A LETTER, IN WHICH THE arguments OF THE ANNOTATOR, And three other Speeches Vpon their MAJESTIE'S Letters Published at LONDON, are Examined and Answered.  
Printed in the year 1645.   

SIR,  
THAT I may continue our old freindships I have for some yeares endeavoured to serve you, by imparting to you the Occurrences of this place, and particularly by transmitting such new books to your view, as might both serve to entertain you, and to keep you in a good opinion of the Parliament Cause which you and I so long since made choice of, yet I cannot deny but my thoughts checked at it when I sent you the late archbishop's Diary. And though I may not keep from you a new book entitled, The Kings Cabinet opened, a discovery so much cried up by our party here, that though I would smother it I conceive it could not miss your hands. yet seriously, Sir, I am not of the common opinion, and my hope is I shall not be held a Malignant for it. I conceive the publication of these two books hath done much mischief to our cause, though it were advised by the close Committee, for though discoveries of this nature have upon the persons they concern somewhat in them of a ridiculous infelicity, yet withall they have very much of advantage too, because they deeply work into all wise men an exceeding strong belief of those things which were let fall in so great secrecy. So that it should have been well weighed before such books had been made public, whether, though they contain some truths that make for our turn, they are not withall a full proof of some others which are downright destructive to us; for that Client sure hath weak council who produceth a witness, that in speaking for his cause concludes more strongly for his Adversaries.  
In the Arch-bishops papers there are I grant some things we did make good use of in our declamations to our many pretty wil●ss, that did serve our turns for a spurt to raise hoobubs or get money: but sadly Sir, is their any wise man you meet with( though heretofore perhaps either not his friend, or his Enemy,) who is not now thoroughly convinced, and by that same book we set out, that he was a man of a very public composition, a man very much a Christia●, exemplary in his Devotions to God, in his loyalty to his Prince? And for that tax of his inclinations to Rome, which was almost proverbial in our mouths, and stood us in so great stead, when we went to work on the People, I would gladly know which way it was possible( considering the malignity of that vast popular aspersion) to have washed it quiter out of all Considering mens heads, but either by his Death, or his Diary? And was this a work fit for us? Nay I am more angry yet at our man of law, who would needs busy himself in that book, that he should not onely want so much logic, as to conclude him a Papist, out of those proofs, which indeed evince the quiter contrary; but to speak plain that he should want so much wit, as to hope to persuade others to have as little sense as himself.  
And my great fear is, our publishing the Kings papers hath done us yet far more mischief, in as much as it far more concerns the advantage of our cause to keep him in scorn with the People. Indeed the Arch-bishop is dead, and bites not, but if the King once return into a good esteem with our party, farewell our Armies we so much confided in, and ere long our fears and our jealousies. red the book, Sir, and tell me with that freedom that befits gentlemen and friends, whether we have not long since both drank of one common error. In your care I must profess seriously, that I now hold the King a Prince of very choice endowments; and I judge him so by his letters, which wise men have oft  told me give the best Characters of their Authors. I find his style masculine, his counsels sharp and rational, his expressions full of a judicious fancy, he digests businesses thoroughly, and makes it all his own. And for some of his Letters, they are of so elegant and so equal parts( for my breeding here and abroad makes me think I may judge a little) that in earnest I had rather have the abilities that might make me author of the like, then to be Lord of that Mannor that makes me neighbour to you; and yet you know it is a very faire one. And can you yet think it could be fit for us to expose these to public view? believe it, Sir, he that writes thus deserves to govern, and my thoughts tell me, that this is the very man I should elect to a Throne were I to choose a King by Epistles. We oft you know tell the people that however in words and in practise the King makes Protestant shows, yet that he is no less then a Papist in heart, and that when time shall serve he will be for Rome in profession. A course that hath been to us of great use and gain, and that which besides large sums hath brought us in store of rings and thimbles. And shall we now unluckily publish that self same letter too, wherein he tells the queen that he differs from her in nothing else but Religion? and then sure he is no Papist. If we shall say that he deserves no credit in this point, men of ●eason will soon make reply, that you may as well call all the rest in question. And then I pray what gain have we made by this great Cabinet discovery? or why do we tell the People, it were a great sin against the mercies of God to conceal such evidences of truth? But if for our own sakes we must now at least, grant this to be truth too, I pray consider, whether herein we have not published to high a proof to those of our own side, that King Charles▪ is in heart a Protestant, as could neither have been made by all his States-men, nor Divines, no nor by his own Letters neither, had not we ourselves amongst brags and taunts so vainly published them. For let the King or his servants or his papers either,( had they been only made public by himself) have been brought to confirm this, the best arguments in the world, yet the faith of our Party is so much in our own hands, that they do not only believe all that we do, but indeed all that we would have them▪ so that if it concerns us they should believe that we know to be Lies, they are so kind, they'l not refuse us, But when we ourselves have once  told the world, that the King is a Protestant, now should it concern us in the highest degree to aver the contrary, so gross an attempt would appear nothing else but to be impudent to no purpose.  
