MEeting with a gallant Oration directed to your Countrymen, I con­ceived it concerned my selfe, and upon perusall found it to be an issue of your owne braine, both by the elegancie of the Phrase, and the Sophistrie of the matter: to be plaine, I must tell you, it's a lively Cha­racter of your selfe and Actions, wherein you discover learning enough for a countrie Iustice: you seeme to apprehend some generall notions and spe­culations of government; your intellect floats on the superficies, but your reason was never so weighty to sinke downe into the deep fundamentalls; you have gone beyond your laste; when you talke of Fabricks, Pillars and Fundamentalls, you raise a top without a bottome: The learned will tell you that the prime and Ancient constitutions of this Kingdom were raised upon that which we call Lex terrae, the Law of the Land, and this Law is the pillar of Soveraigntie; safety and propriety enthrones the King, and sets the Royall Diademe on the head of Majestie, it is the rule as well of Soveraigntie as of obedience; abrogate Law, what becomes of Soveraigntie, when obedience is [...]nfranchised? The wisest of Kings hath determined the question, Plebs sine lege ruit; And that learned ornament of the Law aged Bracton tells us, Quod Rex attribuit legi, lex attribuit Regi: which implies a reciprocall support each of other: the King giveth life and motion to the Law, and the Law retributes vertue and operation to the King: if so, why do you pery winck at the pillar? you were once accounted a pillar your selfe, and so you are still, as Lots wife for looking backe; but honest Coun­try-man, herein appeares a Sophistrie; he rendereth you to Soveraigntie, but tels you not a word of Law; he knowes the rule, frustra anxilium legis petat qui in legem peccat: Certainely had he beene a well-wisher to the Law, he would have lent a hand to the Law, in raising the prime Fabricke; but what is the reason you doe not informe us of the pillars and Funda­mentalls of the Law? why, the Fundamentalls themselves are the reasons, and they are, first; Generall Maximes; secondly, the Law of God, thirdly, [Page 5] eternall reason, fourthly, Acts of Parliament, fifthly, generall and approved customes: hath not your treacherie and Apostasie offended all these Fundamentalls? are not these the support, preservation and happinesse of the whole that you speake of? are not these the policie, strength and beautie of this nation? Why do you mistake the principall? I feare me; your wise­dome is guiltie of a concealment: Why doe you traduce us with a partie-coloured Division, and take them divisim, which are not but conjunction; The King and the two Houses of Parliament nominally three but virtually one? Why doe you and your adherents abuse us all with your divisions, to tell us that the disjunction and separation of these must be our totall ruine and destruction? I must confesse it tends that way, the Kingdome divided cannot stand; but this text admits of a Magis and a Minus, the disease is not growne to that height but there is a cure, we have a receit from Solomon the best naturallist in the world; take away the wicked from be­fore the King, and His throne shall be established; this probatum est, doe not mistake your selfe, this must, this may be done without totall ruine or destruction, and let them be accursed that were the Authors of those exigents. But you tell us, the King hath Royall Prerogatives undeniable, without which he cannot govern as a King; this is granted and allowed: but what do you mean by these Prerogatives, a will at large, or commands illegal? can the King create Prerogatives De novo or extempore? herein againe you shew your sophistrie: now prerogatives are regulated, not exorbitant, but such as Lex terrae prescribes: the statutes De praerogativa Regis, are declarative antiqui, non introductiva novi Iuris? prerogative is a branch of the Com­mon Law, this is a truth unquestionable, hath not then Prerogative its rise from the Law of the Land? I feare you couch an ill meaning under apparent truths: you say the two Houses of Parliament have their peculiar privi­ledges; you might truely have said, they had or ought to have but can you say they have, when they are invaded, when there is an Actuall warre made a­gainst them, by a crew of such Royalists as your selfe? how can we expect a meet temper of these, or a just frame of government, when these exor­bitant affections and attempts are above the frame of this government? you talke much of distinct operations, and the wheeles of a clocke, to shew you are an observer of times, rather then a preventer of the aggra­vation of the extremitie you speak of: you say petitions of Right are com­mendable; why did not you speake out and say, petitions of Right are ne­cessary, when prerogative gives it a mortall wound, & destroyes a principall, that Ius nunquam moritur? Why, could you afford Remonstrances no better language, then that they were not unlawfull? are they not convenient, when [Page 6] necessitie requires them? Armes (you say) though defensive, seeme doubt­full: to whom doe they seeme so? It seemeth you degenerate from nature, Law, and Religion: is there not a cause? did Davids Army seem doubtfull? And why did you take up Armes at first? we are now sensible of the reason, you were a doubtfull man at first, but now we know what you are with­out Question; you say, your Lot fell to be cast on the Parliaments side, sure­ly the Parliament had ill-fortune in that Lotterie. But you fell and were cast, for you never stood right on the Parliaments side: you say, you had a strong opinion of the goodnes of the cause, and of the Loyall service you should do His Majesty in defending that His high Court of Parliament, from the mani­fest enmity that then to your judgement appeared against it: how comes your strong opinion to be weakened? examine your selfe, when you lost your goodnesse, your judgement was infatuated, and then you deserted Loyall service to King and Parliament. When the Parliament trusted un­faithfull men, then the cause suffered, but the goodnesse of it is not yet tainted. Why doe you cast aspersions on the Houses of Parliament? it seems you are troubled with many Apparitions, when you saw Religion and the Subjects right seemed in danger: was it but a semblance? did you