OVr being continual losers and sufferers by the War, is an Argu­ment sufficient that we are for Peace, since war in it self is of all humane things the most unwelcom, except to such as blinded with the honour or commodity it brings them, and well secured by others from the dint and danger thereof, care not how long the Tem­pest lasts; since what is cast out of the ship, is received into the gulph of their Ambition and Avarice.

And as we have bin continual losers and sufferers, so do we not admit any hopes to make up our fortunes, or enrich our selves by the prolongation of the war; but propose (as we ever did) to get our livings by our Trades and honest Industry, and esteem a good Peace the Crown of our earthly hap­piness.

A good Peace, we say, for we are not so in love with it, as to wish it up­on any terms; in a Dungeon, in the Galleys, under the most insufferable Tyrannie, there may be peace; but we would willingly, that that we are in expectation of, may be linkt with such a measure of just Freedom, as should make some recompense for the former war: that it should likewise be last­ing, which it cannot be, unless it be sound: And that it may be so, we pre­sented our Petition to the House of Commons, containing such things as are not of any particular behoof to our selves, as such or such a people; but of a diffusive and common concernment, importing an universal good to every honest man: And truly, we will not count it our boasting, because it is but our duty, in these self-seeking daies especially, to manifest a greater measure of self-denyal. Hence do we in our publike motions (as we ought) bear both in the heart and front of them, a communicative happiness, of which, the greatest, the meanest, may partake: And though the establish­ment [Page 2]of those things we desire, may haply dis-relish the sickly appetites of lordly and avaritious men, yet we are well assured, that even such upon a set­tl ment would quickly find, that they have bin mistaken in their way to fe­licity, and that it is much more easily attainable; and will prove less disturb­ed, and more lasting by these expedients that we propose, than any that we have yet seen.

For the scruples and objections which are raised against our Petition, in the name of the House of Commons (which had bin proper enough if the pretended one at Oxford had bin now sitting) we will reduce the weight and material circumstances thereof, to certain heads; which if we can cleer, we question not but the whole frame and fabrick of that answer will fall to the ground.

First therefore, Concerning the Kings Supremacy over the House of Com­mons; We yeild that the stile of many of our Laws, the traditional exercise and belief thereof, are strong on your part; and from hence, certainly ma­ny of you (Royalists we mean) were perswaded even to your very great pre­judice, to assist him in its vindication; and the Parliament likewise and their Adherents, though excessively abused and trampled upon by him, did timo­rously and but faintly engage themselves against him; so that at first the su­perstition being strong, and our understandings mis-guided with the delusi­ons of above 500. yeers practise upon us, every King making it his business not only by power, but by Law and Parliament, to rivet the opinion of his Prerogative and Supremacy in our hearts; and having all the advantages that could be thought upon to accomplish the same, as the Scholers to preach it, and mix it even with the most sacred mysteries; the Lawyers to plead it; the Officers and Power of the Kingdom to support it; the custody of all Records, of the embezelment whereof every Age hath complained; the Licensing of Books, whereby nothing but what made for it had publike view; and a thousand more particular advantages that might be recited: all which considered, we say it is no wonder if at first both Parliament and People looked upon the King, as Recusants upon the Pope, on whom the superstition is not more strong; for we esteemed him a thing Sacred, Invi­olable, as the Breath of our Nostrils, the Apple of our eies, in all causes, and over all Persons, next and immediate under God, Supreme Head and Go­vernour, Gods Vicegerent, accountable only to him, and thereupon de­clared the war for him. Then were we likewise entangled with our oaths, that slylie and politickly were at first insinuated, and have bin since customa­rily [Page 3]and Traditionally taken, without regard to the end, or suspect of the designe in imposing them, which was purposely to ensnare the weak, and bind us to the adoration of an Image our fancies and follies have erected.

