I. AS to the first Aphorisme, it is granted you, that the errours and sufferings of a People, are from their Governours; But I desire you to consider, and grant the Reason thereof which is, (as I conceive) because they have laid aside the RIGHT RULE (viz. the FUNDAMENTAL LAW) to be directed, and governed by, and to govern others also by, in this grand and humane concernment, as to LIFE, LIMB, LIBERTY and ESTATE, according to the 29th Chapter of the great CHARTER of England.

II. As to your second Aphorism I averr, That the foundation of the Government of England is LAW, and a sufficient unmoveable Foundation, and is termed a Fun­damental Law, not only from the unknown Original of the great Antiquity of it, (by mutual consent, agreement, and usage of the People (as is to be presumed) upon mature and serious deliberation, without any violent imposition) But because of the justness, peaceableness, and impartiality thereof, for the provident means of conser­vation of all our Lives, Limbs, Liberties and Estates, from illegal, and Arbitrary violence, and destruction, and to procure Justice and Right in the Land of our Na­tivity; And for the Governours (being generally but temporary, and subject to imperfection, death, and divers humane casualties) they are in the eye of the Law subordinate to the being, and Excellency of the Law, neither did ever any wise and just person (as I conceive) who loved his Country) in any age or time, (upon just and serious consideration with himself (requisite in such cases of weight) endeavour to alter it. And if any persons have laboured an alteration (to gratifie an unjust Faction or interest, or for some other Reasons presented (though very plausible) it hath of­tentimes proved very fatal to the Innovators themselves in the experience of the People in the exercise of two of the sences, (viz.) of Sight and Feeling, although you say in your 5th Aphorism, they cannot see but feel.

The 29th Chapter of the Great Charter consists of these ensuing Particulars.

• 1. That no man shall be taken or imprisoned in the first Place; because the Liberty of a mans Person is more precious to him then all the rest.
• 2ly. None shall be disseissed (that is dispossessed of his Freehold (that is) Lands, or Livelihood, or Liberties, or Free Customs, (that is) of Franchises, Freedomes, and Free Customes, as belong to him by Free BIRTHRIGHT.
• [Page 2]Thirdly, None shall be Out-lawed made an Exlex, put out of the Law, (that is) deprived of the benefit of the Law.
• Fourthly, None shall be exiled or banished out of his Country (that is) no man shall loose his Country.
• Fifthly, None shall be in any sort destroyed, unless it be by the Verdict of his Equals, or according to the Law of the Land.
• Sixthly, No man shall be condempned at the Kings Suit, either before the King in his Bench, or before any COMMISSIONER or JUDGE whatsoever, but by the lawful Judg­ment of his Peers, (that is, Equals) or according to the Law of the Land.

And further to manifest that it is to be presumed, that the people were sensible that there was a possibility & probability of imperfection in a King (as he was a man) what through himself on the one hand, or what through evil advice on the other hand, which may surprize greatness and seduce it contrary (peradventure sometimes) to their own inclination, suitable to that saying of the Apostle 1 John 1.8.10. If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a lyar and his word is not in us, Rom. 3.9, 10. What then are we better then they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous no not one. For no single PERSON or PERSONS in the world that ever did or may Rule among men, can say of himself or themselves as Paul in the 4 Heb. 15. said of CHRIST, who though he was tempted yet was without sin; therefore it was neces­sary there should be a Legal Supremacy in our FUNDAMENTAL LAWS and RIGHTS, and to manifest (as I conceive) that there was like Knowledge, and necessary indubitable apprehention in a King (in the daies of many Monarchs) as well as in the People, that there was such a possibility and probability of imperfection if the Law should not be a Rule to the Governours (as well as governed) there is in the end of the said 29th Chapter these other and last ensuing Legal and necessary particulars, and Obligations, to bind him from intermedling, and doing Acts of evil, or hindring Acts of Justice or Right, and that the Peple in their Methodical Funda­mental way of Justice might distribute Justice, and Mercy one amongst another, ac­cording to that RIGHTEOUS RULE 7 Matt. 12. Do in all things as you would be done unto.

Seventhly, We shall sell to no man Justice or Right; So that Covetousness, (which by the Reverend Apostles, and divers Scriptures, is said, to be the Root of all evil) was to be abandoned by this FUNDAMENTAL LAW, and no profit was to stand in the way of Right to any man whatsoever.

Eighthly. We shall deny to no man Justice or Right so that the Law saith, it was not in the power or courtesie of Princes to give us Right as a favour, for they were bound by the Common Law, which was our Right for many hundred years ago before the CHARTER, and by the CHARTER, and by OATH, not to deny us Right, yea impartiall Justice or Right. And therefore VVilliam the Conquerour after he had Conquered all almost, yet did sweare to confirme, and defend our Lawes, and antient Customes and Rights.

