A just vindication of the armie wherein all that doubt may have large satisfaction, in relation to their late proceedings. As touching the cause, beginning, continuance, and their end therein. Or, a book entituled, The examination of the late passages of the armie (especially of the grounds laid down for their justification in their declaration, June 14. 1647). / Examined, refuted, by A. Warren.

Certain Quaeries wherein Resolution is desired, proposed without any parti∣cular by-interests, or private respects at all, but for satisfaction.

I. WHether the Army under the present conduct of Sir Thomas Fairfax, are not as well bound to resist (yea to the death) Ty∣rannie and Oppression in the Parliament, as in the King; and whether every point and part of their Commission, extend not as well to the one, as the other.

II. How the Army can disband, till they see those things effected, for which the people entrusted them in Military Employments?

III. Whether the end of their Banding was to free nd acquit the people of this Kingdome from feared slavery or not? if it were, how will Conscience, and the Kingdome be satisfied, if they disband before they have done their worke? if not, then why were they raised?

IV. Whether the effect, or end of any thing is not more honourable, and consequently to be preferred before, the efficient cause whereby it was procured?

V. Whether the blood of all the slayne during the late Warre, may not be required justly at the hands of this Army, (since it was spilt

in vaine) if they endeavour not to bring to passe the just ends for which it was shed?

VI. Whether a lawfull Cause, a lawfull Commission, and the peoples willingnesse, in cases of necessity, be not sufficient to raise a lawfull Army?

VII. Whether the Parliaments lawfull Ordinances are not sufficient warrants for the Army, in the prosecution of the Kingdomes Cause, in the case aforesaid.

VIII. Whether the Army are bound to observe the will and Command of the Parliament, when they are acted by a principle of egoity, and selfishnes and for private Causes, and interests, or the will and Commands of the Law?

IX. Whether the Parliament are better able to judge of the peoples grievances, and oppressions then they be of their own?

X. Whether the Parliament are not bound to heare and give satisfa∣ctory answers to their Petitions? and whether it be a breach of privi∣ledge (as they have somtimes declared) so to do, or not?

XI. Whether the priviledges of Parliament, be inconsistent with the weale of the people?

XII. Whether upon non-satisfaction to the just Demands of the people, no reason given but breach of priviledge, the Army are not engaged, both by Covenant and Command, to use all lawfull meanes for the procurement of the peoples reasonable Desires, they having employed, and maintained them for that purpose?

XIII. Whether the Parliaments expression in the Declaration former∣ly mentioned (to wit) that obedience binds not men to cut their owne throats, and those so frequently used in Scripture, save thy selfe, thy wife, thy children, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: be not just grounds for the present actions of the Army, and why?

XIV. Whether an Act of Indempnity (though with the Royall assent for things done in tempore & loco belli, be sufficient to acquit the Army from those things they have done, neque in tempore, nec loco belli, especially the Parliament having (upon no grounds in the earth) declared them Traytors & enemies, in tempore pacis?

XV. Whether the King and Parliament are not both subordinate to the Law? And whether is Supreame, the King or Parliament, the Head or his Members? if the King, then why might not the inju∣stice of the Parliament be as warrantably opposed, as the Kings?

FINIS.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