The Scotch-Cabinet Picklocke: apprehended and examined, IN A drew AND brief Answer to 5 Queries, or Reasons against a personal Treaty, betwixt the King and Parliament.  
Published in a late scandalous Pamphlet, entitled, The Scotch Cabinet opened.  
Tending much to the hindrance of a desired happy Peace, and a further continuance of our now abhorred unnatural War, destructive to the kingdom.  Psal. 120.6. 
I labour for Peace, but when I speak or treat thereof, they are ready for War.  
Printed in the year 1648.   

The Scotch-Cabinet Picklock apprehended, &c.  
THe two kingdoms of England and Scotland by their several Petitions and Declarations, have expressed their longing desires for a long wished for Treaty. And this Treaty hath been long and often promised by the Lords and Commons: And no longer ago then the third of this August, the Commons have wrote to the general Assembly in Scotland, and say, wee have agreed to try whether a peace can be settled by a Treaty; and yet since this letter, a younker( who seems to have been in the center of the Juncto's hearts) published five reasons against any such Treaty at all, and thereby would have the world believe, that this is the sense, and the soul of the representative of this Kingdom.  
But whether this be so or no, I shall here endeavour to answer his reasons, as I find them, and the rather for that in his Title page., he professeth, that he publisheth those reasons to awaken the spirits of all true English men to take heed of the Scots designs: which designs in his Scots Cabinet opened, he saith are.  
1. Against the godly, and the Army in England.  
2. To draw on a Treaty with the King. I will not peremptorily say this Reasoner is an Independent Saint, but I desire all Englishmen to take heed of such wandring spirits, while I pass unto his reasons.  
Before which I cannot altogether omit the taking notice of his proemium, wherein he saith, that this personal Treaty is the great Diana of our ●ew Malignants, and is not the end, but the instrument of their designs.  
In the first, I conceive he alludeth to that of the 19 of the Acts, and the 28. great is Diana of the Ephes. whereby he would have you understand the Treaty to be a great idol, and indeed, what ever pleaseth not these Saints is idolatry; but how this Treaty should become an idol, I am as far to seek as he is.  
2. But by the way observe the spirits and charity of this, and such Saints, that all who speak not, or do not as they, are presently Malignants: and thus the most and best part of this kingdom by this Saints verdict are Idolaters and Malignants; but his tongue is his own, and he hath the time, when he may speak what he will, though none believe him, but such as himself.  
3. And here is another piece of his charity to condemn all, but such as himself, when he terms this Treaty an instrument of their designs, and from which( as in 3 lines after he saith) wee can expect nothing but mischief against the Parliament and kingdom: But when wee shall find what these designs and mischiefs are,( as perchance wee shall in the reasons) I shall answer them, until then I will not shoot at Rovers, or let my wits run a wooll-gathering as this Reasoner doth, when he saith.  
1. Reason, A treaty is most unsuitable to the condition of the King and Parliament, as they are now; this is his Proposition, which he seems to prove thus.  
1. The Parliament having fought against the King, for what they are not to treat.  
2. And have got him their Prisoner.  
3. What they are to treat about is already determined by the sword.  
4. And it is below the Parliament to treat with the King, having him under their power.  
5. All Treaties are upon equal terms between Parties, who can make their conditions on both sides.  
6. No State ever treated with a conquered enemy.  
7. Though he seem to have new forces, itis rather against the Treaty.  
8. Wee see his designs are not for peace, but war.  
His first Reason against the Treaty is drawn from the condition of the King, in respect of the Parliament; from whence he infers that the Parliament have fought against the King, for all which they now desire.  
2. That in this fight he is a conquered man.  
3. Their Prisoner.  
4. That Treaties being between Parties who are able to make conditions; the King is not so.  
But before I examine his reasons, I pray observe that in his first proof he confesseth that which heretofore hath been denied; for the two Houses said the King raised war and fought against them, not they against him.  
2. He confesseth they fought against him for that which now they treat. 1. The Militia whereby they may hold to themselves an everlasting arbitrary power over King and subjects in person and estates, whereas the two Houses said they fought against his evil counsellors, not against the King, and not for all those things now to be treated on, but to br●ng him to his great counsel, for the maintenance of the Protestant Religion established, for the laws of this kingdom, for the liberties and propriety of the Subject. Now which shall I believe? truly this man rather then those, for that wee know fools will tell truth rather then knaves.  