But when we came to consider the fre [...]ness of the times administring means and matter thereunto, and good men dayly writing for our Informa­tion; the King on the one side persisting in his Tyranny, and endeavouring by force of Arms to establish that power we had so smarted under before the Parliament: Hereupon (by degrees) the clouds vanisht, the mists of error and deception began to scatter, and the shine of Truth to appear, the eys of both Parliament and People began to open: and though at first, when the Parliament at Oxford was mixt with the Parliament at Westminster, we professed absolutely, and without conditions, in May 1641. to defend the Kings person; yet afterwards in the Vow that absurditie was omitted, and in the Covenant the condition was wisely inserted, in the defence of true Re­ligion, the Lawes and Liberties of England. And not only so, but in time the Parliament altered their Commissions, that to our present renowned General, making no mention of the defence of the Kings persons. After­ward in their last message to him at Oxford, they charge him with the guilt of all the blood that has bin shed in this War: and tell him, that before they treat with him, he must make satisfaction to the Kingdom, calling it in their Declaration of the 11 of February 1647. a destructive Maxime or Princi­ple, viz. That he oweth an account of his actions to none but God alone: and voting no more addresses to him, but that they will of themselves settle the present Government, so as may best stand with the Peace and Happinesse of the Kingdom. So that (we hope) according to your own rule, you will not preferre those unripe expressions that at first past from the Parliament, before those that after long debates, and the wisdom of much experience did ma­turely proceed from them.

The Kings Supremacy was at first believed, because not considered: as Turkish children beleeve the divinitie of Mahomet, because bred up to it: but good Sir, Let it be convased a little. To make it good the King must shew an expresse grant of it; that he is above both Parliament and People: and when thats done, (which we think is impossible to be done,) for we be­leeve the King never durst propose it in plain terms, but rather aimed at in­sinuating it in by degrees and circumstances, that so it might insensibly steal into our understandings, to avoid disputes and controversies thereupon. However we say, Admit the worst, that the King can produce such a Com­mission [Page 4]made to some of his Predecessors, and successively conveyed to him wherein he was so erected from the equal Flat whereon he with the rest stood, (for the strongest Royalists allow us at first equal) yet there is this further to prove, that this power was so alienated as not to be assumed; and more than that, that the preceding people in matters of Power and Liberty, can so bind their successors as that it is not in their power to free themselves, notwithstanding never so apparent necessity thereof, or dangers that com­pel them thereunto. This is the great point the Royalists fail in; They suppose, and take it for granted, and build upon it; But prove it not.

Besides, we conceive that the Kings power is a Trust, as all power must needs be that is not primitive, especially over others of the same line and dig­nitie, (as we must needs be granted to be before the Assignation of such a power:) Now a power in Trust implies Conditions, mutual agreement, compact, and an inferiority in the betrusted: a liberty of revocation, of cal­ing to account; all which are implied in the relative Trust: Now that the Kings power is a Trust, is undenyably evident, unlesse you will say that Kings are born such, and had from the beginning inherent Characters of their Royalty, without any deputation from others: which is so absurd, that no reasonable man will assert it.

Again, suppose former Parliaments made the King supream, not only o­ver every one singly, but over all collectively: we say they either did it for his sake or their own good and safety: for his sake it is not imaginable, grant them to be of sound minds, especially if you consider what is implyed in Su­premacy: viz. the Legislative power, the Sword, the dispose of every mans person and estate. If then they did it conditionally, as conceiving it most conducing to their good and welfare, and find afterwards by thousand ex­periments, that it proves otherwise, (their end being frustrate,) What hin­ders but that they may re-assume and mannage their so much abused power themselves. All this and much more we have to argue, the case being sta­ted to the greatest disadvantage of the House of Commons. But let us tell you, we judge the pretended supremacy of Kings in this Country, never to have been fairly granted by a free and un-packt Parliament; but either forcibly usurpt, or politickly gaind by the practice of that King-craft which every Prince hath endeavoured to make himself Master of, whose ultimate end is to encroach upon the Peoples Rights, and establish its own abso­lutenesse.

We mentioned packt-Parliaments, and the truth is, much hath been [Page 5]gaind that way, to the Peoples greatest dis-advantage, since all intrench­ments so gotten seem to have the face of consent and allowance. But yet here Kings have been more modest, as dealing with some adversaries at least, for though by the potency of his Dependencies, by the interests of his Lords, Officers and Courtiers, by his conferring Barronies, and making of Bur­rough Towns, he hath usually corrupted that Fountain, which is the only orderly means of our Preservation: yet hath there at all times in every age some been found, whose honest hearts have engaged them to oppose the re­spective Kings; for which, though they have afterwards suffered, (for thats a stratagem Kings never fail'd in) yet have they thereby lest notable. Me­morandums to the People of the unjust seizures of their Liberties.

That the two Houses are called His, (as you urge) is an expression not de­rived from a just Right, but imposed and customarily used to beget a false o­pinion of it in the hearts of weak people. So has the Militia been car'd His, the Forts and Magazins, the Ships, yea, and the very High-way: for they that would usurpe the Right, must insinuate Expressions agreeable thereun­to: and in this trifle (as one would think) they have been very punctual, for though there is nothing in it to convince the sound, yet is there much to seduce the weak.

