A justification OF THE City Remonstrance AND ITS VINDICATION. OR, An Answer to a Book written by Mr. I. P. entitled, The City Remonstrance Remonstrated. Wherein the frequent Falsifyings of the said Mr. I. P. are discovered, the many Charges by him laid upon the Remonstrance and its Vindicator, disproved, and the parity and agreement of the Remonstrance (especially in those particulars so much condemned by him) with the Propositions, Declarations, Remonstrances, and Votes, of both or either House of Parliament manifested.  
By JOHN Bellamy.  
LONDON, Printed by Richard Cotes, 1646.   

To the Right honourable Thomas Adam's Lord Major, and to the Right worshipful the Aldermen, and the rest of the common-council of the City, LONDON.  
Right Honourable, Right worshipful,  
Upon the 14 of April last, you being in Court of common-council assembled, made choice of a Committee of Aldermen and Commoners to prepare a draught of A Remonstrance and Petition to both Houses of Parliament, and to present it in Court, to be there either approved or altered, as upon debate should be judged meet.  
In obedience thereunto, the said Committee upon the 20 of May following, presented it in common-council, where every branch thereof was taken apart and by itself into serious Consideration, and after three days debating in open Court, it was by consent and approbation of the Court finished, and upon the 26 of May, in the name of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and common-council presented to both Houses of Parliament. Since which time two libels have been Printed against the said Remonstrance, the one called, A moderate Reply to the City Remonstrance, the other entitled, The Interest of England maintained; In one of which it is charged to carry a full compliance with His majesty's wonted Declarations against the Parliament; and in the other, That a great part of the main Sticklers in it, are such as were always backward to the Parliament, and forced to pay their Fifth and twentieth part; with many other foolish, foul, and false aspersions in them both: Whereupon, (though the unmeetest, because the unablest of many others) I adventured the Vindication of it; In answer whereof, a●d in further opposition to the said Remonstrance, one Mr. J. P. hath since published a Book named, The City Remonstrance Remonstrated, calling it a hard-hearted Remonstrance, and a Remonstrance invective against the Parliament, &c. And in Page 29. charges mee● for saying s●mething (but instances in nothing,) concerning the King, the Lords, and the power of the Commons, and what my carriages have been not very long since in common-council, &c. and doth thereby, as it were, in a tacit way, call the Court to testify against me. All which, hath occasioned me this second time to put pen t● Paper, in a further Justification of your Remonstrance, and also of its Vindication, and to a clearing of myself from those many charges of mutation and change, which (to beget a d●sesteem of what I have written in Vindication of the Remonstrance) he hath laid against me.  
My intention in this my address unto your Lordship, to the worthy Aldermen, and to all the rest of the common-council, is, neither to exasperate you against the person of my opposite, nor yet to seek protection from you for myself or Books; for if what I have written be not co●cordable to Truth and true Reason, let both me and them fall before my Antagonist.  
But being thus publ●kely charged that I should (not very long since) speak something (but what it is, he saith not) in common-council, &c. as if it were cross or contrary to some passages in the Remonstrance, or to what I have written in the Vindication thereof, for saith he, It makes them that heard it, and observe what your Carriages are now, stand with admiration and amazement at your wheeling thus about.  
I ●oe therefore humbly crave leave to present this my Justification of your Remonstrance, and its Vindication to your Lordship, and to the whole Court of common-council, and do appeal to all of you in general, and to every one of you in particular, t●●estifie against me, if at any time since I had that undeserved honour and happiness to be a member of this Court, there ever fell any one word from me, so much as savouring of such things, as by this Mr. J. P. I am charged to speak in your presence, and I shall ever remain  
Your Lordships, and this city's servant John Bellamy.   

To my truly Loved and Honoured FRIEND m John PRICE.  
SIR,  
I Have perused your Book, entitled, The City Remonstrance Remonstrated, or an answer to my Vindication of the said Remonstrance, wherein I perceive you have been very ready to receive whatever Reports, either true or false have been broug●t unto you conc●rning my carriage in matters of Religion, even from the day of my birth to the publishing of your Book, and taking them upon trust, (for you have not the least knowledge of any one of the particular●, and many of them relate, I think, to the time before you were born,) without ever speaking one word to me about them, (though we are professed, and have been long acquainted ●ntimate Friends, and to the best of my knowledge and remembrance, not any time the least offensive word ever passed between us, and now are so near neighbours that whenever you p●eased, in less than one quarter of an hour you might freely have communicated to me whatever you h●d a desire to be satisfied in) you have, as I con●eive, to weaken my esteem, and to render what I have written to be the more invalid, divulged them to the world.  
Two th●ngs I desire i● love to represent unto you in this, First, if all that you have written of me were true, the contrary whereof I shall easily prove when I come to the particulars; yet I beseech you consider how irregular this your proceeding against me is, and contrary to the rule given by our Saviour Christ, for you and me and all God's people to walk by, in Mat●h. 18. 15, 16, 17. If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone, if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother, &c. and mind that of Solomon, Prov. 15. 18. A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour, is a maul, a sword, and a sharp arrow. Secondly, I pray also remember how exceedingly yourself, and all your friends the Antipresbyters, have distasted, and by word of mouth often with much dislike, blamed Mr. Edward's for meddling with personal matters, notwithstanding his way of writing in this kind, is much different from this of yours, as being of practices and matters within these few years, since they went into that way of Independency, and as he conceives, flowing from their principles (and not as you in this, of things raked up through the whole course of their lives) being also professedly to discover the errors of the times (viz Here●ies, Blasphemies, &c.) and thereby to preserve the people from the evil of them.  
Now I pray you put this question seriously to your own soul, whether the same act done in the same kind by Mr. Edward's against the Independents, &c. be a vice and blame worthy, and y●t being done by Mr. J. P. against a Presbyterian or a Remonstrant, be a virtue, and worthy commendation; think seriously of it, and then receive such an answer as your own heart shall dictate to you.  
You know Mr. J. P. how careful I was of your good name, when about four mone●hs since a report was brought unto me c●ncerning some opinions of yours in matters of Religion (whether true or false I now argue not) that presently by a godly intimate friend of yours and mine, viz. Mr. James Russell, I did privately, without the least divulging them abroad, make you acquainted with it: And that very morning after your Book came forth against me▪ the like report was again publicly brought unto me in the presence of sundry witnesses; but in s●ead of taking revenge of you (which God ha●th forbidden me, Rom. 12. 19 saying, Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will rep●y saith the Lord) either by spreading them by reports, or printing them to your d●sparagement, I did p●esently, in the presence of Mr. James Story, who also heard them reported, tell them to you, remembering that of Solomon, Prov. 1. 9 He that repeateth a matter separateth very Friends; and desiring to follow our saviour's counsel, Matth. 7. 12. Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; and I hope I shall ever make it a rule for me to walk by, viz. to do as I would be done unto, and not as I am dealt with.  
And therefore in the examination and answering of your Book, I will (though much provoked by you, yet) by God's grace endeavour to be as free from pasiion or retaliation as possibly I can, well remembering that David, when Shimei cursed and railed upon him, observed much good from God in Shimei his great evil, and said, So let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, curse David; who shall then say, wherefore hast thou done so? 2 Sam. 16. 10. So I heartily desire, without the least reluctancy of Spirit against you, as the instrument seriously to observe, and truly to be sensible of, whatever is from God in all that you have said, and to lay myself in the dust in giving God the glory, both in the acknowledging of any error justly charged upon me, and of his mercy in my recovery. And I trust that through the goodness of▪ God I shall yet get much good out of that which perhaps you int●nded, and therefore divulged for mor● evil, setting before me as a pattern in this to walk by the practice of our Lord Christ, recorded for our example in 1 Pet. 2. 21, 23. Who when he was reviled, reviled not again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously; and with freedom of spirit I do heartily both praise the Lord, and thank you for your plain deali●g with me in any thing wherein as you profess, you really and singly intended my spiritua●● good, and pray the Lord to give you repentance, and to pardon you in every thing wherein in this transaction you have done otherwise.  
Thus with the real dem●nstration of ●y true love and affection to you, I crave your leave to go on to the answering of your Book, earnestly desiring that if yet after all we cannot agree in judgement and opinion, we may still close together in heart and affection, which (whatever the event shall prove) shall always be the desire, prayer, and endeavour of  
Your cordially loving and faithful Friend John Bellamy.   

A justification OF THE City Remonstrance, AND ITS VINDICATION.  
THE first thing you quarrel withal, is the Title of the Book, A Vindic●tion, &c. and this you continue to the latter end of your sixth Page, and (as in the Moderate Reply, so here in this) you endeavour in general terms to lay low the Remonstrance and its Vindication in the eyes of the people; As in your first page by comparing them to a bad Cause and its Advocates, than to the King's Declarations, R●monstrances, and their Abettors, to Absaloms' reb●llion again●● his Father David, and Achitophel's cunning counsel to draw the pe●ple ●fter hi●, to Demetrius his plea for Diana's greatness, and to Tertullu● 〈◊〉 against St. Paul.  
Ans●. ●●e pass by the parallel● which here you make with the Vindicator of the City Remonstrance, and leave it wholly to the 〈…〉 ●ensure of the judicious Reader, whether there be any the least par●ty in the things and cases by you compared, for I had much rather abide their test and trial, then in this to be a pleader of my own cause, and so I come to your application of it in these words: Viz.  
As it was in the beginning, so it is now; witness the present case, A moderate Reply to the City Remonstrance, in just●fication of the Parliaments innocency from the prejudice raised against them by the said Remonstrance, as (say you) shall be fully evidenced before we have d●ne.  
Answ. Two things I observe in this: first, that you say, (and therein you lay a charge upon the City) that the City Remonstrance hath raiseda prejudice against the Parliaments innocency: And secondly, you further say, that this shall be fully evidenced before you have done; the first is expressed, as usually you use to do, only in generals, which amount to nothing: But I pray consider with yourself, is not Mr. I. P. a Freeman and Citizen of London, one who lives, under God, in and by the Trad● of the City, and yet so far to forget himself and his duty, as thus to asperse the City and its actions with general, and yet unjust defamations, and all this under a specious show of a justification of the Parliaments innocency, when as there are clouds of witnesses, and many of them under the Parliaments own attestation, at all times ready to be produced if required, of London's fidelity, of London's loyalty, of London's unparalleled emboweling, and in a great measure emptying themselves, not only of treasure, but of blood also, and all this unweariedly from time to time, since the Parliament first fate, to this very day, yea always, with alacrity and freedom both of heart● and hands, for the honour, the defence, the just and necessary occasions of Parliament; and hath not the Honourable Ho●se of Lords, 〈◊〉 accepted and fully approved most of the particulars in the said Remonstrance, yea, those in special, and by name, which you so much oppose, viz. the suppressing of all Heresies and S●●ismes, &c. and promised to take the other particulars into their serious and speedy consid●ration, as by their answer to that Remonstrance presented to them it doth appear? and hath not the Honourable House of Commons also received the said Remonstrance, and promised to give an answer thereunto in due time, and not at any time since its receiving into their Honourable House, by any p●bli●e act manifested to the world the least dislike thereof? and yet must Lon●●●s Remonstrance by one of its own members be charged with raising a prejudice against the Parliaments innoceney?  