'Tis true, if this book had never seen the light, you and I should have made no doubt at all of the King's conjugal affection, yet I must confess 'tis here set down with so much virtue and elegance, and hence appears to be so handsome a thing, that for the time to come I shall love my own wife the better. And though for the queen I know not so much as her person, yet I cannot but conceive her a Lady of great parts, because I find the King so seriously protest his great content in her conversation, for I am so much a Philosopher as to know, that must come from a similitude of mind. And what reason I have to judge highly of his, I  told you now from his Letters so that I must needs wonder upon what ground our Annotator seems so angry with the King that he makes use of her advices, especially since he is safe in point of religion, and that we cannot deny. For among all sorts of men are Kings only bound their wives shall be no helpers to them? And what though the queen be of the weaker sex, must she therefore have no share in counsels? Sure he that will thus argue against queen Maries advice, makes libels against queen Elizabeth. Nor, are her abilities of the less use for being born in France. For though a mere Alien may be suspected to incline too much to that Nation he was born in, yet such suspicions vanish where greater reasons appear; and sure none will deny me this, that to be a wife of England is a stronger tie, then to be a Daughter of France, especially when she is become the Mother of a Prince which she hopes may we are the English crown. And what our Annotator quotes in this kind out of the King's Letters are me thinks very great impertinencies, Indeed he would seem to intimate, that the Queen governs the King, & doth something in his affairs that befits neither Her, nor Him. But when I red what he quotes, I am sorry that in this point we have no better arguments. The King nor the Prince do take no servant without her, And what then? Should I promise my wife that without her consent I would admit of no servant at all, either about myself, or my Children, I should extremely wonder at the logic of that man, that would conclude hence, I have given her the breeches; nay, that would hence but infer, that either I myself when I allow this freedom, or the wife I love, that makes use of this allowance, do indeed the least thing that may any way misbeseeme either. I find that in case of the reacception of Onesimus a servant( And I heard this observation preached by a Divine of our own Assembly) Saint Paul doth as well writ to Apphia, as Philemon: It seems they were so well agreed, that their friends took notice the Wife had got a grant of a Vote too in things domestic. And yet if this had argued that Apphia was not subject to her husband, or that she made use of what became not a wife, I make no doubt at all, but she had heard on't from that Apostle. But to aver the queens Councells are as powerful as Commands, 
Pag 432  because the King professeth to prefer her health before his own affairs, is but to argue a bacillo in angulo; and so to make the Sophisters sport at Oxford. And indeed the next argument is not much better neither. He avows constancy to her grounds and documents, and how proves he this? 
Letter 5.  Because the King tells the queen, Thou shalt find me constant to those grounds you left me withall. But doth it therefore follow, that those grounds were her inventions? or that thence they must be called her documents, or her dictates? It seems then, that because in your next journey hither, you shall be sure to find London on the bank of Thames, where you left it. Therefore I may conclude they were your hands that set it there. And so you are beholding to your old friend for making you a new Founder of London.  
Besides, observe what those grounds are among the Letters, pag. 6. you may red them, the same grounds he gave to his Commissioners at Uxbridge, and this upon his word in according to the little note she so well remembers. What? Are these dangerous grounds, those wise, and reasonable instructions, this makes not well for us, for all can be inferred from hence is the King acquainted the queen upon what grounds he intended to seek the Peace of this kingdom. And therefore I well know not what he means by that quarrel, That the Kings Councells are wholly managed by the queen; for to manage a thing supposes it first is, before if be managed, so it seems he thinks the King gives the queen counsel, and then she conceives 'tis her part to see them executed. And what's here that befits not a Wife or if by managing he intend the queen counsels the King, first the phrase is no more proper, then if I should say you therefore manage my horse, because you gave him me. 2dly. It is not onely not unfit for a wife to present advice to her husband, but indeed extremely proper, especially when she is not only of great abilities, but of as great affection to her husbands affairs, as many of his own instances makes it clear in his third Paragraph. But I must not hid it from you, Sir, That I find some good Cause to doubt that this Annotation prevaricates in our own business, for though it appears by the Kings Letters that to say the plain truth, He dictates counsels to the queen, And those full of use and sharpness; Yet what need he to have run into this kind of observation? What need be to have  told us, That the King doth in many things surpass the queen? That he covers his acts of hostility with deeper and darker secrecy? 