Whereas you urge that the House of Commons was instituted by the Kings Predecessors; its a foul mistake: tis true indeed Henry the first re­viv'd what his Predecessors William the first, and second, had purposely dis­used, and what he then reviv'd and cal'd a Parliament, according to the Norman expression, was before entituled Commune Concilium Regni, The Common Councel of the Kingdom; a name both more proper for us En­glish, and not as the other, importing our Norman bondage. But there is this further considerable in it, that as that King reviv'd it, so he might model and frame it best for his advantage, both in the Expression of the Writ, and manner of the elections.

That the King is the chief Officer, is not indeed agreeable to the exer­cise of what he hath usurpt upon us, for an Officer is tyed to his rules, and bounded by the Laws; But Kings have known no such Bondaries, witness their Proclamations, and Arbitrary Impositions, in which their Will onely was their rule; by which, though they have done much injury to us, yet they might do more, even ad infinitum; for what have they according to your principles, to restrain them? Now that the exercise of his usurpations should be an Argument to the Parliament to establish them, we see no rea­son, [Page 6]but rather on the contrary, a motive to their speedy abolition: and therefore do we stile him in our Petition, the Chief Publike Officer; which is both honour enough for any one man, and by which he may do as much good as his heart can wish, and cannot do that hurt that hath bin usual with Kings; and is likewise an appellation most properly signifying the nature of his dignity, importing a Trust, and deputation of Power, which may be an effectual means to keep succeeding Kings from those exorbitancies the best of them have through the encouragement of their Place and usurped power lanched into.

You say, The King is not accountable, because he hath not received his Office from the People, but from God.

You are strangely mistaken, as well in your Assertion, as in the Reason of it. In the reason of it first; for who of your wifest Clerks, the greatest sup­porters of Regality, allow not that Fundamental Maxime, That all Go­vernment is by Consent, since it is a restriction of that liberty for mutual and common good, that every man is born withal. Hear but one of the ablest and greatest Champions for the King and Church, Mr Hooker l. 1. Eccl. Pol. p. 28. The lawful power of making Laws to command whole Politick Societies of men, belongeth so properly unto the same entire Societies, that for Prince or Potenrate of what kind so ever upon earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express Commission immediately and Personally re­ceived from God, or else by Authority derived from their consents upon whose Persons they impose Laws, it is no better than meer Tyrannie. And this is the common opinion of all, but such as have devoted themselves, bodies and souls, to the service of a King: I urge not Hookers words, as if there were weight in his Authority, but to shew how deeply superstitious our Answerer is, in principles that even Royalists condemn; who though they derive the authority of Kings from God, yet they grant it to be convayed by a Concession of the People.

But let us come neerer to the point, and search into times past, where we shall find, that notwithstanding the vigilant care and industry of Kings to blot out and bury in oblivion whatsoever might seem to evidence his de­pendeney upon the people, yet notwithstanding, some glimmerings re­main of that light which they thought they had wholy eclipsed. For the Conqueror, though the sword made his entrance, yet he could not think him­self fast, til he come to an Agreement with the People, and was swore by them to maintain their Laws. William the second, by the mediation of [Page 7]the Arch-Bishop La [...]frane, his own large bounty and, wide promises Ob­tained the Crown. Henry the first saies Daniel, was Elected, and Crowned within four daies after his Brothers death. After the death of Henry, Stophen, Earl of Bologn [...], was Elected by [...], and invested in the Crown of England: So the same Daniel. Now him, Henry [...], though a, Frenchman born, was Admitted after the usual Oath, to the Crown of Engl. Richard the first having broke his Fathers heart by an un-natural defection, and joyning with the King of France, was established by the Power of the said King, to whom he first swere fealty, so that his admission was forcibly and disorderly. King John upon condition of restoring the people their. Rights, and governing with moderation, was Admitted to the Crown. Thus have even our Court Historians, whether through [...] advertency, or a little honesty, I know not, but thus have they manifested unto us, the manner of Kings Admission; to [...]it, by Election, and upon conditions: which yet is more notably specified by St [...]w, in his Henry the fourth, where you may find, that the [...] in being put in Parliament whether they would have this of that man, for the [...]e was four or five [...], and all refused, till Henry Earl of Lancaster [...], and generally accepted. And the very Solemnity of the Coronation, is it is recorded, evidences as much; for there (after the King hath taken his Oath) the Arch-bishop who crowns him, turns to the People, and tels them what he hath promised and sworn; and then by the mouth of an Herald at Armes, asks the people, Whether they be content to submit themselves unto this man, as unto their King; or no? and stay is made till they give their consents. And this you shall find in Stow, the most favourable to Kings of all Chroniclers, in his Stories of the ad­missions of Henry, and Edward the fourth. We might abundantly enlarge this point, but what spend we time to find evidences of that, the equity whereof, were there no footsteps for the practise extent, as it is a wonder there should be, is yet in it self so clear and manifest. Those Kings that have bin made so by Odds appointment, he hath given visible and Personal com­mands for which he [...] did for any of [...] Kings: and though it, be his Ordinances that the [...] should be [...] which the necessity of human [...] likewise require, yet for the [...] of it, and for the Persons Governing, it is neither appointed by any Law, Natural or Divine, (for then it should [...] Countries or Nations), but or­damed by [...] we [...] of every Country [...] [...]spective peo­ple shall [...],