I pray consider whether by this you do not first charge the House of Lords for their being well satisfied with that, which yet you say, doth raise a prejudice against the Parliaments innocency. And secondly, whether you do not prejudge the judgement of the House of Commons, and therein break the privilege of Parliament, in passing such a sentence, and laying such a charge upon that, which yet lieth under their consideration: I only offer these two queries to your after, or second consideration.  
But for a ● this, you say that this shall be fully evidenced before you have done.  
Answ. I pray remember what it is that in this you promise, and be sure that in the particulars of it you make your Charge good, otherwise you must not be offended, nor take it ill, if according to the common proverb, you be judged to be one of them, which will undertake more in an hour, than you can perform in an age. I appeal to the Reader, whether as yet, either the Moderate reply, or this your Remonstrance Remonstrated, hath in any one instance, which either of you have given, or in all that both of you have done, done any thing which proves that the City Remonstrance hath raised a prejudice against the Parliaments innocency; and t●●ly you must needs bear with me in this, that I cannot judge your bare word to be of that Authority, as to believe it because you affirm it, especially considering the honourable House of Commons hath not as yet passed any the least displeasing sentence against it; and the honourable House of Lords hath declared, that they are well satisfied with the particulars contained in it. And both House● of Parliament, since their receiving of this Remonstrance, have in the Propositions sent to his Majesty for a safe & w●l grounded Peace● even in terminis, proposed more to his Maje●ty for his R●oyall▪ assent, as unto Reformation of Religion, than the Remonst●ant● have desired in their second, third, and fourth Petitidus, so much condemned by you; for the drift of all that they desire, is 〈◊〉 an equal conformity of all the Subjects of England to the public dis●ipline and doctrine set forth, or to be set forth by Authority of Parliament, as by reference to those three Petitions will clearly show, but both Houses of Parliament in their great wisdom, faithfulness, and care for the public safety and peace of the kingdom, have in the fifth and sixth Articles of the Propositions in these words thus proposed; viz. Ar●ic. 5. That Reformation of Religion accordin● to 〈…〉 by Act of Parliame●●, in such manner as both Ho●ses have agreed, 〈…〉 agree upon, after consultation had with the Assembly of 〈◊〉. And Article 6 it thus followeth; For 〈◊〉 much as ●ot● Kingdome● are 〈◊〉 oblig●d by the same Covm●n● to indeavo●● the ●●arest ●onjunction and unif●rmity in matters of Religion, that such unity and 〈◊〉 in Religi●n according to the Covenant as after 〈…〉 Divines of b●t● kingdoms now assembled, 〈…〉 shall be 〈◊〉 agreed ●pon 〈◊〉 Houses of Parliament of England, and by the Ch●rch and kingdom of Scotland, be 〈◊〉 by Acts of Parliament of both kingdoms respectively. And therefore were I thought worthy to be of your council, I sho●ld advise you to be so inge●●ous, as in this to confess your error, and not to imagine that you see more in the City Remonstran●e, than either one or both Houses of Parliament can yet discern; and for after times, I wou●d persuade you to forbear the thus unjust besm●a●ing and falsely acc●sing that City wh●reof you are a member, 〈◊〉 amongst whom under God you enjoy your livelihood.  
You g●e on and say, 〈…〉 Reply 〈◊〉 with adversary ●pon adversary representi●● the Au●hor of the said ●ooke, a liar, because 〈◊〉 tells 〈…〉 a friend to the Parliament.  
Ans●, Truly, these are fine 〈◊〉 if they were true, to beget 〈…〉 Remonstrance, and to ingratiate the opposer● in the eyes of the people. But I pray what do you 〈…〉, I must needs say you tread in the 〈…〉 Replyer 〈…〉, and it's very 〈…〉 the book and the page if you 〈…〉, and tell us the truth you have told, 〈…〉 you are called a liar, and where you are 〈…〉 you are a friend to the Parliame●● 〈…〉 be taking with children 〈…〉.  
The next thing you fall upon, is in your fourth page, and that is the word Humble Remonstrance, and upon this you descant in some similitudes, as of Court compliments, and Cavaliers carriage, and then in plain terms you call it, a Remonstrance invective against the Parliament.  
Answ. You are full of charges, though never so false, and liberal in your expressions, though you make nothing good; I conceive you think yourself safe and secure, and perhaps you are so from ever giving an account of these your actions to any earthly authority: but yet methink● the words of the ninth commandment should be of some authority to you, and bear some sway with you, viz. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. If not against a particular person, then sure not against a Corporation, a City whereof yourself are a member.  
Then you are offended at these expressions, viz. Two late libels, published by two Anonymusses; and you ask why I call them libels before I prove them so.  
Answ. They were so in themselves before I named them so; neither called I them libels, for any of those reasons which you would have the world believe I did. As first, because they are written by an Antipresbyter; nor yet because they contain in them lies, falsities, untruths, though all these in several instances are in the vindication made good against them, nor because they are little books, nor yet singly, because they are written against the City, or because they are without the author's Names, but for these two last reasons jointly and together: A libel I call that which is an untrue, and therefore an unjust Charge upon or against a Person, a Corporation, a Court, without any name annexed to make good what is there charged; and in this respect I appeal to the Reader, whether I did not truly and justly call them libels.  
Lastly, before you come to the body of the book, you have yet another fling against the Title, A Vindication of the City Remonstrance, that is, (say you) a Vindication of that which is invindicable: And therefore (say you) better it would be that both the City Remonstrance, and the vindication thereof were written in ashes with the finger of vanity, then in marble with the pen of a 〈◊〉, &c.  
Answ. For aught I yet see, it is but one 〈◊〉 opinion, and he none of the gravest neither, that the City Remonstrance is invindicable, and what you have said to prove it to be so, I desire the Reader to judge, for truly I cannot dis●ern it. But of this I am confident, that it is app●oved by the Ch●rch of Scotland, witness the Letter now in Print for all the kingdom to see, which was sent from the general Assembly 〈◊〉 the Church of Scotland, to the Lord Major, Alderme●, and 〈…〉 of London, June 18. 1646. manifesting thei● approbation of it, and thankfulness for it. And sure I may say● it is app●●ved by the generality of the ablest, grave●, and 〈…〉 witness their Petition subscribed by eight Thous●●● 〈◊〉 Hundred, thirty and four of their Hands presented the twenty third of June, 1646. to the Court of common-council, giving them thanks for it; testifying their approbation of ●t, and des●●ing them to wait upon the House of Co●m●ns fo● their gracio●s answer to it, which Petition is by Order of Co●●t since Printed. And me think● you should not forget that the same Remonstrance for the substance of it, was not only well accepted, but also graciously answered by the House of Lords. And therefore ●urely in the judgement of all these, the City Remonstrance ●s not ●udged 〈◊〉: But perhaps you ar●e of the ●ind● of 〈…〉 6. 16. who was 〈…〉 reason. And I make as little 〈…〉, yet it is and will be 〈◊〉 all the Reformed Churches in Europe, not one excep●●●. 〈…〉. Q●arrells 〈…〉 is you have to say against the 〈…〉 whether in all probability the Reply, and not the Remonstrance hath raised those disturbances, for the Subject of the Remonstrance is an earnest desire of the settlement of government, by one uniform Law, for all the Subjects of England to submit equally and alike unto, which I am sure must needs tend to peace and quietness, but the d●ift of the Reply is quite contrary, and therefore without all peradventure it's this, and its abettors, and not that and its promoters, which hath desired and occasioned these Divisions both in Church and State.  
In pag. 9 you go about to show that the common-council by their Remonstrance, did act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God; and for proof of this in page 11▪ you give us some Scriptures, and some passages in the Remon●●rance, which you say, or at least would have the world believe, is in a direct, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God; but you never tell the reader how, or wherein they are so, but thus you deliver them.  

LET US TRY than:  WORD OF GOD. CITY REMONSTRANCE. Rom. 14. 5. Let ●very man be fully persuaded in his own mind. That as we are Subjects of one Kingdom, so all may be equally required (and here to delude the Reader, you insert, without making the least change of the character, these following words, as if they also were in the Remonstrance; viz. Be they persuaded in their own minds, or not persuaded) to yield obedience to the government set forth, or to be set forth by the Parliament.  
Now I shall wholly all along in these your Parallels, leave it to the judgement of the Reader to consider, whether there be such an antipathy between these Scriptures, and those Petitions of the Remonstrance, as in the Remonstrance, without your insertion, they are expressed; and crave your leave in the same way of parallel, to set the same Scriptures with some branches of the Proposition● sent by both Houses of Parliament to the King, and other pass●ges of Parliament and then desire your judgement, whether they also 〈◊〉 a direct, e●ident and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God.  
WORD OF GOD. Propositions of both Houses of Parliament, Article the 5th. Rom. 14. 5. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. That r●formation of Religion according to the Coven●nt, be settled by Act of Parliament, in su●h manner as both Houses have agreed, or shall agree upon, after consultation had with the assembly of Divines.  ●CITI REMONSTRANCE. Rom. 14. 13. That no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall, in his b● others way. That all such Sectaries as conform not to the public Discipline established, or to be established (by Parliament, saith the Remonstrance, but this you leave out,) may be fully declared against, and some effectual course settled for proceeding against such persons: Here, say you, is a stumbling block● viz. a menace in a brother's way.  
Answ. But why do you leave out the beginning of that prayer, in the Petit●on which you cite●●t tells you the meaning of the Remonstrants, by the words all such Sectaries, ●iz. Those immediately before mentioned, as Anab●ptists, Brownists, heretics, schismatics, Blasphemers; do you not by omitting the mentioning of these, endeavour to del●de the Reader?  
I pray put down that Petition wholly together, and let the Reader be fairly dea●t with all, and have it, as in the Remonstrance it is expressed, an● then see how it is opposite to the Scripture by you set against it.  
〈…〉 〈…〉  
I desire here also in a parallel way, to set down the Scriptu●● by you brought, and a passage or two of the Parliaments, and 〈◊〉 desire your judgement, whether they also be in a direct, evident and obvious manner, against the express Will and Word of God.  
WORD OF GOD. ●Parliaments Declaration upon his majesty's Declaration after the Ba●taile at Edgebill, Pag. 659. Rom● 14. 13. That 〈…〉 put a 〈…〉 blo●k, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way. Had not his Majesty (seduced thereunto by that Popish and prelatical faction) denied his conse●t to the bill for the Assembly, so often by both Houses presented to him, we had long since manifested to the world by a well settled reformation, our 〈◊〉 dislike of ●* Brownism and anabaptism. Remonstrance of the State of the kingdom, page 19 We do declare, that it is far from our purpose or d●sire, to let lose the golden reins of† discipline and government in the Church, to leave private persons, or particular Congregations to take up what for me of Divine Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there should be throughout the whole realm, a conf●rmity to that Order which the Laws enjoin, according to the Word of God. M●t. 7 12. As you would that men should do unto you, so do unt● them, for this is the Law and the prophets. Page 3. we will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant: compare this with Page 7.  
Will you never leave fals●fying? where do you find any such expression in the Remonstrance, either in Page 3, or 7. as this is, viz. we will not receive impression of any forced construction of the Covenant? The House of Commons in their late Declaration of the 17 of April, 1646. do say, we expect that the people of England should not receive impressions of any forced construction of that Covenant; and in obedience thereunto, the Remonstrants, do say in page 2 and 3 of the Remonstrance, that in pursuance of that Noble resolution of this Honourable House, for the due observation of the Covenant, and their expectation of conformity of the people of England thereunto, expressed in the late Declaration, we do resolve by the grace of God not to receive impression of any forced construction thereof; and is it now become an acting in a direct, evident and obvious manne● against the express Will and Word of God, for the common-council to profess their resolutions to yield obedience to the desires and expectations of the House of Commons, in their not receiving impressions of any forced constructions of the Covenant?  