But grant they did fight for all this; yet why not to treat? No saith he, for the King is now a conquered person, and a prisoner, and therefore not to be treated with; but stay a little, not so fast with your empty cart, you did fight against the King for these, but by what Law of God or man? or regard you not these? It should seem not; so that quocunque modo rem, is become the tenet of the new Saints; but should you not consider this; first, whether on these grounds you should have fought against your King?  
2. Whether a King may be, or can be said to be conquered by his Subjects? to the assoiling which, tell me( if you be an Independent that allow or regard the holy Scripture) where find you precept, counsel, or example warranted by God, that ever Subjects fought against their King upon such grounds or causes as you say this war was?  
2. Not to quote Scripture to you( whom I find not in all your Cabinet or Treaty to regard any) nor to city our laws( which you are as careless of) yet doth not Mr. St. John, and Pym aclowledge our King, this King Charles to be the Head, the Father, the Husband, of this people in England? and may the Wife, the Child, the Members of the Body fight against the Head, the Father, the Husband?  
2. If the Wife a sturdy strammell quean get her Husband down, or a strong son his Father, or the hands the head, can they be said to conquer these? or to make and keep them their prisoners?  
3. I could prove this to be against all Law of God, nature, and man; but I shall fight with you at your own weapon; holds this to reason? I dare say no reasonable man will say it.  
4. Or that it were below the wife, the child, the Members to treat with the head, the Father, the Husband, only because( ●s you say) they have got him under their power: But I expected this man of reasons, would first have proved that the two Houses might upon their grounds, according to Gods and mans laws have fought against the King.  
2. That they might conquer him.  
3. That they might take and keep him prisoner; but not a word of this, or any thing like it, but as though the argument a facto ad jus held good, his reason is but this, the two Houses, how wickedly, traitorously, unjustly soever wee care not, have fought against, overcome the King, and hold the King Prisoner, therefore it is unsuitable to treat; for no State ever treated with a conquered enemy.  
But are you sure no State ever did? or care you not what you say? but had no State ever done it, what is this to the present case, unless you prove this to be, as it is called by some a State, and not a kingdom?  
2. unless you prove the King the kingdoms enemy:  
3. That the King may be conquered by his own Subjects.  
And to this last, though the two Houses have not to my knowledge, within these two yeares at least, openly and expressly declared the King, the kingdoms enemy; yet may you affirm and publish him so, because he grants not what you, or what the two Houses would? For have the members, the wife, the child, a just power so to do against the head, the husband, the father? and this now can be the only cause why at present( he being as you call him your conquered prisoner) he can in your sense be called your enemy, because he will not grant what you would have.  
Ob. Some urge that he is an enemy if he grant not what the two Houses would have.  
Sol. It follows not? for grant that 20( all the children of a Father and all the members of the body) should require that of the Father, and the head, which he sees he cannot in conscience or judgement, in respect of himself grant, no not in respect of their good that ask it: is he therefore to be accounted their enemy? and if not, which he is not, then much less in this case; for say the two Houses desire it, yet 20 Lords and 200 Commons are not the kingdom, so that all desire not.  
Ob. But these are the representative of the kingdom?  
Sol. The 20 Lords represent none but themselves, so that they are barely but 20 persons, and there are I dare say almost 100 Lords besides, who are not of their mindes.  
2. And for the Commons now sitting, I dare say they are not near the one half of them which have any right to their places in Parliament, being thrust or crept in by fear or force or without due election: might I not add that besides almost an hundred Officers and Commanders in war being Members, can it be conceived that these or the rest of the Members will desire a peace which would soon spoil that craft, by which as the Silver-smith said, Acts 19. they got their wealth? for I am persuaded that there are not 20 in that House, but either live, or are great gainers by these continued troubles.  
