<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-09-10</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Kate Allen</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review over structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, TRAILER, etc. x*Check for GAPs x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., -- x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q, startq, endq, Q
*Correct excusable and inexcusable errors x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A87989">
<STC T="W">L1557</STC>
<STC T="T">E296_15</STC>
<STC T="C">R200208</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99861013</BIBNO>
<VID>113140</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A LETTER, IN WHICH THE ARGVMENTS OF THE ANNOTATOR, <HI>And three other Speeches</HI> Vpon their MAJESTIE'S Letters Publi&s;hed at LONDON, are Examined and An&s;wered.</P>
<P>Printed in the yeare 1645.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_THAT I may continue our old freind&s;hips I have for &s;ome yeares endeavoured to &s;erve you, by imparting to you the Occur|rences of this place, and particularly by tran&s;mitting &s;uch new bookes to your veiw, as might both &s;erve to entertaine you, and to keepe you in a good opinion of the Parliament Cau&s;e which you and I &s;o long &s;ince made choice of, yet I cannot deny but my thoughts checked at it when I &s;ent you the late Arch-bi&s;hop's Diary. And though I may not keepe from you a new booke entituled, <HI>The Kings Cabinet opened,</HI> a di&s;covery &s;o much cried up by our party here, that though I would &s;mother it I conceive it could not mi&s;&s;e your hands. yet &s;eriou&s;ly, Sir, I am not of the common opinion, and my hope is I &s;hall not be held a Malignant for it. I conceive the publication of the&s;e two bookes hath done much mi&s;cheife to our cau&s;e, though it were advi&s;ed by the clo&s;e Committee, for though di&s;coveries of this nature have upon the per&s;ons they concerne &s;omewhat in them of a ridiculous infelicity, yet withall they have very much of advantage too, becau&s;e they deepely worke into all wi&s;e men an exceeding &s;trong beleife of tho&s;e things which were let fall in &s;o great &s;ecrecy. So that it &s;hould have beene well weighed before &s;uch Bookes had beene made publicke, whether, though they conteine &s;ome truths that make for our turne, they are not withall a full proofe of &s;ome others which
<PB N="2" REF="3"> are downe-right de&s;tructive to us; for that Client &s;ure hath weake Councell who produceth a witne&s;&s;e, that in &s;peaking for his cau&s;e concludes more &s;trongly for his Adver&s;aries.</P>
<P>In the Arch-bi&s;hops papers there are I graunt &s;ome things we did make good u&s;e of in <HI>our declamations to</HI> our many pretty wiles, that did &s;erve our turnes for a &s;purt to rai&s;e hoo|bubs or get mony: but &s;adly Sir, is their any wi&s;e man you meet with (though heretofore perhaps either not his freind, or his Enemy,) who is not now throughly convinced, and by that &s;ame booke we &s;et out, that he was a man of a very publicke compo&s;ition, a man very much a Chri&s;tia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">, exemplary in his Devotions to God, in his loyalty to his Prince? And for that tax of his inclinations to Rome, which was almo&s;t proverbiall in our mouthes, and &s;tood us in &s;o great &s;teed, when we went to worke on the People, I would gladly know which way it was po&s;&s;ible (<HI>con&s;idering</HI> the malignity of that va&s;t popular <HI>a&s;per&s;ion</HI>) to have wa&s;ht it quite out of all <HI>Con&s;idering mens heads,</HI> but either by his Death, or his Diary? And was this a worke fit for us? Nay I am more angry yet at our man of law, who would needes bu&s;ie him&s;elfe in that booke, that he &s;hould not onely want &s;o much Logicke, as to conclude him a Papi&s;t, out of tho&s;e proofes, which indeed evince the quite contrary; but to &s;peake plaine that he &s;hould want &s;o much wit, as to hope to per&s;wade others to have as little &s;en&s;e as him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>And my great feare is, our publi&s;hing the Kings papers hath done us yet farre more mi&s;cheife, in as much as it farre more concernes the advantage of our cau&s;e to keepe him in &s;corne with the People. Indeed the Arch-bi&s;hop is dead, and bites not, but if the King once returne into a good e&s;teeme with our party, farewell our Armies we &s;o much confide in, and ere long our feares and our jealou&s;ies. Read the book, Sir, and tell me with that freedome that befits gentlemen and freinds, whe|ther we have not long &s;ince both dranke of one common er|rour. In your care I mu&s;t profe&s;&s;e &s;eriou&s;ly, that I now hold the King a Prince of very choice endowments; and I judge him &s;o by his letters, which wi&s;e men have oft told me give the be&s;t Characters of their Authors. I finde his &s;tile ma&s;culine,
<PB N="3" REF="3"> his Coun&s;ells &s;harpe and rationall, his expre&s;&s;ions full of a ju|dicious fancy, he dige&s;ts bu&s;ine&s;&s;es throughly, and makes it all his owne. And for &s;ome of his Letters, they are of &s;o elegant and &s;o equall parts (for my breeding here and abroad makes me thinke I may judge a little) that in earne&s;t I had rather have the abilities that might make me author of the like, then to be Lord of that Mannor that makes me neighbour to you; and yet you know it is a very faire one. And can you yet thinke it could be fit for us to expo&s;e the&s;e to publicke veiw? Beleeve it, Sir, he that writes thus de&s;erves to governe, and my thoughts tell me, that this is the very man I &s;hould elect to a Throne were I to choo&s;e a King by Epi&s;tles. We oft you know tell the people that however in words and in practice the King makes Prote&s;tant &s;hewes, yet that he is no le&s;&s;e then a Papi&s;t in heart, and that when time &s;hall &s;erve he will be for <HI>Rome</HI> in profe&s;&s;ion. A cour&s;e that hath beene to us of great u&s;e and gaine, and that which be&s;ides large &s;ummes hath brought us in &s;tore of rings and thimbles. And &s;hall we now unluckily publi&s;h that &s;elfe &s;ame letter too, wherein he tells the Queene that he differs from her in nothing el&s;e but Religion? and then &s;ure he is no Papi&s;t. If we &s;hall &s;ay that he de&s;erves no credit in this point, men of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ea&s;on will &s;oone make reply, that you may as well call all the re&s;t in que&s;tion. And then I pray what gaine have we made by this great Cabinet di&s;covery? or why do we tell the People, <HI>it were a great &s;inne again&s;t the mercies of God to conceale &s;uch evidences of truth?</HI> But if for our owne &s;akes we mu&s;t now at lea&s;t, grant this to be truth too, I pray con&s;ider, whether herein we have not publi&s;hed to high a proofe to tho&s;e of our owne &s;ide, that King <HI>Charles&punc;</HI> is in heart a Prote&s;tant, as could neither have beene made by all his State&s;-men, nor Divines, no nor by his owne Letters neither, had not we our &s;elves among&s;t braggs and taunts &s;o vainely publi&s;ht them. For let the King or his &s;ervants or his papers either, (had they been only made publicke by him|&s;elfe) have been brought to confirme this, the be&s;t arguments in the world, yet the faith of our Party is &s;o much in our owne