[Page 8] Being then admitted by the People, it will easily follow, that they are accountable to them (which cannot orderly be taken, but by the House of Commons their Deputies) For their Power being not Potestas absoluta, but Vicaria, & Deligata, not absolute, but delegate, and by Commission given them, with Restrictions, Cautels, and Conditions, upon Promises and Oaths, how can it be that they should be at liberty to do what they please to the People? and as they have, trample upon all Oaths, Laws, and Obligations, and for this be above all human question or account; is not much of the e­vil Kings have so plentifully showred upon this Nation, justly attributable to the licentiousness of this opinion, under the shelter whereof they have no question bin animated to the perpetration of those unjust actions they have continually abounded in? the talk of a general Account at the day of Judgement, being a scare-crow their Wisdoms contemn too much to be af­frighted with. And though this Parliament have said that it never entred in­to their thoughts, to do what other Parliaments have done against their Kings, yet that implies not but that they may justly do as much, and his many cruelties, and obstinate prosecution of the War since, may haply bring it into their thoughts. We see they allow not the maxime, of his being ac­countable to God only, but condemn it as destructive; by which they in­timate, that he is accountable to them; for to whom else can he be account­able?

You think much, that we charge the King with the Oppressions brought upon this Nation, and tell us, that the House laies it upon his Ministers.

We are very sorry for it, as thinking the Principal a greater sharer in the guilt, than the accessaries, the Commander, than the Agents: Alas Sir, it was as much as any mans place was worth, not to say or do as the King would have him: how many lost his favour by their reluctancy: how many gained it by their officious servility? The reward of other mens trechery to their Countrey, was haply some gleanings of an Imposition, a Place, a Fine, an Office; but had the King gone through with his work, he had bin lord of all, of every mans person and estate; and he that is the chief Agent, and greatest Gainer in the Designe, we thought contracted the greatest guilt, Besides Sir, this man haply was employed in this business, that man in a se­cond, another in a third, and several men were instrumental in several evils brought upon us, but the Kings hand run through them all; and therefore according to our understandings, the accumulative guilt of the whole frame and model of the building belongs to him, as the prime and chiefest Ar­chitect.

[Page 9] And though at first the House of Commons (the aw of tyrannie being up­on them) charged the Kings Ministers rather than himself; yet since they have placed the saddle right, imputing (and that most justly) our former miseries, and the induction of the War, to the King himself.

For our charging the Lords and Bishops with the oppressions brought upon us, truly as there was a general conjunction of them both with the King in bringing in the same, so could not we dis-joyn them in our expres­sion, and though it be an usual fault to asperse an order or whole Society for the Personal escapes of a few, yet here we can discern no crime in it, since it was not a few, but almost all that partook in the Tytannie, and the very nature and dependency of the order it self upon the Prerogative is such, that it very much inclines them thereunto.

For taking away some of the Laws establisht, (which you count hainous in us) so it be done in an orderly way by the House of Commons, as we in­tend it, we can see no crime in it. It being the business and constant work of Parliaments, and at this time as needful as ever, since this House hath found, that all kind of tyrannie, and those Prerogatives which they have judged most destructive to the Common-wealth, have very much support and countenance from the present Laws; and Ba [...]icadoes made up by them, against those just means and expedients which necessity and the Peoples welfare enforce them to make use of.