3. But grant they were all duly elected, and had right to vote; yet what is their just & lawful privilege? what by arbitrary power to change the government of Church and State? to oppress, tyramnize, and to grasp all into th●ir own hands, without regard to their fellow Subjects, or the public good? and can you conceive that the people, if they ever had such power, did grant all this against themselves to their Representors?  
4. But suppose the people, not knowing what they did, when they choose those men, conceiving they had been, and would continue honest, and careful of their good, and therefore they made them their attorneys to speak and act for them for 6 or 12 months: must it therefore follow that they shall hold it 10 20 yeares without revocation, especially when the people perceive their trust to be used all against themselves?  
5. And that this is so cannot be denied, when the great City and Counties cry out against their actions, and daily and hearty petition for a redress to their miseries, sustained by their sitting so long, and so voting.  
Ob. But the people are mutable, and not so wise as they should be, to know and desire their own good, so well as the wise men of the great counsel.  
Sol. I confess you said true, that they were not so wise as they should have been to choose such attorneys for them, neither are they so wise yet as they may be, so long to suffer such men to rule and ride them: but in good earnest may wee think, that the House at Westminster hath such a singular power and influence to make all men so wise that sit there? wee find it not when they come abroad; nor shall wee( I believe) when they shall leave that House: But in Gods name, why may wee not think, that the Aldermen and common-counsel of London are as wise, and know what is good for them and that City, as Pennington, Ven, vassal? &c. and that the Gentlemen and others in other Counties are as wise as their attorneys? But it is observed that mad men think all others mad but themselves, though those others who are deemed mad, know those to be so, I fear you will hold me little better to treat so long as I do with such mad men, who argue, but without all reason; I'll therefore touch but one branch more of the first reason, which is:  
All Treaties are between Parties who can make their conditions on both sides; whereas the King is in the capacity of a conquered Person.  
Resp. If it be granted what this Reasoner affirms and proclaims, that the two Houses and Army have conquered the King the head, is not then the body the kingdom conquered with and under the head, which is the King? And then do you not wisely, O ye people of England, to defend, maintain, and pay at the charge and expense of your estates and blood, these two Houses and Army to be your conquerors, and you their perpetual slaves? O that I could not say that this were too true, which with shane to this Nation, must be recorded to all Posterity: But if this be true, that the King is so conquered, that he hath not power to make his conditions, yet it proves not your justice, charity or goodness, but the contrary; that you respect neither of these nor any such thing, but that if per fas or nefas, you have got the power, that so you will hold it: But for your own sakes consider, that the King is not so low in strength, nor your power or sword so strong, but that he may be able to make conditions better for himself and his people, then you or a leading Faction would wish: Let me remember you ▪ but with your own words, though the King hath a new force, yet it is against the Treaty, and for war, not peace; be that your unchristian uncharitableness, such as to usurp upon Gods prerogative, to search the heart especially of a King, which is as deep waters, and to judge amiss, yet( which is to the point) you confess, he hath such a force, and therefore which is against your reason, not in so low a condition, but that he may in respect hereof treat.  
And to this confession of yours, let me add, that you shall or may find ▪ through Gods mercy to the King, and for their sakes whom he desires to relieve in their sufferings, and for the crying sins of those who have raised, and maintained this most unjust, bloody● unnatural war against him, and his most oppressed people; this force now raised for the King, may appear such, that in a short time you will not be in a condition to be treated with; and will you be content to hear of your own argument, which you here urge against the King? Let me put you in mind, for close to your first reason, that many a good peace hath been lost for want of a timely offered Treaty; and that many by coveting( as our proverb hath it) to hold all, have lost all. Se●ò sapiunt Phryges, may be a good lesson, and caveat at this time to such as you are.  
2 ▪ Reason This Treaty strikes deeply at the privileges of Parliament, which hath been one of the great things fought for, in the the late war against the King.  
here 2 things are affirmed.  

1. That this Treaty strikes, &c. for which he after gives his proofs, which wee shall consider.  
2. That for these privileges they fought against the King.   
And that the two Houses fought against the King, is more then they have confessed: for they professed they fought for the King and Parliament; so that you or they are the liars; unless you distinguish that they fought for ( i.e.) for to conquer and take him, and yet against him ( i.e.) to destroy him; but in this distinction, I find either that equivocation which a Protestant should not profess, or that flat down villainy that a Christian should not practise.  