Ninthly. We shall deferr to no man justice or Right, so that thereby it is apparent, there was no way for Evasion of this wise CHARTER of Confirmation or Restitution of our Common Law, or to avoyde the injoyment of our Fundamentall Rights (without which we cannot live) For it is a clear thing to all rationall men, that Justice or Right is not to be sold or denyed to any, but if it be neither sold or denyed (in any visible Fact or Deed,) yet if it should be delayed, it would be a lingring, and wasting spoyle and Consumption, and as destructive to the interest of the People, as if the two last precedent Provisions and benefits, had no being at all, for the renowned Lord Cook saith, dilatio est quaedam negatio; And therefore I shall say as it is said by the Translator to the Reader in the Book called the Mirror of Justices, (who rationally declined the opinion of some) That our Common Lawes as to the generality flowed first out of Normandy) As Cicero was bold to derive the Pedigree of his Roman Law from the great God Jupiter, so (saith he) I hope without offence, I may be imboldened in the person of our Common Law, to say, That when the Lawes of God and Reason came first into England, then came I in. This I declare, and recite, to shew the excellency of the Fundamentall Law of the Nation.

The Lord Cook in the first part of his Institutes in his Commentary upon Liatle­ton, Lib. 2. Cap. 4 Sect. 108. Magna CHARTA is so called in respect of the weightiness, and weighty greatness of the matter contayned in it in few words, be­ing the Fountaine of all the Fundamentall Lawes of the Realme, and therefore to be presumed inviolable, and saith he, it may be truly said of it, That it is Mag­num in parvo: It is in our Books called CHARTA LIBERTATUM. COM­MUNIS LIBERT AS Angliae, or Libertates Angliae, or CHARTA de LIBERTATIBUS, MAGNA CHARTA confirmed above 30 times in full PARLIAMENT. And by the Statute of the 42 Ed. 3 cap. 3. if any Statute be made against it; it shall be voyd; whereby it doth appeare by the wise Act of our Ancestors (in former and peaceable times,) that they did foresee that future Parlia­ments might possiby endeavour to make this Fundamentall Law ineffectuall, by mak­ing somthing or other against it: And further he saith (To demonstrate Parliaments are, and are justly to be limitted, and guided by it, so as to make no Act contrary to it, or inconsistent with it) It is the FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT: And further he saith (to manifest that this Law was common Law, and was before the Charter in the peoples possession:) It is but a Confirma­tion or Restitution of the Common Law, as in the Statute, made Confirmatio Char­tarum. An. 25. Ed. 1. it appeareth by the opinion of all the Justices: And it is a Maxime in the Law, No man ought to be wiser then the Law, and Ed. 1. for de­monstrating his affection to the excellent common Law of England had the honorable Title to be stiled Vindex Anglicanae Libertatis, as appeares by Mr. John Bashawes [Page 4]Argument of Law (in Parliament) against the Bishops Cannons: And likewise Mr. Sollicitor St. Johns in his Argument of Law against the Earle of Strafford, saith the destruction of the Law dissolves the Arteries, and Ligaments that hold the body to­gether, and cites the Case of Empson and Dudley, who were beheaded for executing that ILLEGALL ACT of PARLIAMENT, 11. H. 7. cap. 3. which gave power to Justices of Assise as well as Justices of the Peace VVithout any finding or presentment by Jury of 12 men of the Neighbourhood being the ancient BIRTH-RIGHT of the subject, upon bare information for the King before them made to have full power, and Authority by their discretions to heare and determine all offen­ces, or contempts committed or done by any person or persons against the order, forme, manner or effect, of any Statute made, and not repealed: By colour of which Act of Parliament SHAKEING the FUNDAMENTAL LAVV, viz: the 29. cap. of Magna CHARTA it is not credible (saith he,) what Exactions and Oppressions were done to the dammage of many People, both indicted at Common Law, and by Act of Parliament 21 H. 8. both lost their heads. And the Lord Cook in the 4th part of his Institutes, calls that ACT OF PARLIAMENT A MISCHIE­VOVS ACT, with a Flattering Preamble, The Colour and Fraudulent pretences (to avoyde our ANTIENT BIRTH-RIGHT, TO DELUDE, and amuze the People) were to avoyde divers mischiefs.

• 1. To the displeasure of Almighty God.
• 2. To the great Let of the Common Law.
• 3. The great Let of the wealth of the Land, as high pretences as any (that would make Innovation) can devise.