For that excellent Maxime, The safety of the People is above all Law: which you say we mis-understand and mis-apply, in using it to shake off o­bedience, and in making the People Judges of safety. Truly Sir, we think you have mis-understood us, for we make the House of Commons Judges of Safety, which they themselves declared to be endangered, by the Kings setting up his Standard, before we engaged in the War. The Maxime we do but suggest, and would have them make use of, and we know they have frequently done it, where the Law doth not provide sufficient remedy.

You tell us, The House of Commons have not denyed the Kings Negative voice, And yet Sir, they have waged a War without him; and the People, that part I mean that have assisted them, have judged themselves sufficiently obliged by their Orders. And though hitherto they have yeilded to that customary formality, mistaking a Ceremony for a Fundamental; a Com­plement for a necessary requisite to the essence of our Laws, yet do they begin to see through it, as appears by their Vores of no more Address, and their manner of proceeding in the Treaty; where they allow not the King [Page 10]that liberty which a Negative voice implies, but insist upon the passing their Propositions in their own way and terms. And though we think they have even in this yeilded the King too much, considering the disproportion betweem them, and his being conquered; yet by this little they give us to understand, that they allow not his Negative voice in that latitude he hath, claimed it.

Thus by degrees you see all usurpations are like to be seen through a­mongst which this is one of the greatest, (most conducing I mean to esta­blishment of Tyranny:) for by it, it is at the pleasure of Kings, who have ever studied themselves and their own elevation, above the People; to ad­mit the passing of no Laws (unlesse fore'd thereunto by the subjugation of Strength, as at this time) but what conduce thereunto. And though at the beginning of this Parliament he yeelded to the taking away of many op­pressions, yet they were but such as he had brought upon us; and that in policy too, for the stopping of the Peoples mouths, and to prevent the que­stioning of that power, by which he fore'd them in; for the maintaining where of he hath since sought, and had he conquered, all on our parts had been [...], and Parliaments must either have no longer been, or been (as heretofore) chiefly serviceable to his Designes.

'Tis to be considered too, that Kings have upon the yeelding to the ta­king away of Oppressions, demanded allowance, So many Subsidies, (for example, twelve, for the taking away of Ship-mony,) or some other satis­faction in [...] thereof, as at this time, Consideration is demanded for the Court of Wards, 100000. l. per annum. So that what was unduly brought upon us, and for the doing whereof, amends, ought to be made to the per­sons damnified, shall yet at their very removal give us one gird more to put us in mind (were we by any injuries to be awaked) of the notorious inju­stice of such usages.

Lastly, To this Negative Voice, I will ad only this, That what was at first in Kings, but as the Lord Majors setting to the Seal, or as Acts passing in Holland in the name of the Earldom of Holland, or in Venice in the name of S. Mark, (for in some name they must passe) has been by craft and the advantages of times crept into a liberty of Will, a Power of passing or not passing and to this the King thought to bring it in Scotland, but that they had courage to tell, him that he was bound to pass those Laws they brought, which the King then wisely did, to avoid the Dispute, and that England might not take example, and insist upon the time here.

[Page 11] Where we desire that all should be alike subject to the Laws, you say, no­thing thereunto, but bring in a consequence of your own from thence, alto­gether forraign from our meaning: telling us that our desire tends to have all alike, and to destroy all Civil Subordination. This is the usual sophistry of the times, to blast that which is just, and by all good men desirable, by scan­dalizing us with an opinion we as much condemn as your self; wise men should decline such foul play; as if there were no difference between [...]ono­my, and Community; between all mens being subject alike to the Laws, and all mens being alike for order and degree. Our desire imports distin­ction of Conditions, since it makes mention, of the several degrees we would have equally subjected to the Laws: As if a Lord could not be a Lord because he is liable to be arrested, or impleaded at Law. For shame leave such ridiculous inferrences, and see your aptnesse to abuse us; which yet we have no reason to advise you to, for such weaknesses turn to our advantage.

You tel us, We are not the whole People. We easily grant it, but all that not­withstanding, though we were by many thousands fewer then we are that approve that Petition, we hope we have that liberty which we think every single man has, to present Petitions to the Legislative power, for the altera­tion, addition, or substraction of any thing our Laws abound or are defe­ctive in. And though many haply may dissent from us, yet is it lawful for us to desire the foresaid Power to take what we present them into consider­ation; which is not only not unlawful, but our duty, to which we are obli­ged by our gratitude and affection to our Country, of the welfare whereof every good man ought to be considerative.

