A LETTER sent FROM A PRIVATE GENTLEMAN TO A FRIEND IN LONDON, In justification of his own adhering to His majesty in these times of Distraction: With Arguments induceing him thereunto, both from the Law of GOD and Man.  
Printed for V. N. Ann. Dom. 1642.   

A LETTER OF LOYALTY, with Arguments inducing thereunto, from the laws of God and Man.  
Sir,  
I Have received your Letter, and the news you sent me; though I have either seen or heard it all before, yet I give you many thanks for it. I would that either there were less news, or better stirring. In your last letter I received nothing but chiding invectives. I wish you to examine yourself how far the profession of so much faith( as those of your opinion are full of) can stand with so little charity, as their censoriousness of others express. I know charity is the touch-stone of faith. And the Apostle tells me, Love thinketh no evil, unless it be sufficiently proved. For my part I judge no man, I leave every one to himself to stand or fall. I may be seriously sorry for some, but I will peremptorily censure none. It shall be my endeavour to settle mine own conscience; and to that end I shall impartially embrace all opportunities, that may either convince my conscience if corrupt, or confirm it if upright: and this task being accomplished, I shall march on with comfort and cheerfulness( though through the sharpest thicket of disgraces and reproach) to that period which my conscience shall point me to. And the name of a Parliament without the true subsistence of it will no more awe me, then the naked style of a King left my sovereign without due honour attending it can please him. Venerable I confess is the name of a Parliament but that is where the nature accompanieth it; for otherwise it is but an empty shadow without a body: And I would willingly be satisfied, whether the place where the Parliament sits, or the persons sitting in that place be the essential part of a true Parliament. I conceive certainly that not the place, but the persons make the Parliament; and then to admit the King no part of it( which cannot with truth be admitted;) the truest definition of a Parliament I can frame to myself is, that it is A company or assembly of select persons, ch●sen by the free votes of the Freeholders of each County, & Freemen of each Borough,( warranted to make such election by the Kings especial Writ) and by them entrusted to represent the affections, and act the duties of them who so choose them. This I think being not to be denied for truth, it will follow that all this elect body must agree in one; or else the majority of voices agreeing must carry it, and oblige the minority disagreeing. This being also I think unquestionable, I see not why majority of number, both of the House of peers and Commons, who by their attendance on, and obedience to the King, together with the removal of themselves for the minority residing behind express their votes, their resolves what they are; ought not rather in the true nature, and fundamental essence of the thing, be honoured, known, and meant by the style of Parliament, the great council of the King, and the representative body of the kingdom; then that minor part so much cried up, and doted on by the Idolatrizers thereof. And if there may be any colour to deny this premise: yet I see no shift to avoid this consequent, but that it will be an inevitable conclusion, That if the maiority of number of peers, and Parliament men which now adhere to the King may err and be malignant, that then certainly the Votes of the majority of the representative body of the kingdom may be erroneous, and so consequently ought not to oblige. And if the maiority of voices may, much more may the minority fall into this unhappiness to be liable to errors, and therefore can less claim obedience as a due unto them. If it be finally the residing alone in Westminster that gives them their infallibility, I see not but the Popes chair may give as good right, and make as just a claim to that privilege. But the much experience of many former Parliaments kept in several places of this kingdom evidenceth sufficiently, that no such Prerogative is by nature of Parliament entailed upon Westminster.  
Consider secondly, that these men are chosen but by Subiects, and therefore are but to represent the affections, and act the duties of Subjects; and are indeed but the representative body of Subjects: and how can it stand then with this condition, that they should impose a law, command, or rule upon their sovereign? if they will transcend this condition, they break the limits of all such trust as either was, or could be conferred upon them: For the Subjects that choose them, had not that power of commanding their sovereign in themselves, to confer upon them. And Nilil dat quod non habet.  
Thirdly, we know by the fundamental constitution of Parliaments, the King hath in himself the power to dissolve them; much more hath he the power in himself to deny any thing propounded by them: for the power of dissolving is greater then of denying. Now that he hath in himself the power of dissolving, the very Act of continuance of this Parliament is a sufficient proof, which otherwise had been idle, and the passing it by Act had been in the Parliament-men a betraying of the trust reposed in them, and of their own privileges, had they had the power of continuance in themselves, without the Kings assent. Now if this Act of continuance passed by the King was an Act of favour, grace, and trust, let them take heed that it be not abused by them against the King, and so free him before God and man from all blame in the using all possible means, at least lawful means to reassume that power and trust into his own hands, which being but lent out hath been so misemployed against him. For certainly if I convey my estate in trust to any friend, to the use and behoof of me and mine, and the person so trusted falsify the faith so reposed in him, by converting the profits and benefit of my estate to sinister ends, to the prejudice of me and mine, no man will think it unlawful for me, if it be possible, to annihilate such dead of trust.  
