ENGLAND is unhappily become the Tennis-ball of mis-fortune, betwixt a Scottish King, and the Kingdom of Scots, Epitomiz'd in those State-Merchants their Commissioners. The one striving for an absolute separate in­terest, the other for a joynt. A designe in practise ever since King James first set foot over Tweed. wherewith he traveld all his life, but wanting the Midwisery of a Covenant, to bring it to passe; but now we are shared out by the Meere­stones of mutuall agreement betwixt His Majesty and His Native Subjects, who formerly promised them three Coun­ties, but that not contenting them, he hath now undertaken for the whole kingdome, to let them play the best of their Game, and they to him for the Crown to make it Indepen­dent (wheras the Identity and self-samenesse of interest ought to be 'twixt him and his People, as betwixt the head and bo­dy naturall) and certainly the cards play faire for them, by the Cavaliers on the one side, and the Londoners on the other, the one sworn slaves to Prerogative, and the other (for the most part) to the Scotch glosse upon the English Covenant, who long to feast the Mayor of Edenborough at Guild-hall. For the Scots finding the waters troubled, and humors stir­ring, they think now is the best fishing, and the fittest time to work their ends, and therefore Print their papers in spite of the Parliament (in hope therby to set England on fire that they may come to warme their hands at it) a practise never known [Page 2] in use by any Ministers of State but these, nor by them in no place in the world but here, because their warpe is weaving in our Looms. They find the Round heads á stiffe people not easi­ly bent, but resolved to the death, to maintaine entire both the freedom & interest of England without mixture or thraldom, therfore, Acheronta movebunt, they now renounce brother­hood, and contrary to Covenant fawne upon the Principles of the Cavaliers, face about to the common Enemy, towards whom throughout all these wars they carried themselves ve­ry inoffensively, doing them no more hurt than what neces­sarily conduced to their owne particular advantage, in taking a few northern frontier Garrisons, and knowing them to bee mostly prophane Esaus, a people not much considerate of their owne concernments, they hope to buy out their birth-rights with a messe of pottage, and yet the Cavaliers hate a Round head, he cannot lightly love a Blew-cap, so that they may perchance find it prove the onely stay, to part two fight­ing Mastiffes is to turn a Beare loose upon them both. And as for the Londoners, they are so confident of them, as alrea­dy they call London (where their Papers of the disposall of the Kings person was printed) Edenbrough, upon the fron­tispiece therof, nor is it improper for the Metropolis to change her name, when the Kingdome changes her interest.

And which is the worst part of machiavell they make re­ligion even The solemn League and Covenant to father all their bastards, for my owne part I am one that have taken it, and wish all did so that will make conscience to keep it, but cur­sed be that English-man that takes it with the Scotch corrupt paraphrase of a joynt interest, which ipso facto renders him perjured as to the Oaths of Allegiance & Supremacy, inhibiting all English-men to betray or communicate their publique in­terest (especially legislative) to forraigne States, and bet­ter it were the Covenant were neither given nor taken, then [Page 3] pressed in policy as it is by the Scots, to hand-fast English men in a joynt interest and propriety, or taken with perjury, as it is by the Cavaliers, who make no conscience in swearing, nor for-swearing. But we now plainly see what were our brethrens ends in their first propounding this Covenant, not Religion and Conscience, but Designe and Incroachment. I dare not judge so undivinely of their Divines who I am con­fident had honester purposes, but whatsoever was their divi­nity in it, their equity is starke naught, the Commander in cheife whereof in his transactions here in England hath car­ried himselfe extreame immorally, to the scandal of Presbytery and meriting the stoole of repentance, and yet it cannot bee denied but that what he hath done, hath been equitable, for the King raising him, by I know not what mystery of State, from his deep displeasure, to that height of Honour, can hee doe too much for such a Master? that not onely forgave him, but gave him; Who is their main pillar of policy, and strikes the greatest stroak in this master-piece of transmigration of interest, and like Chancery Bills, affirms any thing, but proves nothing in his papers, knowing that a bad cause is better maintained by a brazen face, (bold assertions) than iron argu­ments. Therfore they never offer to reply, save with a deaf ear to the House of Commons Answer to their papers, touching the disposall of the King in England, wherby is made evident, that neither as to that particular, nor any thing else, either in, or relating to the Covenant, they have any right or interest to order or dispose thereof by any joynt or united property.

