnation : But Usurpers power may lawfully be resisted , as is evident in many instances , in the b● of Judges , and Samuel : Jebojada against Athaliah , &c. And it is the resolute judgeme● of Casuists , that a tyrant sine titulo , may be killed , by any private man : But if this doctrine of yours were true , a Prince oppressed , & excluded , might not endevour his own restitution , but under pain of damnation , must sit down , and not resist .

4. The Usurpers , that got power by resistance ( and more ) have committed that crime which deserves damnation ; ergo it cannot deserve damnation to oppose them ; It seems very absurd , that the Apostle should at the same time condemne their act ( of Resistance ) and yet confirm their Authority , and make it damnable to resist it .

5. He is called a Minister of God to take vengeance of evil : But , 1. no man is properly a Minister ( though a rod he may be ) of God , but he is a just Magistrate , and you suppose him to be unjust : 2. None can be a Revenger for good , but he must have a divine Authority ; and so is a lawfull Power ; wheras an Usurper , is unlawfull : And who ever takes upon him to be an Avenger without a warrant from God , ( vengeance belonging to him ) not onely by way of providence but approbation , he is unjust : though the thing he does be materially just , yet not formally , ( wanting a right principle of warrant from God ) and if he put a man to death , without Gods warrant , he is a murderer .

Lastly , this opens a doore to rebellious spirits , if they can but procure a power , to endevour the removall of the most lawfull power , if they be , upon their prevalencie the ordinance of God , and to be obeyed for conscience sake : And this doctrine is very dangerous to the present pretended Power of Parliament , the power of Arms , being in the Souldiers hands , if they shall dislike the Government , and take it to themselves , they also must be an ordinance of God , and obeyed , &c.

P. 15. Obj. Is this the case of Subjects ? what shall private Christians make themselves slaves to any that will rule over them ? without judging rationally who are their lawfull superiors , &c. and what way left to be freed from unnaturall usurpation of tyrannicall powers ?

A. Truly in your way , there 's none in the world : For if they be the ordinance of God , and not to be resisted under pain of damnation ; what ever , sense , reason , conscience judge , they must all be quiet , and live and dye slaves : yet you have found out 3. wayes to the wood .

1. To settle subordinate officers under him , without whom he cannot act :

A. Poore help , God knows : For , 1. Inferior Officers have no more right to judge of their superiors power or rights , than you allow us , by your rule , pa. 12. Nor , 2. have they any power to question their acts , if they had will to do it ; for you call it an unconfrontable power , pa. 15. uncontroulable power set over them by God , pa. 16. And , 3. Are not all his subordinate officers of his own choosing ; and all of his own minde ?

2. To settle Laws to circumscribe him and their actings , and a Law-making Power , to whom both he and them accountable .

A. But , 1. who shall put the ball about the Cats neck ? you know the Fable : who shall make him call the Representative , to make those Laws but himself ; either they shall never meet , or have no power to make Laws to curb his tyrannie , more but what he likes ; being men of his own choosing .

3. The great and invincible Law of necessity , whereof every one is so far the judge in his own cause , and place , as he is moved thereby to venture his life and welfare to observe the dictates thereof .

A. Now , 1. Is not this to contradict and overturn what you said before , that Inferiors must not be Judges of their Superiors power ? this is more then a judgement of discretion , if men may venture life and all upon it .

2. Is not this also the way to run themselves upon the danger of damnation , for re●isting the ordinance of God , as you have often , ( litle lesse then blasphemously ) called it ?

3. Is not this also the way , to raise up a new warre , to the ruine of the Common-wealth , so much cautioned against ?

4. Is not this the way to confusion and rebellion , ( if particular persons may be judges of that necessity ) even against the present Powers ? they are little beholden to you for this Doctrine .

P. 17. You bring them in pleading their own cause & right , by propounding 4. quaeries .

Yet pa. 7. you said you would leave it to themselves to justifie , as not guilty of any breach of Covenant . And now as if you were either of their judgement , or were hired to be their Advocate , you plead strongly for them , without any shew of answer ; yea p. 19. you say expresly , the truth is they cannot be said to be guilty of usurpation of power , &c. let us hear what they say for themselves , or you for them : you ask .

1. Whether the National tye and association , by which we were a Common-wealth , hath ever been dissolved ?

A. We answer : It hath been dissolved , as we were a Kingdom ; viz : those bonds of Oaths of Allegiance and Covenant , betwixt King and people , are all broken . And though the Laws be materially continued , yet formally , ( a new Power animating them ) they are changed , and dissolved .

