A PLEA FOR THE PEOPLE'S GOOD OLD CAUSE: Or, The FUNDAMENTAL Laws and Liberties of England Asserted, proved, and acknowledged, to be Our RIGHT before the CONQUEST, and by above 30 Parliaments, and by the late KING CHARLES; and by the PARLIAMENT and their ARMY in their several Declarations in their particular straits and Differences.  
By way of ANSWER To Mr. JAMES HARRINGTON his CXX. Political Aphorisms, in his second EDITION.  
By Capt. WILLIAM BRAY.  Acts 22.28, 29. 
And Paul said BUT I was FREEBORN. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him; And the Chief Captain also was afraid, after he knew he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.  
Entered according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed by J. C. and are to be sold by Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near Temple-Barr. 1659.   

I. AS to the first Aphorism, it is granted you, that the errors and sufferings of a People, are from their Governors; 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 aver, 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 Governors (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 gratify 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 senses, (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 man's 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, Freedoms, and Free Customs, as belong to him by Free BIRTHRIGHT.  
Thirdly, None shall be Outlawed 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 lose 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 condemned at the King's Suit, either before the King in his Bench, or before any COMMISSIONER or JUDGE whatsoever, but by the lawful Judgement 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 surprise 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 ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us, Rom. 3.9, 10. What then are we better than 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 apprehension in a King (in the days of many Monarches) 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 Governors (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 intermeddling, and doing Acts of evil, or hindering Acts of Justice or Right, and that the people 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 courtesy 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 impartial Justice or Right. And therefore William the Conqueror after he had Conquered all almost, yet did swear to confirm, and defend our Laws, and ancient Customs and Rights.  
Ninthly. We shall defer 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 avoid the enjoyment of our Fundamental Rights (without which we cannot live) For it is a clear thing to all rational men, that Justice or Right is not to be sold or denied to any, but if it be neither sold or denied (in any visible Fact or Deed,) yet if it should be delayed, it would be a lingering, and wasting spoil 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 Laws 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 emboldened in the person of our Common Law, to say, That when the Laws of God and Reason came first into England, then came I in. This I declare, and recite, to show the excellency of the Fundamental 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 contained in it in few words, being the Fountain of all the Fundamental Laws of the Realm, 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 void; whereby it doth appear 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 Fundamental Law ineffectual, by making something or other against it: And further he saith (To demonstrate Parliaments are, and are justly to be limited, 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 people's 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 Maxim in the Law, No man ought to be wiser than the Law, and Ed. 1. for demonstrating his affection to the excellent common Law of England had the honourable Title to be styled Vindex Anglicanae Libertatis, as appears by Mr. John Pashas Argument of Law (in Parliament) against the Bishop's Cannons: And likewise Mr. Solicitor St. john's in his Argument of Law against the Earl of Strafford, saith the destruction of the Law dissolves the Arteries, and Ligaments that hold the body together, and citys the Case of Empson and Dudley, who were beheaded for executing that ILLEGAL ACT of PARLIAMENT, 11. H. 7. cap. 3. which gave power to Justices of Assize as well as Justices of the Peace Without any finding or presentment by Jury of 12 men of the Neighbourhood being the ancient BIRTHRIGHT of the subject, upon bare information for the King before them made to have full power, and Authority by their discretions to hear and determine all offences, or contempts committed or done by any person or persons against the order, form, manner or effect, of any Statute made, and not repealed: By colour of which Act of Parliament SHAKEING the FUNDAMENTAL LAW, viz: the 29. cap. of Magna CHARTA it is not credible (saith he,) what Exactions and Oppressions were done to the damage 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 MISCHIEVOUS ACT, with a Flattering Preamble, The Colour and Fraudulent pretences (to avoid our ANCIENT BIRTHRIGHT, TO DELUDE, and amuse the People) were to avoid 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 chief Justice for dilivering his opinion in subversion of the Law, for which he was deprived of his life: And the Lord Cook in his Proem to the second part of his Institutes, sets forth that Edward the first did ordain that Magna CHARTLEY A should be sent under the great Seal to all Justices of the Forest as to others, and to all Sheriffs, and to all other Officers, and to all Cities, and to all Cathedral Churches, and read and published in every County four 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 shows in the second part of his Institutes, This ancient, 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 avoid it upon pretence of Duress; And further saith the Lord Cook in his Proem to the second part of his Institutes. The Common Law of England, the great Charter cannot be avoided by the pretence and suggestion of the minority of a King, because his politic capacity did always judge him to be of age and no Minor, that no argument whatsoever might avoid our Fundamental Laws and Libertyes: And further he saith that the only thing that hath impugned our Liberties, hath been evil Counsel, Flattery, and Ambition, and citys the Case of Hugo de Burgo chief Justice in Henry the 3d, his time, which is above 400 years ago, and Hugh Spencer, &c: for giving rash and evil Counsel to Ed. the 2d, but their advice proved destructive to them, as the Lord Cook that renowned and industrious PATRIOT, excellently shows and illustrates in the second part of his Institutes of the Laws, of England in his Proem, and upon the 29th, Chapter of the great Charter. All which (with friendly submission) (although you are a stranger get to me) to your impartial, serious, and just consideration, is of great use, and worthy your reading, and of extending your abilities, and understanding to manifest your affections, to those Fundamental Legal Aphorisms therein contained, or to be naturally deduced instead of your own Political ones.  