Pag. 44.  That he urges her to make personal fellowship with the Queen Regent?( which indeed he doth, and that upon strong grounds of reason) That he furnisheth her with dexterous policies and arguments to work upon the Ministers of State in France? Are these notes fit to proceed from our pens, who would have the people think that the queen we talk down is not only the wife, but the very soul of the King? And yet doth he in many things surpass the Queen? Are his reaches deeper and darker then hers? Can he go alone in these narrow paths of State without the help of her hand? Nay can he lend a hand to support her the more safely in them. Can he himself by his own strength so dexterously find out what shall best make for his advantage? believe me, Sir, this Annotatour is no friend of ours, he will persuade our own side that the King hath a clear master wit. So that if we should again a second time need to cry down the King in point of his understanding, that topic is now gone, and we must lay the loss of so great an Engine not onely upon this that we would needs publish his Letters, but upon the score of our further folly, that these forsooth must be set out with Annotations.  
Put all this together, and you must perceive Sir the mischief this book will do us. The people will hence see the choice Endowments of their King, and so be brought to love and honour him. They will descry the Protestant Religion in great Letters in his heart, which will yet add more affection to that love, and more reverence to that honour. 'Twill take off that uxorious slirre that hath been oft urged to our advantage. And 'twill let the world see, that He is not onely the Husband, but the King too of his Wife; and both relations so well tempered in him, That no marvel if vulgar eyes dazzle at the beams of such a sun, and so sometimes cannot see the King, because he doth so well play the Husband.  
But notwithstanding this Sir, That at the first sight of this book I much wished it had not been published, as being confident that these and the like passages will wrong more our cause, then all the rest will advance it. Yet I must needs say, I had a strange conceit that there were some clauses in these published Letters that might do the King hurt enough. I thought it a wicked thing to take off the penal laws, and thereby to give a Toleration to the Papists, because I have oft heard it from our best Divines, that their Religion is superstitious in the height, and in some sense Idololatricall. But to bring in foreign arms I held extremely horrible, especially the King having oft assured us He would do neither of these two under strong vows and execrations.  
But whilst my thoughts remained fixed on these points, I here accidentally fell in with a friend of mine old Acquaintance, no professed Divine, but yet a Person of great Learning and Experience, and well studied in Divinity: A Malignant I confess, but yet so honest and to me so open a man. That upon the word of a Gentleman, I would not for a world tell his name. When I had shewed him my thoughts, he joined with me in this, That the book indeed made against us, but when I replied that in those particulars I name it had hurt the King too, he friendly smiled, and then talked me down, as I'll tell you.  
First, he very gravely shewed, That it was unlawful for sworn Subjects to take up arms against their King upon any pretence whatsoever. And that from Rom. 13. from the first of Peter, 2. And that the ancient Church had both so understood and so practised the doctrine of those two Apostles. That when Popes began to fall out with Kings the Divines of Rome were the first men that crossed that doctrine, and that when it made for their own ends 'twas seconded by some who call themselves Reformed. And by the Calvinists more particularly.  
But when I rejoined, that those Texts had no such sense, and that they came not home unto that holy Cause we are set for. He gently let me see, that the replies I used were indeed plain subterfuges, and made me clearly understand and gave me instances too. That a witty Adulterer might as well defend there was no sin in Fornication. I still talked on with much heat and noise, So that to this day he knows not at all he wrought any change in my thoughts, but yet I must needs tell you this in your ear, that that night I slept not so soundly.  
The next day we met again, and I fumingly asked him with what colour men could justify the Conscience of the King. In his taking off those penal laws, giving Toleration to Papists; And that against the ties of those solemn vows he hath expressly made to his people? He  told me he much wondered, that Subjects who were resolved to use no Conscience at all should trouble the King so with his, but yet for my satisfaction he willed me to weigh it well:  
That it was One thing to consider sin in itself, Another to consider it in it's punishment. Against sin itself God made the Law moral. And it's therefore a Law of unfading obligation. But what was decreed for the punishment of sin, you shall find that in his Judicialls, which were alterable some think in Jury itself, but without doubt in all other nations. Should the King pass a Law Popery were no sin, nay should he suffer no such Law as doth declare it sinful, I might then think him sinful too. But when we come to the Judicialls once, to the punishment of this sin, we are then no doubt in a far greater Latitude. And wise men have still thought, that such both well may and must be tempered sometimes to the Exigencies of that State we live in. So Divines think that in Case of Theft Solomon in those words did alter Gods judicial Law. If( says he) the thief be found he shall pay seven fold, Prov. 6. When yet Moses we know required but four for that sin. And the reason of this change is conceived to be this, because the crime of theft grew more frequent with the Jews in the time of Solomon.  