I desire your leave here also in a parallel way to set down the Scripture by you here brought, and another branch of the Propositions sent by both House of Parliament to the King; and to desire your judgement, whether that also be in a direct, evident and obvious man against the express Will and Word of God.  
WORD OF GOD. Propositions of both Houses of Parliament, Article the 6th. Mat. 7. 12 A● you would that men should do unto you, so do unto them, for this is the Law and the Pro●hets. For as much as both kingdoms are mutually obliged by the same Covenant, to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in matters of Religion: That such unity and uniformity in Religion according to the Covenant, as after consultation had with the Divines of both kingdoms now assembled, is, or shall be jointly agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament of England, and by the Church and Ki●gdom of Scotland, be confirmed by Acts of Parliament of both kingdoms respectively.  CITY REMONSTRANCE. Mat. 7. 1●. As you would, that men should do unto you, so do unto them, for this is the Law & the Pro●hets. The 4 Petition, That no person disaffected to Pre●byterian government (saith the Remonstrance, s●t forth, or to be set forth by the Parliament, but according to your usual course, this to blind the reader you sti●● leav● ou●) may be employed in any place of public trust; and the● you add, which is not at all in that Petition, those words: viz. But some effectual course settled to proceed against such persons, as in the 3 Petition, where there is not the shadow of a word tending to any such purpose.  
I confess the words you● cite are in the 2d. Petition, but not at all in the least manner applied to persons only disaffected to Presbyterian government, for there is no such word in that Petition, nor any thing looking that way; neither doth the common-council, in any part of their Petitions so much as desire that persons only disaffected to Presbyterian government, should by some effectual course▪ settled, be proceeded against; and therefore methinks you should have been a little more considerate, before you should thus falsely and unjustly have charged the common-council to act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God. This I will grant you, that in the second Petition the common-council doth desire, that all Anabaptiss, Brownists, He●etiques, schismatics, Blasphemers, and all such Sect●ries as conform not to the public Discipline established, or to be established by Parliament, may be fully declared against, and some effectual course settled for proceeding against such Persons, but is there no difference between Anabaptists, Brownists, heretics, ●chismaticks, Sectaries, and persons but disaffected to Presbyterian government? I pray tell me your mind plainly, would you have heretics and Blasphemers, 〈◊〉. such as deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, such as profess the Scriptures are writings only probable to be believed as the Story of King Henry the eighth● such as deny the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence, such as call the Trinity a three headed Cerberus, ●uch as deny the Divinity of Christ, such as deny the immortality of the soul, and such as deny that there is a God, or say, if there be a God, the devil is a God, such as say God is the author of sin, such who hold that all men shall be saved, yea, and the devils too, such as say that Christ's human Nature is defiled with original sin as well as ours, such as hold that all R●ligions, Worships, Consciences, whether Paganish, Jewish, Antichristian, &c. should be tolerated: would you have these tolerated, or would you not have some effectual course settled for proceeding against such Persons? or do you think these to be no more dangerous, if permitted to broach these Here●ies and Blasphemies in the Kingdom, then to permit persons otherwise every way peaceable, godly, and orthodox, because merely disaffected to Presbyterian government?  
I desire here also in a parallel way to set down the Scripture by you here brought, and a Vote of the House of Commons of the 30 July, 1641. and to desire your judgement, whether that also be in a direct, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God.  
WORD OF GOD. Vote of the House of Commons, die V●neris 30 jubii, 1641. Mat. 7. 12 As you would 〈◊〉 men should do unto you, so do unto them; for this is the Law and the Prophets. Resolved upon the Question. That this House doth conceive that the Protestation made by them, is sit to be taken by every person that is well-affected in Religion, and to the good of the commonwealth: And ●herefore doth ●eclar●, That what person soever shall not take the Protestation, is unfit to bear Office in the Church o● commonwealth.  
Thus having given you these Articles of the Propositions of both Houses of Parliament sent to the King for a safe and well grounded Peace, and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament, which I have placed after your example, in a parallel way, against the Scriptures by you brought, and desired your judgement whether these also do act (as you would have the world believe the Petitio●s in the Remonstrance doth) in a di●ect, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God. I pray you now also seriously to consider of those Petitions in the Remonstrance, and compare them together, with thes● Propositions for Peace, and the other passages of both or either House of Parliament, and then tell me what the Remonstrants in those three (so much by you condemned) Petitions, for the substance of them, did more desire of the Parliament, than both Houses of Parliament have now proposed to the King, or hath been formerly by them in these passages of both or either House of Parliament declared to the world.  
The● you say, presbyterial government is not in the Covenant, there●●re a● 〈◊〉, and this (say you) you enforce upon others, though you will receive no forc●d con●●ruction of the same yourselves.  
Answ. Where did the Remonstrants say that presbyterial government was in the Covenant? and if they never said it, as they never did, why do you here bring it in as if they had said it▪ I hope that at last you will learn to forbear falsifying. It is true, that in page 2 of the Remonstrance, they speak of Ordinance● for presbyterial government; and I think you will not deny but there are such, if you do, I will produce them; but though presbyterial government be not nominally, and in v●●bis in the Covenant, yet I hope without offence, it may be said that it is concord●ble to the Covenant, as being nearest to that government which the best reformed Churches do practise, and that by our Covenant we are bound to endeavour the settlement of. And that progress which both Houses of Parliament have already made, in, and towards the settlement of presbyterial government, they have done it in pursuance of the said Covenant, as by their own words in the Ordinance of the 14 of March, 1645. it doth appear, Viz. The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament being very sensible of the gr●●t duty which lieth upon them to settle matters 〈◊〉 ●eligion and the worship of Almighty God; and having continually before their eyes the Covenant, which they have so solem●ly taken: for the performance thereof, and the manifold motives and encouragements thereunto, which are given them from God himself by a special hand of Providence, p●wring forth daily mercies upon them; In discharge of their duty, and in purs●ance of the said Covenant, and in thankfulness to God for all his Mercies, have diligently applied themselves to that work of his Ho●se, by his grace and assistance they have made some progress therein, notwithstanding the exigency of other affairs, accompanied oftenti●es with great and imminen● dangers. And notwithstanding the great difficulty of the work itself in divers respects, and particularly in the right jointing of what was to be settled with the Laws and Govern●●nt of the kingdom, the want whereof hath ●aused much trouble i● this and other States; yet by the merciful assistance of God, having re●oved the book of commonprayer, with all its unnecessary and burdensome Ceremonies, and established the Directory in the ●●ome thereof, and ●aving abolish●d the prelatical Hierarchy, by Archbishops, Bishops, and their dependants, and in stead thereof, laid the foundation of a presbyterial Government in every Congregation, with sub●rdin●tion to Cla●●icall, Provinci●ll, and national Assemblies, and of t●e● all to t●e Parliament.  
Why do you also wrong the Remonstrants, in saying, They force presbyterial government upon others? do they any other thing then Petition the Parliament to settle that government which in the words of this Ordinance both the Lords and Commons do say, that in discharge of their duty, and in p●rs●ance of the said Covenant, they have laid the foundation already, viz. of a presbyterial government.  
You have yet one parallel more:  
WORD OF GOD. ●●ITY REMONSTRANCE. D●ut. 19 15. At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every thing be established. That Quarterman may be brought to some exemplary punishment for the affront done by him, &c. And then you say, Though no such thing was ever proved by one witness or testimony, that what he did was any aff●on● done to the privileges and Government of the City▪ Hang him, hang him, what hath ●e done?  
Answ. You deny not the act of Quarterman presume it is not that which you say was never proved by one witness or testimony, for the act was done at high Exchange time, within the sight and hearing of many hund●eds; but I conceive your meaning (for you do not express it, and therefore I can but guess at it) is, that the act in entering the City, and making proclamation therein with sound of Trumpet; without acquainting the Lord Major therewith, was not proved by one witness or ●estimony to be any affront done to the privileges or Government of the City, there never was any the least exception taken against the Order to proclaim, nor against the matter proclaimed, nor the time when, nor the place where the Proclamation was made; if according to the constant and uninterrupted course of transacting things of that nature, the Lord Major, who is the chief Magistrate of the City had but been acquainted with it. Now I appeal to the Reader, whether such an act done in such a manner in the sight and hearing of many hundreds, without acquainting the Lord Major therewith, be not an affront done to the privileges and government of the City.  
In page 14. you tell the Reader, that I except against the replyer, for saying, The Parliament hath promised in several Declarations a gracious respect to tender Consciences.  
Answ. In page 9 of my Vindication, I cited out of the Replyer, page 2, these following words, viz. That it is notoriously known that the Parliament did promise in several declarations, a gracious respect to tender Consciences. I did not except against him for so saying, but I told him then, and I tell you now, that I will not say that this is false, left I should fall into that sin, which I am forced so frequently to reprove you for; but 〈…〉 bee any such promises in former Declarations which I yet remember not, as I then said to him, so I now say to you, you should have done well to have expressed the date of those Declarations, and the words of the promises, that so the Reader might see, that at least in something you, I say you, as well as the Replyer, desire to deal fairly with them, for the Remonstrants they still laid a fair Copy before you in the Remonstrance, so to have writ after them.  
And now without showing any one Declaration more than the Replyer did, you go on and say, It seems you are willing to hide your eyes from such observations in the Parliaments Declarations, as though this were an abòminatio●● to you, that they should ●a●e any respect to ten●er consciences.  
Answ. I never knew before, that a desire to know the dates of the Parliaments several Declarations, and to see the words of the promises which they therein make, of a gracious respect to tender consciences, which the Replyer saith, is so notoriously known, (and which I must confess as then, so now, I remember not,) had been a manifestation of a man's willingness to hide his eyes from such observations in the Parliaments Declarations. And it is so far from being an abomination to me, that the Parliament should have any respect to tender Consciences, that I shall much rejoice both in the beholding of any true tenderness of conscience in any man, and at all due respect which the Parliament shall show unto them.  
Yet can I not conceive that heretics that deny there is a God, or that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and that they are no more to be believed then the Stories of Henry the 8th', &c. or Blasphemers, which call the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence, a three headed Cerberus, &c. that these, and such as these, can properly be brought in under the notion of tender consciences.  
But th●n you ask me if I have forgotten the l●st Declaration of the 17 of April, 1646, Answ. You know tha● neither the Remonstrants, no● yet myself have forgotten that Declaration, for it is by the Remonstrants in their second page, cited as a Noble resolution of this Honourable House for the due observation of the Covenant: and their expectation of the conformity of the people of England thereunto 〈◊〉 in that Declaration, and it is by 〈◊〉 in the tenth page 〈◊〉 my Vindication quoted as a justification of the Remonstrants (who to answer the expectation of the House of Commons manifested in that Declaration in these words, viz. we do● expect that the people of England, should not receive impressi●●s of any forced co●struction of that Cov●nant) do profess that they do resolve by the grace of God not to receive impressions of any forced construction thereof. But what is this one Declaration to that the replier saith, that it is notoriously known that the Parliament did promise a gracious respect to tender Conscience● in many several De●larations, or what i● it to that which you do say, viz. Wer● I as well furnished with Books as yourself, doubtless I cou●d show you several other D●clarations, where they promise a Christian respect to tender C●ns●iences.  