It was one of the Principle Treasons of Trisilian cheife Justice for dilivering his opinion in subversion of the Law, for which he was deprived of his life: And the Lord Cook in his Proeme to the second part of his Institutes, sets forth that Edward the first did ordaine that Magna CHART A should be sent under the great Seale to all Justices of the Forrest as to others, and to all Sheriffs, and to all other Officers, and to all Cityes, and to all Cathedrall Churches, and read and published in every County foure times in the year in full County, 25 Ed. 1. cap. 1. and cap. 3. and 28 Ed. 1. cap. 2.17. And in the Preamble of the great Charter, as the Lord Cook shewes in the second part of his Institutes, This antient, this Common Law was as­sented unto, and confirmed in these words in the CHARTER, viz. that the King did it spontanea & bona voluntate, that so the King might not plead per duresse, as King John did, who sought to avoyd it upon pretence of Duress; And further saith the Lord Cook in his Proeme to the second part of his Institutes. The Common Law of England, the great Charter cannot be avoyded by the pretence and suggesti­on of the minority of a King, because his pollitique capacity did alwayes judge him to be of age and no Minor, that no argument whatsoever might avoyde our Funda­mentall Lawes and Libertyes: And further he saith that the onely thing that hath impugned our Liberties, hath been evill Counsel, Flattery, and Ambition, and cites the Case of Hugo de Burgo cheife Justice in Henry the 3d, his time, which is above 400 yeares agoe, and Hugh Spencer, &c: for giving rash and evill Counsell to Ed. the 2d, but their advice proved destructive to them, as the Lord Cook that renowned and industrious PATRIOT, excellently shewes and illustrates in the second part of his Institutes of the Lawes, of England in his Proem, and upon the 29th, Chapter of the great Charter. All which (with friendly submission) (although you are a stran­ger [Page 5]get to me) to your impartiall, serious, and just consideration, is of great use, and worthy your reading, and of extending your abilityes, and understanding to manifest your affections, to those Fundamentall Legal Aphorismes therein contained, or to be naturally deduced instead of your own Politicall ones.

And further to continue to manifest the Excellency of the being and supremacy of the Law averred, and mutually confessed in the dayes of Monarchy, and by honoura­ble Parliamentary Counsell, you may see in Rastalls Abridgements of the Statutes Title Justice and Right Justices, An. 2. Ed. 3. Cap. 8. By the assent of the great men, and otherwise men of our Counsell, we have commanded all our Justices that they shall from hence forth do even LAVV and execution of RIGHT, to all our Subjects Rich and Poore, without having regard to any Person, and without letting to do RIGHT, for any Letters or Commandement which may come to them from VS, or from any other, or for any other CAUSE, suitable to this also hath all the Kings of England been obliged by the Sacred and inviolable Obligation of an Oath, and there­fore Saint Paul saith, 6 Heb. 16, 17. Men verily sweare by the greater, and an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife, and that God (to shew the immutability of his Counsell) confirmed his promises by an Oath; And in the first Remonstrance of Parliament, dated the 15th of December, 1641. you may find what Particulars were declared as grand evils, Incumbrances, Breaches, and Inconvenien­ces done against the Righteous antient Lawes and LIBERTIES of the People, which shewes what the GOOD OLD CAUSE was originally declared to be, in defence of which cause there hath been shed so much precious Blood, Destruction of FAMI­LIES, and many MILLIONS of Treasure spent.

I have been a little tedious in this, partly, because I saw an ingenious Pen take some just Cause of offence (as I conceive) from your Petition, directed to the Parli­ament of the Commonwealth, pag. 4. cited by Mr. Rogers in his Book called A CHRISTIAN CONCERTATION, &c: your words he cites are these, (viz) Your minds are not settled in any known Constitution of Government, or Fundamen­tall Orders, according to which all LAWS should be made.

The late King Charls in his Declaration (published by advice of his Privy Coun­cell, in the Book of Collections of Remonstrances and Declarations printed by Ed­ward Husbands by Authority of Parliament, pag. 28, 29.) saith, That the Law is the INHERITANCE of every Subject, and the onely security he can have for his LIFE, LIBERTY and ESTATE.

And in an answer to the Petition of the House of Commons, 28 Jan. 1641. pag. 61. he called God to witness that the LAVV and LIBERTIE of the Subject should be as much his care, and industry as of his life, or of the Lives of his deerest Children.

And in the said book of Declarations of Parliament, 19th, May, 1642. pag. 211.212. We are fully (say they) of the Kings mind, that he might rest so secure of the affections of his Subjects, That he should not need of Forraigne force to preserve him from Oppression, and are very confident he should never want an abundant evidence of the good wishes and assistance of the whole Kingdom, especially if he shall be pleased to hold that Gratious resolution of building upon that sure FOUN­DATION the LAW of the Land. Then their Remonstrance of Parliament May 26. 1642. pag. 263. That they would be tender of the LAW, which they acknowledged [Page 6]be the Safeguard of all PUBLICK and PRIVATE Interests. And page 657 and 666, That the Parliament raised the Army for their just defence and LAWS NE­CESSARY PRESERVATION when an Army was marching towards them to destroy them both. And in the Book of the Declarations of the Army Prin­ted by Matthew Simmons 27, Sept. 1647. After their then victory, they hoped to to put an end to Tyranny and Oppressions, that Justice and Equity according to the LAW of the LAND should have beee done to the People, That the meanest Subject should fully enjoy his RIGHT, LIBERTIE and PROPRIETY in all things which the Parliament had made known to all the world in divers of their Declarations, to which they had so often bound themselves to perform by their OATHS, VOWS, COVENANTS, & PROTESTATIONS, and the Parliament in the aforesaid Book of Declarations, page 659, 666, 661, amongst other words declared that the Cause was, That the Commonalty might enjoy (in the maintenance of their LAVVS, LIBERTY. RELIGION, their own BIRTH-RIGHTS, FREEDOM and LIBERTY of the LAVVS of the LAND, being equally intituled thereunto, with the greatest Subject, yet we hope (say they) this is far from any purpose, to raise malice and hatred between them and the Gentry; but rather to knit and unite them more fast together, and the late KING CAARLES in his Declaration in the aforesaid Book of Declarations, page 768, 769. Confesses and averrs, That the LAW makes the meanest Subject as much a LORD, of his own as much as the greatest Peere to be valued, and considered as by the said several Declatations will fully and largly (upon perusal) appear.