And for that Cause Christian States set it higher yet, and nothing now is more frequent then to punish a thief either with a wheel or the gallows. By this instance you see judicial laws might be heightened; By the next you'l find that it was commonly believed by most sorts of men that they might be abated too. For Adultery in the mosaic Law was punished by death. A judicial that for some hundreds of yeares was continued in the Law Civill, and remained there without repeal even after the Empire was grown Christian. Yet Justinian after he had written his Institutions and his Code, began to lessen it in one sex; And in succeeding times there were few kingdoms or States that abated not of this rigour. So that what was of old punished with the sword or the Gibbet, is now brought into a white Sheet, and that by some laws may be commuted again into alms.  
And here he  told me he could not choose but smile at the zeal we seemed to carry against the abrogation of penal laws, since a Statute of this Parliament( at least as we interpret it) hath taken off all means to punish any sins of the flesh. Popery you like well should continue punished, b●t Adultery shall go bare faced; and yet this foul sin is expressly against the words of the Scripture, The other only by an inference. Truly Sir, said he, I neither am nor can be a Papist, nay as a private man I hold myself bound to do the best I can That that superstition spread no farther, but yet by your leave I hold him no better then an Hypocrite who shows great warmth of zeal that he may punish a Papist, and yet likes it extreme well That all laws are laid a sleep which should kerb Adulterers.  
Now then said he, view the words of the Letter you do so much quarrel at: The King writes to the Queen— I give thee power to propose in my name That I will take away all the penal laws against the Roman catholics in England, as soon as God shall enable me to do it— So as by their means, or in their favours I may have so powerful assistance as may deserve so great a favour and enable me to do it— He promiseth to take away all the penal laws, All the laws which are now in being, which to some men are capital, to other pecuniary, and that in a sharp heavy manner; He promiseth not, that he will make none of a lower kind, He promiseth not his laws shall look with the like serene face upon the Popish side, as the Protestant. Let him but hold here, and no learned man will say he sins, especially in this great necessity of State; Though indeed, said he, I should extremely grieve to see things in this sad condition. And he spake it confidently, so would the King too, And therefore he beshrew'd us( for he durst be bold with me) that we had brought a good Prince into the jaws of these sad extremities. But yet, says he, let him go no farther, and he who shall call this a Toleration of Papists, may as well tax the more famous part of almost the whole Christian World for a Toleration of Adultery.  
Indeed two of your three Orators, whom you set up to oppose the King( and the opposition was most proper, for his Letters are remarkable both for reason and elegance, and their Declamations have neither) would needs collect out of this Clause, That the King's meaning was to abrogate these penal laws by Force. Grant it were so, are they so angry at that? I have red of some men Qui aliorum vitijs irascuntur quasi invideant, who are passionate indeed at the vices of others, but that passion of theirs is not a hate, but an envy that any man should make use of such glorious sins but themselves; for is't not your whole work to pull down laws by force? To pull the Sword out of the Kings hand, and Church Government from the Bishops, both which our laws yet establish? Is not the Common-Prayer book confirmed by plain laws? and is't not by force that you tear it? The King, it seems, must keep himself to laws, because that splendid dignity of breaking laws by force is the privilege of both Houses.  
But in earnest, because the King says So soon as God shall enable him, And if he may be furnished from abroad with such a powerful assistance as to be able to do it: Can you necessary conclude he meant to alter these penal laws by mere force? Did the King tell you he meant so? If not, by your favour, this is to add to, and to make Conjectures upon the King's words, not to draw good Collections from them; And no man will be bound to receive such inferences, except those alone who conceive because your three Orators have neither rhetoric nor logic, therfore without doubt they are extreme good at Divination. Truly Sir, said he, I have reason to think, and that from the sense of some men who have the honour to hear the King discourse frequently, his meaning was but this, That if God should enable him, by such foreign power, that he might again sit in a free and full Parliament, He would endeavour, as much as in him lay, to take off those penal laws; And in that Case he made no doubt at all, but to gain the votes of his people, because in this great extremity they had been so much beholding to his foreign help; For in this conjuncture of things, what in plain gratitude they were bound to do. I leave honest men to consider. But that laws once established by the King and both Houses should be annulled by mere force, or by any means but by the same they were made, is a thing I assure myself the King hates more perfectly, then any man who is in the highest Vogue now at Westminster.  