<PB N="4" REF="4"> hands, that they do not only beleeve all that we do, but indeed all that we would have them&punc; &s;o that if it concernes us they &s;hould beleeve that we know to be Lies, they are &s;o kinde, they'l not refu&s;e us, But when we our &s;elves have once told the world, that the King is a Prote&s;tant, now &s;hould it con|cerne us in the highe&s;t degree to averre the contrary, &s;o gro&s;&s;e an attempt would appeare nothing el&s;e but to be impudent to no purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>'Tis true, if this booke had never &s;eene the light, you and I &s;hould have made no doubt at all of the King's Conjugall affe|ction, yet I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e 'tis here &s;et downe with &s;o much virtue and elegance, and hence appeares to be &s;o hand&s;ome a thing, that for the time to come I &s;hall love my owne wife the better. And though for the Queene I know not &s;o much as her per&s;on, yet I cannot but conceive her a Lady of great parts, becau&s;e I finde the King &s;o &s;eriou&s;ly prote&s;t his great con|tent in her conver&s;ation, for I am &s;o much a Philo&s;opher as to know, that mu&s;t come from a &s;imilitude of minde. And what rea&s;on I have to judge highly of his, I told you now from his Letters &s;o that I mu&s;t needes wonder upon what ground our Annotator &s;eemes &s;o angry with the King that he makes u&s;e of her advi&s;es, e&s;pecially &s;ince he is &s;afe in point of religi|on, and that we cannot deny. For among all &s;orts of men are Kings only bound their wives &s;hall be no helpers to them? And what though the Queene be of the weaker &s;ex, mu&s;t &s;he therefore have no &s;hare in Coun&s;ells? Sure he that will thus argue again&s;t Queene <HI>Maries</HI> advi&s;e, makes Libells again&s;t Queene <HI>Elizabeth.</HI> Nor, are her abilities of the le&s;&s;e u&s;e for being borne in <HI>France.</HI> For though a meere <HI>Alien</HI> may be &s;u&s;pected to incline too much to that Nation he was borne in, yet &s;uch &s;u&s;picions vani&s;h where greater rea&s;ons appeare; and &s;ure none will deny me this, that to be a wife of <HI>England</HI> is a &s;tronger tye, then to be a Daughter of <HI>France,</HI> e&s;pecially when &s;he is become the Mother of a Prince which &s;he hopes may we are the Engli&s;h Crowne. And what our Annotator quotes in this kinde out of the King's Letters are me thinks very great impertinencies, Indeed he would &s;eeme to intimate, that the
<PB N="5" REF="4"> Queen governs the King, &amp; doth &s;omething in his affaires that befits neither Her, nor Him. But when I read what he quotes, I am &s;orry that in this point we have no better arguments. The King nor the Prince do take no &s;ervant without her, And what then? Should I promi&s;e my wife that without her con|&s;ent I would admit of no &s;ervant at all, either about my &s;elfe, or my Children, I &s;hould extreamely wonder at the Logicke of that man, that would conclude hence, I have given her the breeches; nay, that would hence but inferre, that either I my &s;elfe when I allow this freedome, or the wife I love, that makes u&s;e of this allowance, do indeed the lea&s;t thing that may any way misbe&s;eeme either. I finde that in ca&s;e of the reac|ception of <HI>One&s;imus</HI> a &s;ervant (And I heard this ob&s;ervati|on preacht by a Divine of our owne A&s;&s;embly) Saint <HI>Paul</HI> doth as well write to <HI>Apphia,</HI> as <HI>Philemon:</HI> It &s;eemes they were &s;o well agreed, that their freinds tooke notice the Wife had got a grant of a Vote too in things dome&s;ticke. And yet if this had argued that <HI>Apphia</HI> was not &s;ubject to her husband, or that &s;he made u&s;e of what became not a wife, I make no doubt at all, but &s;he had heard on't from that Apo&s;tle. But to averre the <HI>Queenes Councells are as powerfull as Commands,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag</HI> 432</NOTE> be|cau&s;e the King profe&s;&s;eth to preferre her health before his own affaires, is but to argue a <HI>bacillo in angulo;</HI> and &s;o to make the <HI>Sophi&s;ters</HI> &s;port at <HI>Oxford.</HI> And indeed the next argu|ment is not much better neither. <HI>He avowes con&s;tancy to her grounds and documents,</HI> and how proves he this?<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Letter</HI> 5.</NOTE> Becau&s;e the King tells the Queene, <HI>Thou &s;halt finde me con&s;tant to tho&s;e grounds you left me withall.</HI> But doth it therefore fol|low, that tho&s;e grounds were her inventions? or that thence they mu&s;t be called her <HI>documents,</HI> or her <HI>dictates?</HI> It &s;eemes then, that becau&s;e in your next journey hither, you &s;hall be &s;ure to finde <HI>London</HI> on the banke of Thames, where you left it. Therefore I may conclude they were your hands that &s;et it there. And &s;o you are beholding to your old freind for making you a new Founder of <HI>London.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, ob&s;erve what tho&s;e grounds are among the Letters, <HI>pag.</HI> 6. you may read them, the &s;ame grounds he gave to his