2. If it hath not been dissolved , what hath kept it intire ? was it not a Parliament , and subordinate officers , &c. We say ; that which kept the Kingdom before this last shaking by the Army , was a Parliament , with subordinate officers legally placed : But not that Parliament that now is , that hath changed both the Parliament and the subordinate officers , formally if not materially ; the Army is the soul of the present Government .

3. If a Parliament is still remaining , and subordinate officers , so that all men may have protection legal from injuries , what is wanting to a lawful power & Government ?

A. It is answered partly from the former ; you beg the question in all : And we adde , what protection there is I know not , but legal ( as afore ) it is not : I will put you a case ; If some of your servants should turn you out of doores , and take upon them the government of your family , by the same rules that you did , and give protection to such of the rest ( perhaps your self ) as would submit to them ; was the government of your family legall , and the same it was ? or were their protection legall ? you may see then what is wanting to a lawfull Power and Government .

4. If nothing be wanting for a legall protection ; then such as acknowledge not the jurisdiction , do put themselves out of this protection ; and if resist the power , which God hath set over them , &c. they resist the ordinance of God , &c.

A. I pray apply but this to the former case ; and judge of the weaknes of it : would you think your self well dealt with , to be put out of protection in your own house , because you cannot acknowledge the jurisdiction of some usurping servants ? and if you resisted this power , which God ( by providence , and the other is no better ) hath set over you , would you think you resisted the ordinance of God , and should purchase to your self damnation ? They then that acknowledge not this jurisdiction , living legally , do not put themselves out of legall protection , which is their birth-right ; nor do they resist any ordinance of God , or need to fear damnation .

But you plead further for them , p. 17. 1. That it 's not unjust for equals , to resist force with force . 2. That he that invades another right , is to be accounted the usurper : 3. That he that is deprived of that whereof he attempted to deprive another , is justly defeated of the power which he did abuse : And this they say was the case between the King and Parliament .

A. Yet some things are here begged , and will be denyed . As 1. that what ever equalitie there was in the King & Parliament , yet it was not so in the partes in the Parlia●●●● the minoritie was not equall to the majoritie , yet the minoritie invaded the rights the majoritie . 2. He that attempts to deprive his neighbour of any thing his own , 〈◇〉 justly deprived of it again ; But if upon that , he shall be deprived of all he hath , that s not just : The war betwixt King and Parliament , was not for Monarchy , or destruction of Parliamentary power wholly ; as both sides pretended and held forth to the world : But the King contended for his Prerogative , the Parliament for Liberties and Religion : They did not fight to destroy Monarchy ( so they pretended ) nor he to destroy the government by King , Lords and Commons : ergo they having conquered him , had reason to settle and secure that they fought for , but not to destroy Monarchy . The King did not ( jure ) forfeit his Regal rights ( which they also professed to preserve ) much lesse his life . 3. Suppose all were granted , yet there is no justice to deprive those of their right , who never attempted to deprive them of their right ; who were their friends , and assisted them with their estates and lives , in the defence of the same cause , which whether it be done or no , or being done , be just , I leave it to you to judge .

P. 18. The Rule of Justice is , we are bound to shew fidelity to those of whom we desire protection .

A. By this doctrine , the Parliament must ( as some think it doth ) yeeld fidelitie and subjection to the Army , from whom they desire and receive protection . Yea thus , a man must be bound to establish a company of theeves that have got possession of our house & goods ; because they give us protection from others , that would molest us & themselves .

The end of the Engagement is publick good , and to give the Supreame Power an assurance that we shall not betray it , &c.

A. The publick good may be sought by better wayes , then by establishing an unjust power , as every one engaging , for his part , does . But when you say , to give them assurance we shall not betray them , you discover your either prevarication , or contradiction to what you said afore ; for there you said , is binds onely to procure the good of the Common-wealth , p. 7. f . and elsewhere : But here you say , the end is , not to betray them , that is to establish them , in their usurpation ; for so you adde ; to give them assurance , that we are willing to maintain all good intelligence for publick Government , that is , the Government by them established , without King and Lords .

P. 19. If they having done amisse formerly , set themselves now to do well , can I with conscience oppose them therein ?

We use to say , and find it true , that he that is out of the way , the farther he goes , the worse : and he cannot set one step right till he come into the way again . They that are usurpers of Authority , may do some thing good or just , materially , but nothing well , formally , till something make their power legitimate : And he that refuses to follow a man out of his way , doth not oppose , but endevors rather to reduce him into his way .

Ibid : You cannot be guilty to the former abuse of their power , if you give not expresse consent and approbation thereunto , which they urge not .