To that quere then of your Annotatour, how this Letter can stand with the King's frequent professions of no Toleration of Papists, No abolition of those penal laws, and the like? The answer is now most apparent; for to whom but to his people were these professions made? and if his intentions be not to alter what he then professed but by the consent of his people, all this is most just and Kingly; for no man is bound to keep his promise to that man who is now willing to release him. If he be, the King can alter no laws, no not by consent of both Houses themselves, because he hath been once sworn to keep them. Nay since the King hath as deeply vowed to defend the true Protestant profession( that is, as 'tis now established by Law) if he find no means now to keep this vow, but by the help of foreigners, and that he may gain their help by letting go those penal laws, I rather hold he is in Conscience bound to make use of that help; and what inconvenience so ever shall fall out upon that usage, must needs be put upon the score of those men who have forced him to those great necessities.  
But your Annotatour tells us, That the King by his professions is as deeply bound not to make use of foreign forces, And I remember, said he, that you but now held the introduction of such forces to be extremely horrible; and indeed it might well seem so, had not you first begun the course; but then vim vi repellere, to deal with wicked men as they first deal with us, doth in case of necessity free us from all guilt of wickedness; For good Sir, said he, are not the Scots foreigners? They should indeed be under the same King with us, but they have neither the same laws, nor at this day the same Religion, as the word Religion is now vulgarly used; for, flatter not yourselves, wise and learned men know the difference is extremely wide between a Knoxian-taught man, and an English Protestant.  
But the King hath obliged himself by his word, That he will make no use of such forces; True indeed, he  told you so March 9, 1641. and again March 26. 1642. But when in 1643. you traitorously brought in the Scots, with what face can you affirm, That he is now bound by those engagements? When men expect others should keep promise with them, they must be careful so to keep it themselves, that by their own fault at least they do not wilfully change, and persist in changing that condition of their estate which drew men to make those promises; for then such ties will become no obligations. You may have an instance in God himself, in that solemn promise which he made unto the house of Ely, I said indeed, that thy House and the House of thy Fathers should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me, for them that honor me I will honour, and they tha● despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 1 Sam. 2. He had sworn the Priesthood unto Ely's House, because they were yet careful that his Sacrifices were well kept, and his Service honourable; But when, wilfully, his sons brought the people to abhor the Offerings of the Lord, then strait it follows. Be it far from me for my promise made unto the sons of Aaron, binds me not to the sons of Belial. Apply but this ground,( which is as clear as the Text can make it) and your Annotatour may with ease resolve all his queries. The King promised us he would make no use of foreign forces; True, if good Subjects, as you should be, were not turned to traitors, But then if ye will needs invite in the Scots, you teach him to do the like, either by the French or the Lorrainers. The King oft complains of the Irish Rebels, exhorts the Houses that they would unite to chastise them, yet now he makes Peace with the self same men. And how is this reconcilable? Easily, for if those Houses in stead of fighting with their King had made war upon those Rebels, great good had come upon those complaints, and that union. But when they turned Rebels and opposed their sovereign, he was constrained to make Peace with his Irish Papists, that he might save the throats of his Protestants. The King professed, he had no intent of war with his Parliament( so these still call themselves) and then how can this be reconciled that he is now in arms against them? Thus, Because these have changed their condition; of Subjects they have turned themselves into Rebels, and going about to pull down both the Church and State, the King according to his Oath must needs take up arms to defend them. But in this particular a passage cited out from one of the King's Declarations by Master brown your orator might have fully satisfied your Annotatour. The words are— We will maintain and observe the Acts assented to by Us this Parliament without violation; and that we have not nor shall not have any thought of using any force, unless we shall be driven to it for the security of Our Person, and for the defence of the Religion, laws and Liberties of the kingdom, and the just Rights & privileges of Parliament. A Limitation then there is put to this promise. He will use no force, unless he be first driven to it; but in that Case( and that's the case we are in) no ingenious man can reproach the King with a violation of his promise. So that you see, it's still a Truth the King tells the queen in the 11 of his published Letters, That by equivocating to hid the breach of his word is that he hates above all things. A speech truly royal, and that must needs gain esteem from yourselves unto that soul that let it fall. For upon your own grounds you can but say you believe it lest your own tongue should confess, That's no discovery of truth which you lately found in the Cabinet.  