<PB N="6" REF="5"> Commi&s;&s;ioners at <HI>&V;xbridge,</HI> and this upon his word in ac|cording to the little note &s;he &s;o well remembers. What? Are the&s;e dangerous grounds, tho&s;e wi&s;e, and rea&s;onable in|&s;tructions, this makes not well for us, for all can be inferred from hence is the King acquainted the Queene upon what grounds he intended to &s;eeke the Peace of this Kingdome. And therefore I well know not what he meanes by that quar|rell, <HI>That the Kings Councells are wholly mannaged by the Queene;</HI> for to mannage a thing &s;uppo&s;es it fir&s;t is, before if be mannaged, &s;o it &s;eemes he thinks the King gives the Queene Coun&s;ell, and then &s;he conceives 'tis her part to &s;ee them exe|cuted. And what's here that befits not a Wife or if by man|naging he intend the Queene coun&s;ells the King, fir&s;t the phra&s;e is no more proper, then if I &s;hould &s;ay you therefore mannage my hor&s;e, becau&s;e you gave him me. 2^d^l^y. It is not onely not unfit for a wife to pre&s;ent advi&s;e to her husband, but indeed extreamely proper, e&s;pecially when &s;he is not only of great abilities, but of as great affection to her husbands affaires, as many of his owne in&s;tances makes it cleare in his third Para|graph. But I mu&s;t not hide it from you, Sir, That I find &s;ome good Cau&s;e to doubt that this Annotation prevaricates in our owne bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, for though it appeares by the Kings Letters that to &s;ay the plaine truth, He dictates Coun&s;ells to the Queene, And tho&s;e full of u&s;e and &s;harpne&s;&s;e; Yet what need he to have runne into this kind of ob&s;ervation? What need be to have told us, <HI>That the King doth in many things &s;urpa&s;&s;e the Queene? That he covers his acts of ho&s;tility with deeper and dar|ker &s;ecrecy?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 44.</NOTE> <HI>That he urges her to make per&s;onall freind&s;hip with the Queen Regent?</HI> (which indeed he doth, and that upon &s;trong grounds of rea&s;on) <HI>That he furni&s;heth her with dexterous poli|cies and arguments to work upon the Mini&s;ters of State in France?</HI> Are the&s;e notes fit to proceed from our pens, who would have the people thinke that the Queene we talke downe is not on|ly the wife, but the very &s;oule of the King? And yet doth he in many things &s;urpa&s;&s;e the Queen? Are his reaches deeper and darker then hers? Can he go alone in the&s;e narrow pathes of State without the helpe of her hand? Nay can he lend a hand
<PB N="7" REF="5"> to &s;upport her the more &s;afely in them. Can he him&s;elfe by his owne &s;trength &s;o dextrou&s;ly find out what &s;hall be&s;t make for his advantage? Beleive me, Sir, this Annotatour is no freind of ours, he will per&s;wade our owne &s;ide that the King hath a cleare ma&s;ter wit. So that if we &s;hould againe a &s;econd time need to cry downe the King in point of his under&s;tanding, that Topicke is now gone, and we mu&s;t lay the lo&s;&s;e of &s;o great an Engine not onely upon this that we would needs publi&s;h his Letters, but upon the &s;core of our further folly, that the&s;e for|&s;ooth mu&s;t be &s;et out with Annotations.</P>
<P>Put all this together, and you mu&s;t perceive Sir the mi&s;cheife this booke will doe us. The people will hence &s;ee the choice Endowments of their King, and &s;o be brought to love and ho|nour him. They will de&s;cry the Prote&s;tant Religion in great Letters in his heart, which will yet adde more affection to that love, and more reverence to that honour. 'Twill take off that uxorious &s;lirre that hath beene oft urged to our advantage. And 'twill let the world &s;ee, that He is not onely the Husband, but the King too of his Wife; and both relations &s;o well tem|pered in him, That no mervaile if vulgar eyes dazle at the beames of &s;uch a Sunne, and &s;o &s;ometimes cannot &s;ee the King, becau&s;e he doth &s;o well play the Husband.</P>
<P>But notwith&s;tanding this Sir, That at the fir&s;t &s;ight of this Booke I much wi&s;hed it had not beene publi&s;hed, as being confident that the&s;e and the like pa&s;&s;ages will wrong more our cau&s;e, then all the re&s;t will advance it. Yet I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, I had a &s;trange conceit that there were &s;ome clau&s;es in the&s;e pub|li&s;ht Letters that might doe the King hurt enough. I thought it a wicked thing to take off the Penall Lawes, and thereby to give a Toleration to the Papi&s;ts, becau&s;e I have oft heard it from our be&s;t Divines, that their Religion is &s;uper&s;titious in the height, and in &s;ome &s;ence Idololatricall. But to bring in For|raigne Armes I held extreamely horrible, e&s;pecially the King having oft a&s;&s;ured us He would doe neither of the&s;e two un|der &s;trong vowes and execrations.</P>
<P>But whil'&s;t my thoughts remained fixed on the&s;e points, I here accidentally fell in with a freind of mine old Acquain|tance,
<PB N="8" REF="6"> no profe&s;&s;ed Divine, but yet a Per&s;on of great Learning and Experience, and well &s;tudied in Divinity: A Malignant I confe&s;&s;e, but yet &s;o hone&s;t and to me &s;o open a man. That upon the word of a Gentleman, I would not for a world tell his name. When I had &s;hewed him my thoughts, he joined with me in this, That the booke indeed made again&s;t us, but when I replied that in tho&s;e particulars I named it had hurt the King too, he freindly &s;miled, and then talk't me downe, as I'le tell you.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, he very gravely &s;hewed, That it was unlawfull for &s;worne Subjects to take up armes again&s;t their King upon any pretence what&s;oever. And that from <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. from the fir&s;t of <HI>Peter,</HI> 2. And that the ancient Church had both &s;o under|&s;tood and &s;o practiced the doctrine of tho&s;e two Apo&s;tles. That when Popes began to fall out with Kings the Divines of <HI>Rome</HI> were the fir&s;t men that cro&s;&s;ed that doctrine, and that when it made for their owne ends 'twas &s;econded by &s;ome who call them&s;elves Reformed. And by the Calvini&s;ts more particularly.</P>
<P>But when I rejoined, that tho&s;e Texts had no &s;uch &s;en&s;e, and that they came not home unto that holy Cau&s;e we are &s;et for. He gently let me &s;ee, that the replies I u&s;ed were indeed plaine &s;ubterfuges, and made me clearely under&s;tand and gave me in|&s;tances too. That a witty Adulterer might as well defend there was no Sinne in Fornication. I &s;till talk't on with much heate and noi&s;e, So that to this day he knowes not at all he wrought any change in my thoughts, but yet I mu&s;t needs tell you this in your eare, that that night I &s;lept not &s;o &s;oundly.</P>
<P>The next day we met againe, and I fumingly asked him with what colour men could ju&s;tify the Con&s;cience of the King. In his taking off tho&s;e Penall Lawes, giving Toleration to Pa|pi&s;ts; And that again&s;t the ties of tho&s;e Solemne Vowes he hath expre&s;&s;ely made to his people? He told me he much won|dred, that Subjects who were re&s;olved to u&s;e no Con&s;cience at all &s;hould trouble the King &s;o with his, but yet for my &s;atisfa|ction he willed me to weigh it well:</P>
<P>That it was One thing to con&s;ider &s;inne in it &s;elfe, Another
