AN UNHAPPY GAME AT SCOTCH AND ENGLJSH. OR A Full Answer from England to the Papers of Scotland.  
Wherein their Scotch Mists and their Fogs; their say and gainsayings; their Juggle, their wind and turn; hither and thither, backwards and forwards, and forwards, and forwards & backwards again; Their breach of Covenant, Articles, & Treaty, their Kingcraft present design, against the two houses of Parliament, & People of England, their plots and intents for Usurpation and Government over us and our children detected, discovered, and presented to the view of the World, as a dreadful Omen, Alarm, and Warning to the Kingdom of England.  jer. 5.4. 
And although they say, the Lord liveth, surely they swear falsely.  Hosea 10.3. 
They have spoken Words, swearing falsely in making a Covenant: thus judgement springeth up as Hemlock in the furrows of the field.  
EDINBURGH, Printed (as truly, as the Scotch papers were at London) by Evan Tyler, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, and are to besold at the most Solemn Sign of the Blew-Bonnet, right opposite to the two Houses of Parliament. 1646.   

An UNHAPPY GAME AT SCOTCH AND ENGLISH.  
Scotch Papers. Pag. 2.  
THe Parliament of England, hath no more power to dispose of the person of the King of Scotland, being in England, 
Scotland.  than the Parliament of Scotland hath to dispose of the person of the King of England, if he were in Scotland.  
Ans. Brethren, you say very well: But the question is, 
England.  whether such a disposing may be either by the one or by the other? Whether the Armies of Scotland being in England, may dispose of the King of England being in England or no, And so on the contrary? But indeed it needs not much to be disputed, for in words you deny yourselves of that power, when you tell us, (pag. ibid.) that the Armies of Scotland have nothing to do in the dispose of the King of England, yet for all this, in deeds you do assume as much as that comes to, to yourselves; for though you plead your Scotish interest in the King of Sotland to countenance the fact, yet behind the shadow of that Curtain (thus drawn before our eyes) you keep the King of England from England, & so consequently King it over England behind; which we are confident would by yourselves be condemned in us, in case you should be so dealt withal by the Armies of England, for we cannot judge that the Armies of Scotland would count i● lawful for the armies of England, if they were in Scotland, for their assistance, to deny them the delivery of the King of Scotland: Because being in England they refuse to deliver him to England, according to the votes and desires of the two Houses of England. Therefore we judge, that Scotland would much more claim that privilege in him, being in Scotland; for if they will claim it out of their bounds where they have no right of authority, they will much more claim it within the bounds of their dominions, where their power is entire to themselves.  
Therefore is is not well done of our dear brethren of Scotland, thus to cast a Scotch mist before the eyes of their Brethren of England: For though (as before) verbally they disclaim all power in their armies, for his disposal without the joint consent of the two Kingdoms, yet (as dear Brethren) their armies have received, entertained and kept him even in his person, and that before the joint consent of the two Kingdoms, and absolutely against the will and desires of ours. So that the King of England, and the King of Scotland is disposed of by the armies of Scotland, without the consent or advice of either Kingdom. We hope our dear Brethren will not say, their armies received advice and direction for his entertainment from the Kingdom of Scotland; for that were a capitulation with him, without the privity and conjuncture of England, which by them pag. 6. is disavowed.  
But in case our brethren might receive him without the mutual consent of both Kingdoms, then why do they stand for a mutual consent for his delivery, for by the Lord Loudou's own argument (pa. 25.) contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia, contraries have contrary consequents.  
Therefore if they may not part with him, without the consent and advice of the two Kingdoms, than ought they not to have received him without that consent. If our dear brethren should urge, that parting with him were a disposing of him, and that they may not do without breach of Covenant and Treaty: the like we retort by their own rule of contraries, concerning thei● receiving of him: for receiving is by the said rule as much a disposing as parting with him, so that if our dear brethren be men that are true to their own rules and principles, we may conclude, that if they will not part with him without the consent of the Kingdom of Scotland, that then they had the consent of the Kingdom of Scotland to receive him, before they did receive him, but our dear brethren do affirm the one, pag. 8. therefore from the truth and fidelity of our brethren, we may well conclude the other.  
Oh! what shall we say or think now of our brethren? are they not of divine Covenanters, become cheating Jugglers. For let any man judge, whether the keeping the King's person at Newcastle without our consent, be not as absolute a disposal, as afterwards the sending of his person to White-Hall, Richmond-House, Hampton-Court, or else where, by the joint advice and consent of the two Kingdoms. They would differ in manner indeed, but not in the nature of the thing, and the nature of the thing, is the matter in hand: The difference would be but in an Accident, na●uely the addition of our consent; it is now without it, it could then be but with it, and both's a disposal: Yea, though it should be without this consent either of yours of ours: For an accident may be wanting and the subject remain.  
But to colour this disposal from the censure of their act, our brethren do tell us, that  He came voluntarily, 
Scotland.  and continues voluntarily 
Ans. It seems, from hence you would infer that the Act of that disposing of his person is by himself, 
England.  and not by you. But for answer thereto, consider your own grounds: By the Covenant and Treaty you urge, that his person is solely and entirely to be disposed of by the parliament of both Kingdoms, and not singly, or by a third, but by the joint advice and consent of both: Therefore from this grant of yours, your Army neither had nor hath any power individually to make or meddle with his person, or in the least wise to dispos● of it, no, not for a minute, in this place or that place, for this or for that, or till things should be so or so, therefore your Act of entertainment of his coming, was (by the just sequel of your own ground) an actual disposing of his person, pro tempore, even as well, and as really, as if you should dispose of it for ever, for the difference would only be in the protract of time, not in the nature of the thing.  
