A DECLARATION Published in the County of DEVON By that Grand Ambo-dexter, Sir George Chudleigh Baronet, To delude his Countrymen in their judgement and Affections, touching the present differences between his Majesty and the PARLIAMENT.  
Together with a full and satisfactory Answer thereunto, transmitted from thence under the Hand of a judicious and well Affected Patriot.  
Printed according to Order.  
LONDON Printed by L. N. For Richard Clutterbuck. An. Dom. 1644.   

A delusory Declaration of Sir George Chudleigh Baronet.  
THe ancient (if not the prime) fabric of the famous Kingdom to be raised upon these three main pillars, the Royal Sovereignty, and the two Houses of Parliament, is so well known as it needs no declaration; as the proportionable structure and disposition of these three doth promise to the eye of reason, and sound policy, nothing but uniformity, strength and beauty; so the experience of all ages ha●h constantly taught, as that the unity and correspondency of these Fundamental pieces hath been the support, preservation, and happiness of the whole: and no less apparent is it, that their disjunction and separation must be their total ruin and destruction. The King hath Royal prerogatives undeniable, without which he cannot govern as a King: The two Houses of Parliament have their peculiar privileges, wherein every Subject hath his interest; the end of all is, that by a meet temper of their several rights, Just frame of government may arise for the common good, which may restrain all exorbitant affections and attempts, if any happen in either part; now these prerogatives of the King, and privileges of the Subject, though they have distinct operations, yet they are of so near conjunction, as differences do sometime arise to interrupt their motion; much like the wheels of a clock or watch, so depending each upon other, as the smallest moat or hair may beget a stop and disorder, the greater care should be had in the keeping; but differences do sometime arise, though never (as I suppose) aggravated to that extremity as now; petitions of right are commendable, Remonstrances not unlawful, but Arms though defensive seem doubtful. My Lot fell to be cast on the Parliaments side, by a strong opinion I had of the goodness of their cause, and the Loyal service I should do his Majesty, in defending that His high Court from the manifest enemies that then to my judgement appeared against it: Religion and the Subjects lawful rights seemed in danger, and the general interest called for the common care to preserve it, but I believe it hath gone too far; the destruction of a Kingdom cannot be the way to save it, the loss of Christian Subjects, the Subjects loss of their Estates, by a double plunder or assessment, concurs not with piety nor yet with propriety. Touching Religion, which is the chief, (and I confess, in greatest danger) his Majesty (whom God long preserve) hath given us unquestionable security during his own time; for the rest the Lord of hosts with me hath determined the controversy, having done my utmost faithfully according to my Protestation, I have thrown myself at my Sovereign's feet, and embraced His gracious pardon, I will contend no more in word or deed. And this my resolution with the indisputable grounds thereof, I thought fit to declare to my friends and Countrymen, that they may understand my sitting down to proceed from no compulsion, but the necessity I conceive there is of ceasing this destructive war, unless we will become the wilful Authors of the calamities we would decline; this may suffice for this time, making my prayer according to my hopes for speedy peace: but if the war shall continue (which God forbidden) I may happily take up some further determinations.   

The answer to the Declaration.  