So that I have shewed some of the chief FOUNDATIONS of our Government, which is unchangeable. and which all personal authorities are subservient unto (their greatest duty and care being to preserve the same inviolable) and the People will be miserable if these FOUNDATIONS or any suitable superstructure to this FOUN­DATIONAL RIGHT, Government or Freedom be changed.

III. As to your third Aphorism, you would have done well to have informed the Peo­ple, and Parliament of the Common-wealth of England, wherein, or in what parti­culars the Government by Lawes formerly in the time of Monarchy were imperfect, or ineffectual, that so they might have had some benefit by you, by being made capa­ble to know what you mean, and how to redresse any Invasion upon our FUNDA­MENTAL RIGHTS, but a general Charge (in the judgement of Law or Reason) signifies nothing according to an apptoved Maxim in Law, Dolosus versatur in gene­ralibus.

IIII. As to your fourth Aphorism, It hath been the Peoples misery that there hath been so many various Governments (as you call them) by Arms. But the use of Arms in a generally professed and pretended, Christian and rational Common-wealth, that hath such excellent Laws (as we have) must be only as contingent things and subser­vient to the Supream Government the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS of Ju­stice, Peace, and Safety, & PARLIAMENTARY constant COUNSELS

V. As to your 5th Aphorism, Its hard to judge and averr, that the People cannot see as well as feel, and it is much if the losse of many thousand persons and Families (se­veral waies) Millions of Treasure, Destruction of Trade, and all other sad inconveni­ences and consequences thereof, should not make them see. Indeed, if you had said that a party of the People whose eys have swelled with fatness, and have had more than heart can well or reasonably wish, and who have had great and continual places of profit in the Common-wealth, under every Power almost For these not to see because they have not felt, I should have more approved of such a kind of Apho­rism.

VI. To your sixth Political Aphorism I say, That the declared end of this late sad inte­stine War, was that we might have our peaceable Government by Laws, abhorring all things of Force; The GOVERNMENT by good Laws (as ours are) is just, peaceable, and certain. The Government by FORCE, cannot properly be called a GOVERNMENT, but ought to be subservient to the Supream Fundamental Law, and to the Supream peaceable PARLIAMENTARY Legislators or CONSER­VATORS of that Law.

VII. To the seventh Aphorism, I say in agreement with you, That it is every FREE­BORN mans duty whatsoever, to endeavour to attain to that righteous end the Government by LAWS.

VIII, IX. X, XI, XII, XIII. To the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. I say in brief, What the People of England may do, if not trusted with their Rights, I know not: or if trusted, I know not, I cannot divine. I think it is only known to the infinite wise God, who foresees all events; But I have shewed you that our Laws are sufficient, And by a Fundamental Constitution, and as a lawful means to preserve our Rights, it is our Right to have our constant SUCCESSION of PARLIAMENTS, 1 Rem. of Parliament 15. Dec. 1641. The Parliament declared. That the Triennial Parliament for the matter of it did not extend to so much as by LAW they ought to have required, there being two Sta­tutes still in force for a Parliament to be once a year. And the Lord Cook in the 4th part of his Institutes, treating of the High Court of Parliament, cites 36 Ed. 3. cap. 10. A Parliament every year, 4 Ed. 3. cap. Inter Leges Edgar Cap. 5. Before rhe Conquest Parliaments were to be holden twice every year. Sithence good men are rare, and also sithence you say, it is not Prudence to be sure of Assemblies of good men, and that there is but a possibility of good in a personal security, a Constant Succession of Parliaments would be a LAWFUL means to make men good, if it were to be supposed, or uncharitably to be presumed not to be in conscience and pru­dence; yet for fear of the evil, and infamy that may ensue to themselves if they should destroy good Laws, and make bad ones. So that I hope that it is clear, The [Page 8]nature of our form is good, and that it will require necessary action and use, and I suppose your 13th doth conclude with my opinion, viz. Where the SECURITY is in the PERSONS the GOVERNMENT maketh good men EVIL: where the SECURITY is in the FORM the GOVERNMENT ma­keth evil men GOOD, (especially if the good Law or Form hath its course with­out violent interruption or Fraud) Hazael had a good opinion of himself 2 Kings 8.12, 13. when he asked the weeping Prophet, Is thy servant a Dog that he should do this great thing?

XIIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. To your 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Aphorisms I agree, That Assemblie legitimatly ele­cted by the People, are the only party that can govern without an Army, and that the People are deceived by Names, and not by things, and that the People are generally satisfied in a well ordered Common-wealth, and where they are justly dissatisfied it runs to confusion, and the sad consequences thereof.

XIX. To your 19 Aphorism, It were good you should endeavour to convince the seve­ral parties of England, wherein they hold any thing inconsistent with the Common­weale, that so they may know what you meane. That a GOVERNMENT to be mannaged by a few or a party, is inconsistent with a Common-wealth, I agree with you in this, for it is contrary to our ancient FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITU­TION, Lord Coke in his 4th part of his Institutes, upon his treating of the HIGH COURT of PARLIAMENT I, 1 H. 4. M. 70. The high Court of PARLIAMENT to be committed to a few, is against the Dignity of a Parliament, and no such Com­mission ought to be granted.

XXI, XXII. To your 21 & 22 Aphorisms, It seems to me strange, that after all this blood and misery you should plead for a National Religion or Ministery, and to hold That any GOVERNMENT without it, is inconsistent with a Common-weale; If your meaning be that the Magistrate, or any of the People, may give a publick voluntary indowment to any, out of their own Labours, Proprieties, and Estates, I conceive they have that Liberty because they have a Liberty of their own Conscience, and so the Magistracy may have an Inspection into the Ministery, they being voluntarily (and according to their judgment and Conscience) obliged one to the other, and so it is the MAGISTRATES MINISTERY; But if you mean that a Ma­gistrate shall impose a National Religion, and indowment upon the People or upon any consciencious dissenting part, when no man can justly give such a Power to the Magistracy, to Lord it over his Conscience (which is tender) and to have dominion over his understanding (which is only subordinate to God in point of Worship.) I am not of your judgment. For that if the People, or any of the People shall be so void of Reason, to pretend to give it, they pretend to give what is not in their Power to give, and the Magistrate receives a pretended power which is unlawful, inconvenient and distracting to receive, and indeed impossible (in manifold considerations) to be well and peacably mannaged if it were given, or received, or usurped, (by its being [Page 9]not given, as indeed it is not in FUNDAMENTAL LAW or Reason) Therefore how barbarous, and irrational, as well as unchristian it is for a MAGISTRATE that is mutable in his understanding (as most Ages and times have shewed) & not LORD of his OWN CONSCIENCE: (no more then any other man) to impose upon another in Worship or charge that which is against his Spirit, when the very com­mand and imposition (if against Conscience) may cause the sin of Hypocrisie, and make the Spirit boyl and rise in unpeaceableness within himself against the Worship, and Form thereof, as well as against the person imposed, there being nothing but indisposition of mind both to Person, Doctrine, Faith and mutual society, Whereas the reverend Apostle saith, VVhatsoever is not of Faith is sin. And God himself doth not value a worship if in Hypocrisie and without Faith, and conviction; I might men­tion the miserable and great calamity the endeavours of imposition upon the Consci­ence hath occasioned, How grievious and burthensome were the waies thereof (decla­red publickly to be offered) by the Bishops to men of different Judgments who came to be distinguished by Presbyter, &c. What calamities did they declare to suffer? And what change of calamity came upon the flourishing Episcopacy? And how grie­vous and contrary was it (a great while (and peradventure yet still remains) to the Conscience of the Episcopacy, to subject to the Judgment, Form and Worship of the Presbyter, and how difficult hath it proved to the Presbyter to endeavour to in­termeddle with matters that concern the Conscience or Reason of any other men different from themselves, I submit to your self, and ingenuous and impartial Readers, Besides, if you take a view of the whole body of the Scriptures of the new Testament you will find that the greatest part of the National Ministery, and the special Pro­phets and Apostles of God, and of Christ were for the most part contrary one to the other; and how that God by his Son Christ, and his said special Apostles and Pro­phets brands them with words of infamy, as grand and capital instigators to Kings & Princes, by advising them to shew their advantage & beoppressive to their great dan­ger, cares, and trouble of mind, perplexity of State and sometimes desolation, aswel as the calamity of multitudes of good People, and effusion of innocent blood. And indeed in our late times, Mr. Bagshawe in his Argument of Law in Parliament (against the Bishops Cannons) averreth, That the Liberty of Conscience is comprehended in the Charter of our Liberties. And I also remember, I have read that the Macedoni­ans petitioning Jovianus the Emperour, for banishing of those who were not of their judgement in matters of their Religion; The Emperour perusing their Supplication gave them no other answer but this, I tell you trvely I cannot away with contenti­on, but such as do imbrace Unity and Concord, I do honour and reverence them: And I have also read, that it was the saying of Maximilianus the Emperour, To seek to domineer over the Conscience, is impudently to invade the Tower of Heaven; And how inconsistent it is with that golden Rule, (which every man should endea­vour actually to excel another in, according to the saying of the Heathen Orator, Omnis virtutis laus in actione consistit, the praise of all vertue consists in action) 7 Matt. 12. VVhatsoever things you would have others do to you, do the same to them, 7 Matt. 2. Judge not that ye be not judged, with what measure you mete, it shall be met to you again.