And when you say, they fought for the privileges of Parliament, was this ever declared to be the end of the war? or if it were one end, was it ever propounded to, or denied by the King? and will any sober Christian fight before he declare the cause, and have a denial of what he asks? a Bat again, had they been denied any privileges, did they before fighting show which they were, and prove that they justly were their privileges? for before they had seized the King, Navy, towns, and Forts, what privileges did they require and prove theirs which were denied? but the man doth instance, when he saith, they again give the King the power of his Negative voice, which was the great controversy formerly; and when I pray was this the controversy before this Parliament? and till you instance in some act or time, when this was, I have nothing to answer; but that I dare peremptorily say it was never: and when you say, they give him again his Negative Voice in that they treat with him; consider whether that can be properly said to be given again, that was never taken away? For show me so much as an Ordinance, that the King should have no Negative voice? I may believe, that they would take away his voice, and crown, and more; but God be thanked, yet they have not, and therefore cannot be said to give it him again by treating.  
2. Had they taken it away in Parliament, yet by treating with him on other things, they do not absolutely and fully give it him ag●i●e.  
3. But whether they would, or have taken away his voice in facto, if they have attempted, or do it unjustly, is it reason, therefore to treat whether he should have it again? and that it is unjust, if done, will appear, that in all just and lawful Parliaments, Kings of England have had, and used their Negative Voices when they would; and this stands with all reason divine and human, that no man should be forced to yield assent to that, which is against his Oath, his conscience, or against himself; it were to make the King in a lower and worse condition then any Subject; for that no binding laws are made without the Subjects assent, personal, or by their proxy, or representor, neither of which the King hath.  
The second proof here brought, to show that this Treaty strikes at the privileges of Parliament, is, for that hereby it will be a great dishonour to the Parliament of England to go 20 miles to treat with their enemy; where,  
1. I never heard or understood, that it was any dishonour to Subjects to go 20 miles to treat with their King; but if it be, they may take this dishonour away, by letting the King come 40 miles from Carisbrooke to them at Westminster, and so put the dishonour upon him.  
2. When they speak of the Parliament, they must know that when the Parliament is dishonoured, the King himself is concerned, and that more principally, as being the most principal part thereof the head, and the fountain of all honour to this kingdom.  
3. That the dishonour should be in treating with their enemy, I touched before ▪ that the King neither is, nor can be justly and truly called their enemy ▪ only because he would maintain his own, and their right, or chastise them for doing wrong, or by fatherly correction to reduce them.  
4. And when he saith, he is their enemy, in that he raised an Army to destroy them, it is too well known, that( as before I said) he never moved for his own and his peoples defence( to both which he is bound) until they had armed against both; and if you remember yourself, you confess in this, and in your former reason that the 2 Houses fought against the King.  
5. What you urge that the King would not own them for a Parliament, may be true; for without him( he being the King driven away) the two Houses cannot make a Parliament.  
6. The King for ought I red or remember, never denied all the Members in each House sitting at Westminster to be Members of the two Houses, although some Members of them might be, or might be proclaimed traitors.  
7. And that it is a dishonour to the two Houses to treat with the King a prisoner; they must know, it is no dishonour, but an honour to them to treat with their King, and all the dishonour is in those Subjects, who make him a prisoner; I and in all those his Subjects, who endeavour not to free, and release him from that dishonourable and base thraldom.  
The Reasoner hath jumbled this into the throng of privileges under his second reason, that by this Treaty the King will get his old Prerogative, and his old Power: And is this a loss of their privilege, that the King get again his own old power and Prerogative? for do wee not( in the Protestation, Vow, and Covenant) swear to both, as that both may stand together, and both be maintained?  
2. When you call them his old power and Prerogative, I can desire no better testimony against you, then this, that the power you fear he will get, is anciently his.  
3. In that you say he will get or recover his old power again? imply you not, that it hath been lately forced away from him; and if so, what dishonour, or breach of Privileges can it be to the two Houses to let him have it again? Give unto God the things that are Gods, and to Caesar the things that are Caesars, is Gods own judgement. But my Reasoner tells you further, That the King and the two Houses have fought for the pre-eminence, and the parliament have obtained it by the sword, and therefore it will reflect upon their Honours and wisdom to give that away which they have by victory.  