For our seeking Indempnity of the House, of Commands for what we have done in order to their Commands, and the necessitie of the Service and for the good of the Common-wealth, (no further we desire it) as so reason­able, so necessary, that little importunity we hope will gain it; especially when it shall be considered that the House it self is in equal danger of the Revival of the Enemies power as we our selves, and somewhat more, as be­ing more eminent, and partaking in the profits of this Indemonitie; which can only be made good, by the inviolable preservation of the House of Commons Supremacy, we therefore at this time were the more urgent for, fearing that by the Treaty and Act of oblivion, we should not only be ren­dred (for our faithful services) guilty of the blood and miseries of the war, (for what else does the Kings pardon and Act of oblivion import?) then [Page 12]which we had rather dy a thousand Deaths, but also be made liable to the mercy (that is to the cruelty and revenge of our conquered Enemies.

For the guilt you suppose we have contracted, by doing many things op­posite to the Laws in Being, we can with ease bear it, since it extends but to the Letter, not the end and intention of Laws, to preserve which, all our Actions have bin directed; which yet neither were justifiable had we not had the Commands of that Power which we judge Supreme, to whom the safety of the Common-wealth so requiring, of which they and they only are the Judges,) it seem'd necessary that many things should be done against the present Laws, which they then (during the violence of the Rebellion against them) had not time to alter: and this had they not done, they had hazarded the slavery or destruction of the Common-wealth, and the subju­gation of all Lawe, to the Will and Pleasure of a Tyrant.

You often urge us to ask pardon, as if you had already the rod over us, and were certain that this Treaty will make you our Masters: but the best is, we had experience enough how pittifully apt you are to flatter your-selves, thinking all cock sure and your own, when the success hath proved quite o­therwise. Your pride and presumption indeed has undone you, which yet you will not renounce, but crow in your rags, and upon the dung-hill: so that a man by your writings would judge you Victors, or at least in great hope to prove so; by some fancied Stratagem; such as the Treaty, which yet we hope will deceive you.

That we are against the Treaty; 'Tis because thats against the good of the Common-wealth: and that was lately the opinion of the House it self. We conceive there is a neerer way to Peace, (we are sure to a better Peace) than the Treaty can produce; What-ever-may be pretended on the other side, the Treaty (not-withstanding the seeming large Grants) is not for Peace, but to gain abilities for War, which at this time are utterly wanting: and therefore is it that we say That party are the greatest Promoters of it, that are most opposite to the House of Commous. For Princes breach of Oaths, of which you say you are ignorant: it were an easy matter to shew you by the practice of the whole line of our Kings, and by their principles too, that no obligatious can be strong enough, when they have power and opportunitie to break them. Be pleased to look upon the Royal Project lately printed; or but take any History of the English Kings, and read over any Kings rain, and you will find their Oaths and Obligations to be like nets of sisters thred, made for necessity, and to divert (as they use to expresse them­selves) [Page 13]the present Torrent of Power. The House cannot make him so free but at his time he will urge restraint, and 'tis the common discourse of his Party, that he has no way to gain all, but by granting all, that to deceive the deceivers will be no deceit: when in the mean season, the Prince keeps up, and the Castles hold out, Time is gaind, and forraign Princes are solicited, as in their own quarrell, to yeeld assistance. So that we cannot but say, That what seems to be the way to Peace, is indeed the means of a New war, and the last hopes of a conquered enemy to revive and appear again in the maintainance of their old quarrel.

The true way to Peace, is the good establishment of the Common wealth according to just and equal expedients, as we have presented: Which would give such good satisfaction to the People, (to all we mean that are not intere­sted in the Tyranny) that no considerable part of them would ever be drawn to engage in a New war: and that would both keep down home-bred Insurrections, and keep out forraign Invaders, who will never venture in, unlesse there be a considerable party to receive them. And though many at present dislike what we present in our Petition, yet upon the settlement thereof, they will find such a real happiness to themselves in the Freedomes thereof, and so little particular or private advantage to us or any else, that they will soon, with us, blesse God for the same, and blame themselves for having been both their own enemies and the Common-wealths.

And thus I have run through the most material scruples of our Answerer, for the rest, another time shall serve, because we would not weary the read­ers with too large a Treatise. We shall say no more at this time, but pray to God to bless us, and all men else, in our motions for common good, and blast us and others, when ever we or they shall wittingly prosecute ought that may tend to the dammage of our Country.