And Mr. Alexander Hinderson (the great Scot) in his Paper to the late King Charles about 1646. hath this quotation I remember (saith he) that the famous Joannes Picus Mirandula proveth by irrefragable reasons, which no rational man will [Page 10]contradict, that no man hath so much power over his own understanding, as to make himself beleeve what he will, or to think that to be true which his own reason telleth him is false; much less is it possible for any man to have his reason commanded by the will or pleasure of another. And further he confessed, That,

It is a true saying of the Shoolmen; Voluntas imper at intellectui, quoad exerciti­um non quod specificationem, Mine own will or the will of another may command me to think upon a matter; but no will or command, can constrain me to determine o­therwise then my reason teacheth me. See also Mr. Rogers his Christian Concertation as to this point of Christ, his being King and Lord of the Conscience, and Sir Henry Vane his Healing question, pag. 6. therefore let me close up my opinion against your 21 Aphorism, with the force of your own words in your 22 Aphorism, (viz.) To hold that there may be Liberty of Conscience, and not Liberty of Conscience is in­consistent with a Commonwealth that hath the Liberty of her own Conscience, or that is not Popish.

XXIII, XXIV, XXV. As to your 23, 24, 25. Aphorismes I agree with you, that where civil liberty is intire, it includes liberty of Conscience, and where liberty of Conscience is intire, it includes civil liberty; They are the inseparable RIGHT of the people. As to your 25th. Liberty of conscience must have security under any GOVERNMENT; or else the opposers thereof wil descend into an inevitable Tyranny.

XXVI. To your 26th. Aphorism I have cited and declared unto you the great and chief Foundations of our Government, which are GOOD ANCIENT LAWS, and SUC­CESSIVE PARLIAMENTS; so that you need not put your self to the danger of introducing Government, or waving Prudence, and committing things to chance.

XXVII. To your 27th. Aphorism, I shall onely say in addition to what I have already said, That our aforesaid Fundamental Laws, & Government of England, made and confir­med legally by our good and peaceable Ancestors, goeth Universally upon natural principles, and so is not inconsistent with Scriptures, the said laws of England are grounded upon the Laws of God and Nature Doctor and Student, and Fineux and Priset former chief Justices in England (in the dayes of Monarchy) said the Laws of England are founded upon the laws of God.

XXVIII. To your 28th. Aphorism I agree, that the wisdom of man in the Formation of humane Government, may not go upon supernatural principles, because they are inconsistent with a Commonwealth, upon many and divers considerations, too tedi­ous and too impertinent at present to treat of, considering we have such righteous Fundamentals already laid, better then which we none can lay, which foundations no men upon any pretence can justly destroy.

XXIX. To your 29th. Aphorism wherein you aver and say in these words. viz. To hold that (Hirelings as they are termed by some) or an indowed Ministry to be removed out of the Church is in-consistent with a Commonwealth. I conceive I have sufficiently answered this in answer to your 21, 22, 23, 24. Aphorismes wherein the people have their lawful liberty, and the endowed Ministry have their lawfull liberty to receive [Page 11]the Contribution (if voluntary) of either Magistracie or others, and to expect more is a violent imposition and intrenchment, upon the natural and Christian Rights of the People, which judgement I confess I shall be of, unless I shall be ra­tionally satisfied in answer to what I have already said; and unless it can be also made appear to me, that the incomparable PERSON CHRIST, and his A­postles did aduise Magistracie, to compel pe [...]sons to violent actions to constrain maintenance to them, or any other of their successive Min [...]stry, Matth. 10.6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Christ bids his Apostles preach to the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel, com­mands them freely to give because they had freely received; and orders them nei­ther to provide Gold, nor Silver, nor Brass in their Purses, nor scrip for their jour­ney, nor two Coats, nor Shooes, nor staffe, and if the House, City, or Town, was not worthy or should not receive them or hear their Word, they were to depart, and shake the dust off their feet, agreeing with Luke 9.2, 3. and Luke 10.3, 4. He told them he sent them as Lambs amongst VVolves, and to the end they (in their loving and Christian kind nature, as examples for others) might not scruple eating and drinking such things as were freely set before them. They were approved in ac­cepting thereof, because the Labourer is worthy of his hire. And 2 Cor. 8.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Paul commends the Churches of Macedonia, that they were willing of them­selves to be bountiful, and to make intreaty to the Apostle for his acceptance of their liberality, and yet not as he hoped for it, He was so far from using arguments or FORCE and Violence to Magistracie inducing them to compel others to their subsistency. And I must confess if you can prove that the indowed Ministry at this day (many of whom are Learned and Wise men) can safely intitle themselves to be the Lineal descent, and especial Ministry of Christ, yet it will still remain to prove that they can legally extend their Authority, or desire the Sword of Magistracie to extend his strength higher or in another way, or method, (upon any pretence or dispensation) then either Christ or his Apostles did: I presume there may be gi­ven a thousand-fold more reason and Evangelical apparent arguments (against such an Innovation) then for it.