And further to continue to manifest the Excellency of the being and supremacy of the Law averred, and mutually confessed in the days of Monarchy, and by honourable Parliamentary Counsel, 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 Counsel, we have commanded all our Justices that they shall from hence forth do even LAW and execution of RIGHT, to all our Subjects Rich and Poor, without having regard to any Person, and without letting to do RIGHT, for any Letters or Commandment which may come to them from US, 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 swear by the greater, and an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all Strife, and that God (to show the immutability of his Counsel) 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, Encumbrances, Breaches, and Inconveniences done against the Righteous ancient Laws and LIBERTIES of the People, which shows 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 citys are these, (viz) Your minds are not settled in any known Constitution of Government, or Fundamental Orders, according to which all LAWS should be made.  
The late King Charles in his Declaration (published by advice of his Privy Council, 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 only 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 LAW and LIBERTY of the Subject should be as much his care, and industry as of his life, or of the Lives of his dearest Children.  
And in the said book of Declarations of Parliament, 19th, May, 1642. pag. 211.212. We are fully (say they) of the King's mind, that he might rest so secure of the affections of his Subjects, That he should not need of Foreign 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 Gracious 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 be the Safeguard of all PUBLIC 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 be done to the People, That the meanest Subject should fully enjoy his RIGHT, LIBERTY 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 LAWS, LIBERTY. RELIGION, their own BIRTHRIGHTS, FREEDOM and LIBERTY of the LAWS of the LAND, being equally entitled 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 Peer to be valued, and considered as by the said several Declatations will fully and largely (upon perusal) appear.  
So that I have showed 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 Commonwealth of England, wherein, or in what particulars the Government by Laws 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 redress 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.  
FOUR As to your fourth Aphorism, It hath been the People's 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 Commonwealth, that hath such excellent Laws (as we have) must be only as contingent things and subservient to the Supreme Government the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS of Justice, Peace, and Safety, & PARLIAMENTARY constant COUNSELS  
V. As to your 5th Aphorism, It's hard to judge and aver, that the People cannot see as well as feel, and it is much if the loss of many thousand persons and Families (several ways) 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 eyes 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 Commonwealth, 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 aught to be subservient to the Supreme Fundamental Law, and to the Supreme peaceable PARLIAMENTARY Legislators or CONSERVATORS of that Law.  
VII. To the seventh Aphorism, I say in agreement with you, That it is every FREEBORN man's 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 showed 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, citys 36 Ed. 3. cap. 10. A Parliament every year, 4 Ed. 3. cap. Inter Leges Edgar Cap. 5. Before the Conquest Parliaments were to be holden twice every year. Since good men are rare, and also since 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 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 Assembly 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 Commonwealth, 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 Commonweal, that so they may know what you mean. That a GOVERNMENT to be managed by a few or a party, is inconsistent with a Commonwealth, 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 Ministry, and to hold That any GOVERNMENT without it, is inconsistent with a Commonweal; If your meaning be that the Magistrate, or any of the People, may give a public voluntary endowment 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 Ministry, they being voluntarily (and according to their judgement and Conscience) obliged one to the other, and so it is the MAGISTRATES MINISTRY; But if you mean that a Magistrate shall impose a National Religion, and endowment upon the People or upon any conscientious 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 judgement. 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 managed if it were given, or received, or usurped, (by its being 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 showed) & not LORD of his OWN CONSCIENCE: (no more than 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 Hypocrisy, and make the Spirit boil 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, Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin. And God himself doth not value a worship if in Hypocrisy 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 burdensome were the ways thereof (declared publicly to be offered) by the Bishops to men of different Judgements who came to be distinguished by Presbyter, etc. 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 Judgement, 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 yourself, 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 Ministry, 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 show 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 Bishop's 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 Emperor, for banishing of those who were not of their judgement in matters of their Religion; The Emperor perusing their Supplication gave them no other answer but this, I tell you trvely I cannot away with contention, but such as do embrace Unity and Concord, I do honour and reverence them: And I have also read, that it was the saying of Maximilianus the Emperor, 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 virtue consists in action) 7 Matt. 12. Whatsoever 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 meet, 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 contradict, that no man hath so much power over his own understanding, as to make himself believe 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 imperat 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. Aphorisms I agree with you, that where civil liberty is entire, it includes liberty of Conscience, and where liberty of Conscience is entire, 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 will 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 yourself to the danger of introducing Government, or waving Prudence, and committing things to chance.  