That the two Houses have fought against the King, and for pre-eminence, is the more their shane, the greater their disloyalty and treason; but to say that the King fought for that which he knows is his own, and that they cannot take from him, is most untrue, he never fought with them for pre-eminence.  
2. And when you say they have obtained it by the sword, hold you this a good argument? I find indeed that it is the main, if not the onely hinge, or strength rather of all your reasons, we have it by the sword: I confess in a just war, by lawful authority( which this of the two Houses against the King, can never be proved to be) conquest by the sword is a strong reason to make a good tenor; But simply and barely to say wee have it by the sword, therefore it is just, and we may hold it so, follows not: for so the Turk, and the Pope, and the Dragon argue against the Saints, Apoc. 13.  
And I have not found in all your reasonings, any proof to maintain the justness, and the lawfulness of your war or conquest by the sword; onely still you lay about you with the scabbard of a reason in stead of a sword, and say we have got it by the sword; and how this will take with men of wisdom and honour, guess you, but I am sure it cannot with men of justice: And when you urge that this condescension of the two Houses, in letting the King reinjoy his pre-eminence, will refl●ct upon the wisdom and honour of the two Houses: I dare say, what ever you mean by reflect, that if they restore him to his old pre-eminence, as you call it, it will redound to their wisdom and honour with all persons of honour and wisdom; but especially if they have a touch of justice and honesty. But before I leave this second reason, let me observe that hith●rto all your reasons are grounded on power and force, and backed by policy and reputation; but in all not a word of God, of his word, of mans Law, nor of justice, nor of honesty; and now I am in so far, and have observed it, I am ashamed, and beshrew myself that I have had so much to do with a mere politic Saint, or an atheistical Independent.  
And yet I cannot altogether let pass the close of his Second reason, where he saith, that if the Parliament( he meaneth though ignorantly or absurdly by this the two Houses) intended to have given away their privileges to the King, they might have spared so much blood to the kingdom.  
How the Kings old power, Prerogative, and pre-eminence, is become a privilege of the two Houses, I know not; unless( as the Reasoner saith) by the sword; and what Title that is I have brieefly spoken before.  
2. And that they might have spared so much blood of the kingdom I confess is one, if not the only one Christianly or human passage that I find in all his reasons; and what he saith they might have done, I say, and he should have said too, that they should have spared so much blood; But such Saints as these( like the ancient and worst of Idollaters) delight in the sacrificing of mans blood.  
3. But another observation I think is worth your taking, that this Saint, when generally the other cry out of the King, for having  shed so much blood, and that therefore they will have him satisfy for it; yet this good man( I fear before he was ware) tells truth, and it may be he shall hear of it; for he saith( at least implies) that the two Houses have  shed the blood: for in that they might have spared it, implies it not at least that they  shed it? for qui non vetat cum potest jubet.  
3. Reason. From which I am brought to the 3 Reason; which as it abates of the bitterness, so it comes short in matter of length, and shadow of reason; and accordingly I shall abate in length of answer to it: for it briefly saith, That this personal Treaty was declined, and protested against by both kingdoms, though offered by the King, when he was far from the condition, now he is in, and was out of the reach of Parliamentary power, and when wee had no parties nor divisions, and therefore how much more inconvenient will it be now, when wee have so many warpings in our best actions, and it is only propounded by one party as a design?  
Resp. Whether some such personal Treaty was offered by the King, and declined by both kingdoms, I cannot say whether it be so or no; but I dare say, that this individual Treaty, for so he saith, that is this, for matter, manner, and circumstance was never offered.  
2. But grant it had been; who in reason doth not know, but that, that which was offered and refused a year or two, or more sithence, may now upon change of causes, events, and circumstances, without inconvenience to either party, be taken again into consideration, and proceeded in?  