I shall spend( said He) no more time in this, onely I must let you know, that it seems probable to me that your Annotatour feared the strength of this plain reply; And therefore takes great pains to persuade us to believe, that they are still the same men they were; and that the King hath no cause to look upon them now otherwise then he did, when on the second of June 1642. they presented Him with the 19 Propositions. If this be true he says something, but how doth he prove it? Because the Propositions of the Parliament lately treated at Uxbridge, Feb. 1644. were no other in effect then the 19 Propositions sent to the North in june 1642. A pretty argument; You speak to this day the same language you did; Therefore your Actions make your persons no worse then when you did but onely speak. The Articles at Uxbridge are the same with the 19 Propositions. Therefore to bid battle and to shoot at the person of your King, at Edge-hill, and other fields. Therefore to invite foreigners, the Scots to invade England, makes you no worse, but leaves your Cause the same that it was before the war began. Sir, said he to me, upon the word of a Gentleman, do you think this to be reason? Might not Hophni and Phinees much better have replied to their God. That they spake still as they were wont, with their tongues, they still called him Lord, and that's more then you do, to give good language to your King. And therefore he ought to have kept his Promise to their House, although indeed in some actions of theirs, they had since that promise abused his Sacrifices, and run themselves into some petty faults, as defiling the women at the very door of the Tabernacle. But it's a true observation, Corruption of life breeds a blindness of understanding. And I shall not marvel at all to see a man loose his sense, when I find he hath once lost his Loyalty.  
But in another place your Annotatour will needs furnish us with three motives more to induce us to believe, that the cause is now the same it was when the King first took up arms, and as it was when the King made most of these oaths and Protestations: That their Cause is not altered▪ That they are noe worse Rebels then they were. Where first, said he, I must tell you, that there is a great difference between their demands, and their Cause; Their demands indeed are the same they were, or at the least they have received no remarkable alteration. But he who is at first but saucy in his demands may prosecute what he seeks by such damnable means, that it may make his present Cause much worse then his first demands. In their demands indeed they were insolent, but yet while they did but demand in a Parliamentary way let them for this once pass with that Tax alone; But when they took up arms to constrain the King to yield to their demands, this makes their cause plain Rebellion. And when again they called in the Scots that they might add more strength to their decaying armies. This( talk they what they will) makes them yet appear in the sight of all good men more vile and more horrid Rebels. 'Tis a mistake then, that their cause is not altered. And when the Annotator talks but of most of the Kings Oaths and Protestations, he himself it seems frees him from the breach of some. And for the rest I conceive Sir, said he, I have given you satisfaction.  
But will you have those three motives too, whereby the Annotator would induce you to believe, that they are no worse Rebels then they were. These are his own words. None can affirm otherwise who takes notice first of our late sufferings, 
Ib.  secondly of our strange patience even now after the discovery of these papers, and thirdly after our extraordinary success in the field, Inducements if they be any, they seem very inconsistent. For do both their sufferings and their prosperity too argue them to be no worse Rebels? 'Tis much that both those topics should be at once at their service, but weigh them all apart you will find they make piteous arguments. First, They have lately suffered, therefore they are no worse Rebels. Secondly, they have had strange patience after the discovery of these papers, after their victory at Naseby( and that's a virtue indeed to be patient in prosperity) therefore they are no worse Rebels. Thirdly, they have had lately in the field extraordinary successses, therefore they are no worse Rebels. They should do well to vote, that these reasons do conclude, and so make them good by an Ordnance, else there's little hope they will e're dow●e with their own Admirers. For the two first do scarce colour for reason, and the third, sure the Annotator took out of Bellarmine, who makes temporal felicity to be a note of the true Church, and so concludes the Protestants have no soundness in their Religion, because some time they had not victory in the field, and so you plainly see the third reason is Popery. I suppose Sir( said he) you have now altered your mind, and clearly perceive those two particulars you name can with reasonable men do the King no hurt at all. And though there be little else either in your Annotator or your Orators which the worst men can make much use of, yet you shall have what I conceive upon some few of their more material passages.  
And first your Annotator is not ingenuous, to say no worse, to charge the King with stirring tumours about his mothers chastity. No, they who examined witnesses and conferred circumstances and times, to find a knot in that bulrush, they stirred rumours indeed, and those unchristianly traitorous. 