The words of the Covenant being expresse and clear to the contrary, in every Article of it, engaging both each Nation and each person, To endevour (both one thing and other) in our severall places and callings—in our severall Vocations—and according to our places and interests. So that though the Covenant by these definit expressions purposely provide against confusion of Interests, that England and Scot­land [Page 4] being severall distinct kingdomes, and each one onely to act in his severall place; Vocation, calling and interest, yet without replying to these reasons brought against their indi­rect quoting the Covenant in abstract Positions thereby to compasse their end of joynt interest; they still persist from this Covenant to entitle themselves to the right of exercising a joynt power, not onely of disposing the King, but the king­dome also, though the Covenant be contrary to the exercise of any joynt power which was severall and distinct, before the making thereof; and although the joynt exercise of such power be a breach of Covenant; both of us respectively be­ing therby obliged in our severall Vocations mutually to pre­serve the rights, priviledges, and Liberties of each Parliament and kingdom, and the exercise of such a joynt power, which gives a negative voyce to either Nation towards other, is a manifest breach of those Priviledges and Liberties, so Cove­nanted to be intirely preserved, and consequently of the Co­venant it selfe. And whereas both in their Printed papers to the people, and their dissent to the Propositions sent lately to the King at the Isle of Wyght, this joynt propriety is so much stood upon, yet neither is the word joyntly nor any other ex­pression which will bear that interpretation so much as men­tioned in the Covenant, but the direct contrary, in those words Bach one in his severall Vocation; Calling; Place, and Interest, which runs through the whole Covenant, and which would have cleared the meaning of it, but therefore they cunningly leave it out, and break off in the midst of a sentence, to de­ctive the people, who they find too apt to take upon trust, and to suspect strangers lesse than there is cause.

For per fas & nefas, the designe if it will not goe, it must be driven, and so it is, from one stage to another; for whereas formerly the dispose of the Kings person was only pretended to, now they are mounted to a higher staire and steppe of en­croachment, the empowring of the Crowne; and whereas [Page 5] the Covenant runs thus: The preservation and defence of the Kings person, and authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome.

They notwithstanding make a stop at Authority, and thus our English sentences are read with Scotch comma's and pe­riods, and the Covenant made to speake what it never meant, and Covenanters to undertake absolutely what they promise but conditionally, by these Scotch Artificers, who make it a nose of wax, and here in England takes upon them to tell you, That the King and Crowne shall have the negative voyce, the regall Militia, yea and Court of Wards too, or as good, whe­ther it stand with the preservation and defence of true Reli­gion, and the Kingdomes liberties or not, further then which the Covenant binds not; nay though they see apparently all's lost, if it be so, the King being as firme to his principles both Ecclesiasticall and Civill, as ever, yea and for our better se­curity, they'l have the Army disbanded in hope the Parlia­ment cannot easily raise another, and so they may command in chiefe in the North, the Londoners in the South, and the Cavalliers East and West; and then their owne flesh and blood, the eleven Members may returne in freedome, honour, and safety, and put Mr. Pellam in the chaire againe. Thus they doe by us as the Philistims did by Sampson, been use they cannot binde us, they put out our eyes, and make us [...] round in a Mil, leave us as they found us & worse, besides the expence of so much blood and mony since, with our hands in our pockets; that so their new brother-hood the Cavalliers may rise and cut our throats, with whom they are confident of a joynt interest both in King and Kingdome.