<PB N="9" REF="6"> to con&s;ider it in it's puni&s;hment. Again&s;t &s;inne it &s;elfe God made the Law Morall. And it's therefore a Law of unfading obliga|tion. But what was decreed for the puni&s;hment of &s;inne, you &s;hall find that in his Judicialls, which were alterable &s;ome thinke in <HI>Jury</HI> it &s;elfe, but without doubt in all other nations. Should the King pa&s;&s;e a Law Popery were no &s;inne, nay &s;hould he &s;uffer no &s;uch Law as doth declare it &s;infull, I might then thinke him &s;infull too. But when we come to the Judicialls once, to the puni&s;hment of this &s;inne, we are then no doubt in a farre greater Latitude. And wi&s;e men have &s;till thought, that &s;uch both well may and mu&s;t be tempered &s;ometimes to the Exigencies of that State we live in. So Divines thinke that in Ca&s;e of Theft <HI>Solomon</HI> in tho&s;e words did alter Gods Judiciall Law. <HI>If</HI> (&s;ayes he) <HI>the theife be found he &s;hall pay &s;eaven fold, Prov.</HI> 6. When yet <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> we know required but foure for that &s;inne. And the rea&s;on of this change is conceived to be this, becau&s;e the crime of theft grew more frequent with the Jewes in the time of <HI>Solomon.</HI></P>
<P>And for that Cau&s;e Chri&s;tian States &s;et it higher yet, and nothing now is more frequent then to puni&s;h a Theife either with a wheele or the Gallowes. By this in&s;tance you &s;ee Ju|diciall Lawes might be heightned; By the next you'l find that it was commonly beleived by mo&s;t &s;orts of men that they might be abated too. For Adultery in the Mo&s;aick Law was puni&s;h't by death. A Judiciall that for &s;ome hundreds of yeares was continued in the Law Civill, and remained there without repeale even after the Empire was growne Chri&s;tian. Yet <HI>Ju|&s;tinian</HI> after he had written his In&s;titutions and his Code, began to le&s;&s;en it in one &s;exe; And in &s;ucceeding times there were few Kingdomes or States that abated not of this rigour. So that what was of old puni&s;ht with the &s;word or the Gibbet, is now brought into a white Sheet, and that by &s;ome Lawes may be commuted againe into Almes.</P>
<P>And here he told me he could not choo&s;e but &s;mile at the zeale we &s;eemed to carry again&s;t the abrogation of Penall Lawes, &s;ince a Statute of this Parliament (at lea&s;t as we inter|pret it) hath taken off all meanes to puni&s;h any &s;innes of the
<PB N="10" REF="7"> fle&s;h. Popery you like well &s;hould continue puni&s;h't, b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">t A|dultery &s;hall goe bare fac't; and yet this foule &s;in is expre&s;ly a|gain&s;t the words of the Scripture, The other only by an infe|rence. Truly Sir, &s;aid he, I neither am nor can be a Papi&s;t, nay as a private man I hold my &s;elf bound to doe the be&s;t I can That that &s;uper&s;tition &s;pread no farther, but yet by your leave I hold him no better then an Hypocrite who &s;hewes great warmth of zeale that he may puni&s;h a Papi&s;t, and yet likes it extreme well That all Lawes are laid a &s;leep which &s;hould curb Adulterers.</P>
<P>Now then &s;aid he, view the words of the Letter you doe &s;o much quarrell at: The King writes to the Queen&mdash;<HI>I give thee power to propo&s;e in my name That I will take away all the penall Lawes again&s;t the Roman Catholicks in England, as &s;oon as God &s;hall enable me to doe it&mdash;So as by their meanes, or in their favours I may have &s;o powerfull a&s;&s;i&s;tance as may de&s;erve &s;o great a favor and inable me to doe it</HI>&mdash;He promi&s;eth to take away all the pe|nall Lawes, All the Lawes which are now in being, which to &s;ome men are Capitall, to other pecuniary, and that in a &s;harp heavy manner; He promi&s;eth not, that he will make none of a lower kind, He promi&s;eth not his Lawes &s;hall look with the like &s;erene face upon the Popi&s;h &s;ide, as the Prote&s;tant. Let him but hold here, and no learned man will &s;ay he &s;innes, e&s;pecially in this great nece&s;&s;ity of State; Though indeed, &s;aid he, I &s;hould extreamly grieve to &s;ee things in this &s;ad condition. And he &s;pake it confidently, &s;o would the King too, And therefore he be&s;hrew'd us (for he dur&s;t be bold with me) that we had brought a good Prince into the jawes of the&s;e &s;ad extremities. But yet, &s;ayes he, let him goe no farther, and he who &s;hall call this a Toleration of Papi&s;ts, may as well taxe the more famous part of almo&s;t the whole Chri&s;tian World for a Toleration of Adultery.</P>
<P>Indeed two of your three Orators, whom you &s;et up to op|po&s;e the King (and the oppo&s;ition was mo&s;t proper, for his Letters are remarkeable both for rea&s;on and elegance, and their Declamations have neither) would needs collect out of this Clau&s;e, <HI>That the King's meaning was to abrogate the&s;e Penall
<PB N="11" REF="7"> Lawes by Force.</HI> Grant it were &s;o, are they &s;o angry at that? I have read of &s;ome men <HI>Qui aliorum vitijs ira&s;cuntur qua&s;i in|videant,</HI> who are pa&s;&s;ionate indeed at the vices of others, but that pa&s;&s;ion of theirs is not a hate, but an envy that any man &s;hould make u&s;e of &s;uch glorious &s;innes but them&s;elves; for is't not your whole work to pull down Lawes by force? To pull the Sword out of the Kings hand, and Church Govern|ment from the Bi&s;hops, both which our Lawes yet e&s;tabli&s;h? Is not the <HI>Common-Prayer</HI> book confirmed by plain Lawes? and is't not by force that you teare it? The King, it &s;eemes, mu&s;t keep him&s;elf to Lawes, becau&s;e that &s;plendid dignity of breaking Lawes by force is the Priviledge of both Hou&s;es.</P>
<P>But in earne&s;t, becau&s;e the King &s;aies <HI>So &s;oone as God &s;hall inable him, And if he may be furni&s;hed from abroad with &s;uch a powerfull a&s;&s;i&s;tance as to be able to doe it:</HI> Can you nece&s;&s;arily conclude he meant to alter the&s;e Penall Lawes by meere force? Did the King tell you he meant &s;o? If not, by your favour, this is to add to, and to make Conjectures upon the King's words, not to draw good Collections from them; And no man will be bound to receive &s;uch inferences, except tho&s;e alone who conceive becau&s;e your three Orators have neither Rhetorick nor Logick, therfore without doubt they are extreme good at Divination. Truly Sir, &s;aid he, I have rea&s;on to think, and that from the &s;ence of &s;ome men who have the honour to hear the King di&s;cour&s;e frequently, his meaning was but this, That if God &s;hould enable him, by &s;uch forraigne power, that he might againe &s;it in a free and full Parliament, He would en|deavor, as much as in him lay, to take off tho&s;e penall Lawes; And in that Ca&s;e he made no doubt at all, but to gaine the votes of his people, becau&s;e in this great extremity they had been &s;o much beholding to his forraigne help; For in this conjuncture of things, what in plaine gratitude they were bound to doe. I leave hone&s;t men to con&s;ider. But that Lawes once e&s;tabli&s;h't by the King and both Hou&s;es &s;hould be annulled by meer force, or by any meanes but by the &s;ame they were made, is a thing I a&s;&s;ure my &s;elfe the King hates more perfectly, then any man who is in the highe&s;t Vogue now at We&s;tmin&s;ter.</P>