but see in a vision the thousands of slaughtered carkasses, whose death your unfaithful­nesse seemes to be the Author, you would confesse with horrour and trem­bling, Religion and Right were in danger; what, hath the common care gone too farre to preserve Religion and the Subjects right as (you say) you feare it hath? nay can it goe too far? I wish you had as much faith as feare, then you would have put into your creede that Religion, and the Subjects right were in danger. The destruction of a Kingdome cannot be the way to save it: tis a truth, why then have you walked in those wayes of de­struction? for our parts we desire to walke in the wayes of God: to meet him in our fasting, in our prayers, in our Humiliations, and in our reforma­tions: and doubt not but we shall finde him in the preservation of this Kingdome from destruction: you say the losse of Christian Subjects, of estates double plundred, and assessements, concur not with pietie nor pro­priety; tis a truth, and could not the old Sophister cite a Text, but misapply it? who is it that hath inacted all these offences to be lawfull? hath made mur­ther lawfull, stealing lawfull, violence and oppression lawfull, Idolatry, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, whoring, drinking, blaspheming; nay, are not these accounted acceptable services to God? nay, who is it that putteth these things in practice? These things I confesse concurre not with piety nor propriety; Religion, you say, seemed in danger; and did it but seeme [Page 7] so? Let me put you a case: if there be a Nursing Father, and a Nursing Mother of contrary Religions, of what Religion are you sure their children would be? The Civill-law tels us, Partus sequitur ventrem, and wee know by experience, children delight in the dugs and infusions of the mother; the mothers Beads and Pictures are more delightfull to chil­dren, then the serious and wise Instruction of the father. You tell us you have unquestionable security, for Religion; but for how long? you say, during the Kings owne time; I wish, O King live for ever: yet give me leave to tell you, you have a very uncertain estate in Religion, the King hath no Prerogative above Subjects in the certainty of his life; let mee advise you to take a further and better estate in Religion, you may procure it as good cheap to you, and the heires males of your body, as you may for three lives: to be serious, doth your care for religion extend no further then du­ring the Kings own time? what will you and your posterity doe afterward? it seemeth by your following discourse, that you meane to sit downe, and to leave Religion and Law to the wide world: is it not a paradox, to main­taine the Protestant Religion with Popish Armies? you say his Majestie hath given you unquestionable security touching Religion: what security, or what religion doe you meane? though you keepe that to your selfe, yet if his Majestie were redeemed out of the hands of those of your religion and Ends, we should as little doubt the security of our Religion as you. You pray that God would long preserve the King, with a Parenthesis, but wee will pray for the long preservation of the King with an Emphasis, and never leave praying till we have prayed him out of your hands; for we cannot thinke him safe there: assure your selfe, we will sacrifice our selves to re­duce him to his Center the Parliament, whereby the Lawes he ought to be, and hope to bring all your confederates to the throne of Iustice, where his Majestie being established by his Lawes, shall pronounce the sentence of unfaithfulnesse against you: but how can you for shame say you have done your utmost, according to your Protestation? I confesse I cannot without indignation confute you, I pitty your Apostasie, it needs no demonstration; have you thrown your selfe at your Soveraignes feet? it is your duty: and imbraced his gracious pardon? I commend your wisdome: you stand in need of more pardons then one, if you would but take a survey of what you have done: I must confesse we have all offended, and have neede of pardon, but in this wherein have I offended his Majestie, that he should hunt after my life as a Partrich? I will sue to God for pardon of my sins, but I will never betray mine owne innocencie.

For the rest, you say, the Lord of Hosts with you hath decided the Con­troversie▪ what do you mean by the rest, and what controversie do you [Page 8] mean? when had you a right of Association to sit in Judgement, and decide controversies with the Lord of Hosts? what do you mean by those lofty straines, 'tis as proud a theame as that of an insolent Prelate, Ego & Rex mous, &c. the Lord of Hosts with you is an elevation above the Pole. You say you will contend no more in word or deed: What, will you do no more for your God, your King nor your Countrey? it seemeth you resolve to be but a neuter [...]t best.

Thirdly, you say that this your resolution, with the indisputable grounds thereof, you thought fit to declare unto your friends and countrey-men; where do you finde such indisputable grounds for such ignoble resolutions? should so active, so wise a man as your self sit down and be a spectator of your countries Tragedie, and neither speak a word to preserve it, nor do one good deed to revive it? but base resolutions have proud thoughts. You present­ly fall upon a strange conceit, that your sitting down with your Declaration, will of necessity end these destructive wars; why are you so self-conceited, to thinke your precedent will draw the whole world into your imitation? are your positions so positive, that they are undeniable, unquestionable, and indisputable? from whom have your conceptions such a prerogative? If you have such indisputable things, why do you not produce them for the common good? Then you conclude with a menace to your countrey-men, that if the war cease not, you will take up some further determinations; what determinations do you mean? I must needs say you are the intricatest man that ever I read; but I guesse at your meaning, you will be a looker on, and at last determine, like a door on his hinges, to turne either way, so you think in your judgement, that a neuter will be entertained at your pleasure, of either party. I have spoken my thoughts, and so leave you to your owne conceits and fortunes.