When they were pleased to say, It was prejudiciall to both Kingdomes, (for there lies the Emphasis) for the King, (because they had no minde to him) to goe into Scotland, [...] were content they should leave him in England, where also they'le dispose of him, and have him come to London, in [...] ­dome [Page 6] honour and safety (which are comprehensive tearmes; before any peace be concluded or propositions granted, and that too, as the safest for the Kingdome (I should say both Kingdomes) under penalty of breach of Covenant, which they use now as the Pope in old time was wont to doe his excommunications, to compasse Kingdomes. And for his com­ming to London they bring a weighty reason of sutable so­phistry to the rest of their transactions. viz. Because the Par­liament invited him to come thither before the warres break out, as being then the onely meanes to prevent them (and now to renew them) that therefore after so much blood and treasure spilt and spent, upon that reason he must come with­out condition or satisfaction, at his owne election, and be restored before His Kingdome be repaired; this is brother­ly love and kind dealing indeed. What will posterity think of such Covenanters, brethren, and Auxiliaries, who doubt­lesse are out of our pay and have forfeited their arreares that thus in their late Papers alarum the whole Kingdom, and set their Pay-masters at defiance, and would now sel their par­ty to their Prince, as they did their Prince to their Party. Besides that, to pay them were to arme them, till they retract their book: Nor do men use to give wages to those they hire, for going up and downe the house from roome to roome and rid no worke, when worke is to bee done, as the Scots did here in perambulation from Country to Country, and dur­ing the warres neither fought battaile nor stormed Towne but Newcastle, but now they make an amends for their idlenes by turning busie-bodies, they kept their skins whole, and their Army entire to begin, it seems, when we had made an end, but beginne when they will, they'le find work for Tink­ers; all England is not of one mind, their Papers are too long for all to read them, and too false to be beleeved by all that doe read them, and more there are that side with them for faction, then that will side with them in fighting a­gainst [Page 7] their Countries interest, But they give you reasons, (or at least would see me to doe so) why the Militia must bee inherent in the Crowne, and the negative voice in the King. The reason of the Militia is because of the protection, the Crowne must afford to the people, so sayes the King when he means nothing lesse, and further tell us, That for the Crowne to be divested of all power and right of the Militia is different from their judgements, a strong reason, and impa­ratively spoken, enough to have been uttered by the Kings ne­gative voice, and for the regall protection they speake of a­gainst enemies, we have found, and they have seen it turned to destruction (as still its like to be) and an oath broken on one part, sets the other at liberty, our government being pactio­nall, and our Allegiance according to the nature of but Go­vernment, not of slaves and vassalls, but of Freemen. As the King is made for the people, and not the people for the King, so is he first bound to the people, and then they to him. But we have now more need of protection against false brethren then open enemies, which we cannot expect from the King their Country-man, and therefore its better to have the Mili­tia in the power of the Parliament, Englands abstract. And as they tell you what their judgement is not, so also what it is, viz. That they thinke the King in his message from Cares­brooke Castle, hath offered that which should be very satis­factory in the point of the Militia. I wonder not that it con­tents them, being I am confident a childe of their own brame instilled into him at Hampton-Court (when they went to see how he did) for its perfectly like them, a consent like the Co­venant (as they make it) meerly an aliquid nihil. But what if other men be of other mindes, and have not we cause to bee so, and to thinke it unsatisfactory: for is not the Prince in his capacity as bad as the King? principled by father and mother to begin where he leaves; is not the Parliament put in trust by the people to provide for their security; and shall [Page 8] they bee so base as to expose posterity, had our forefathers been so selfish, the Free-men of England might have been like the bondmen in Scotland, where the common people speake broken French.