Then you go on and say, I am so●ry Mr. Bellamy, you sh●uld be so apt now adays to cast out of your memory the praise▪ ●orthy Acts ●f the Parliament.  
Answ. I'll say no more in 〈…〉 Replyer or yourself, but that I would desire you not to take it 〈◊〉, because I remember not that which yet 〈…〉 so notoriously known, and that which you say, were I well furnished with books, doubtless I could show 〈…〉 is whil● neither he, nor you, can, or at 〈…〉 instance of any other 〈…〉 in●reat you at present to fo●beare your sorrow, and for aftertimes not to be so censori●us as to charge me to be so apt now a days 〈…〉 Parliament; 〈…〉 I shall be as ready to 〈…〉 without any ground charges me to be so apt now a days to cast them out of my memory.  
In your 16 page you thus go on, speaking to me, viz. In the next place you begin with an interrogation, as if you had gotten a Com●ission to ins●'t; thus; What? is London's care to keep the Covenant▪ now become Lond●ns ruin, &c. Doubtless these are Doctrines of a new date, and near a kin to those new Lights, which so many now ad●yes d●e so much bo●st of. And th●n you say, Whither now Mr. Bellamy? I profess my ●eart aches, and my hand trembles, shall I write, or shall I forbear? I passed by your sc●ffing at new Lights once b●fore at pag. 10. and took no notice of it; but I meet with it again, yea, with an additional scoff, Doctrines of a new d●te, and new Lights, &c.  
Answ. When I resolved to endeavour the Vindication of the City Remonstrance, I resolved with myself, that I should mee● with oppositions, and therefore desired so to carry on the worke● as not willingly to let a phrase fall from me, that might justly give any cause of offence, and to that end, my care was to weigh words as well as matter, well knowing that sweet and pleasing langu●ge, with solid reason and st●ong a●guments, best conduce to the carrying on of a controversy.  
I confess, that as in p. 10. so here, I use the word new Lights, and Doct●ines of a new date, but whether in the least appearance as a scoff or a jeer, I freely leave to the Reader both to examine and censure; for as scoffing and jeering are far from my disposition, so I can safely say, they were as far in this from my intention. I desire the Reader to take a survey of the passages immediately preceding these expressions, as they are transcribed out of the Moderate Reply, and judge whether I had not just cause to speak what ever is there spoken; the expressions are these, viz. That the Remonstrants do discourage the Parliament, and that they press them in all haste, unto a sudden enfeebling of their strength, by crushing a considerable party of as cordial friends as ever they had since the wars began. And that, because they will not swear a submission unto that Church-government, whic● (say you) neither they, nor yourselves ye● understand, and to make so ill a requital of their winter's w●rke. And then again, Shall the whole kingdom, that was almost re●dy 〈◊〉 all its Quarters to congratulate with London for all its love, now throw by these thoughts, and with sad ●earts, and pale faces, t●ll their wives and children, friends, and neighbours, W●e and alas London will ruin 〈◊〉, London begins to decline the Parliament, London begins to clos● with the King, London is filled with Malignant language, London remonstrates to the Parliaments prejudice, London's City is England's woe.  
Now I pray consider whether these so many, so foul, and yet withal so false charges shall be laid against London, and that for their performance of what by Covenant they are sworn unto, doth not justly occasion these interrogations; and let the Reader judge whether my using of them gave you any cause to say, that I begin with them, as if I had a Commission to insult, and whether from these, and my calling them Doctrines of a new date, which▪ whether they be so or no, the Reader will easily discern. And my saying that they are near akin to those new Lights which so many now adays do so much boast of; which I therefore did, because they which do now adays so much boast of their new Lights, are the persons which do thus calumniate London for this their Remonstrance, and are the prime men which vilify the Covenant, as in sundry particular instances in my Vindication I made it good. I say, pray consider, and let the Reader judge whether all or any of these things gave you any just occasion thus to rake up, as you have done, reports against me, whether true or false, and to publish them to the whole World, as in your 1617., 18, 19, 20, & 21 pages of your Book, and so almost all along to the end you have thus done, leaving the argument in difference between us, and falling upon some personal things, which you say have been reported to you concerning my carriage in matters of Religion: I'll come to the particulars; first, you tell the Reader the place of my birth, and that I was borne a Son of the Church of England under Episcopacy: Truly, if this be a fault or e●rour, I conceive Mr. I. P. will not deny himself to be guilty of the same crime. Then you come to the manner of my breeding, the time of my coming to London, and my being bound an Apprentice to Mr. Nicholas Bourne, Citizen and Stationer of London: and you tell the Reader how my carriage was for the time of my apprenticeship, which you are pleased thus to express, Exercising such strictness and exactness in keeping and preserving that rich jewel of a quiet and tender conscience, &c.  
Answ. What is this either to the City Remonstrance, or to my Vindication thereof? these are the things now in debate between you and me; but your thus elevating me up in praises i● this, and some such other passages in your Book, is only to cast me down with the greater violence, so farr● as you can, to my defamation and destruction; but I pray consider (●nd let your own heart be y●ur own judge, for I will not accuse you) whether your dealing with me in this, be not just like the Devils with our Saviour Christ, Matth. 4 5, 6. who took him up to the Pinnacle of the Temple, that so, if it were possible, he might break his neck by throwing him down to the ground.  
But say you, my tenderness of conscience appeared, In that I would not personally sell such books (as Prayer books) which were ordinarily sold by other Stationers, and in my Master's Shop.  
Ans. Mr. I. P. you and the Reader shall both see by this first particular, what credit either you are to give to the reports you have heard of me, for there is not any one thing that you deliver upon your knowledge, but all upon hearsay; and you know the old Proverb●, Fam●est mendax, or what little regard is to be had to what you all along in this, and in other particulars have written of me; For as you have delivered them, I solemnly profess, that to the best of my knowledge and remembrance there is not one of them true. I confess that neither myself, nor any of my fellow Servants did sell any playbooks, or other books in that nature; and our not selling these, was by my Masters own order and direction, and that upon such good grounds, as I know you neither will, nor can question. But for the particular which you instance in, viz. Prayer-books, there is but one man living that I know of, that can testify any thing upon knowledge concerning my practice in this particular, and that is my Master Mr. Nicholas Bourne, who was concerned in it, and therefore his testimony is the more considerable: I'll give it you in, as an answer to what in this you have Printed upon the Credit of your reporters, and that in his own words written to me in a Letter upon the sight of this passage in your Book; it thus follows:  
This 24. of July, 1646.  
Mr. Bellamy,  
This day there came to my hands, a book called the City Remonstrance Remonstrated, where in pag. 1●. I find you are accused, that when you were my S●rvant you would not sell Prayer-books: To which I answer, to prove the contrary, that I know you nev●r refused to sell any Prayer-books; and that I printed a Prayer-book, called The Supplications of Saints, of which I do believe you sold some hundreds: And this I test●fie under my Hand the day and year● above written.  
P●r me Nicholas Bourne.  
The next thing you fall upon, thinking thereby to defame me, is, That after I set up Shop for myself, the business of infant's baptism grew into deb●te; and (say you) I then fell into the Opinion of the An●baptists, &c.  
Answ. Mr. I. P. I am sorry you should so easily entertain reports without ground, and so freely publish them to the World, knowing nothing of them; he that told you this, if he knew what it was he said unto you, knows, that as unto the point of time he told you an untruth. I confess, that many years before this, even when I was not above 17 years of age, I did upon some s●ruples put into me by an Anabaptist, entertain their opinion, but I bless God, it was not above a month's time before the Lord discovered my error to me. It is now above 30 years since, and must this be raked up afresh by you, and thrown in my face to blemish what you can that which I have written in defence of the Remonstrance? Is this a carriage becoming a sober Christian? one ●olid argument, or good reason, if you had them to give, against the Remonstrance or its Vindication, would with wise men be more regarded, then twenty such useless or vain reports.  
Then you tell the Reader of my applying myself to a separate Coxgregation, and of my continuance with them, and the manner of departing from them; and all this you affirm, it seems, as upon your own knowledge, for you do not in all this say as in others things, it is reported so, but positively affirm the particulars to be so.  
Ans. I am sure you know nothing more, nor less, of all that in this you have written, for the time you relate to, was near twenty years before you and I ever saw the faces one of another, but to show you your mistake, and to let it appear how you are abused in receiving, and have abused me in divulging of of th●se things, I'll give you and the world, (being as it wer● thus by you called thereunto) a true account of them, It's true, I did above thirty years since apply myself to that Congregation, whereof Mr. Jacob was then Pastor, with whom I continued in Communion all the time he continued in this kingdom, and some years after: but that this was then as you affirm a Separate Congregation, I deny, and son proof of what I say, I appeal to the confession of the faith of the said Congregation published in print, in Anno 1616. Which was a little after the time applying myself, as you call it unto them, in which it doth appear that Separation was then witnessed against by that Congregation, and the judgement of that Congregation than was that the pub●ique Congregations in this Kingdom, was the true Churches of Christ, the ministry thereof as received by the people, a true ministry, the Ordinances there administered, both of baptism, the Lord's Supper, &c. the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ, and that we not only might, but in some respect ought to join in Communion with the said public Congregations in the said Ordinances, and that not so to do was our sin. I'll give it you for your present satisfaction in the very words of the printed confession of the Faith of that Congregation, Article the eleventh, the latter end of it, thus it is. It being no evil, nor any appearance of evil, justly in us to join to the Parish-Congregation and ministry in such respect, and so far fort● on●ly 〈◊〉 is aforesaid, we ought, (as we bel●eve) sometime on w●ight● occasion so to join, and we sin if we do not. This printed confession of Faith I have by me, and am very ready for the clear and full confirmation of what in all this I write, to show to you, or to any one that desires satisfaction in the truth of what I affirm.  
And as it was then the judgement of that Congregation, so was it also then the practice of the members thereof. And for the proof of this, I appeal first to so many of the than members in general of that Congregation, who are now living, and knew the church's practice in this particular, and in special to Mr. Sabine Staresmore, who, (I conceive, and that upon good grounds) hath been one main instrument by misreports to have thus misled you, and therein abused me: but if it be so, God give him grace to see his sin, and forgive it him, or whoever it was; I trust, my heart shall never with consent, entertain so much as the shadow of a thought to make the like requital; but I will study and endeavour, and lay hold upon every opportunity which the Lord shall hold forth unto me, to do all the good I can to him, to them, to you, for this your evil done to me, remembering what our Saviour Christ hath taught me, Matth. 5. 44. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. But I beseech you all seriously to consider, that if this be not persecution with the tongue, then tell me what is. And I pray you considerately to ponder and weigh well that of the Prophet Jeremy 20. 10. and make such use of it to your own souls, as God shall direct you to do; the words are these, I heard the defaming of many, fear on every sid, report, say they, and we will report it, all my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure 〈◊〉 will be enti●●d, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. But my comfort and stay in this I trust s●all be the same with the Prophet, in that, manifested in the next verse, But the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one, therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail, they shall be greatly ashamed, for they sh●ll not prosper.  