Now if the King have fundamentally in himself the power of denying such things as shall be propounded by them to him, it followeth that their Votes without his Majesties assent to them are not binding nor exact obedience unto them: and so all these high Votes of the Houses fall to the ground as invalid.  
Lastly, add hereunto that the King must needs be reputed part of the Parliament, which by supposition was in the beginning waved, but a thing always to be acknowledged for truth; then if the Parliament without the King make the representative body, the King is the real head to that body of the Kingdom; and it were as absurd as monstrous to exclude the head from acting any thing that should generally concern the body, since from the head the spirits are derived, which give both sense and motion to the whole body; and that body which will separate itself from the head, may please itself with the fancy of independency; but the conclusion will leave it a dead, useless, and neglected trunk.  
And thus in brief have I shewed you that these Votes and Orders which thunder out so much power and terror cannot properly according to the fundamental constitution of Parliament be said to be Acted, Voted, or Ordered by Parliament, that name being due unto them, neither à mayor, nor à meliore parte: And therefore that by the fundamental Law of this kingdom I conceive myself dis-obliged from any obedience or submission to them.  
Thus to prove that by human Law I am not tied to obey; now that by conscience I am tied not to obey these Votes and Orders of the pretended Parliament, which are to the opposition or disobedience of his Majesty Kings we know are Gods anointed, & therefore sacred and not to be touched with rude hands; though their demeanour in government be never so wicked, never so unjust, yet the divine character of authority enstamped upon them giveth the man inviolable immunity from human hands. Hence it was that David though himself anointed also by Gods appointment in the room of Saul durst not injure Saul, but his heart smote him for the renting but the lap of Sauls garment, when God had delivered Saul into Davids hands. And shall we applaud ourselves without remorse of conscience, when we lay violent hands upon the fairest jewel of the crown of our Lords anointed, when we pluck the fairest flower of his garland from his head? Was Saul more sacred, more holy, more virtuous, then our CHARLES? Or have we more liberty, more privilege, to disobey, to disrobe Kings of their honour then the Iewes had? or hath this Parliament a more wise and understanding heart, a more sincere zeal to reformation, a more sacred and divine calling then David had? O then be wise ye sons of men, be learned ye that take upon you to judge the Earth, lest the King of Kings laugh at your folly, and crush you in pieces with a rod of Iron. O let it be a badge of Antichristianity, of that man of sin; and odious let it be to all true zealots to exalt themselves against all that is called God. Let us fear to separate that which God hath conjoined. Hath not he taught both in the Old and New Testament to fear God; and honour the King? and shall we now imagine that the dishonouring the King must be the chief evidence of our fearing of God? God forbid. Let us know Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, most odious to God, most be witching and enticing in itself. Shall we wonder it should appear mask with religion, and usherd in with pretence of reformation? Behold the father of it the devil, when he would have tempted our Saviour to rebellion against his father, God the father came with Scriptum est for a preface; though he knew his mischievous design of heart could not lie hide from the all-seeing eyes of our Lord. How did Absalom court the hearts of the Israelites, when he was in hatching his odious rebellion against his father? was it not with pretence of reformation, saying, Behold thy matter is good and just, but there is none deputed of the King to hear it. Oh that I were made governor over this Land, how would I do justice to all that came unto me. And shall this policy of dazzling our purblind mortal eyes seem now strange unto us? Nay certainly, were not the face of all these present distempers masked with a pretence of Reformation, and vizarded with a seeming hatred of Superstition, though aiming at more horrid intentions, how could we so soon have lost and torn the unity of the faith, from the bond of peace? Do we not all believe in one God, worship one Trinity, rely upon one Mediator, aclowledge one way to Heaven? And shall the garb and apparel wherein we make this voyage, the gesture whereby we worship this God, the dialect wherein we pray to this mediator, set us at a greater distance of affections, then if we were Pagans, Turkes, and Infidels? Doth God more delight in contentions about Ceremonies, Gestures, Words, then in the peace of his Church? or shall the wearing of a Surplice, signeing with a cross, bowing of a knee, be able to divorce Christ from his Spouse? God forbid. Oh then I charge y●u ye Daughters of jerusalem, and you that wish well unto Sion, by the Roes and by the hinds of the forest, that ye awake not this his Spouse, this his Beloved, until she please. Oh let us not like