<PB N="12" REF="8">
<P>To that quere then of your Annotatour, how this Letter can &s;tand with the King's frequent profe&s;&s;ions of no Toleration of Papi&s;ts, No abolition of tho&s;e Penall Lawes, and the like? The an&s;were is now mo&s;t apparent; for to whom but to his people were the&s;e profe&s;&s;ions made? and if his intentions be not to alter what he then profe&s;&s;ed but by the con&s;ent of his people, all this is mo&s;t ju&s;t and Kingly; for no man is bound to keep his promi&s;e to that man who is now willing to relea&s;e him. If he be, the King can alter no Lawes, no not by con&s;ent of both Hou&s;es them&s;elves, becau&s;e he hath been once &s;worn to keep them. Nay &s;ince the King hath as deeply vowed to de|fend the true Prote&s;tant profe&s;&s;ion (that is, as 'tis now e&s;tabli|&s;hed by Law) if he find no meanes now to keep this vow, but by the help of forrainers, and that he may gain their help by letting goe tho&s;e penall Lawes, I rather hold he is in Con&s;ci|ence bound to make u&s;e of that help; and what inconvenience &s;o ever &s;hall fall out upon that u&s;age, mu&s;t needs be put upon the &s;core of tho&s;e men who have forced him to tho&s;e great nece&s;&s;ities.</P>
<P>But your Annotatour tells us, That the King by his profe&s;|&s;ions is as deeply bound not to make u&s;e of forraigne forces, And I remember, &s;aid he, that you but now held the introducti|on of &s;uch forces to be extreamly horrible; and indeed it might well &s;eem &s;o, had not you fir&s;t begun the cour&s;e; but then <HI>vim vi repellere,</HI> to deale with wicked men as they fir&s;t deale with us, doth in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity free us from all guilt of wickednes; For good Sir, &s;aid he, are not the Scots forraigners? They &s;hould indeed be under the &s;ame King with us, but they have neither the &s;ame Lawes, nor at this day the &s;ame Religion, as the word Religion is now vulgarly u&s;ed; for, flatter not your &s;elves, wi&s;e and learned men know the difference is extreamly wide betweene a <HI>Knoxian</HI>-taught man, and an Engli&s;h <HI>Prote&s;tant.</HI></P>
<P>But the King hath obliged him&s;elf by his word, That he will make no u&s;e of &s;uch forces; True indeed, he told you &s;o <HI>March</HI> 9, 1641. and againe <HI>March</HI> 26. 1642. But when in 1643. you traiterou&s;ly brought in the Scots, with what face
<PB N="13" REF="8"> can you affirm, That he is now bound by tho&s;e engagements? When men expect others &s;hould keepe promi&s;e with them, they mu&s;t be carefull &s;o to keep it them&s;elves, that by their own fault at lea&s;t they doe not wilfully change, and per|&s;i&s;t in changing that condition of their e&s;tate which drew men to make tho&s;e promi&s;es; for then &s;uch ties will become no ob|ligations. You may have an in&s;tance in God him&s;elfe, in that &s;olemn promi&s;e which he made unto the hou&s;e of <HI>Ely, I &s;aid indeed, that thy Hou&s;e and the Hou&s;e of thy Fathers &s;hould walk before me for ever, but now the Lord &s;aith, Be it far from me, for them that honor me I will honour, and they tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> de&s;pi&s;e me &s;hall be lightly e&s;teemed.</HI> 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 2. He had &s;worn the Prie&s;thood un|to <HI>Ely</HI>'s Hou&s;e, becau&s;e they were yet carefull that his Sacrifices were well kept, and his Service honourable; But when, wilful|ly, his &s;onnes brought the people to abhorre the Offerings of the Lord, then &s;traight it followes. <HI>Be it farre from me</HI> for my promi&s;e made unto the &s;onnes of <HI>Aaron,</HI> bindes me not to the &s;onnes of <HI>Belial.</HI> Apply but this ground, (which is as cleare as the Text can make it) and your Annotatour may with ea&s;e re&s;olve all his queries. The King promi&s;ed us he would make no u&s;e of forraigne forces; True, if good Subjects, as you &s;hould be, were not turned to Traitours, But then if ye will needs in|vite in the Scots, you teach him to doe the like, eyther by the French or the Lorrainers. The King oft complaines of the I|ri&s;h Rebels, exhorts the Hou&s;es that they would unite to cha|&s;ti&s;e them, yet now he makes Peace with the &s;elfe &s;ame men. And how is this reconcileable? Ea&s;ily, for if tho&s;e Hou&s;es in &s;tead of fighting with their King had made warre upon tho&s;e Rebels, great good had come upon tho&s;e complaints, and that union. But when they turn'd Rebels and oppo&s;ed their Sove|raigne, he was con&s;trained to make Peace with his Iri&s;h Papi&s;ts, that he might &s;ave the throats of his Prote&s;tants. The King pro|fe&s;&s;ed, he had no intent of war with his Parliament (&s;o the&s;e &s;till call them&s;elves) and then how can this be reconciled that he is now in Armes again&s;t them? Thus, Becau&s;e the&s;e have changed their condition; of Subjects they have turned them&s;elves into Rebels, and going about to pull down both the Church and
<PB N="14" REF="9"> State, the King according to his Oath mu&s;t needs take up armes to defend them. But in this particular a pa&s;&s;age cited out from one of the King's Declarations by Ma&s;ter <HI>Browne</HI> your O|ratour might have fully &s;atisfied your Annotatour. The words are&mdash;<HI>We will maintaine and ob&s;erve the Acts a&s;&s;ented to by &V;s this Parliament without violation; and that we have not nor &s;hall not have any thought of u&s;ing any force, unle&s;&s;e we &s;hall be driven to it for the &s;ecurity of Our Per&s;on, and for the defence of the Re|ligion, Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome, and the ju&s;t Rights &amp; Priviledges of Parliament.</HI> A Limitation then there is put to this promi&s;e. He will u&s;e no force, unle&s;&s;e he be fir&s;t driven to it; but in that Ca&s;e (and that's the ca&s;e we are in) no ingenious man can reproach the King with a violation of his promi&s;e. So that you &s;ee, it's &s;till a Truth the King tels the Queene in the 11 of his publi&s;h't Letters, <HI>That by equivocating to hide the breach of his word is that he hates above all things.</HI> A &s;peech truly roy|all, and that mu&s;t needs gaine e&s;teeme from your &s;elves unto that &s;oule that let it fall. For upon your owne grounds you can but &s;ay you beleive it le&s;t your owne tongue &s;hould con|fe&s;&s;e, That's no di&s;covery of truth which you lately found in the Cabinet.</P>