I fu●ther appeal for proof of what I affirm, unto Mr. Henry Roborough, now one of the Scribes of the Assembly of Divines, and Pastor of Leonar's E●st cheap London, whether he hath not at that time observed that Mr. Jacob, and other known members of that Congregation, did usually communicate in the Ordin●nces of Christ in the public Congregations: And whether he hath not with his own hands, administered the Lord's Supper to Mr. Jacob, and other then known members of his Church. And that the members of this Congregation, did then not only communicate in the public Assemblies in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but also in the Sacrament of baptism, yea, that they did b●ptize their own children in the public Assemblies; I appeal for the truth of this, unto the testimony of so many of them as be now living, and remember the church's practice in this particular at that time, and if there be none now living that can remember, and will testify this, then in particular I appeal to the Register Book of Andrew Hubbard London, whether upon the 7 of December, 1623. there was not then and there baptised, Susan the daughter of Robert Lynell, and of Susan his Wife, both which was then Parishioners of that Parish and members of this C●ngregation, and R●bert Lynell ● Deacon of the Church. I fu●ther appeal unto the Regi●●er-book of saviour's Southwark, whether upon the third of February, 1624. there was not then and there baptised, B●rshua●, the daughter of Daniel Ray, who then was a Pa●ishioner of that Parish, and a member of this Congregation. I could produce many others in the like kind, but these may suffice to confirm the truth of what I affirm, neither would I have printed this, but for the witness of this truth, viz. That that Congre●ation did then ho●d it not only lawful, but of nec●ssity, upon pain of sin, ●e●rding to the Printed Confession of Faith, to c●mmunicate in the public ministry and Ordin●nces, and that both of baptism and the Lord● Supper.  
Neither do I write this in the least measure, to reflect upon the present now members of that Congregation, if in their judgements and practice they now walk otherwise; provided, that by the warrant of the word of God they can clearly justify their present walking; but I must crave your favour for myself still to continue in the same judgement and practice I then was, and which is concordable to the then Confession of the Faith of the Church, as unto communion in the Parish Congregations, both in the ministry and Ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, though you falsely charge me of mutation and change in so doing. And thus I hope I have showed you your mistake in that you affirm, I applied myself to a separate Congregation. I shall also endeavour to give you as ample an account of the just reason (as I humbly conceive) of my leaving them.  
Mr. Ia●ob leaving England, and going to Virginia, the Congregation was then for a time, to the best of my remembrance, left without a Pastor: and then many of the members of the said Congregation varying in their judgements from what was in the Confession of the Faith of the Church formerly printed; and being now both in judgement and practice against Communion in the Ordinances of Christ in the public Congregations, which by the Confession of the Faith of the Church, we were bound upon pain of sin to maintain, both in judgement and practice; this occasioned many disputes, and some differences, a● last the point of Ordination of Ministers came under debate, which was the first, yea, the only occasion that Put a thought into my breast about my departing from that Congregation: And at that time Mr. John Lothrop, a learned, holy, humble, and painful Preacher was the Pastor, than the Congregation ordered three of their members to confer with me about that difference, I then did, now do, and ever will acknowledge their great love, and tender respect to me in it, but after ●undry Conferences, and we not agreeing, I thought it my duty, to signify my mind in writing under my hand to the whole Congregation, which I then did in these words:  
To his dearly beloved Christian Friends Mr. John Lothrop, and all the rest of the Congregation with him assembled, this publicly present.  
Christian Friends, and dearly beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, having by the Congregations appointment had Conference with three of the Brethren, about a point in controversy, which we cannot agree, I thought it my duty to signify my mind in writing to the whole Congregation, which is, That after many thoughts spent, and some pains taken in Conference, and examination of Scriptures, and searching the judgements of Divines, both ancient and modern, about the matter in controversy, viz. Ordination, or the complete investing of persons chosen by the free consent of the Congregation into those Offices (for ministerial employments) unto which they are elected, I conceive for the Reasons following, this to be the truth, viz. That it ought to be performed actually by precedent Church-Officers.  
1. Because that the Apostles in Acts 6. finding the Church to be in want of Officers, gave them direction for the performance of what was their duties, tending to the obtaining of the aforesaid wants, which was to elect persons qualified according to direction, which they, viz. the Congregation did, & reserving the other of complete stating them into their Offices, unto themselves, which they, viz. the Apostles effected: the texts for confirmation, which with a single eye I desire to be considered of, are, Acts 6. v. 3. for the precept enjoining the duty, and v. 5, and 6. for the duty in obedience to the precept performed, the words are, choose you out whom we may appoint, not choose you and appoint.  
2. That which the Apostles reserved in this place to themselve● in their precept to the Congregation, and accordingly after practised, as in the first appeareth, so also in other Congregations or Churches they did the like, as Acts 14. 23, When they had 〈◊〉 them elders in every Church, they, that is, Paul and Barnabas, as appeareth v. 12, 14.  
If it be objected, that this was done by Officers extraordinary, which had their Calling and Commission immediately from God, and therefore is not fitly brought so, as to require the like to be done by ordinary Officers: I desire for answer to it, this third reason may be con●idered.  
3. That which in this kind was done by the Apostles, which I grant were extraordina●ily called by God, and gifted accordingly, the same was after done by them which had their ordinatio● by ordinary Officers in Churches, as Timothy Titus, as appeareth, 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy was ordained by the hands of the Company of the Eldership, and he in particular, and not the Congregation in general, is charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, to lay hands suddenly on no man, 1 Tim. 5. 21, 22. which Scripture, with submission to better judgements, I conceive teacheth these two duties.  
1. That Timothy an ordained Officer ought to lay on hands in Ordination, and not any other but Officers ordained.  
2. That they that do ordain, aught to do it with advisement and great deliberation, not preferring one before another partially.  
And as Timothy, so Titus, as testifieth the Apostle, 1 Titus v. 5. was left at Creta to ordain Elders in every City: And for my part, I am ignorant of any one example in all the new Testament, where Ordination was performed by any but Church Officers; and for the clear and distinct understanding of the quality and difference of Church Officers extraordinary and ordinary, that we may know which is, which, I desire that this Scripture may be considered, Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ; where the Apostle to prove his apostolical, or extraordinary Calling, greensmith that he was not an Apostle of men, neither by man, for than he had been but an ordinary Minister, but by Jesus Christ; and so as his calling was extraordinary, his O●●ice is the like; from whence followeth this inference, that such as is the calling, such is the Office, they that had their calling immediately, was extraordinary Officers, such was t●e Apostles; & such as have their calling mediately, or by means are ordinary, such was Timothy, as in the forequoted Scripture may appear, and so are all such as have their Ordination by preced●nt Church officers. This interpretation I so give, as upon a better manifested, I shall desire to r●tract this.  
4. If it had been in the power of the Congregations as to elect, so lawfully and without sin to ordain, the Apostle might have written from place to place, Letters of direction according to which, Congregations might have proceeded, and so of themselves effected it, and then the Apostles by that might have had the more time for the publishing of the Gospel of Christ in other places, where yet they had not been, and not have travailed so many miles back again from place to place to ordain Elders, which if lawfully it might have been omitted, it would have spared them much pains, and much advanced the publishing of the Gospel, for we see that when the Church omitted another Ordinance, viz. Excommunication, the Apostle went not to them, but sent to them to do it, 1 Cor. 5.  
5. That which the holy Ghost maketh two distinct Ordinances in Churches, and commands them to be performed by persons of a twofold or distinct consideration in Churches, that none ought to confound, or make them one Ordinance, neither ought they to be performed by Churches otherwise th●n by the persons in the said twofold or distinct considerations.  
But the holy Ghost maketh Election and Ordination two distinct Ordinances in Churches, & commands them to be performed by persons of a twofold or distinct considerations in Churches, viz. Election by the members, Ordination by the Officers, Act. 6. 3.  
Therefore none ought to confound, or make them one O●dinance, neither ought they to be performed by Churches otherwise then by the Persons in the said twofold or distinct considerations.  
These things thus considered, prove this Conclusion, That that Church or Churches which hold and enjoy their Church Officers any otherways, then by the Ordination of former Church officers hold and enjoy them not according to the mind of C●rist, and all the administrations of such Church Officers, their manner of entrance into their Office, not being grounded on Scripture, are unlawful, and not to be c●mmunicated with; and this is the ground of my withdrawing myself from that Congregation with whom I formerly walked.  
If it be objected, I formerly made question of this same particular, and yet after that walked with the Congregation again. I answer, that it is true, and that I did upon this ground, as to some it's evidently known.  
After some question with the Congregation about it, one of the members, who formerly also had doubt●d of the same thing, at last said, he was stayed for the present upon this consideration; That if the Ordination of the Church without Officers, were not of force to give a complete being by Ordination to a Pastor, yet our Pastor having formerly been Ordained by a precedent ministry, in that respect his ministry was t●ue, and his Administrations lawful; unto which, as willing to embrace any truth manifested, I assented, and upon that ground, and no other, I received his ministry, and partooke in, and communicated with his Administrations, and this not secretly, but professedly.  
But after that, I being in trouble, and in probability to be questioned about my practice in this particular, I was, as some know, in mind much troubled, for having withdrawn myself from the public Assemblies, and yet enjoying in my own judgement, and by my own confession, neither ministry nor Administrations, but what derivatively I had from them; and also professing both the public Congregations, and ministry, and Ordinances, to be the true church's ministry, and Ordinances of ●hrist, and so far pure, as for me to refuse communion with them, even by the public Confession of that Congregation with whom I walked, was a sin: I could not then, neither can I now tell which way, without a great deal of scandal, to take upon me, before authority in these respects to clear my practice, or to reconcile this at least seeming Paradox, the rather considering, that in this particular I was not only left alone by the most and best of Orthodox Di●ines, foreign and national, but even by that Congregation also with whom I walked, who though it hold a necessity of communicating in the Assemblies in some cases, and that as before the church's ministry and Ordinances be true, yet hold not their ministry in their own, by vertu● of Ordination from a precedent ministry, but by the Ordination of the Congregation, unto which, neither could I then, nor can I now, for the Reasons fore-specified give my assent, bu● must remain contrary minded till the force of the Reasons and Argument, be taken away, or a better ground be manifested to me, which at all times, I shall desire to embrace. Thus desiring what truth herein is contained may be received, and what error, if any, may be showed, that all of us by leaving the evil, and doing the good, may obey our God in whom I rest; desiring ever to be a true Friend and Brother to you all, and to all others that love the Lord Christ.  
John Bellamy.  
After the sending of this Letter, I received an answer from the Congregation, and returned them a Reply, a Copy of which Reply I have now by me, but upon desire, I delivered back the Answer to one of the members, and would now have obtained it again, and printed it with my Reply to it, but it would not be granted me. I would not have printed these passages, but that I conceived it requisite to satisfy you and the reader the grounds of my leaving that Congregation. And after this, (what further passed in that Congregation concerning myself) I know not. Now, if that Congregation with whom I then walked, was afterwards in their judgements and practice changed or altered, from what the Confession of the Faith of the Church then was when I joined to them, and the practice of the members thereof then was, while I walked with them, as unto communion in the ministry and Ordinances both of baptism and the Lord's Supper, &c. in the public Parish Congregations (for that is the expression in the Confession,) and that not thus to communicate, in such respect, and so far forth only as aforesaid, was our sin, even by our own confession; then I pray you tell me (for I will not judge) whether is most blame worthy, they or I, and in whom is most mutation to be found.  