A. 1. This seems to say , that a man can no way be guilty to anothers wickednes , but onely by consent , or approbation of it : whereas the assisting and strengthening them that did it , continuing in that injustice , is enough to make an accessarie . 2. Yea accompanying them , while impenitent , involves a man in the guilt of their sin : 1 Cor . 5. and for not mourning for it : 3. Those ( you speak of ) that fit in Counsell of State , though they said they would not be engaged to approve of proceedings past , yet sitting and acting with those that continue so far from repenting of what they have done , that they defend it , will , ( I fear ) be found guilty of all their wickednesse , what ever they may say or think . See Jer . 23.14 . They strengthen the hands of evill doers , that none doth return fro● his wickednesse , &c. By that Protestation of theirs , that thy could 〈◇〉 ●uld not joy● , In approving what was past , they acknowledge the former pro● 〈◇〉 unjust ; and by assisting and joyning with them , continuing still their injustice , 〈◇〉 ●o involve themselves in their guilt . And therefore some of them , who did , ( as they ●●d ) abhor the former proceedings , are come now to defend them , and so to approve ●●em , to free themselves ( as they think ) of this after guilt ; and so are twice accessary ; in favouring and defending them that did it .

Ibid : The truth is , they cannot be said to be guilty of usurpation of Power : for it was , by all the Authority of the Commonwealth that then was , both of King and Parliament , put into their hands , their guilt , if any , is , they abused their power .

And now Sir , have you not brought the guilt , I last spake of , upon your own head ? Heretofore you pleaded their plea for themselves : but now you make your own defence of them ; They cannot be said , to be guilty of usurpation : then surely none can be guilty of usurpation : They do usurp the power of the 3 , Estates , King , Lords and Commons , and yet not guilty of usurpation ? See how far your Engagement carries you : to defend your self , you defend them ; and so make your self guilty of all their miscarriages : No , it was put into their hands , by all the Authority that then was ; was this power put into their hands by any to destroy themselves ? may not Julius Caesar ( who is said to be an usurper ) by this way justifie himself from usurpation ? his power , whereby he did it was put into his hands by the Authority of the Senate : say the like of any usurping Tyrant , entrusted with Power : It was indeed an abuse of their power , but was it not an usurpation also of more power then was given them ? And are they not guilty then of both , the Abuse and usurpation of power ?

P. 20. Your Resolution of the 3d . scruple of your friend proceeds upon a meer begging of the question ; That it is a necessary duty to take this Engagement , ( confuted in the former ) and so I might dismisse i● ; yet I note what you say : your pre-Eng●gement to the Common-wealth cannot lawfully and conscionably be put in ballance with a particular Engagement to some persons depending thereon , &c.

True ; but how come these to be incompatible , which for so m●ny hundred yeers , have agreed so lovingly together ? The Government by King , Lords and Commons , being judged by other Nations , and experienced by our own , one of the best in the world , for the good of the Common wealth .

P. 21. Him , whom you call the Heir of the Crown ; and the men , called the Peers of the Kingdom , &c.

Contemptuously enough : Did not you call them so , not long since ? and if a change should happen , would you not be glad to call them so again ? You are too like him , called Shimei ; who thus scornfully bespake his King , in an Vsurpation time . 2 Sam . 16.7 . &c.

Ibid : As for the d ssolution of your tye to the Heir of the Crown , I shall refer you to look upon God , &c.

But Sir , 1. Gods providences , are no path for us to walk in against , or beside a Rule . He may have done all this to that family , as for their own sins , so for a judgement to the Land , for an humiliation to ihe Children , to fit them for Government , for a probation and discovery of many false hearts , &c.

2. The Heir ( as you call him ) considering his relation , hath not , in many mens judgement , deserved , an utter dethroning .

3. Much lesse for his Fathers or Mothers miscarriages ; as against that Rule ; The Son shall not dye for the Father , &c.

4. Suppose he repent of what he hath done amisse , and resolve to Rule well for the time to come , can you in conscience ( they are your own words afore ) oppose him therein ?

5. If none of these prevail for him , yet there are others of the line , to which you are engaged by Oaths , that never offended the Common-wealth , why should they suffer ?

6. God hath not yet declared his Determination for the utter casting off , that Family . The Crown hath heretofore been usurped , and yet reverted to the right Heir : and so it may now , for ought we can know : and the sooner , by how much the usurpation is more unjust : God using to right the wronged .

P. 22. From this place to the end , you spend your self in an advice to the present Power , to use it well , &c. You do well in that , ( it s the best of all your book ) but I think you had done better if you had exhorted them not to use it at all , except in reference to a fair Retreat , and the setting up of those Powers who have , though no strength , yet an unquestionable Authority .