<P>I &s;hall &s;pend (&s;aid He) no more time in this, onely I mu&s;t let you know, that it &s;eemes probable to me that your Annota|tour feared the &s;trength of this plaine reply; And therefore takes great paines to per&s;wade us to beleive, that they are &s;till the &s;ame men they were; and that the King hath no cau&s;e to looke upon them now otherwi&s;e then he did, when on the &s;e|cond of <HI>June</HI> 1642. they pre&s;ented Him with the 19 Propo|&s;itions. If this be true he &s;ayes &s;omething, but how doth he prove it? Becau&s;e the Propo&s;itions of the Parliament lately treated at <HI>&V;xbridge, Feb.</HI> 1644. were no other in effect then the 19 Propo&s;itions &s;ent to the North in <HI>Iune</HI> 1642. A pretty argument; You &s;peake to this day the &s;ame language you did; Therefore your Actions make your per&s;ons no wor&s;e then when you did but onely &s;peake. The Articles at <HI>&V;xbridge</HI> are the &s;ame with the 19 Propo&s;itions. Therefore to bid battell and to &s;hoot at the per&s;on of your King, at <HI>Edge-hill,</HI> and other
<PB N="15" REF="9"> feilds. Therefore to invite Foraigners, the <HI>Scots</HI> to invade <HI>England,</HI> makes you no wor&s;e, but leaves your Cau&s;e the &s;ame that it was before the warre began. Sir, &s;aid he to me, upon the word of a Gentleman, doe you thinke this to be rea&s;on? Might not <HI>Hophni</HI> and <HI>Phinees</HI> much better have replied to their God. That they &s;pake &s;till as they were wont, with their tongues, they &s;till called him Lord, and that's more then you doe, to give good language to your King. And therefore he ought to have kept his Promi&s;e to their Hou&s;e, allthough in|deed in &s;ome actions of theirs, they had &s;ince that promi&s;e a|bu&s;ed his Sacrifices, and runne them&s;elves into &s;ome petty faults, as defiling the women at the very doore of the Taber|nacle. But it's a true ob&s;ervation, Corruption of life breeds a blindne&s;&s;e of under&s;tanding. And I &s;hall not mervaile at all to &s;ee a man loo&s;e his &s;ence, when I find he hath once lo&s;t his Loyalty.</P>
<P>But in another place your Annotatour will needs furni&s;h us with three motives more to induce us to beleive, that the cau&s;e is now the &s;ame it was when the King fir&s;t tooke up armes, and as it was when the King made mo&s;t of the&s;e Oathes and Prote|&s;tations: That their Cau&s;e is not altered&punc; That they are noe wor&s;e Rebels then they were. Where fir&s;t, &s;aid he, I mu&s;t tell you, that there is a great difference betweene their demands, and their Cau&s;e; Their demands indeed are the &s;ame they were, or at the lea&s;t they have received no remarkeable alteration. But he who is at fir&s;t but &s;aucy in his demands may pro&s;ecute what he &s;eekes by &s;uch damnable meanes, that it may make his pre&s;ent Cau&s;e much wor&s;e then his fir&s;t demands. In their de|mands indeed they were in&s;olent, but yet while they did but demand in a Parliamentary way let them for this once pa&s;&s;e with that Tax alone; But when they tooke up Armes to con|&s;traine the King to yeild to their demands, this makes their cau&s;e plaine Rebellion. And when againe they called in the <HI>Scots</HI> that they might adde more &s;trength to their decaying ar|mies. This (talke they what they will) makes them yet ap|peare in the &s;ight of all good men more vile and more horrid Rebels. 'Tis a mi&s;take then, that their cau&s;e is not altered.
<PB N="16" REF="10"> And when the Annotator talks but of mo&s;t of the Kings Oaths and Prote&s;tations, he him&s;elfe it &s;eemes frees him from the breach of &s;ome. And for the re&s;t I conceive Sir, &s;aid he, I have given you &s;atisfaction.</P>
<P>But will you have tho&s;e three motives too, whereby the Annotator would induce you to beleeve, that they are no wor&s;e Rebels then they were. The&s;e are his owne words. <HI>None can affirme otherwi&s;e who takes notice fir&s;t of our late &s;uf|ferings,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Ib.</NOTE> <HI>&s;econdly of our &s;trange patience even now after the di&s;|covery of the&s;e papers, and thirdly after our extraordinary &s;uc|ce&s;&s;e in the field,</HI> Inducements if they be any, they &s;eeme very incon&s;i&s;tent. For do both their &s;ufferings and their pro&s;perity too argue them to be no wor&s;e Rebels? 'Tis much that both tho&s;e <HI>Topicks</HI> &s;hould be at once at their &s;ervice, but weigh them all apart you will find they make piteous arguments. Fir&s;t, They have lately &s;uffered, therefore they are no wor&s;e Rebels. Secondly, they have had &s;trange patience after the di&s;covery of the&s;e papers, after their victory at <HI>Na&s;eby</HI> (and that's a virtue indeed to be patient in pro&s;perity) therefore they are no wor&s;e Rebels. Thirdly, they have had lately in the field extraordinary &s;ucce&s;&s;es, therefore they are no wor&s;e Rebels. They &s;hould do well to vote, that the&s;e rea&s;ons do conclude, and &s;o make them good by an Ordnance, el&s;e there's little hope they will e're dow<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e with their owne Admirers. For the two fir&s;t do &s;carce colour for rea&s;on, and the third, &s;ure the Annotator tooke out of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> who makes temporall felicity to be a note of the true Church, and &s;o concludes the Prote&s;tants have no &s;oundne&s;&s;e in their Religion, becau&s;e &s;ome time they had not victory in the field, and &s;o you plainely &s;ee the third rea&s;on is Popery. I &s;uppo&s;e Sir (&s;aid he) you have now altered your minde, and clearely perceive tho&s;e two particulars you named can with rea&s;onable men do the King no hurt at all. And though there be little el&s;e either in your Annotator or your O|rators which the wor&s;t men can make much u&s;e of, yet you &s;hall have what I conceive upon &s;ome few of their more mate|riall pa&s;&s;ages.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t your Annotator is not ingenuous, to &s;ay no wor&s;e,