3. When it is said, that the Treaty was offered by the King, and refused by the two kingdoms, when the King was far from the condition he is now in; I conceive he means that the King was not then in so low a condition as now; for he adds, that he was then out of the Parliaments power; but to this they may know, that though the Person of the King be now ●n their power, yet the Kings power( I believe) is, and so it will be found to exceed theirs; and therefore though his condition be the lower, in that he is under restraint, yet he is in a better condition now, then he was then, in that God hath opened the eyes, enlarged the hearts, and strengthened the hands of the greatest part of three kingdoms, for the rescue and deliverance of his person, and for the restoring him to his just rights, whether by or without a Treaty, according to their several ancient, and more general, and their later more special renewed protestations and oaths.  
When he saith, it is more inconvenient for them to treat now, when they have so many warpings in their actions, then at that time, when they had no parties nor divisions; I conceive when they had no parties nor divisions among themselves, they had the less reason to stoop to a Treaty; for as they had the greater strength in men and money: So had they the people by their delusions more united together and knit to them; whereas now when they find not only divisions among themselves, but warpings in their best actions, now to my reason, they are more concerned, for their own security, and to make their peace, to yield, yea to sue to the King for a Treaty.  
And when he saith, the Treaty is propounded only by one party, as a design; it is strange to me, that the House of Lords and Commons, and the kingdom of Scotland, and the City, and most Counties, and people of England, must in respect of his own faction of Saints or Independents, go under the notion and style but of one party; as though these Saints were alone the kingdom, or kingdoms, because they as madly hold, that they alone are the people of God, and have right to the Land, and what is therein.  
And as uncharitable and unreasonable it is to say, that what all these in the two kingdoms desire, is but a design, though it tend to a lasting peace; and what ever his party would, though against a Treaty, must be construed as holy, and just, though it be only for the maintenance and propagation of their more wicked designs, and all tending inevitably and speedily to the ruin and destruction of so happy and flourishing a kingdom.  
4. Reason. The fourth reason against this Treaty he draws from the little hope of success that he conceives this Treaty can find, when he thus saith, There is not any hope of any good success in settling our peace by such a Treaty, but rather the contrary.  
Resp. To which, though either he doth not, or will not see any hope of success, or not of such a peace as he would; what therefore must not they try, & treat, who does see great, very great hopes of a peace, a good peace, and by a Treaty as the only best human exp●dient? wee plow, wee plant, wee sow, and all but in hope, and if all should forbear to plant or sow until sure of success, we might want both fruit and grain: and I pray let me ask you in your many battles you have( as you profess) fought against your King, were you sure still of success before you went forth? Let me add, though there were but little, yea scarce any hope of a success, yet in so miserable a case, as this kingdom now is in; why not try what a Treaty will effect? for so there be neither sin nor illegallity in it, why not try? quid enim tentasse nocebit? were the people sure of a success( Josuah the sixth) when they blew their trumpets before the walls of Jericho? or Naaman( the second of Kings and the fifth) of a cleansing from his leprosy by washing in Jordan? but you will tell me they had directions and command to do these from heaven, and that was assurance enough: and have not wee the like? For what is that Ps. 34.14. seek peace, and pursue it( though it fly from you?) and Rom. the 12 the 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceable with all men. In which Texts wee are commanded to strive and endeavour by all possible means, he saith not by all probable means, but though they seem improbable, yet by all possible means to seek peace; and when you so much labour against this way to it, why tell you us not of a better, or more compendious way then a Treaty? but I conceive( pardon me if I misguesse you) you are not so much afraid of a Treaty the means, as of a peace the end; for hereby you may fear that( as our Lord and Saviour said of the day, so I may of a peace) this would bring your works to light, and make manifest what abominations you have committed under the name and covert of a War.  
To which he argueth, that the Propositions( to bee treated on) must be the same as they were, and these the King hath denied, and therefore little hope &c. To the first I must ask him how he knoweth that the Propositions must be the same in number, matter, form? 2. Why they may not be changed in some at least? 3. If the same, yet why may not these same, by the wisdom and moderation of the two Houses, have such qualifications, as it may please God to move the King to give his assent, if he shall see it shall bee for his peoples good?  