The reason of the negative voyce is, as they affirme, be­cause regall power and authority is chiefly in making and e­nacting Lawes, and therefore object, That the new preface takes away the Kings negative voice, and cuts off all royall power and right in Law-making, wherein by the way they play the Sophysters (being excellent School men in State matters) for when they speake of the Militia, which is lesse concerned in terminis in the Coronation oath, which princi­pally respects Civil matters, yet they bring it for a proof as to that, saying, That all Kings are obliged by their Coronation oath to protect their Subjects, but as to his negative voice, the exclusion whereof is both the substance of that oath, and this preamble, they blanch it, taking and leaving as makes for their turnes in Oaths and Covenants, and making at best that oath as to the Lawes, speake but the language of the Ca­valliers, whose interpretation of only protecting the Laws, they take up, and decline that of the Parliaments of confirming and making them, so fully evinced in their Declarations to be the genuine sense thereof, and in right reason, and true con­struction it must needs be so, That he sweares to confirme and grant all such Laws as his people shall choose to be observed, not hath chosen: for first, the word concedis in that oath were then unnecessary, the Lawes formerly enacted being already gran­ted by foregoing Kings his predecessors, and so need no more concession or confirmation, else we must conclude that all our Lawes dye with the old King, and receive their Being a new by the new Kings consent. Secondly, hereby the first and second clause in that interrogatory, viz. Concedis justas leges & permitt [...] protegendas, are confounded, and doe but idem re­ [...]. Thirdly, Quas vulgus elegerit, implies only the act of [Page 9] the people in a dis-junctive sense from the act or consent of the King, but Laws already made have more then Quas vul­gus elegerit in them, they have also the Royall consent too▪ so that that phrase cannot mean those Laws wherein the act and consent of the King is already involved. But though the Scots Commissioners approve not of it to be the meaning of that Oath, yet they affirme it undeniably as a position of their owne, That regall power is chiefly in making and enacting Laws; that and protection being of the essence of Kings.

The Scots say its essentiall to the King to make Laws, the Preamble to the Propositions sayes so too, That it's the duty of his office, yet they that affirme that, oppose this, so that there must needs be some great mis-understanding, for there is no difference, which is this. The Scots when they say. It is essentiall to the King to make Laws, speake by a figure in­cident to their dialect, that is, They speake one thing, when they meane another (you may finde the name of it in Hocus Pocus his politicks) intending thereby, That it is essentiall to him not to make Lawes, elegantly asserting the negative (which they con­tend for) in the affirmative. (For they speake all in the plurall number Kings and Kingdomes, nothing but joynt interests and equall jurisdiction, municipall lawes are out of doores.) And let it be granted that it is a principall part of even our re­gall authority to make and enact Lawes, for the Coronation oath saith as much, That he is to confirme and grant such Lawes as his people shall present; so also sayes this Preamble to the Propositions, and what get they by it? why then say they to take away the Kings negative voyce is to cut off all power and right in making Lawes; nothing lesse, this is a meer non sequitur, for to make him that he cannot but make them, is that to make him that hee cannot make them▪ There are somethings that God himselfe cannot but doe, (which is as well his perfection and power (not imperfection and impo­tency) as those things he can chuse to doe) and does that [Page 10] therefore imply that he cannot doe what he cannot but do? Things essentiall are not arbitrary but necessary, so is mak­ing Lawes to the Office of a King, but so is not his not mak­ing them: It seemes by the Scots creed translated into Eng­lish, (for they are not of this faith, at least not of this practice at home) nothing's royall but what's arbitrary, a position fit­ter for Turkes and Infidels to maintaine, then Christians and men of erudition, that so preferres will to reason, and the will of one man laps'd and relaps'd to the reason of a State, making that which is the worst to rule by, the sole or prin­cipall rule of all rule and Government. They are now at­tain'd to that confidence as after all that's done and suffered by the Parliament and Kingdome for an establishment of li­berty and safety, openly to advocate it for the King against these, (preferring their interest which is against them, above their Covenant which is for them) notwithstanding the pro­fession they made to the contrary and the money, viz. 600000. li. 100000. li. at their comming in, 200000. li. at their going out. 250000. li. for coales at Newcastle. 50000. li. when they lay before Hereford, are such another summe when they lay before Newarke, besides free-quarter, a [...]bitrary assesements, and exactions; which in computation during their long stay to little purpose amounted to above as much more. They have had for their seeming service­ablenesse thereunto. And now all the courtesie we must ex­pect is onely this, for they are their owne words. It is not our desire that Monarchy should be at the absolute height of an arbitrary and tyrannicall power. Implying an allowance or content of some, yea, a great deale of arbitrary and tyranni­call Monarchicall power, and for this it seems they contend, the whilst they go about to erect these two Pillars of it in the Crown, a Negative voyce and a Regall Militia, and indeed the Crowne having them, what can hinder it of an arbitrary ty­rannicall power even to the height thereof, if he that weares [Page 11] it be so disposed, for by the power of the one the people can have no Lawes but what heele grant them, and by the po­wer of the other they are never the better for them, nor sur­er of them when they have them; the Militia investing the King with a negative power of undoing at pleasure what he of curtesie hath done or granted to them, and so his people are stript of all power or righ [...], both to get or keepe what's for their weale or their posterities, and all rendered at the Kings will and mercy and that by Law and Allegiance too, then which I doe not well understand how there can be a more absolute height of Monarchicall arbitrary tiranny, then by pretended Law and right to have it in his power to doe what he will, (absolute persian) for so his will by law gives law to all lawes and the subjects benefit in his meere beneficence.