But if I may without offence speak it, methinks you exceed the bounds of Christian love and charity (yet will I not call it, a piece of your Independent justice which we must expect, as in another case you call it, a piece of presbyterial justice, which (say you) we are like to find from you when power is in your hands, Pag 4.) in presuming that revenge against this Congregation and its members, hath put me thus on work in the City Remonstrance and its Vindic●tion, for the Lord that searcheth the hearts of all men, knoweth my heart, and unto him I do appeal, that from that time to this hour●, which I think is now near twenty years, I never had the least thought of revenge in me, either against the whole, or any particular member of that Congregation, but have according to my poor ability, been always ready and willing to perform all offices of Christian love and respect unto any of them; and I hope, as ●ccasion is offered, ever shall be; and though I cannot agree with them in opinion and practice, yet I hope I shall ever love them as my own soul.  
In page 18. you speak of my meeting with a select company of Christians in a cursory way; where you are pleased to say more than ever I deserved, or had cause to think of, concerning my carriage amongst them to their comfort and content.  
An●w. Truly, I bless God, I have often met with sundry s●lect Companies of godly Christians in holy duties, and been willing, according to the best of my abilities, to do or receive any good to, or from them, but sure I dare not think you judge this to be criminal; but yet you say, that with much grief of soul they assert these things. What your meaning in this is, as you express it not, so indeed I know it not; I hope, as I ever have done, so I ever shall endeavour to do or to receive any spiritual goo● from any company of Christians with whom either purposely or occasionally I shall converse; and for this you have my mind and judgement, which according to that talon God hath given me is, and ever shall be concordable to my practice; you may read it in my Vindication, page 21. it is in an answer to a query of the Replyer, viz. what the Remonstrants mean by private and separate Congregations; it's answered negatively in these words, That the Remonstrants do not mean by private and separate Congregations, the private meetings of Christian people for Prayer, Exhortation, Repetition of Se●rmons, or any other laudable and Christian family, or neighbourly duties amongst the Saints; as to these I am assured all the Remonstrants will join with you in your desire, that abh●r'd h●th by God and all good men, may all requests be that shall be made for the suppressing of th●se.  
Next, you go about summarily to reckon up such things, as either lying fame hath told you, or your own fancy dictates to you, and for fear of failing, you repeat them in several places; and therefore where you are pleased to lay them down, I must undergo the pains to take them up, they are in p●ge 19, and page 30. where you say, I have been for Bishops, and against Bishops; for Separates, and against S●parates; a Sectary, and an A●ti-sectary; a schismatic, and an anti-schismatic; and so you go ●urther on in many other the like expressions according to your pleasure.  
Answ. If all these were true which here you specify, and all the former particulars before recited, yet what are all, or any of these to the City Remonstrance or its Vindication? Truly, I must needs say, that it is a shrewd sign of a bad Cau●e; and I think the Reader will be of the same mind with me, when in stead of Arguments or Reasons to confute what is affirmed, you must fall so foul upon the Person, and the suppo●ed miscarriages of him whom you oppose; it seems you had little hope that yourself by strengtst of Argument should do any good, and therefore you call in for help, such as it is, in this way of combating to cast me down, just like the Heathens against the Christians in the Primitive ●imes, and the Papists against the Protestants in these latter times; but I pray ●emember what you say of the Reply, in the 5 page of your book, the latter end, That there may possibly be mistakes more than enough in it, for the holy Scripture only excepted, where is thirt writing without mistakes? May not the like be said, as of Books, so of men, where is the man without his errors, without his miscarriages? as I will not accuse, so I believe you will not excuse Mr. I. P. himself from these. And truly, for ●y self, I dare not to these plead my defence; for I know more by myself, than you, or all your Reporters can accuse me of, and earnestly & humbly I desire that God may be glorified both in my acknowledgement of them to him, and his pardoning of them to me; but upon what ground you should thus boldly break in upon me, knowing nothing of any thing that of the●e you affirm, I can but wonder: I pray be pleased to make a second inquiry amongst all your Reporters, and see if they can make it out for truth unto you, that ever at any time, in any place, either by word or writing, any thing fell from me, either for Bishops, for Separates, for schismatics, or for Sectaries, and if not, as confident I am nor you, nor they can, then why do you wrong yourself and your Cause, in thus going about to wrong me, by reporting and divulging these untruths of me?  
But I have tired out myself, and perhaps wearied the Reader too, in following you so long upon these personal things, yet must I needs crave favour to particularize one passage more, viz. in your 29 pag. in these words, viz. Mr. 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 common-council, or among your brethren the Stationer's, the Committee appointed for the keeping up and maintaining the Expository Lectures, and what your carriages are now, stand with admiration and amusement at your wheeling thus about.  
Answ. I desire the Reader to observe the many Charges which in this you lay against me, at the least six, yet you particularize not any one; might I not more justly than you, take your own words used in reference to Quarterman, in your 12 page, and apply them to that which in this you spoke against me, viz. Hang him, hang him, what hath he done? And what I pray you may such as know me not, be ready to judge of me? when they hear so many, and so great Charges in the general laid against me, and seemingly confirmed by so many Witnesses, as the whole common-council, the Company of Stationers, the Committee for Expository Lectures? was there ever the like passages printed against any man by the worst of enemies that ever he had to charge him with something against the King, as if that were Treason, something against the Lords & Commons, as if that were either Treason, or at least Scandalum Magnatum, and this to be whispered by me in the ears of many, that now speak of it again, and yet to instance in nothing at all; and than furth●r to say, what your carriages have been not very long since in common-council, or among your Brethren the Stationers, the Committee appointed for the keeping 〈…〉 maintaining the Expository Lectures. Now I appeal to your own soul, whether this your dealing can have any defence m●de for it. And I do appeal also to the worst of Enemies that I have alive (as it seems I have a great many; for I thank you heartily for it, you told me privately by word of mouth upon Saturday the 8 of this August, that there is a book of the History of my life, already drawn up, and fitted for the press, wherein are many heavy Charges laid against me in the matters of my conversation:) to make any thing good against me in any of these generals which here you sp●ak of, and in particular I appeal to the Court of common-council, to the Company of Stationers, and to the Committee a●pointed for the keeping up and maintaining the Expository Lectures, (for all these you seem to bring as witnesses against me,) whether ever I did or spoke any thing at any time in any of the●e Assemblies, which in any thing was any way cross or contrary either to the City Remonstrance, or to any thing in my Vindication thereof; for you say, that they observing your now carriages, stand with admiration and amazement at your wheeling thus about.  
Mr I. P. I pray remember that Scripture, which in your 1● page you set in a parallel against a passage in the Remonstrance, to prove that the common-council doth act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner against the express Will and Word of God, and bring it hither, and set it likewise in parallel against this your dealing with me, and then tell me who doth act in a direct, evident, and obvious manner, against the express Will and Word of God; the Scripture you cite, is Matth. 7. 12. As you would that men should do unto you, so do unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Mr. I. P. I beseech you ask your own soul, whether you would that I, or any other man should deal thus by you, as you have dealt by me, gathering up whatever you cou●d hear against me, whether true or false, in my carriages about matters of Religion, and that for above 30 years together; and though you know nothing of any one of them more or less, and there being not one of them true as you relate them, yet without ever speaking one word to me about them, with such boldness and confidence of truth to publish them to the world: And now tell me, Whether you do as you would be done unto, and whether in this, your own Conscience being your judge, you do not act in a direct evident, and obvious manner against the express will and word of God.  
But I must break off, yet with this resolution, that your endeavour thus to blaz on my Name, and blast my Repute, shall by God's grace quicken me up to a more Christian watchfulness over all my ways, that I may walk more inoffensively towards men, and more pleasingly before God; and I bless my God, that my Name is neither in the power of your tongue, nor pen, nor yet of your reporters neither, but only in the hand & power of my good God who is able to keep that which I have committed to him; and I bless his Name, I am not in any thing terrified by that which you or they have in this already done, in thus seeking to defame me, nor yet, I hope, ever shall be at that History of my Life, which you say is ready for the press to be Printed against me.  
Next, you come in your 22 page to that question wherein resides the Supreme power of the kingdom, and upon this Argument you continue near to the end of your Book; and in page 23 you begin your Que●ies, and first, you ask what I mean by three Estates, and yet in the same, and the foregoing pages you transcribe my very words, where I told you, that by the three Estates I meant (as all the Laws and Records of the kingdom express it, and as all men unquestionably have hitherto concluded it, and as the truth in itself is) the King, the Lords, and the Commons. Your second query is, What I mean by fundamental; and than you tell the Reader, that I say the King, the Lords, and Commons are the three Estates of which the fundamental constitution of the kingdom is made up.  
It's true, I did, and do say so still, and you say little to contradict it, only you ask another question (which, how wise a one it is, I desire the Reader to observe, for I must not judge) viz. are there three fundamentals? and you propose it, as if I had said or employed so much; and than you tell the Reader, you ever thought there had been but one; and in this I agree with you, but herein is our difference which you and I must leave to the judgement of the reader to determine, I say this one Fundamental constitution of the Kingd●m, is the three Estates of the King, Lords, and Commons, and this I still abide by; but you say, this one fundamental is the Commons, and that for two Reasons; 1. Bec●use the Commons made the King, and the King made the Lords, and so the Commons are the prime ●ound●tion. 2. B●cause both the King and the Lords were adv●nced for the benefit, quiet, and welfare of the Commons, and not the Commons made for them: And you say, if you are deceived, the common maxim of Salus populi suprema Lex, deceived you.  
Answ. First, the frame of the Government of this kingdom, by the admired wisdom of the Architects and Contrivers thereof, is so composed of these three Estates, as may best preserve the whole, and keep either of those Estates from any such exorbitancy as might destroy the other; for as they are the three Estates in Parliament, I humbly conc●ive there is no subordination of the one to the other, but a coordination of them all three together, by which the Prince's sovereignty, and the people's freedom and liberty are together preserved and maintained, and herein is that common maxim of Salus populi suprema Lex, chiefly made good.  
Secondly, the legislative Power of this Kingdom is not in any one Estate distinct, but in all the three Estates conjunct, yea, the very root and essence of this Legislative Power is compounded, and as it were, mixed together in the three Estates of King, Lords, and Commons, and these three concurrent Estates producing one supreme Act as con-Cause, ca●not have a subordination among themselves, it not being imaginable how a power can cause the supreme effect, and yet be subordinate: thus the very being of our Common and Statute laws prove this truth, for they are not composed nor enacted by any one of the three Estates divisim, but they are established by the sole authority of the three Estates conjunctin, every act being enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, and by the authority of the Lords and C●mmons assembled in Parliament.  
Thirdly, I must needs dissent from you, in that you say, that both the King and the Lords were advanced for the bene●●t, quiet, and welfare of the Commons, if your meaning be, as indeed by your words it seems to be, exclusive, excluding therein the benefit, quiet and welfare of the King and the Lords, for I conceive the benefi● quiet and welfare of the whole, viz. King, Lords, and Comm●ns was equally and alike intended in the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom, and so the Commons were as well made for the King, as the King for the Commons, yea the King, and the Lords, and the Commons were all alike made for the benefit, quiet, and welfare each of others, and so of the whole together; and this is that, which in my mind maketh the Constitution of this kingdom in this state of a limited and mixed Monarchy far to surpass the Constitution of any other kingdom that I know; and I think, that in a good sense it may truly be said of the several members of this thus constituted Po●itique body of this kingdom, as the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. 21. speaks of the members of the natural body, the eye c●nnot s●y to the b●nd, I have no need of thee, nor again the ●ead to the feet, I have no need of you; for as every member in the natural body is by God there set and placed, not alone for its own good, but for the welfare of the whole, and accordingly it acts, and is serviceable therein for the good of the whole, yea, such a natural necessity there is in the body, of every member, that not any one member can be wanting, but the body is thereby defective, and so the eye cannot say to the ●and, I have no need of thee, nor again, the head to the feet, I h●v● no need of you.  
