defiance may be given to clamour, and calumny itself, to give one instance of the defect of performance hereof, while he went not about to ruin those things, incomparably more precious than his person or authority, and in ruining whereof no person can retain authority. IV. But now two things will chiefly be desiderated, which now we own in our testimony, for which many have died, that seem not to be confirmed by or consistent with the testimony of this period. One is, that we not only maintain defensive resistance, but in some cases vindictive and punitive force, to be executed upon men that are bloody beasts of prey, and burdens to the earth, in cases of necessity, when there is no living among them. This principle of reason and natural justice, was not much inquired into in this time; when the sun was up, whose warmth and light made these beasts creep into their dens, and when they, being brought under subjection, could not force people into such extraordinary violent courses when the ordinary and orderly course of law was running in its right channel. Yet from the ground of their ordinary procedure, military and civil, against such monsters, we may gather the lawfulness of an ordinary procedure in a pinch of necessity, conform to their grounds: I hope to make this evident, when I come _ex proposito_ to vindicate this head. But there is another thing that we own, which seems not to have been known in these days, viz. That when we are required to own the authority of the present dominator, we hold sinful to own it. Yet we find these reverend and renowned fathers owned King Charles I. and did not refuse the succession of Charles II. I shall answer in order. First, As to King Charles I. there was a great difference betwixt him and his sons that succeeded; he never declared parliamentarily that neither promises, contracts, nor oaths should bind him, as the first of his perfidious sons did; it might have been then presumed, if he had engaged so far for promoving the work of God, he would have been a man of his word (for to say a king of his word, is antiquitate in a good sense, except that it means he is as absolute in his word as in his sword, and scorns to be a slave to it.) Neither professed he himself a papist, as the second son hath done: Again it must be granted, that more might have been comported with in the beginning, when there were some hopes of redress, than after such process of time; whereby now we see and feel beyond all debate, that the throne stands and is stated, not only in opposition to, but upon the ruins of the rights and privileges both of religion and liberty. But was not the equivalent done by the church, anno 1648, when they refused to concur with that unlawful engagement, for restoring of the king, 'till security be had, by solemn oath under his hand and seal, that he shall for himself and successors, give his assent to all acts and bills for enjoining presbyterial government, and