XXVII. To your 27th. Aphorism, I shall only 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 days 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 than which we none can lay, which foundations not 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 endowed 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. Aphorisms wherein the people have their lawful liberty, and the endowed Ministry have their lawful liberty to receive the Contribution (if voluntary) of either Magistracy or others, and to expect more is a violent imposition and entrenchment, 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 advice Magistracy, to compel person's to violent actions to constrain maintenance to them, or any other of their successive Ministry, 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 Shoes, nor staff, and if the House, City, or Town, was not worthy or should not receive them or hear their Word, they were to departed, 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 Wolves, 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 entreaty 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 Magistracy inducing them to compel others to their subsistency. And I must confess if you can prove that the endowed Ministry at this day (many of whom are Learned and Wise men) can safely entitle 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 Magistracy 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 be of God, and what part in every Religion is Natural; if you would have another know your Judgement, and be convinced by you; In order to which I shall commend unto you an excellent little Treatise, entitled 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 itself.  
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 man's nature; But humane Prudence and man's 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 man's nature; But yet on the other hand, there may be a Religion National or Public, or a Public 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 public leading in Religion to be good, because the Major part of Mankind, giveth up itself 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 Public leading, Witness the days of Q. Marry, etc.  
XLI. XLII. XLIII, XLIIII. XLV. XLVI. I agree with your 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 Ministry is, That they are Ministers of Christ, and not relating to the Priesthood before Christ: so that to endeavour to attain to maintenance by Violence and Imposition, is against that Christian Apostolical example. And as for abolishing the Nationall Religion, none can or aught to endeavour to do that but the National Magistracy if he see Just cause, because they are the Magistrates particular endowed Ministry, 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 impartial 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 Tithes, or Tithes no Wages 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 SUPREME PARLIAMENTARY COUNSELS, and our Nation is built upon the Foundations of Just Laws, and Liberties already, and our steadfastness 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 Precedents of the Athenians the Romans or the Uinted Provinces, &c, can be no more pleasing or safe to us, than (I conceive) it would be pleasing to them for us to foment Innovation amongst them.  
LXI, to the CXX. To these I only 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 those that were privy to it, and to his Council (if any.) But if Monarchy should ever be restored, I believe it would find a great inevitable encumbrance and affliction to itself, if it should Govern without LAWS and PARLIAMENTS. For it is no pleasant thing to Govern by Arms, neither to the GOVERNORS 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 aver by the requirable just application of your XCII Aphorism, to lay aside our Fundamental Laws and CONSTANT constitution of PARLIAMENTS (as most probable Conservators of our FUNDAMENTALS.) We leave our ourselves and our Posterity to a further purchase of that which we may prestntly enjoy, 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 enjoyment whereof neither Monarchy Aristocracy, 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 practice 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 Supreme Legislative Council 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 applied (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 WINE to drink, Jer. 35.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. 18, 19, verses. And indeed if we should admit Innovations upon our FUNDAMENTAL LAWS received as I have said before, from our Ancestors, we should make an illegal Precedent to subject ourselves, not only 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 POWER, contrary to all the Declarations, Promises, Vows, and pretences, and what the consequences of that may be, lies only in the breast of the Almighty.  
An Innovation itself, (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 Privileges of Parliament, calling it a bold and presumptuous Injustice of such Ministers, as durst break th● Laws, and suppress the Liberties, The Book of Declarations printed by Edward Hushands, & page 484. The Parliament declared themselves offended that the King's 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 moral man abhors (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 practice was NO ARGUMENT AGAINST the RIGHT. And pag. 574, 575. They complained, That the King's 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 shadow 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, etc. To maintain the JUST PRIVILEGE and FREEDOM of PARLIAMENT, and to Govern by the known Laws of the Land to my utmost Power, and particularly to observe inviolably the Laws 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 mere mercenary Army, to serve an ARBITRARY POWER of State, That they took up Arms in Judgement and Conscience, for their own and the People's 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 POWER 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 Mother's Arms, he entreated 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 easy 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 justify 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 chiefly belong to PARLIAMENTARY COUNCIL I wholly omit; But only in love to my Country (in which I have been 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 myself,  
24 Octob. 1649. Your friend and Countryman. W. BRAY.  
FINIS.