So in the body politic of this commonwealth, by the ancient and excellent Constitution thereof, the three Estates, viz. King, Lords and Commons are so set and placed, that in their several stations they should not act alone for their own particular, but for the Common and public good and welfare of the whole; yea, I humbly conceive, that to the upholding & continuance of this so excellent a Constitution, there is such a politic necessity of every one of the three Estates in this Commonwealth, for the preservation of the whole, that the King cannot say to the Commons, I have no need of you, nor again the Commons to the King, I have no need of thee, nor yet the King and the Commons to the Lords, we have no need of you: For if any one Estate in this b●dy politic be cut off, the whole constitution is presently destroyed; and when I seriously consider how by the fundamental Constitution of this Kingdom, there is such care taken for the preservation of the sovereignty of the King, and yet withal such provision made for the just Liberties and freedom of the people, and how the one may be justly allayed, and yet consist without impeachment of the other, I cannot but conceive it to be unparalleled for true policy in the whole world: and thus much in answer to your two first Q●eries.  
Your third query is, whether the King, and suppose the major part of the Lord, whi●h m●ke up two Estates, do● agree tog●ther, suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative, and the Commons will not assent hereunto, whether the majo● part of the Estates must not conclude the minor, the two conclude the third, and so as for the Common, will they, nill they, sl●●es they must be, and slaves they shall be.  
Answ. To the making of a Law, there must be the concurrent consent of all the three Estates, viz. King, Lords, and Commons; the King and the Lords, without the consent of the Commons can make no Law valid, and in that case the major part of the Estate● do not conclude the minor, and so the Commons are thereby pre●served from slavery; but in another case the major part of the E●states do conclude the minor, viz. when the Lords and Common● do agree upon a Law for the good and safety of the kingdom, than the King is concluded in that their agreement, and ought t● set his flat thereunto: For the Kings of England are bound by their Oaths to grant such Laws which shall be for the good and safety of the kingdom, with the accord of their people in 〈◊〉 presented to them, as in the preamble of the Statute made in the 25 year of ●dward the Third, entitled, The Statute of proviso●s of Benefices, made at W●stminster, in these words it doth appear:  
Whereupon the said Commons ha●e prayed our sovereign Lord the King, that sith the Right of the crown of England, and the Law of the said realm is such, that upon the mischiefs and damm●ges which ●appen to this realm, he ought, and is bound by His Oath, with the accord of His People in His Parliament thereof, to make remedy and law.  
And the King acknowledgeth this for a truth, and accordingly Acted, as in these following words in the same Statute, it appeareth:  
Our sovereign Lord the King, seeing the mischiefs and damages before mentione●, and having r●gard to the Statute made in the time of his Grandf●ther, and by so much as he is bounden by Hi● Oath to cause the 〈…〉 a Law of His realm, &c. by the assent of all the great Men and Comm●nalty of ●is said Re●lme, to the honour of God, and profit of the said Church of England, and of all His Realm●, 〈◊〉 Ord●ined and es●ablished, &c.  
Thus far the words of that Preamble and Statute, upon which the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled say thus: Viz.  
Here the Lords and Commons claim it directly as the right of the crown of England, and of the Law of the Land, tha● the King is bound by his O●th, with the 〈◊〉 of his people in Parliament, to make remedy and 〈…〉 the mischiefs and damm●g●s which happen to this realm, and the King doth not deny it, C●llect of Declarations, p. 229. Let this suffice as answer to your third query.  
Your fourth Que●ie is this, Wheth●r ●ee (viz. the King) be present as a distinct Estate, if so, if one distinct Estate may be present in power quatenus, an Estate, and absent in person, m●y not a second Estat● be so present, though absent in body; yea, a third Estate s● present, and yet absent in body; and so we shall have the Estates in Parliament, and not a man amongst them; this is a Riddle ind●ed Mr. Bellamy, I pray you unfold this also.  
Answ. At your request ●e undertake the task; your own words grant, that ●s well in Parliament, as in all his inferior Courts of Justice, the King is present in his power; these are your words, viz. I know Sir, he is present in power in all his inferior Cou●ts of justice, as well as in the Parliament, 24. Now in Parliament there is no power but the power of the three Estates, viz. King, Lords, and Commons; and therefore all the Acts that are en●cted by the power of Parliament are enacted by the power of the three Estates conjunction; It is possible that the King may withdraw his person from the Parliament, as now he hath done, but he can never withdraw his power, no, not his power as a distinct Estate, for in the making of every Act of Parliam●nt, there is present in Parliament the power of all the three Estates, without all which conjunctim, no act can be made. But there is an Act made this Parliament by the free consent of all the three Estates in Parliament, that this Parliament shall not be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned without the consent of both Houses of Parliament first had and obtained, viz. Anno 17 Caroli Regis, entitled, An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing & dissolving of this present Parliament. In 〈◊〉 Act are these words, viz. Be it declared and enacted by the King our sovereign Lord, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That this present Parliament now assembled, shall not be dissolved, unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose, nor shall b●e at any time or times during the Continuance thereof, prorogued or adjourned, unl●sse it be by Act of Parliament to be likewise passed for that purpose.  
Now then thus I argue, if at the passing of this Act of Parliament, there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament, viz. King, Lords, and Commons, and by virtue of this Act of Parliament, the Parliament cannot be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned, unless it be by act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose, than the power of all the three Estates, viz. King, Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament, till by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose this Parliament be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned.  
But at the passing of this Act of Parliament, there was present the power of all the three Estates in Parliament, viz. King, Lords and Commons, (vide the Act 〈◊〉 supra) and by virtue of this Act of Parliament, the Parliament cannot be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned, unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose, vide also the Act 〈◊〉 supra.  
Therefore the Power of all the three Estates in Parliament, viz. King, Lords and Commons must needs continue in Parliament till by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose, this Parliament be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned.  
And thus the particular by me affirmed, is clearly proved, viz. That though the person of the King be absent from the Parliament, yet the power of the King, viz. as one of the three Estates in Parliament, is present with the Parliament.  
I now come briefly to the second part of your query, and will endeavour herein, (as you call it) to unfold your Riddle▪ the other two Estates in Parliament, viz. Lords, and Commons, cannot be absent from the Parliament, neither in power, nor ye● in person: thus far ●e grant you, that many of the members of either House may be absent from either of their respective Houses, and yet the two Estates of Parliament continue entire in Parliament, for there must be at least three Lords present in the House of Lords to make it a House, and so an Estate in Parliament; and forty Commons with the Speaker, in the House of Commons to make it an House, and so an Estate in Parliament; and therefore there cannot be, as you affirm, three Estates in Parliament, and not a man amongst them; and this I give as an answer to your fourth query, and if you please, you may also let it pass for the unfolding of your Riddle.  
In the ●ifth place, in page 24. you have these words, viz. The replier observing the Remonstran s●ascribing only a share of the supreme Power to the House of Commons proposeth this Question to them; Will not you allow so much power to the kingdom representative, in r●ference to the kingdom, as to the representative City, in reference to London? And then you come to your fifth query in these following words, viz. And so do I query, will not the Commons of London yield or ascribe unto the Commons of England, as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe?  
Answ. I pray ma●k the terms of your query, for methinks it is a little defective; you say the Commons of London, not the common-council, but as you propose your query, I answer affirmatively, that the Commons of London will yield and ascribe unto the Commons of England, as the Commons of London to themselves will ascribe; but I say again, observe your terms, you say the Commons of London, not the common-council; I shall pres●ntly show you the difference, the Commons of London are not the City representative, but the common-council, (which doth consist of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons) is the City representative.  
Then you go on in these words, viz. Therefore Mr. Bellamy to make your absurdities the better appear, in your parallel between the kingdom representative, and the City representative, I come upon you thus;  
First, you grant that the common-council is the City representative, page 2 of your Vindication.  
Answ. I grant it.  
Secondly, you grant that the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, is the Kingdom representative, in the same page.  
Answ. I grant the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, to be the kingdom representative in that sense in which in page 2 of my Vindication, I said it was, viz. as it is made up of and chosen by the kingdom collective, viz. the Commons of the kingdom, whom in Parliament it only represents, and therefore only can be the representative body of them, and accordingly in all their addresses to the House of Lords, they go in their own names, and in the names of all the Commons of England; and desiring the concurrence of the House of Lords in any Act, they desire it in their own names, and in the names of all the Commons of England, of whom they only are a representation, or whom they do represent, and in that sense I expressed it in page 4, where I called the kingdom collective, the body of the Commons of England, not the body of the Kingdom of England; And as this representative body, viz. the House of Commons, is one of the three Estates in Parliament, so also in that page I called it the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, but I called it not the Parliament; so the Lords are called the House of Lords in Parliament assembled, but no man calls tha● House the Parliament. Likewise the Lords and Commons joining together in any one Act, as, in the last Propositions sent to His Majesty, it is said to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament, as in Article 1, 5, 6, 12, &c. it appeareth, but it is not said to be agreed by Parliament, for it had been so agreed, why then is the King's assent to these Propositions prayed for by both Hous●s of Parliament, as in the Proem to the said Propositions in these words it doth appear? Viz.  
May it please your Majesty,  
We the Lords and Commons assembled in the Parliament of England, in the name, and on the behalf of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the Commissioners of the Parliament of Scotland, in the name, and on the behalf of the kingdom of Scotland, do humbly present unto your Majesty, the humble desires and Propositions for a safe and well-grounded Peace, agreed upon by the Parliaments of both kingdoms respectively, unto which we do pray your majesty's assent, and that they, and all such as shall be tendered to your Majesty in pursuance of them, or any of them, may be established and enacted for Statutes and Acts of Parliament by your majesty's royal assent in the Parliaments of both Kingdoms respectively.  
You might also have observed in the same page, that when I come to speak of making Laws, which is the work of the Parliament, and not of any particular Estate alone in Parliament; I there say in express terms, the kingdom representative, which is the Parliament.  
And sure no man could possibly imagine that my expression should be taken in any other consideration; for I did all along in the 14, 15, 1●, 17, 18 pages of my Vindication also hold out this truth, that there was three distinct Estates in Parliament, viz. the King, the Lords, and the Commons, and do you think that it was probable or possible that I should mean, that one of the thee● Estates in Parliament, should be a representation of all the three?  
Thirdly, you say, the City representative hath a power to make a Law for those whom it represents.  
Answ. I grant this too.  
Then you thus go on, viz. Fourthly, I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdom representative the same power to make a Law for those whom it represents.  
Answ. I crave your favour and patience before you go any further to present you in this place with these two following considerations:  
First, that the House of Commons, all the members thereof be●●ing chosen by the collective body of the kingdom, viz. the Commons, are in that respect, and in that sense truly the representative body of the kingdom, viz. of the Commons of the kingdom, and so have in them in this consideration, the full Legislative power of the Commons of England.  
Secondly, I pray also consider, that though the House of Commons have in them the full Legislative power of the Commons of England, yet the whole Legislative power of the kingdom of England, is not concentred in the Commons of England, but is, (as hath before been fully proved) in the three Estates of the King, the Lords, and the Commons of England conjunctim, and therefore no one Estate alone, and by its self can make a Law; but to the making of every Law in the kingdom of England there must be the concurrent consent of all these three Estates conjunctim.  