Reason 5. But this Reasoner conceiving sure that he hath kept the reserve, as the strength of all his arguments; to this last he saith, which is his 5. Reason: It is most dangerous( as things stand) and hazardous to the Parliament and kingdom, to have a Treaty.  
Resp. One thing I cannot but observe( though by, or out of the way) which is, that this Reasoner throughout, prefers the Parliament before the kingdom; as though he had more mind to the standing and power of that then this: for who knows not that the persons now in the two Houses are the least, the meanest part of the kingdom? 2. That such a part is not to bee preferred before the whole. 3. That it is the kingdom that makes, maintains and gives them the power they have: but affection makes men blind. I will say no more, but will examine the strength of his reasons; whereof the first is:  
Wee see what influence even the absence of the King hath had upon the people, how much greater would his presence haue? And doubtless when ever there is such a conjunction of King and Parliament, wee shall soon find he is the head.  
And from hence wee see the aim and end of all this reasoning against the Treaty, viz. feat that the King should appear to be head of the kingdom and Parliament; so that what, the King truly and rightly is by the Law of God and this kingdom, and the desire of all good Christian Subjects, this fellow holds to be the only danger and hazard to the Parliament.  
But, in Gods name, what would he should become of the King? is he of Cromwells and Rolfes mind? better this fellow and all such were where they deserved to be, who are of his mind.  
2. Would he that this kingdom should be, and continue an headless Monster, without true sense, or due motion, seeing these proceed from and only from the head?  
3. Or would he that this kingdom should move as a worm, or a snake, where the tail the people move the rest? I fear this is his meaning: yet I trust that all the men of this kingdom will rather desire to be ruled and moved( as men) by their heads, who in Gods Law and ou●s, is the King; and not as beasts, the worst and basest of beasts, by the tail: and then the danger which this fellow fears will soon be over.  
But this fellowes head is so full of fears, that he hath dreamed of another danger arising from a Treaty; for, saith he, It is dangerous in point of security: and adds; there can be no safety without an Army. So that here is his second fear, that the Army in the time of, or after the Treaty, shall not continue, and be in force; and then concludes no man can promise a quiet sitting, and faire parting. But why not, I pray? For who hath more frighted and forced the two Houses then the Army? who have oppressed, enslaved, and slaughtered the good people more then the Army? and therefore what is more desired by the general vote and petition of the two kingdoms, then the disbanding the Army? and yet what in the judgement of the wisest is the best security to all these, he accounts the greatest danger of all, viz. the putting down of the Army.  
But tumults, saith he, are now rising in every County, that no man can foresee to prevent without an Army. But what tumult is there in any County, except that of the Army? or such as is occasioned or raised by the Army? Let the Army bee disbanded, and without all peradventure, all tumults will cease in all Counties, except the devil raise some Independent Saints to make tumults.  
But the fellow is not quit of all his fears yet, and therefore propounds, What if the King and Parliament should not agree? it will be harder to bring him back to his former condition again. You may easily track this fellow by the sent, and here you may see his fear; that a Treaty being on foot, they shall hardly carry the King back to Carisbroke, under the hands of cronwell, Hammon, and Rolfe. I, here is the fear, here the danger of all; so that what is the desire of all honest, loyal, Christian Subjects, that the King should be as he ought to be, free; this to this Reasoner, and his desperate complices, is the great danger.  
And yet he is troubled with another fear besides all the former, lest in the time of treaty some rude and barbarous men should surprise the Parliament, or at least some eminent Members which they find most eminent and active. And are there any more rude and barbarous men to be feared in this case, then those you hold your best security, soldiers so principled? who are drenched in blood, and have scarce any other means whereby to live then by br●il●s, oppression, rapine, and shedding of blood? and whom may a Parliament more fear then these?  
But though this fellow clapped in the word Parliament, to be in danger, yet he soon explanes himself in th● same line, and as though he cared not much for the Parliament; so some of the most, eminent active members be preserved; he adds they may surprise the Parliament, or at least some most eminent and active Members: and it were easy to Say, whom he means by the most eminent and active members, besides Naworth, the brave Olivers, may-Mild, &c.  