<PB N="17" REF="10"> to charge the King with &s;tirring tumors about his mothers cha&s;tity. No, they who examined witne&s;&s;es and conferred circum&s;tances and times, to finde a knot in that bulru&s;h, they &s;tirred rumours indeed, and tho&s;e unchri&s;tianly traiterous.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 42.</NOTE> But for the King privately to complaine of that horrid wrong un|to his unckle of <HI>Denmarke,</HI> that he might thereby the more &s;trongly incite him to his a&s;&s;i&s;tance was (as much as in him lay,) to revenge rumours &s;tirred. And for you thus to publi&s;h what he privately wrote, is a &s;econd time to give the world notice of what you impiou&s;ly &s;tirred at fir&s;t. And then your Annotator, to make this wickedne&s;&s;e fall, layes your owne fault upon your King.</P>
<P>He is angry at this, The King calls us a Parliament publick|ly (in his Commi&s;&s;ions about the Treaty) yet acknowledges us not a Parliament &s;ecretly. And what then? The old Rule was <HI>Verba aulica non obligant,</HI> Ceremonies are no obligations.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 45.</NOTE> And are there no complements to be u&s;ed in Treaties. If I call a Clowne whom I know &s;o, by the name of Ma&s;ter, may I not yet privately &s;ay, and &s;tand to it too, that he is no Gentleman? Mu&s;t I therefore be needes fal&s;e, becau&s;e I am Civill? Truly Sir, &s;aid he, were you your &s;elfe to treat with a &s;trong theife, I &s;hould not dare to &s;ay you were therefore a fal&s;e man. becau&s;e &s;ometimes in hope to obtaine your owne you called him an hone&s;t gentleman. But the Kings words are&mdash;<HI>If there had been but two be&s;ides my &s;elfe of my owne opinion, I had not done it</HI>&mdash; very likely: for no man is bound to be Ceremonious. And the <HI>Macedonians</HI> were not a whit the wor&s;e men, becau&s;e in plaine termes they u&s;ed to call a &s;pade a &s;pade. The words of his Letter run&mdash;<HI>The argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no waies acknowledge them</HI> (In law I &s;uppo&s;e he meant) <HI>to be a Parliament,</HI> upon which <HI>Condition</HI> and <HI>Con|&s;truction</HI> I did it, and no otherwi&s;e, and accordingly it is re|gi&s;tred in the Coun&s;ell bookes with the Coun&s;ells unanimous approbation. For Sir (&s;aid he) If in civility I call my &s;elfe your &s;ervant, It doth not follow that in law I am &s;o. And if I &s;traight privately tell another, I will not do your commands, I cannot yet conceive that you would have cau&s;e to accu&s;e me of fal&s;hood.</P>
<PB N="18" REF="11">
<P>But the King &s;eekes Treaties and winne<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> upon the People by that &s;hew, and yet choo&s;eth &s;uch Commi&s;&s;ioners and binds them up with &s;uch In&s;tructions,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 46.</NOTE> that all Accommodation is impo&s;&s;ible. <HI>Mutato nomine de te fabula,</HI> That your Com|mi&s;&s;ioners were thus tyed up all the world knowes. And at <HI>&V;xbridge</HI> in open conference they did not &s;ticke to acknow|ledge it. But though the King cau&s;ed tho&s;e directions you have publi&s;ht to be read to his Commi&s;&s;ioners, yet he openly declared (as they all well know) that he meant them not in the formality of In&s;tructions, he meant not they &s;hould be ob|ligatory to them, but he left them free to them&s;elves, only he told them that by the&s;e directions he had acquainted them with his &s;ence, and left them to do that which became men of Honour and his Commi&s;&s;ioners. This I had Sir, &s;aid he, from a Per&s;on I dare tru&s;t, and I beleive it had beene better, when this &s;hall come to be knowne, if your Annotator had held his peace.</P>
<P>And is not that a pretty Collection made by your fir&s;t Ora|tor, Who becau&s;e the King &s;aies he will never quit <HI>Epi&s;copacy</HI> nor the <HI>Sword,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 5.</NOTE> concludes there was at the Treaty no hope of a happy and well-grounded peace. And why? becau&s;e the &s;word is in the Kings hand, is he therefore &s;till bound to draw it? Or hath no man a ju&s;t right that he may weare a &s;word but that he's &s;traightway tyed to be fighting? When Saint <HI>Paul</HI> affirmes, <HI>that Princes beare not the Sword in vaine,</HI> noe doubt he meanes the Sword as well of Peace, as of Warre. Nay the only way to &s;ee peace, is to &s;ee that the Sword is in the Scabbard, Is to &s;ee it in the Kings hand. But where Subjects begin to wre&s;t away that weapon from him, This Orators argument is undoubtedly good, Where there is &s;uch a Sword there is fighting.</P>
<P>Your &s;econd Oratour is not much more candid neither: In his City <HI>Rhetorick</HI> he would ca&s;t hatred on the King, becau&s;e he would graunt an alteration of penall Lawes to the <HI>Iri&s;h Po|pi&s;h Rebells,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 8.</NOTE> but no alterance of Lawes for the &s;ettlement of the Prote&s;tant Religion, though they be de&s;ired from a Prote&s;tant King. If, &s;aid he, It were proved, that becau&s;e King CHARLES
<PB N="19" REF="11"> is a Prote&s;tant Prince, therefore he is bound to like of a Pro|te&s;tant Rebellion; This di&s;cour&s;e might have &s;ome rea&s;on in it. But if crimes are the more foule, when they are done by Prote&s;tants, &s;omething may be &s;aid in favour of a Popi&s;h Re|bell, e&s;pecially when he askes the penall Lawes alone, and the other at once gapes both at the Mitre, and the Crowne. When he will neither endure the &s;word in the Kings hand, nor excommunication in the Bi&s;hops, nor that God &s;hould be &s;er|ved by our Liturgy. And yet declaimes at a Common Hall, that this for&s;ooth is for the advancement of the Prote&s;tant Re|ligion; which I wonder. Not that I am &s;ure which is e&s;ta|bli&s;ht by law, and that which we were all borne and bred in, And that which no more then five yeares &s;ince we all called Prote&s;tant in <HI>England.</HI> And for the &s;ettlement and advance|ment whereof the King denies to do nothing. No 'tis plaine the man meanes the Religion of <HI>John Knox,</HI> which fir&s;t wre&s;t|ed the &s;word out of Queene MARY of <HI>Scotlands</HI> hand, and is now doing the like to her Grand&s;on. So that hereupon I de&s;ire this Oratour would turne Judge, and gravely determine which he thinkes better for the King: Whether he &s;hall yeild his penall lawes alone unto his <HI>Iri&s;h</HI> Rebells, who then fight|ing for his Crowne, fight by con&s;equence for his Religion too, though indeed they them&s;elves are Papi&s;ts; or whether he &s;hall yeild both Church and Crowne too unto his Engli&s;h Rebels, and &s;o &s;uffer them to alter his Religion it &s;elfe, only upon this ground, becau&s;e they call them&s;elves Prote&s;tants?</P>