Sir,  
MEeting with a gallant Oration directed to your Countrymen, I conceived it concerned myself, and upon perusal found it to be an issue of your own brain, both by the elegancy of the Phrase, and the Sophistry of the matter: to be plain, I must tell you, it's a lively Character of yourself and Actions, wherein you discover learning enough for a country justice: you seem to apprehend some general notions and speculations of government; your intellect floats on the superficies, but your reason was never so weighty to sink down into the deep fundamentals; you have gone beyond your laste; when you talk of Fabrics, Pillars and Fundamentals, you raise a top without a bottom: The learned will tell you that the prime and Ancient constitutions of this Kingdom were raised upon that which we call Lex terrae, the Law of the Land, and this Law is the pillar of Sovereignty; safety and propriety enthrones the King, and sets the Royal Diadem on the head of Majesty, it is the rule as well of Sovereignty as of obedience; abrogate Law, what becomes of Sovereignty, when obedience is ●nfranchised? The wisest of Kings hath determined the question, Plebs sine lege ruit; And that learned ornament of the Law aged Bracton tells us, Quod Rex attribuit legi, lex attribuit Regi: which implies a reciprocal support each of other: the King giveth life and motion to the Law, and the Law retributes virtue and operation to the King: if so, why do you pery wink at the pillar? you were once accounted a pillar yourself, and so you are still, as Lot's wife for looking bacl; but honest Countryman, herein appears a Sophistry; he rendereth you to Sovereignty, but tells you not a word of Law; he knows the rule, frustra anxilium legis petat qui in legem peccat: Certainly had he been a wellwisher to the Law, he would have lent a hand to the Law, in raising the prime Fabric; but what is the reason you do not inform us of the pillars and Fundamentals of the Law? why, the Fundamentals themselves are the reasons, and they are, first; General Maxims; secondly, the Law of God, thirdly, eternal reason, fourthly, Acts of Parliament, fifthly, general and approved customs: hath not your treachery and Apostasy offended all these Fundamentals? are not these the support, preservation and happiness of the whole that you speak of? are not these the policy, strength and beauty of this nation? Why do you mistake the principal? I fear me; your wisdom is guilty of a concealment: Why do you traduce us with a particoloured Division, and take them divisim, which are not but conjunction; The King and the two Houses of Parliament nominally three but virtually one? Why do you and your adherents abuse us all with your divisions, to tell us that the disjunction and separation of these must be our total ruin and destruction? I must confess it tends that way, the Kingdom divided cannot stand; but this text admits of a Magis and a Minus, the disease is not grown to that height but there is a cure, we have a receipt from Solomon the best naturalist in the world; take away the wicked from before the King, and His throne shall be established; this probatum est, do not mistake yourself, this must, this may be done without total ruin or destruction, and let them be accursed that were the Authors of those exigents. But you tell us, the King hath Royal Prerogatives undeniable, without which he cannot govern as a King; this is granted and allowed: but what do you mean by these Prerogatives, a will at large, or commands illegal? can the King create Prerogatives De novo or extempore? herein again you show your sophistry: now prerogatives are regulated, not exorbitant, but such as Lex terrae prescribes: the statutes De praerogativa Regis, are declarative antiqui, non introductiva novi juris? prerogative is a branch of the Common Law, this is a truth unquestionable, hath not then Prerogative its rise from the Law of the Land? I fear you couch an ill meaning under apparent truths: you say the two Houses of Parliament have their peculiar privileges; you might truly have said, they had or aught to have but can you say they have, when they are invaded, when there is an Actual war made against them, by a crew of such Royalists as yourself? how can we expect a meet temper of these, or a just frame of government, when these exorbitant affections and attempts are above the frame of this government? you talk much of distinct operations, and the wheels of a clock, to show you are an observer of times, rather than a preventer of the aggravation of the extremity you speak of: you say petitions of Right are commendable; why did not you speak out and say, petitions of Right are necessary, when prerogative gives it a mortal wound, & destroys a principal, that Ius nunquam moritur? Why, could you afford Remonstrances no better language, then that they were not unlawful? are they not convenient, when necessity requires them? Arms (you say) though defensive, seem doubtful: to whom do they seem so? It seemeth you degenerate from nature, Law, and Religion: is there not a cause? did David's Army seem doubtful? And why did you take up Arms at first? we are now sensible of the reason, you were a doubtful man at first, but now we know what you are without Question; you say, your Lot fell to be cast on the Parliaments side, surely the Parliament had ill-fortune in that Lottery. But you fell and were cast, for you never stood right on the Parliaments side: you say, you had a strong opinion of the goodness of the cause, and of the Loyal service you should do His Majesty in defending that His high Court of Parliament, from the manifest enmity that then to your judgement appeared against it: how comes your strong opinion to be weakened? examine yourself, when you lost your goodness, your judgement was infatuated, and then you deserted Loyal service to King and Parliament. When the Parliament trusted unfaithful men, than the cause suffered, but the goodness of it is not yet tainted. Why do you cast aspersions on the Houses of Parliament? it seems you are troubled with many Apparitions, when you saw Religion and the Subjects right seemed in danger: was it but a semblance? did you but see in a vision the