XXX. XXXI. To your 30, & 31, Aphorisms (viz.) That nature is of God, and that some part in every Religion is Natural, You should explain your sel [...] how it may be said to bee of God, and what part in every Religion is Natural; if you would have another know your Judgment, and be convinced by you; In order to which I shall commend unto you an excellent little Treatise, entituled Natures Vindication, by Capt. Robert Euerard.

XXXII, XXXIII. To these Aphorisms I agree at present, That an universal effect demonstrateth or may demonstrate an Universal Cause, there being a Reason for it in your 33 Be­cause a Universal Cause is Nature it self.

XXXIIII. XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL. I agree to the 34, That every man hath some sense of Religion in him (if you mean by it, an acknowledgement of God, which is presumed to be in his understan­ding) and for your 35, I shall not disagree to it, if the rational Principle be not de­stroyed, upon colour or pretence of Religion; For your 36, I agree with you, That Government is of humane prudence, and humane Prudence is adequate unto mans [Page 12]nature; But humane Prudence and mans nature, will never destroy a Legal ancient Government of a Nation, (grounded upon humane Prudence, and the Law of Na­ture, (as ours is) For your 37, A Prudential Government (if you mean by Prudence, true Wisdom) cannot be regardless of true Religion; for thereby it would be dis­satisfactory unto mans nature; But yet on the other hand, there may be a Religion National or Publick, or a Publick leading, (terms in your 39, 40, & 41 Aphorisms) That may be directly against God, Law, Nature and Nation. As to your 39, It doth not prove, or infer a publick leading in Religion to be good, because the Major part of Mankind, giveth up it self unto it, and therefore you had no reason to make such an Aphorism as your 40th, wherein you say, There must be a National Religion, that there may be a Publick leading, Witness the daies of Q. Mary, &c.

XLI. XLII. XLIII, XLIIII. XLV. XLVI. I agree with yovr 41, & 42 taking what I have already said in this Point before and what you have already granted in your 22, 23, 24, Aphorisms▪ That if either Ma­jor or Minor part in a Nation, deprives the others of Liberty of Conscience, it is Ty­ranny. To your 43, & 44, The great pretence of the National Ministery is, That they are Ministers of Christ, and not relating to the Priesthood before Christ: so that to endeavour to attain to maintainance by Violence and Imposition, is against that Christian Apostolical example. And as for abolishing the Nationall Religion, none can or ought to endeavour to do that but the National Magistracy if he see Just cause, because they are the Magistrates particular indowed Ministery, the Magistrate having the liberty of his own Conscience, So that there is no rational Foundation, for the unconverted Jews (your own terms) to take away the Liberty of Conscience from Christians, For equal Justice and Conscience being observed, there would be no distur­bing one another; Therefore if you are for such an impartiall Liberty of Conscience, you may have such a National Religion or endowed Clergy.

I though to have treated more upon this subject, but I leave it to some other occasion, only I shall commend unto you the excellent Treatise of John Osborne Esquire, in his Book called an Indictment against Tythes, or Tythes no VVages for Gospel Ministers, (which is a Title pretended to in these times) which Book was Printed for Livewel Chapman at the Crown in Popes-head Alley London.

XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L. LI, LII, LIII, LIIII, LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII, LIX, LX, To all these particulars, I only say in short, they are things determinable by SU­PREAM PARLIAMENTARY COUNCELS, and our Nation is built upon the Foundations of Just Laws, and Liberties already, and our stedfastness unto that would be a means to promote our welfare, and save us from destruction; but to tell us of any thing that savours of Innovation, of the Presidents of the Athenians the Romans or the Uinted Provinces, &c, can be no more pleasing or safe to us, then (I conceive) it would be pleasing to them for us to foment Innovation amongst them.

LXI, to the CXX. To these I onely say, that I know not what Sir George Booth (if he had prevailed) would have done or introduced, whether a Commonwealth or a King, I leave it to [Page 13]those that were privy to it, and to his Council (if any.) But if Monarchy should e­ver be restored, I beleeve it would find a great inevitable incumbrance and affliction to it self, if it should Govern without LAWS and PARLIAMENTS. For it is no pleasant thing to Govern by Armes, neither to the GOVERNOURS or GOVERNMENED and if the Fundamental Laws and Constant Parliaments be not observed inviolable the people are miserable, and the common interest of the the people will be laid aside inevitably, and we shall thereby fully declare, That we will fully slight and undervalue that peace and tranquillty that we may possess as some fruit of that blood and treasure which hath been consumed in this Nation. So that I say and averre by the requirable just application of your XCII Aphorisme, to lay aside our Fundamental Laws and CONSTANT constitution of PARLIAMENTS (as most probable Conservators of our FUNDAMENTALS.) VVe leave our our selves and our Posterity to a further purchase of that which we may prestntly injoy, and hereafter leave to our Posterity in peace and glory, not to be taken away from them. As our Ancestors have left them unto us not to be taken away from us. I hope I have already proved that the Fundamental Laws and Government of this Nation is so just and of known, and approved good in the injoyment whereof neither Monarchy Aristocracie, or Democracy can justly hurt us, by any invention, or judgement. And although you say in your CXVII Aphorism, That it is not below the Dignity of the greatest Assembly, but according to the practise of the best Commonwealths, to ad­mit of any man that is able to propose to them for the good of his Country, Yet I conceive it is not convenient for a Supream Legislative Councel to admit any man wilfully to propose any thing (apparently Innovating) to subvert a Fundamental Law and Liberty, many having (upon peaceable and prudent judgement of our An­cestors) been highly discouraged therein and felt their indignation, as I have already urged and proved.

