IF any shall aske, Who art thou and what meanest thou? I shall not make my Answer so wide as Di [...]g [...]nes did; I am not onely [...] but [...], yea, I will yet take me to a narrower compasse. I am one who have adhered to the Parliament all along from the very beginning of the war, and I have served them faithfully in their lowest condition, re­solving still to be for them, in that which is just and right, a­gainst any person or Nation in the world: And as to my mea­ning [Page 2] in this particular, tis not to write in defence of the Scotch Papers (let their Papers speake for themselves) if they can; and if they cannot, I have nothing to say for them, and however I will not ju [...]dre in illorum verb [...], but I write in defence of the Honour of the Parliament, and of the Interest of Eng­land, which have received a dangerous wound by this printed Paper, which comes abroad as a Speech spoken by M^r Challe­nor in the House of Commons. I doe not presume to examine or at all to intermeddle in any thing spoken within those wals, I speake to the printed Paper, which for any thing I know may be supposititious, or at least different from the Originall. Sure (if I mis-heard not) tis not printed as it was spoken in the House, (which yet is pretended in the Title Page) else what is become of the Dog that is not worth the whistling after? and what is become of that other passage concerning the debate at a Comedy in Oxford, concerning the fittest place for erecting the Kings Throne? the determination whereof was so difficult, that some thought it best, not to erect it at all. Whatever was spoken in the House, I suppose tis no Priviledge of a Member of Parliament to print what he list against the Honour of the Parliament and Interest of the Kingdome: neither can it be a breach of the Priviledge of a Member, and much lesse the breach of a Priviledge of Parliament, to vindicate the Honour and In­terest of Parliament, which is my present worke, and so I come to it, without further prefacing.

My Animadversions upon the Paper are these. [...]irst of all it presenteth to the view of the world, a champion coming forth Goliah-like for the Parliament; but stumbling wofully in the very beginning of his dispute. It draweth together three large sheets of the Scotch Papers into this syllogisme.

The Paper runnes along in answer to this Syllogisme, and here is a man of straw set up to be buffeted. I will concurre [Page 3] with M^r Challenor to denie this Argument, but all this while the Scotch Paper escapeth scot-free; there is no such Argument in their Paper, neither for matter nor forme: they doe not say that either this Kingdome or their owne may dispose of the King, but that it belongeth to both Kingdomes to dispose of him. And if there must needs be a Syllogisticall arguing and answering, their Argument ought to have been stated thus.

This is the summe of what the Scotch Papers say, as to this point which is there prosecuted and endeavoured, to be pro­ved by parts: but whether it was for the Honour of the Parlia­ment, that one of their Members should Answer what the Scotch say not, and not Answer what they say, let rationall men judge.

To no better purpose is that distinction, Pag. 4. 5. of the King in Abstracto, and the King in Concreto: which (beside that it maketh Persona to be Concretum, I know not by what rule of Logicke) doth plainly begge from the Scotch what is in que­stion. For the Scotch Papers doe state the question (as the Vote of the honourable Houses, September 24. had done be­fore them) not upon the Authority, Power, and Office of the King, but upon the Person of the King: and to this very pur­pose are all their Arguments brought, to prove a joynt and equall interest of both Kingdomes in the Person of the King, which by Covenant they and we both are bound to defend and preserve, as well as his Authority and just Power. But this pretended Answer, in stead of answering or confuting their [Page 4] Arguments, denieth their Conclusion. Was this now for the Honour of the Parliament? Was it not?

I, but saith the Paper, Person [...] sequitur locum, and his Person must be disposed of by the supreme Power of that Countrey, whereso­ever he shall happen to abide. By this Principle forsooth the Per­son of the King of England, if he were in Scotland, must be dis­posed of by the supreme Power of that Countrey, without the advice and consent of the Parliament of England: And was not this well pleaded for the interest of the Parliament and King­dome of England? I thinke not.

Within a few lines after I finde it said, That the Kingdome of England, is as distinct in interests from Scotland, as Spaine: And is all our conjunction of interests in one Religion, one Covenant, one King, one Cause, one Warre, turned in end to no more but this? Then may Scotland make a Peace without the advice and consent of the Kingdome of England, as well as Spaine may. Then also may Scotland enter into a Confederacy with a Forain Kingdome, without asking advice or consent from this Kingdome, as well as Spaine may. And was not this well provided for the interest of England? was it? or was it not?

I turne over to Pag. 6. where I read thus,‘I shall take this as granted for good Law, that let the Person of any Nation (that were I confesse Persona Concreta) under the sunne, which is in amity with England, happen to come into England, that person is forth­with a Subject of England: For he being protected by the Lawes of England, he becomes thereby subject to those Lawes, &c.’Then must any Ambassadour coming from another Kingdome or State, expect no sufficient protection in England by the Law of Nations, but by the Lawes of England, without which pro­tection (as this Paper saith) ‘every man may kill him and destroy him,’ nor can he have such protection except he become withall a Subject of England. And was not the Honour of the Parlia­ment and Kingdome of England in this well preserved? Sure Foraine Nations will not thinke so.