Pag. 42.  But for the King privately to complain of that horrid wrong unto his uncle of denmark, that he might thereby the more strongly incite him to his assistance was( as much as in him lay,) to revenge rumours stirred. And for you thus to publish what he privately wrote, is a second time to give the world notice of what you impiously stirred at first. And then your Annotator, to make this wickedness fall, lays your own fault upon your King.  
He is angry at this, The King calls us a Parliament publicly( in his Commissions about the Treaty) yet acknowledges us not a Parliament secretly. And what then? The old Rule was Verba aulica non obligant, Ceremonies are no obligations. 
Pag. 45.  And are there no compliments to be used in Treaties. If I call a clown whom I know so, by the name of Master, may I not yet privately say, and stand to it too, that he is no Gentleman? Must I therefore be needs false, because I am Civill? Truly Sir, said he, were you yourself to treat with a strong thief, I should not dare to say you were therefore a false man. because sometimes in hope to obtain your own you called him an honest gentleman. But the Kings words are— If there had been but two besides myself of my own opinion, I had not done it— very likely: for no man is bound to be Ceremonious. And the Macedonians were not a whit the worse men, because in plain terms they used to call a spade a spade. The words of his Letter run— The argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no ways aclowledge them( In law I suppose he meant) to be a Parliament, upon which Condition and Construction I did it, and no otherwise, and accordingly it is registered in the counsel books with the counsels unanimous approbation. For Sir( said he) If in civility I call myself your servant, It doth not follow that in law I am so. And if I strait privately tell another, I will not do your commands, I cannot yet conceive that you would have cause to accuse me of falsehood.  
But the King seeks Treaties and winne● upon the People by that show, and yet chooseth such Commissioners and binds them up with such Instructions, 
Pag. 46.  that all Accommodation is impossible. Mutato nomine de te fabula, That your Commissioners were thus tied up all the world knows. And at Uxbridge in open conference they did not stick to aclowledge it. But though the King caused those directions you have published to be red to his Commissioners, yet he openly declared( as they all well know) that he meant them not in the formality of Instructions, he meant not they should be obligatory to them, but he left them free to themselves, only he  told them that by these directions he had acquainted them with his sense, and left them to do that which became men of Honour and his Commissioners. This I had Sir, said he, from a Person I dare trust, and I believe it had been better, when this shall come to be known, if your Annotator had held his peace.  
And is not that a pretty Collection made by your first Orator, Who because the King says he will never quit Episcopacy nor the Sword, 
Pag. 5.  concludes there was at the Treaty no hope of a happy and well-grounded peace. And why? because the sword is in the Kings hand, is he therefore still bound to draw it? Or hath no man a just right that he may wear a sword but that he's straightway tied to be fighting? When Saint Paul affirms, that Princes bear not the Sword in vain, noe doubt he means the Sword as well of Peace, as of war. Nay the only way to see peace, is to see that the Sword is in the Scabbard, Is to see it in the Kings hand. But where Subjects begin to wrest away that weapon from him, This Orators argument is undoubtedly good, Where there is such a Sword there is fighting.  
Your second orator is not much more candid neither: In his City rhetoric he would cast hatred on the King, because he would grant an alteration of penal laws to the Irish Popish Rebells, 
Pag. 8.  but no alterance of laws for the settlement of the Protestant Religion, though they be desired from a Protestant King. If, said he, It were proved, that because King CHARLES is a Protestant Prince, therefore he is bound to like of a Protestant Rebellion; This discourse might have some reason in it. But if crimes are the more foul, when they are done by Protestants, something may be said in favour of a Popish rebel, especially when he asks the penal laws alone, and the other at once gapes both at the Mitre, and the crown. When he will neither endure the sword in the Kings hand, nor excommunication in the Bishops, nor that God should be served by our Liturgy. And yet declaimes at a Common Hall, that this forsooth is for the advancement of the Protestant Religion; which I wonder. Not that I am sure which is established by law, and that which we were all born and bread in, And that which no more then five yeares since we all called Protestant in England. And for the settlement and advancement whereof the King denies to do nothing. No 'tis plain the man means the Religion of John Knox, which first wrested the sword out of queen MARY of Scotlands hand, and is now doing the like to her Grandson. So that hereupon I desire this orator would turn Judge, and gravely determine which he thinks better for the King: Whether he shall yield his penal laws alone unto his Irish Rebells, who then fighting for his crown, fight by consequence for his Religion too, though indeed they themselves are Papists; or whether he shall yield both Church and crown too unto his English Rebels, and so suffer them to alter his Religion itself, only upon this ground, because they call themselves Protestants?  