The Rechabites obedience may be applyed (as I conceive) in this case, who were commended of God for denying his Prophet to drink Wine, because their father com­manded them to the contrary. Although the Record saith, The WORD came unto Jere­miah FROM THE LORD, in the days of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, King of Judah; saying: Go to the house of the Rechabites, and speak to them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the Chambers, and GIVE them VVINE to drink, Jer. 35.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. 18, 19, verses. And indeed if we should admit Innovations upon our FUNDAMENTAL LAVVS received as I have said before, from our Ancestors, we should make an illegal President to subject our selves, not onely to the destruction of the good being of them, but to a thousand other Innovations, as often as the Moon changes, or occasions, or discontents, arise, or power prevails, or as often as any person or persons whatsoever may suggest, whereby to introduce an inevitable dangerous ARBITRARY POVVER, contrary to all the Declarations, Promises, Vows, and pretences, and what the consequences of that may be, lyes one­ly in the breast of the Almighty.

An Innovation it self, (if by any party) contrary to a FUNDAMENTAL LAW is ARBITRARY. And Arbitrariness is contrary to NATURE, LAW, AND PEACE.

The PARLIAMENTS long Remonstrance of Grieviances 16 Dec. 1641, vin­dicated the PETITION of RIGHT in full Parliament, Counselled the People against Arbitrary Power, violating the Law, and breaking the Priveledges of Parliament, calling it a bold and presumptious Injustice of such Ministers, as durst break th [...] [Page 14]Laws, and suppress the Liberties, The Book of Declarations printed by Edward Hus­hands, & page 484. The Parliament declared themselves offended that the Kings par­ty did endeavour to possess the people that they intended to take away the Law, and introduce an Arbitrary Government, a thing which every honest morall man ab­horrs (say they) much more the Wisdom, Justice and Piety of both Houses of parlia­ment. And page 709, It is well known, say they, The Laws of holding PARLIA­MENTS once a year LAY ASLEEP for a long time, yet the practise was NO ARGUMENT AGAINST the RIGHT. And pag. 574, 575. They complained, That the Kings party were laying a Foundation of an ARBITRARY GOVERN­MENT,

In the late KING CHARLES his Declaration pag. 768, 769. are words to this effect, viz.

That the RULES of an unlimited ARBITRARY POWER, are inconsistent with the least pretence or shaddow of that property it seems to defend. And in the said KING CHARLES his Speech and Protestation made 19 Sept. 1642, page 614 are these words (viz.) I do promise in the presence of Almighty God, and as I hope for his blessing and protection, &c. To maintain the JUST PRIVILEDGE and FREEDOM of PARLIAMENT, and to Govern by the known Lawes of the Land to my utmost Power, and particularly to observe inviolably the Lawes consented unto by me this PARLIAMENT.

In the Book of the Armies Declarations page 38, in 1647, Printed by Matthew Simmons.

That they were not a meer mercinary Army, to serve an ARBITRARY POWER of State, That they took up Arms in Judgment and Conscience, for their own and the Peoples just Rights and Liberties, To assert and vindicate the Just Power, and Rights of the People in Parliament, against all ARBITRARY Power, violence, and Oppression against all particular parties or interests whatsoever. And pag. 41, That they could not wish to have an ARBITRARY POVVER in any in whom they, more confided, or who were most of their oipinon or Principles, or whom they might have most personal assurance of, or interest in. I have read that when Bassianus had slain his Brother, and Coemperour Geta in his Mothers Arms, he intreated Pa­pinianus a famous Lawyer to plead his excuse, whose noble answer was, and is to be be commended, (viz.) Non tam facile est excusare quam facere fratricidium; It is not so easie to excuse, as to commit a fratricide, so I may say in this Case, It may be easier to endeavour and to introduce a hundred Innovations then to justifie one.

Thus I have given you my thoughts of your Aphorisms, in general intending to your own satisfaction (as well as others, and the discharge of my own Conscience) For some things which I conceive do chiesly belong to PARLIAMENTARY COVNCIL I wholly omit; But only in love to my Countrey (in which I have bin 11 years a very great sufferer) I put in my mite, without intended disrespect to you (you being a stranger to me) And so I shall cocnlude with subscribing my self,