And this as I humbly conceive, makes a clear way to give an answer to your query, viz. Whether you allow the Kingdom representative (viz. the House of Commons) the same power to make a Law for those whom i● represents, and the answer will be this; It hath in it the full legislative power of the Commons of England, whom in Parliament it doth represent, but it hath not in it the full legislative power of the kingdom of England, it hath in it all the power of the Commons of England towards the making of a Law, but it must have the concurrent consent of the other two Estates, viz. of the King, and of the Lords to the full consummating of a Law, and making it obligatory to the kingdom of England.  
And besides, that it is thus settled by the fundamental Constitution of the kingdom, I humbly also conceive that there is just reason for it too, and that not only from the relation which these three Estates have one to another, but also because of that interest which one Estate hath in another.  
The King being no otherwise King of England, but with relation to the subjects of England, and so he hath an interest in them, and they are his liege, that is, his lawful Subjects, or, his Subjects according to the Law. And likewise the Lords and Commons of England, are no otherwise Subjects of England, but with relation to the King, as he is the King of England, in whom also they have the like reciprocal interest, and so he is their liege, our lawful sovereign, or their King according to the Law, and thus runs the forms of our Laws, viz. be it enacted by the King our sovereign Lord, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled. But the City of London by the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 year of his reign, hath a power granted to the Major, and Aldermen, and their successors, with the assent of the Commonalty, to make laws for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City; by virtue of which grant, the Lord, Major, Aldermen, and Commons in Court of common-council assembled, being therein as one entire Court, the representative Body of the City, do to this day make Laws, which are always binding to the Citizens of the same City. And there is no other consent required to the consummation of these Laws, but the sole and only authority of this Court, and therefore all our Acts of common-council are made in the joint names of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons in the Court of common-council assembled, and by the authority thereof; and in the addition of any branch in an act of Common council it is still thus expressed, It is by this Court further Ordered, &c. Or this Court doth further Order, &c. which doth fully prove that all the power of making or altering, or adding to the City laws, rests wholly and alone in the body of that one Court of common-council, or the greater number of them, which doth always consist of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons, but all the power of making or repealing, or adding to the laws of the kingdom, doth not rest wholly and alone in the House of Commons, but the concurrent consent of the other two Estates, viz. the King, and the Lords, is necessarily required to this of the Commons, for making or repealing of the Laws of the kingdom. And thus I hope I have answered your first head of Queries arising from that question, viz. wherein resides the Supreme power of the kingdom.  
I shall now likewise endeavour to give a solution to your Argument, and all the satisfaction I can to the second head of your Queries.  
For a foundation to build your Arguments upon, you produce an Argument of mine out of my Book, entit●led, A Plea for the Commonalty of London, thus it is, That Court which hath a power to make a law, and by that law to confer a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen, which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before, must needs be quoad hoe, as unto the making of a law, above the Lord Major and Aldermen.  
But this Court of common-council hath, &c. Ergo, this Court of common-council so far as to the making of a Law must needs be above the Lord Major and Aldermen.  
Answ. I own the Argument, and for confirmation of what I t●●re affirmed concerning the power of the Court of common-council, I made it good, and proved it d● facto, by an act of common-council made in the sixth year of Hen. 7. upon the 15 of April, concerning the choice of the chamberlain of London, and the Bridge-masters of the City, as by reference to the said Book appeareth, and I would willingly see what you have to say against it.  
But upon this in your 25 page you thus argue:  
That Court which hath the power to make a law, and by that law, to confer a 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 Lord.  
But the House of C●mmon●, which say you (speaking of me) is the kingdom representative, even as the common-council is the City representative upon your suppos●tion, hath a power, &c. Ergo, the House of Commons, so far as unto the making of a law, must needs be above the King and Lords.  
But I pray you tell me, is there no difference between the Court of common-council, and the Commons in common-council? I told you even now in page 42 that the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons in common-council assembled being therein one entire Court, are the representative body of the City, I never said the Commons in that Court were so; and if you had been pleased to have perused that book of mine you cite to this purpose, and out of which you take my argument, viz. The Ple● for the Commonalty of London, in page 10. where I instance in four several acts of that Court, viz. the removing of Deputy Ald●n from the Court, Mr. John Wild from being Town Clerk, Mr. Tho. Wiseman from being the City Remembrancer, and divers aldermen's Deputies from their places of Deputyship, you might there have found that I thus conclude it, viz. And all this by the joint and concurrent power of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons in this common-council assembled.  
And what though the Court of common-council, which always consisteth of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons, have a power to confer upon the Lord Major and Aldermen that power, which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before (as I fully proved, and therefore without the least mutation am still of the same mind) and in that respect, as unto the making of a Law are above the Lord M●jor and Aldermen, as the whole is above a part● But will it hence follow that the Commons in common-council alone and by themselves, have either this power to confer a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen, which as Lord Major and Aldermen they had not before, or that they are above them▪ If you will argue from my assertion, be sure you keep my terms, and then see how it will advantage you for the confirmation of your argument.  
I grounded this power of making City Laws from the Charter of Edw. 3. in the 15 year of his reign. And in the same Book of mine, out of which you took my argument, you might also have had my authority for it, it is in page 7 in these words, we have granted further for us and our heirs, and by this our present Charter confirmed to the Major and Aldermen of the City aforesaid, that if any customs in the said City hitherto obtained and used, be in any part difficult or defective, or any thing in the same newly happening, where before there was no remedy ordained, and have need of amending, the same Major and Ald●rmen and their successors, with the assent of the Commonalty of the same City, may add and ordain a remedy meet, faithful, and consonant to reason, for the common profit of the Citizens of the same City, as oft, and at such time as to them shall be thought expedient, which Charter was confi●med by act of Parliament 43 years after, in the 7 of Rich. 2▪ Now if you can produce the like authority granted alone to the House of Commons by the Parliament, that they of themselves, without the consent of the King and the Lords, have power to make laws for the kingdom, as by this Charter the Lord Major, Aldermen, and their successors, with the assent of the Commons of London, have for the City, than you hit the bu●ines a●ight indeed, but otherwise I think your argument is not true: And therefore for after times, let me advise you, that if you will imitate an argument in the words of it, be sure you imitate it also in the proofs of it, and let them be as full and clear for the confirmation of what you affirm; for it is not words, though never so smooth, that proves any thing in matters of fact, as this is: And truly, should I have laid down that argument to prove the power of the Court of common-council, as unto the making of City laws to be above the Lord Major, and Aldermen, and not have proved it de facto, by the acts of the Court of common-council, I should have thought it at least to have been a scandalum Magnatum, against the Lord Major and Aldermen, and very blame-worthy in myself to have done it. But perhaps you think the condition of the King, and the Lords to be such, as that whatever you speak or publish concerning them, tending to the annihilating of their legislative power and authority in Parliament, can neither be an offence to them, nor a fault in you, or if it be, it seems you regard it not; but I hope you will not take it amiss, if, as I did in that so I desire you in this, either to produce a proof d● facto, to make good that the House of Commons hath by an Act of that House alone conferred a power upon the King and Lords as King and Lords they had not before, which are the very word● of your argument, or else in plain English to tell the Reader● that though you can transcribe the words of my argument, which a child of ten years old can do as well as you, yet now upon second thoughts you must needs confess you come very short in a parallel proof of it, there neither now being, nor never was any act of the House of Commons that doth prove that, that House alone and by itself did ever make a law which did confer a power upon the King and Lords, which as King and Lords they had not before, and without this proof, I persuade myself no man will believe, that as unto the making of a law the House of Commons is above the King and Lords, though Mr. I. P. affirms it to be so. And this I give not only as a solution to this your argument, but also to the other arguments which follow, viz. concerning the power of the House of Commons alone without the King and Lords to repeal what laws they think meet, and to make laws and rules for all the Courts and people in England to be steered and acted by, and whereunto (say you) the King himself is bound by his Oath, and therefore ought in duty to cons●ut; and likewise to that which you say will follow from my logic, viz. that the kingdom representative is inferior in its power, in reference to the government of the kingdom, than the City representative is in reference to the government of the City, and to the other Queries which you ground upon them, for they all alike hang upon this string, and if in the opinion of the Reader, to whose judgement I refer it, this be ●ut asunder, I am sure they must all then needs fall to the ground, and therefore I shall not need to trouble myself any more with them.  
And now Mr. I. P. I have endeavoured with all the candour and tenderness I could to examine your Book, and have not I hope, let one word fall from me, that in the least measure doth reflect upon your person, for it is the matter of your Book, and not any of your personal infirmities (for, alas the Lord know●, I have work more then enough to meddle with, and to master my own) or other your supposed errors in matters of Religion that I encounter with. And if we cannot yet agree in this present difference and debate, my earnest desire is, and I trust ●y endeavour shall for ●ver be answerable thereunto, that we may manage the matter with that sweet moderation and temper of Spirit as becometh Christians, for of this I am confident, that though through weakness or error in judgement, perhaps mine, not yours, we cannot agree together to live in one Church fellowship or communion here upon earth, yet we shall for ever mutually enjoy communion and fellowship with God the Father, with Christ, with the blessed Spirit, three Persons in one Essence, and with the holy Angels, and the glorified Saints for ever in heaven. And therefore I beseech you while we yet live here in this vale of tears, let us remember and obey that counsel the Apostle gives us, Philip. 3. 15, 16. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect be thus minded, and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless, whereunto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.  
I shall gladly embrace and entertain any truth of God, which shall by you be held forth unto me with the warrant of his Word, and as willingly leave and forsake whatever either in opinion or practice I now hold or do that shall be made apparent to be dissonant thereto; for I solemnly profess unto you, that I labour not for Masteries, neither desire I to give the last blow, I esteem it no shame to be conquered, when Christ proves the Victor, nor no loss to be vanquished when the Truth prevails, for its verity, not victory that shall be my comfort.  

A POSTSCRIPT.  
I Have at this time no more to say, either to yourself, or to your Book, but in one word to let the Reader know, that my desire and endeavour to afford you all the fair quarter that possibly I could in this our Conflict about this Subject, was such, That I did upon Saturday the 8 of this instant August, in the presence of Mr. Samuel Clarke Pastor of Bennet Fynck, London, and of Mr. James Story, and Mr. Henry Overton, two of yours, and of my own acquaintance, show you in Writing this my Justification of the City Remonstrance and its Vindication, before ever I tendered it either to be licenced, or Printed, and desired you to peruse it, and if there was any thing in it either for matter of Fact, or otherwise, that you could justly except against, I would expunge it, and it should never see the light; And when you would not accept of that offer, I then read some passages in the Epistle to you which I told you, that in my apprehension, they were the things which most nearly concerned your Person; this I did to manifest my unwillingness to let any thing pass from me, that might be either prejudicial to the Truth, or justly distasteful to your Person, and if it be possible, to overcome evil with good.  
FINIS.    

In the absence of the Author these following erratas escaped in the printing of the Vindication, which I pray thus Correct.  
Page 2. line 23. for you will charge, read, you will not charge; p. 6. l. 30. for and Sectaries, ●. of Sectaries; p. 7. l. 1. for till, r. the; p. 8. l. last, for stated, r. sacred; p. 14. l 22 for find in, r. find it in; l. 24. for these their words, r. these are their words, p. 23 l. 27. for elected, r, erected; p. 26. l. 26. for one's poesy, r Ovid's poesy.