Your third Orator besides other his weak inferences, would hence conclude a breach of word in the King, because he promised to keep all the Acts of this Parliament inviolable, 
Pag. 17.  and yet had any two but joined with him he would not have called them a Parliament: and there he cries, How can these stand together? Very well; except all mankind were bound to have as little logic, as himself. For a contradiction must be Secundumidem, and eodem tempore. They were a Parliament when the King gave consent to their acts, and 'tis therefore he intends to keep them, but having now run into so foul a rebellion 'tis at his pleasure what to speak in this case; and he may now say, they are no Parliament; But he goes on. The King hath  told us he will maintain the laws and observe them himself. And yet be lays the blood had in these warres upon the innocent blood( as he calls it) of my Lord of Strafford▪ who was condemned by himself, and by the Law. That, he says, he will maintain. For that personal Law made against the life of the Lord of Strafford, the King did maintain, and observe it, for within a few daies he signed a warrant for this death. So that this law is now at an end, and by the words of the same Law it must not be drawn to example; and yet is he still bound to maintain that Law now expired? Or may not the King he sorry for what he then did amiss, but his repentance is a breach of law? I had thought that a Prince then maintains and observes his laws when he sees them put in execution. But that he is so strictly tied that he may not speak against the sense of any one of his laws, or wish it had not been enacted, is more, I confess, then is believed by me, or as I conceive by this orator. Truly Sin, said he, when I did red the Letter, into which the King put that passage, I could scarce refrain tears of joy to find him so sensible of the crime he conceived he had done by communicating in that bloody sin; not doubting, but that God, who had given him this true sense of his fault, had brought him to as true Repentance. And though I hold the Arch-Bishops Death( which the King speaks of in the same Letter, and your Annotatour takes so much notice of) in the Construction of all Law a most complete perfect murder, and make no more doubt that God will revenge it, then I do that he is in Heaven; Yet I dare prescribe no set time unto divine Justice. I neither know when God will command a blessing upon the Repentance of the King, or a curse upon the foul murder of the Parliament. Nor indeed doth the King prescribe it, He onely writes,— I believe it is no Presumption hereafter to hope that his hand of Iustice must be heavier upon them— He says not it must hereafter be heavier, nor so much as That he hopes it will be so. Onely he believes it no presumption to hope. A speech let fall with so much Christian wariness, that I could hearty wish we Subjects had learned to speak with the like caution, of our King, as he hath done to speak of God.  
And now Sir, said he, I must from my soul tell you how passionately I am grieved to see sworn Subjects thus labouring to abuse their King; nay to see them thus abuse themselves, that they may the more abuse him; and to see all this done in England: believe it, 'tis no presumption to think that the crime of Cham will at length meet with Cham's reward. But when men strive to outdoe Cham, to say their Father's drunk, when he is not, and then jeer him down as if he were now drowned in wine, what Curse may they expect when his was made thus great, A Servant of Servants shall he be. And though this prophecy was not strait way fulfilled, yet 'twas not therefore the less true, or fearful. Indeed what the wise man observed may hold as well in these times of ours, because God proceeds not suddenly to judgement, Therefore the Hearts of the sons of men are wholly set in them to do evil. And this will as well hold in ours and all times, that where men do still sin with a high proud hand, there will at length follow judgement. Take heed, Sir, said he, lest from your present prosperity you begin with that cardinal, straightway to infer the goodness of your Cause. No, The Benjamites thrived twice at that same time when they were most injurious, and yet ere long they fell, and were beholding to their care whom they wickedly opposed, that of a Tribe they were not brought to nothing. Our Actions must be judged not by success, but by laws. And I shall then think your party will escape those Judgements which I fear, when there is either no such Text, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy People; Or that I think him, whom we have sworn to be our Onely supreme governor, to have no share among those Rulers. When I shall be brought to hold Repentance may be sin in a King, And that murder is none, so it be done by a Parliament: When by the distinctions of your Divines I can persuade myself, that this Rebellion is no Crime, Or when they can make me believe, that either those two Apostles did not understand Christ, or the Ancient Church those Apostles.  
Here my old friend pretended business and left me. And truly, Sir, I must confess to you that he left me in a great perplexity; for I know him a most honest man, and I find it to be true, that reason then gains extremely in the weight, when it hath once passed through such a furnace. I assure you he hath much troubled me, I would not say converted me, but I cannot divine how my Conscience will hold out, for this appears to me so much reason that if you have not somewhat to sati●fy me with, believe me, I am much afraid how long I shall continue a friend to our present Cause, though I shall never leave off to be,  
Sir, Your very faithful Servant.  
FINIS.