<P>Your third Orator be&s;ides other his weake inferences, would hence conclude a breach of word in the King, becau&s;e he promi&s;ed to <HI>keepe all the Acts of this Parliament inviolable,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 17.</NOTE> and yet had any two but joyned with him he would not have called them a Parliament: and there he cries, <HI>How can the&s;e &s;tand together?</HI> Very well; except all mankinde were bound to have as little Logicke, as him&s;elfe. For a contradiction mu&s;t be <HI>Secundumidem,</HI> and <HI>eodem tempore.</HI> They were a Parlia|ment when the King gave con&s;ent to their acts, and 'tis there|fore he intends to keepe them, but having now run into &s;o foule a rebellion 'tis at his plea&s;ure what to &s;peake in this ca&s;e;
<PB N="20" REF="12"> and he may now &s;ay, they are no Parliament; But he goes on. <HI>The King hath told us he will maintaine the Lawes and ob&s;erve them him&s;elfe. And yet be layes the bloud had in the&s;e warres up|on the innocent bloud</HI> (as he calls it) <HI>of my Lord of Strafford&punc;</HI> who was condemned by him&s;elfe, and by the Law. That, he &s;aies, he will maintaine. For that per&s;onall Law made again&s;t the life of the Lord of <HI>Strafford,</HI> the King did maintaine, and ob&s;erve it, for within a few daies he &s;igned a warrant for this death. So that this law is now at an end, and by the words of the &s;ame Law it mu&s;t not be drawne to example; and yet is he &s;till bound to maintaine that Law now expired? Or may not the King he &s;orry for what he then did ami&s;&s;e, but his repentance is a breach of law? I had thought that a Prince then maintaines and ob|&s;erves his Lawes when he &s;ees them put in execution. But that he is &s;o &s;trictly tied that he may not &s;peake again&s;t the &s;ence of any one of his Lawes, or wi&s;h it had not beene enacted, is more, I confe&s;&s;e, then is beleived by me, or as I conceive by this Ora|tour. Truly Sin, &s;aid he, when I did read the Letter, into which the King put that pa&s;&s;age, I could &s;carce refraine teares of joy to find him &s;o &s;en&s;ible of the crime he conceived he had done by communicating in that bloudy &s;inne; not doubting, but that God, who had given him this true Sence of his fault, had brought him to as true Repentance. And though I hold the Arch-Bi&s;hops Death (which the King &s;peakes of in the &s;ame Letter, and your Annotatour takes &s;o much notice of) in the Con&s;truction of all Law a mo&s;t compleate perfect murther, and make no more doubt that God will revenge it, then I do that he is in Heaven; Yet I dare pre&s;cribe no &s;et time unto divine Ju&s;tice. I neither know when God will command a ble&s;&s;ing upon the Repentance of the King, or a cur&s;e upon the foule murther of the Parliament. Nor indeed doth the King pre&s;cribe it, He onely writes,&mdash;<HI>I beleive it is no Pre&s;umption hereafter to hope that his hand of Iu&s;tice mu&s;t be heavier upon them</HI>&mdash;He &s;aies not it mu&s;t hereafter be heavier, nor &s;o much as That he hopes it will be &s;o. Onely he beleives it no pre&s;umption to hope. A &s;peech let fall with &s;o much Chri&s;tian warine&s;&s;e, that I could heartily wi&s;h we Subjects had learned to &s;peake with
<PB N="21" REF="12"> the like caution, of our King, as he hath done to &s;peake of God.</P>
<P>And now Sir, &s;aid he, I mu&s;t from my &s;oule tell you how pa&s;|&s;ionately I am greived to &s;ee &s;worne Subjects thus labouring to abu&s;e their King; nay to &s;ee them thus abu&s;e them&s;elves, that they may the more abu&s;e him; and to &s;ee all this done in <HI>Eng|land:</HI> Beleive it, 'tis no pre&s;umption to thinke that the crime of <HI>Cham</HI> will at length meet with <HI>Cham</HI>'s reward. But when men &s;trive to outdoe <HI>Cham,</HI> to &s;ay their Father's drunke, when he is not, and then jeere him downe as if he were now drowned in wine, what Cur&s;e may they expect when his was made thus great, <HI>A Servant of Servants &s;hall he be.</HI> And though this Prophe&s;y was not &s;traight way fulfilled, yet 'twas not therefore the le&s;&s;e true, or fearefull. Indeed what the wi&s;e man ob&s;erved may hold as well in the&s;e times of ours, becau&s;e God proceeds not &s;uddainly to judgement, <HI>Therefore the Hearts of the Sonnes of men are wholly &s;et in them to doe Evill.</HI> And this will as well hold in ours and all times, that where men doe &s;till &s;inne with a high proud hand, there will at length follow judgment. Take heed, Sir, &s;aid he, le&s;t from your pre&s;ent pro&s;perity you begin with that <HI>Cardinall,</HI> &s;traightway to inferre the goodne&s;&s;e of your Cau&s;e. No, The <HI>Benjamites</HI> thrived twice at that &s;ame time when they were mo&s;t injurious, and yet ere long they fell, and were beholding to their care whom they wick|edly oppo&s;ed, that of a Tribe they were not brought to no|thing. Our Actions mu&s;t be judged not by &s;ucce&s;&s;e, but by Lawes. And I &s;hall then thinke your party will e&s;cape tho&s;e Judgements which I feare, when there is either no &s;uch Text, <HI>Thou &s;halt not speake evill of the Ruler of thy People;</HI> Or that I thinke him, whom we have &s;worne to be our <HI>Onely</HI> Supreame Governour, to have no &s;hare among tho&s;e Rulers. When I &s;hall be brought to hold Repentance may be &s;inne in a King, And that murther is none, &s;o it be done by a Parliament: When by the di&s;tinctions of your Divines I can per&s;wade my &s;elfe, that this Rebellion is no Crime, Or when they can make me beleive, that either tho&s;e two Apo&s;tles did not under&s;tand Chri&s;t, or the Ancient Church tho&s;e Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>Here my old freind pretended bu&s;ine&s;&s;e and left me. And
<PB N="22" REF="13"> truly, Sir, I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e to you that he left me in a great per|plexity; for I know him a mo&s;t hone&s;t man, and I find it to be true, that rea&s;on then gaines extreamely in the weight, when it hath once pa&s;&s;ed through &s;uch a furnace. I a&s;&s;ure you he hath much troubled me, I would not &s;ay converted me, but I cannot divine how my Con&s;cience will hold out, for this appeares to me &s;o much rea&s;on that if you have not &s;omewhat to &s;ati<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">fy me with, Beleive me, I am much afraid how long I &s;hall con|tinue a freind to our pre&s;ent Cau&s;e, though I &s;hall never leave off to be,</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>Sir,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your very faithfull Servant.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