‘It cannot be denied (saith the Paper) but there is a two-fold sub­jection, Legall and Locall:—And this though it be onely, pro tem­pore, [Page 5] and the other during life; yet it doth for the time totally ob­struct the operation of the other subjection: so that no King can com­mand any Subject of his living out of his Kingdome, but such Sub­ject of his, is to be disposed of by the sole Authority of that supreme Power where he makes his residence.’By which rule, (being at least equally applicable to any that are subject to the Parliament) when both Houses send Commissioners into Scotland; these Commissioners must not be subject to the Orders and Com­mands of the Houses of Parliament, but must be disposed of by the sole Authority of the supreme Power in that Kingdome. And is not this fine for the Honour of the Parliament? He that will make it stand with their Honour, Magnus mihi erit Apollo.

But come on Pag. 7. ‘I doe affirme, that if a King of Scotland should have come into England, before the union of both these King­domes, he had been instantly a Subject of England, and his person to be disposed of by the sole Authority of the Lawes of England.’By which Principle, the Prince of Wales now in France, is become a Subject of France, and his Person to be disposed of by the sole Authority of the Lawes of France; so that the King and Parliament have not Authority to recall him. And is not this a good salve for the Honour of the Parliament? O brave!

Pag. 8. ‘W [...] cannot admit of any regal [...]ty in the Person of a King of Scotland coming into England.—No man can be said to be Rex but in Regno.’And by just Analogy the Parliament of England, cannot be acknowledged a Parliament but in Eng­land only; neither can their Commissioners in any other King­dome or State, be admitted to propound, declare, treat, or con­clude in name of both Houses. And is not this well look't un­to for the Honour of the Parliament? Is it not?

Pag. 9. If they (the Scotch) be our fellows, why come they not to our Parliament? Therefore if it can be made to ap­peare that they are our fellowes, equalls, and brethren, they may come to our Parliaments. Loe here, how well the Privi­ledge of Parliament is preserved?

Here followes also a Story of John King of England, cited as Duke of Normandy to appeare at Paris: Whereunto the Eng­lish [Page 6] replied; That if the Duke of Normandy did goe, the King of England must goe; and if the Duke of Normandy were beheaded, they knew well enough what would become of the King of England. It was resolved by the Lawyers, that if John had been in Nor­mandy at the time of his summons, he ought to have appeared, but not so, being in England. Where beside the vast dispropor­tion of comparing the case of one who was King of one King­dome and Subject of another, with his case who is a free Mo­narch of two free Kingdomes; the Narration doth also ex­tremely strengthen the Scotch Paper, which it pretendeth to oppose; for they answer the English now, just as the English did then answer the French; that is, If this present King of England must be disposed of by the sole Authority of both Houses of Parliament, what shall then become of the Person of the King of Scotland? where is then the Scotch King in Con­creto? If the notion of a King in Abstracto be sufficient against the Scotch in this debate; sure it was as strong against the English then. Behold, what a rationall account is here given for the single and sole Authority of the Parliament of Eng­land, to dispose of the King of both Kingdoms! If this be well pleaded, I confesse I have lost my judgement.

Pag. 12. tells us the Kingdomes are now contending about the Kings Person, not who should have it, but who should not have it: Which reflecteth strongly upon the Parliament, and will inferre that forasmuch as they decline or shunne to have the Kings Person, either they did not wisely, or not upright­ly, when they Voted that his Person is to be disposed of as both Houses shall thinke fit. And is not this much for the Ho­nour of Parliament? Is it not?

Pag. 14. 'Tis desired to be considered, whether (as the case now stands) The Kings safety be not incompatible with the safety of the Common-wealth? I will not here relate what is vox po­puli concerning that Gentlemans old discontents at the King; but I blesse my selfe to thinke where we now are, when after so many Oaths, Protestations, Declarations, and Covenants, as for other ends, so for the safety of the Kings Person, 'tis not­withstanding endeavoured to make the world beleeve, that [Page 7] there is a great doubt made in Parliament, whether the Kings safety is not incompatible with the safety of the Com­mon-wealth. And is this now compatible with the Honour of Parliament?

In fine, I doe not know, whether the Scotch may like this Speech of M^r Challenor, for the matter of it, as being a malle­able Answer; yea, such as in the opinion of Intelligent Rea­ders, fortifieth their Papers not a little. But I much mistake, if it have a favourable aspect from the Parliament; either for the matter, or for divers acrimonious expressions in it, which as I cannot easily beleeve to have beene spoken in that honourable Senate: so none (I thinke) will like well provoking Lan­guage, but those who desire to put the Kingdomes by the ears: from which misery, and from all the Plots both of Sectaries and Malignants, Good Lord deliver us, Amen.