And yet this timorous goose is not past fear yet, for he goes on and tells you, that the King never had more desperate designs against the Parliament, then when he sent to treat with them, witness Brainford. And here although I find not that the King sends now to the two Houses, but they to him for a Treaty; yet I must needs con this fellow thankes, for the confession of a truth, when he professeth that the King never had more desperat designs against the Parliament, then when he sent for a Treaty: and instanceth only in that of Brainford. So that, by this Reasoners acknowledgement, the King never had greater design against the Parliament, then in that business of Brainford, and his design in that was only this, that while he sent to the two Houses to treat with them, he finding in the mean time, that they had almost surrounded him with their Army, his desperate design was to quit himself of them; and this was that business of Brainfrod, and so the truth is that was the most desperate design that ever the King had against the Parliament.  
And this Wigin having hitherto acted the part of a Reasoner beyond, or without all reason, he now in the close takes upon him to be a counsellor; and therefore he saith, It is good for the Parliament to keep their distance, and maintain their ground, for they have lost too much by their lenity and credulity.  
Sure, his Parliament, the two Houses are in a witless condition, that must stand in need of his counsel, which is to stand their ground, and keep their distance. For what if they cannot stand their ground? Can his counsel enable them to it? No whit more, then when the Constable bad the Drunkard stand, when he was reeling to the ground.  
But the ground of his counsel surpasseth the counsel itself( which he gives them with an Asses carry-combe;) for forsooth, they have lost too much by their lenity and credulity.  
I confess, I have heard and known much of their credulity, when they gave care to, and proclaimed many strange plots by sea and land; as in Lincolnes-Inne-Fields, Moore-Fields, Ragland Castle, a Navy from denmark, and 1000 more gross impostures of their own making.  
But of their lenity, I profess I never yet heard a syllable; unless it hath appeared in raising forces to fright and awe the honest and honourable Members in Parliament; or in counseling their band-Dogs to worry and slaughter the well affencted, for presenting their humble Petitions; or in giving power to any three of the House of Commons to imprison whom they would,( 15. June 1648.) or in giving power to any the three of the two Houses( as 21 Apr. 1648) or in granting Commissions to kill and slay, even without all exception, I, not excepting the King or Prince: and if this be their lenity, The Lord deliver all good Christians from such, and from their lenity.  
The Reasoner is now at an end, and( as devils usually have been presented) he goes off with a stink, notorious stinking lies: for he saith; The Parliament hath cause to reject the motion of a treaty:( i.) They have cause to reject their own motion: for it is their own, and it is time they should make it, and proceed in it to: but why should they reject their own motion? Have you a reason for this to? yes, and store to: and the chief is, Because the King hath again raised his Party against the Parliament. And have the two Houses at any time of late declared so much? or would they not have declared it if they had known it? But alas good King, had he been willing to raise his party( and why should not he raise a party against them that imprison him and oppress al his good people?) yet how could he raise any Forces he having been under their power, and close restraint above these 12 moneths?  
His second Reason is, That the King hath called in the Scots to destroy the kingdom. The Scots, by order of their Parliament, have declared and protested the chief causes of their coming in, to be the settling Religion, setting the King at liberty, and to procure a lasting peace: and this ended, quietly and speedily to depart: and to these ends why may not the King call in the Scots? But tell me I pray, are the Scots so easy as to come at the Kings call? or were you present, and heard the King call them in? or care you not what you say? or fear you not to raise jealousies and slanders; so they may tend to the seducing and abusing the silly easy people, thereby to join with you in your treasonable, bloody, devilish practices, masked all under sanctity, Religion, conscience, and tender regard of Parliament?  
At the last close of all, this man is brought to some reason, and with that I will conclude as he doth: I wish, saith he, that personal honesty, and Reformation might be thought upon by every man, and then we should soon see a public deliverance: and in this I agree with him; and I do more then wish, I hearty pray to God by the mediation of his only son, our Lord Jesus Christ to grant to us all, and to this Reasoner, and all of his leaven, personal honesty and reformation; and then we should not doubt but( by Gods blessing) soon to see a public deliverance. Amen, Amen Sweet Jesu.  
Finally Brethren pray for us, that we may be delivered from unreasonable, or absurd, and wicked men. 2. Thess. 3.  
FINIS.