the Dog in Esopes fables, quarrel for the shadow, and lose the bone where the marrow is. While we seek to purify the Ceremony, let not the substance perish. While we would settle the Church, let us not cut the throat of the State, which is the guard of the Church. Who will power a vessel of pure wine on the floor, because the outside of the cask is not eye pleasing? Or cast away a box of rich Jewels, because the Cabinet wherein they are, suits not his fancy. Oh then let us bind up the breaches of Sion, lest the cloud depart from between the cherubins, and the ark fall into the hands of the uncircumcised. Let the Magistrate settle the garb of Religion, even Kings, for they are Custodes utriusque ta●ulae, and let it be Religion to obey those Magistrates: God hath not given them the sword in vain, and let not us feel the power thereof by suffering due punishment for our disobedience. Thus shall we make Christ our example, who yielded himself under Pilate, when he could have called for legions of Angels to have rescued him, but he acknowledgeth even that power of Pilate so unjustly used to be given him from above, and submitted unto it. Thus shall we follow Christs precept to P●ter, when he resisted authority, Put up thy sword, for they that strike with the sword shall perish by the sword. Thus shall we tread the steps of our Forefathers, the Apostles, and Fathers in the Primitive Church, who choose rather to glorify their faith by suffering under, then resisting against the power of Magistracy, though tyrannicall. And if an angel from Heaven( as you think) teach you any doctrine contrary to this of Christs, and his Apostles, let him be an Anathema and accursed. It is not the height of your zeal, if not guided with knowledge, can excuse us, for then the Iewes might have had a faire plea for their crucifying of Christ; the Apostle testifying they did it through ignorance: And yet we see what a curse hath dogged them and their posterity to this day.  
Now it thus appearing that Christianity admits not a resisting defensive force in subjects against their sovereign, though never so much abusing their power, that the policy of our State, and the fundamental constitution of our kingdom admits not the style of Parliament in truth to be given to the founders of these Votes and Orders, under colour whereof men presume to take arms against their sovereign, and his commands.  
And it being a thing known to all the world, that his majesty hath given abundant satisfaction for the past unhappy accidents in his government; and so solemnly protested for the future to be guided by the known laws of the Land, and to defend the truth of Religion, the Liberty of the Subject, and the privileges of Parliament. What shall any man pled for himself at the high tribunal of the Almighty, that shall dare to take weapon in hand against his anointed? let him flatter himself how he please with his zeal, dote as he will upon his imaginary fancy of a Parliaments, think his infidelity in and to his Prince an argument of his faith to God; yet miserable will his end be, who shall perish in such an attempt, and into the congregation of them let not my soul come.  
But that I may the more freely commit you to the peace of God, let me either have the hap to satisfy you, or the liberty to express that which satisfieth me, that these grand pretenders to the good of the kingdom, are not such as seek the peace of either State or Church and consequently have no share in the peace of God, and therfore those that will share therein, must not have their portion with them. O how easy had it been for them, had they sought the peace of this State, to have condescended to his Majesties gracious proposition of a Parliamentary judicature in other several places, whereto he was contented to refer himself. Thus had the honor of a Parliament been preserved; thus might the peace of the Kingdom have been continued, thus the distractions of the religion settled. But what was the reason, what could be the allegation why his Majesty might not have had satisfaction herein? nothing that I have either heard or can imagine, but that they could not without hazard to their persons remove any whither else as they supposed. Well admit it; which yet I think( had they no guilty consciences to affright themselves withall) there was no just cause to fear; these persons we see who for their own security would not embrace a hopeful proposition of peace, will hazard their own persons freely in a civill war; if their lives were all the hazard, or by their deaths the Kingdom were endangered, is not the same on all sides as much hazarded and with more probability to be irrecoverable by the employment of a civill war, then by an indifferent condescension of another place to have met the King in a Parliamentary way. O then let the mist be taken from our eyes, and let us discern, whether these be peace makers or no, or whether they tread the steps of peace, take heed lest though their words be smooth as oil, yet their throat prove not an open sepulchre: and if they perish in their own obstinacy, yet let us not be involved in the same sin, Let us seek peace and ensue it, and so the God of peace will be with us; which shall ever be the prayer of  
Your loving friend