For if the Subject desire good lawes hee may stop their mouths and tell them that by Law he may deny them, or if he be in a good mind and grant them, and after change and be desirous either to unmake them or to breake them (which yet the Medes could not doe) [...]s what's more changeable then the will of a King (whether he be Englands or Israels Solomon) subject to alteration upon every puffe of passion, or trade­wind of flattery &c. And then if the Subject take armes for defence of their Lawes he soiles them at that guard too, and and tells them by Law the Militia is his not theirs; And if they reply but he is to use it for the publique weale, he an­swers them, I may chuse by my negative voyce, and thus the poore English-man by Scotch sophistry is tost from post to pillar voide of all certainty and stability, and is meerly ad placitum in substance, though in shadow a freeman: these are no Levellers, these are Mountainers, high landers: but how can wee expect better when strangers and men of con­trary interest to us, are our Legis-lators and take upon them the highest Office of judicatory in this Kingdome next to making Lawes (which they say is the Kings, and therefore [Page 12] they will not take that from him.) viz. to interpret our Lawes and Liberties, and so by a writ of alienation we are shared out 'twixt him and them, he to make, and they to in­terpret, and thus the English Parliament betwixt two stooles falls to the ground, and becomes a meere nullity, and yet the Scots Commissioners (the renewers of our miseries) play the Courtiers, and tell you in Latine instead of English, that they professe ignorantiam facti & juris alieni, but their words and actions agree as did their words and swords, promise much and doe nothing.

Further to make good these their assertions touching the Kings Right to the Militia, and a Negative voyce, they prove it by the Scepter and Sword, which they say are badges of those powers to be in the King, it may be so in Scotland, but in England they signifie not the power of creation (speci­ally not of annihilation of Laws) but of execution of civill and penall Justice, else by this reason the Mayor of a Corpo­ration, whose badges in proportion import the same things, should have a Negative voyce, and be a Law-maker (or law-refuser) who indeed is the Laws Minister, and so is the King, the fountain of Justice not of Laws. But to shew how incon­sistent and irrationall it is for the King of England to have a Negative voyce (for, for the impertinencies of other Nati­ons instanced by them, there need no other answer, but that we neither give nor take Laws from any but our selves)t may appear by these following considerations.