thousands of slaughtered carcases, whose death your unfaithfulness seems to be the Author, you would confess with horror and trembling, Religion and Right were in danger; what, hath the common care gone too fare to preserve Religion and the Subjects right as (you say) you fear it hath? nay can it go too far? I wish you had as much faith as fear, than you would have put into your creed that Religion, and the Subjects right were in danger. The destruction of a Kingdom cannot be the way to save it: 'tis a truth, why then have you walked in those ways of destruction? for our parts we desire to walk in the ways of God: to meet him in our fasting, in our prayers, in our Humiliations, and in our reformations: and doubt not but we shall find him in the preservation of this Kingdom from destruction: you say the loss of Christian Subjects, of estates double plundered, and assessments, concur not with piety nor propriety; 'tis a truth, and could not the old Sophister cite a Text, but misapply it? who is it that hath enacted all these offences to be lawful? hath made murder lawful, stealing lawful, violence and oppression lawful, Idolatry, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, whoring, drinking, blaspheming; nay, are not these accounted acceptable services to God? nay, who is it that putteth these things in practice? These things I confess concur not with piety nor propriety; Religion, you say, seemed in danger; and did it but seem so? Let me put you a case: if there be a Nursing Father, and a Nursing Mother of contrary Religions, of what Religion are you sure their children would be? The civil-law tells us, Partus sequitur ventrem, and we know by experience, children delight in the dugs and infusions of the mother; the mother's Beads and Pictures are more delightful to children, than the serious and wise Instruction of the father. You tell us you have unquestionable security, for Religion; but for how long? you say, during the Kings own time; I wish, O King live for ever: yet give me leave to tell you, you have a very uncertain estate in Religion, the King hath no Prerogative above Subjects in the certainty of his life; let me advise you to take a further and better estate in Religion, you may procure it as good cheap to you, and the heirs males of your body, as you may for three lives: to be serious, doth your care for religion extend no further then during the Kings own time? what will you and your posterity do afterward? it seemeth by your following discourse, that you mean to sit down, and to leave Religion and Law to the wide world: is it not a paradox, to maintain the Protestant Religion with Popish Armies? you say his Majesty hath given you unquestionable security touching Religion: what security, or what religion do you mean? though you keep that to yourself, yet if his Majesty were redeemed out of the hands of those of your religion and Ends, we should as little doubt the security of our Religion as you. You pray that God would long preserve the King, with a Parenthesis, but we will pray for the long preservation of the King with an Emphasis, and never leave praying till we have prayed him out of your hands; for we cannot think him safe there: assure yourself, we will sacrifice ourselves to reduce him to his Centre the Parliament, whereby the Laws he ought to be, and hope to bring all your confederates to the throne of justice, where his Majesty being established by his Laws, shall pronounce the sentence of unfaithfulness against you: but how can you for shame say you have done your utmost, according to your Protestation? I confess I cannot without indignation confute you, I pity your Apostasy, it needs no demonstration; have you thrown yourself at your Sovereign's feet? it is your duty: and embraced his gracious pardon? I commend your wisdom: you stand in need of more pardons than one, if you would but take a survey of what you have done: I must confess we have all offended, and have need of pardon, but in this wherein have I offended his Majesty, that he should hunt after my life as a Partridge? I will sue to God for pardon of my sins, but I will never betray mine own innocence.  
For the rest, you say, the Lord of Hosts with you hath decided the Controversy▪ what do you mean by the rest, and what controversy do you mean? when had you a right of Association to sit in Judgement, and decide controversies with the Lord of Hosts? what do you mean by those lofty strains, 'tis as proud a theme as that of an insolent Prelate, Ego & Rex mous, etc. the Lord of Hosts with you is an elevation above the Pole. You say you will contend no more in word or deed: What, will you do no more for your God, your King nor your Country? it seemeth you resolve to be but a neuter ●t best.  
Thirdly, you say that this your resolution, with the indisputable grounds thereof, you thought fit to declare unto your friends and countrymen; where do you find such indisputable grounds for such ignoble resolutions? should so active, so wise a man as yourself sit down and be a spectator of your country's Tragedy, and neither speak a word to preserve it, nor do one good deed to revive it? but base resolutions have proud thoughts. You presently fall upon a strange conceit, that your sitting down with your Declaration, will of necessity end these destructive wars; why are you so selfconceited, to think your precedent will draw the whole world into your imitation? are your positions so positive, that they are undeniable, unquestionable, and indisputable? from whom have your conceptions such a prerogative? If you have such indisputable things, why do you not produce them for the common good? Then you conclude with a menace to your countrymen, that if the war cease not, you will take up some further determinations; what determinations do you mean? I must needs say you are the intricatest man that ever I read; but I guess at your meaning, you will be a looker on, and at last determine, like a door on his hinges, to turn either way, so you think in your judgement, that a neuter will be entertained at your pleasure, of either party. I have spoken my thoughts, and so leave you to your own conceits and fortunes.   
FINIS.