1. By the Kings not sitting in Parliament to debate and consult Lawes, nor are they at all offered him by the Parliament to consider of, but only to consent unto, which yet are transmitted from one of the Houses to the other as well to consult, as consent to, shewing thereby that he hath no share in the consultory part of them (for that it belongs only to the people in Parliament to discerne and con­sult their owne good) but he comes only at the time of enacting, bringing his royall authority with him, as it were to set the seal therof to the Indenture already prepa­red by the people, for the King is head of the Parliament (as of the people) in regard of his authority, not in regard of his reason and judgement, as if it were [Page 13] opposed to the reason and judgement of both Houses (which is the reason both of King and Kingdome) and therefore doe they as consult, so interpret Laws with­out him, supposing him to be a person replenished with honour and royall autho­rity, not skill'd in Lawes, nor to receive information either of law or counsell in Parliamentary affaires from any, saving from the supreme Court, and highest Councell of the King and Kingdome, which admits of no counterpoise, being in­trusted with all, above all.

2. Either the choice of the people in Parliament, is to be the ground and rule of the Kings assent, or nothing but his pleasure, & so all Bills though never so neces­sary for publique good and preservation, and after never so much paines and con­sultation of both Houses may be voided, and so they made meer cyphers, and we brought to that passe, as either to have no Lawes, or such as come onely and in­mediately from the King (who oft is a man of pleasure, and little seen in pub­licke affaires to be able to judge) and so the Kingdomes great Councell must bee subordinated either to his meer will (and then what difference between a free Monarchy, and an absolute, saving that the one rules without counsell, and the o­ther against it) or at the best but to a cabinet councell, consisting commonly [...]f men of personall interests, but certainly of no publick trust.

3. By the practice of requiring the royall assent even unto those very acts of Subsidies which are granted to himselfe, and for his owne use, which it is sup­posed he will accept of, and yet Honoris gratia, his royall assent is asked and contributed thereunto.

Lastly, from the Scots owne position, which is this, That regall power and authority is chiefly in making and enacting Lawes, and in protecting and defending their subjects, which are of the very essence and Being of all Kings. Whence I argue, that then he hath a negative power in neither no more in the one then in the other, but as he is not to deny pro­tection to his people, so nor Lawes, for (as aforesaid) things es­sentiall are necessary, these then being so to the office of a King, hee is not arbitrary in their dispensation, but as he must doe the one, viz protect not, destroy his people, so also the other, viz. consent not, dissent to their Lawes, for to consent is either a meere act of his will and pleasure, and then not essentiall to his place, or the issue of his duty, and then not of his meere will, as it is of a Judge to do justice, and therefore cannot (that is ought not) to be denyed, this their owne position, whereupon they would build the negative voyce, quite destroyes it and concludes both against it and them.

In a word, the Fundamentall Law of the Land, is a setling [Page 14] of Government, so as that it may be administred, with honour and safety, and therefore the people first consult their own safety and welfare in Parliament, and then the King, who is to be intrusted with it, is to give an honourable confirmation to it, and so to put an Impresse of Maj [...]sty and Royall Au­thority upon it. The Legislative power in England is in the hands of the supreme Government, not Governour, here the people like Freemen offers Laws to be enacted, doth not re­ceive them so, nor ought to be denyed them. The King is to give life to such Acts and things as tend to publique good and protection, which Acts depend not upon his pleasure, but though they are to receive their greater vigour from him, yet are they not to be suspended at pleasure by him, for that which at first was intended by the Kingdoms for an honourable way of subsistence and administration must not be wrested contra­ry to the nature of this polity and Institution, insomuch as if the King in his person decline his duty, the King in his Parlia­ment is to performe it; Safety and Beeing, is to be preferred to Honour and Well-being, and Reallities to Formes, which are usefull, if not hurtfull, Good Hand-maids, but bad Mi­stresses, being but Honourable Accidents, not Essences, like beauty to the face, or Jewels to the Crown, which, though they be pawn'd, its not essentially impair'd; Civill supersti­tion may undo us as well as Ecclesiasticall, which commonly goe together, and one of them oft times is the punishment of the other; Civill dissentions, Prerogative Wars, and Canter­burian Altars began at once. The peoples hearts were not pre­pared, was of old the sin of many ages, and the cause of ma­ny judgements, God grant it be not so with Englands Israel.