Further, the thing betwixt the two Kingdoms by the Conant and Treaty, is not what he might do, but what the two Kingdoms thereby are mutually bound to do, for the Covenant and Treaty was not made with him, but betwixt the two Kingdoms: So that his voluntary Act was nothing to your national duty and obligation, for his personal will was no wise included in the condition thereof: Then was neither his personal assent nor descent required to the making either of the one or the other.  
So that his voluntary coming or staying, is neither here not there to your act: for this receiving and retaining (though voluntary by him) is as well an actual disposing of yours (though not in that aggravation) as if you had fet him, and continued him by force, or constraint as you call it: And therefore the act of your receiving and keeping his person without our consent, is that against which we except: It is not about the manner how, whether by his will, or by your force, that our difference is stated, but about the definitive matter of disposition itself; although with your manner how and the like, you would delude us, and divert us from the state of the question, reasoning from the manner, and so concluding against us in the matter, when indeed you should reason from the matter, and then it would be otherwise. Therefore your receiving and continuing, is an absolute possession and disposing thereof, and so it is your act.  
Besides, he could neither enter nor continue, without your consent. For can a well fortified City be entered by a single man, without force, or there be continued, except the Citizens please, and is not your army equivolent thereto? Therefore it is the act of your pleasure, though his be added thereto the addition whereof nothing diminishing therefrom for by how much the more his pleasure and your pleasure agrees without ours, by so much the more is it dangerous and suspicious; but the concord & conjunction thereof is to such an high measure aspired, that you are not ashamed to tell us, that you will not have him delivered or disposed of contrary to his will, which must needs be his personal will, for were it his leagall will, he then would be assenting to the Orders and determinations of his great Counsel, the two Houses of Parliament, his legal will, we are sure it cannot be, except from the Parliament he carried with him the Sovereign power of the land, & it hath journeyed with him ever since; and now with him he hath brought it to our dear Brethren of Scotland: If it be so, then truly our Brethren have (all this while of their concurrence with us against him) been Traitors and Rebels thereto as well as ourselves; yet sure our dear Brethren (if it be but for their credits) will not say so; and if they do not, then what are our brethren now? It must needs be granted and concluded at first or at last: So that how to award our dear Brethren from Treason and Rebellion against the Sovereign Power of this Land we do not see; therefore our dear Brethren might do well with their next papers to send us a pair of Scotish-spectacles that are fit for our eyes, and their caractar, for by our English reading (printed by Evan Tyler at London) we can read them no other as yet: Therefore in the mean time in our answer to the Will of the King, we must consider that Will, as the Will of Charles Stevart, contrary to whose Will, you will not have him disposed; so that in deed and in truth, you place the whole power of the disposal of Charles Stevart, in the Will of Charles Stevart, and make that his personal Will, the Essence of that Disposal; for the Will of Charles Stevart (if he must not be delivered without it) may contradict null, and make void whatever gainesays: So that the advice and consent of the two Houses, etc. (which you so oft talk of in your papers) is but a shadow without a substance cast before our eyes; a Nut without a kernel, that you have given us to crack; a Boar without marrow, that you have thrown in amongst us So that we can judge little better of our brethren in this, then of such as carry water in one hand, and fire in another.  
Scotch Papers page 4.  
Our Armies are not tied to be subject to the resolutions and directions of either Kingdom, 
Scotland.  but of both jointly.  
Answer.  
If your Armies be so tied and obliged, 
England.  then how came they lose and obsolved thereof in this your reception, and continuance of his person without their resolutions? For as yet there hath been no joint resolve of both Kingdoms about it: and thus to put tricks upon us, you play fast and lose at your pleasure.  
When you plead for yourselves, 
page. 2.  you say, it is a fundamental right and liberty etc. that none can without consent, impede or restrain your King from coming amongst you to perform the duties of a King, and with this you would cover over the act of your admission and reception of his person.  
And when you reason against the two Houses, in opposition to their Votes, you tell us it is one thing what the Parliament of England might have done in another cause, and war before their engagements by Covenant, it is another thing what ought to be done after such conditions and ties imposed etc. whereby you would deprive the two Houses of that which before you urge for yourselves; namely, fundamental Rights etc. and utterly debar them in this difference from all retrogradation beyond the Covenant; yet yourselves will run in infinitum beyond it▪ you can urge your fundamental Rights and liberties for you yourselves, in your reception of the King of Scotland, but will not permit them upon any terms (because of the Covenant) from their fundamental rights and liberties of the Kingdom of England, to Vote the disposing of the King of England in England.  
Therefore by your favour (dear Brethren of Scotland) since thus you play at bo-peep with your Brethrens of England, we will answer your first reason with your second: It is one thing what you might have done before the Covenant, and another thing what you may do after; but by the Covenant (even as yourselves say) His person must be absolutely, & wholly disposed of by the joint advice ctconsent of both Parliaments, so that by your Covenant you are bound not to meddle at all singly in his disposal; eitherof so much as receiving or entertaining him.  
But let us a little expostulate with our dear brethrens of Scotland: is this your dealing with us as becomes brethrens? Is this your brotherly conference, to condemn that in us which you will allow in yourselves, first to plead your fundamental rights and freedoms etc. And then in the next page to tell us, we do not meddle with any of our single rights privileges or Laws of our Nation, etc. and a little after, unless we lay aside the Covenant, Theaties, Declarations of both Kingdoms; and three year's conjunction in this war, neither the one Kingdom nor the other; must now look back what they might have done singly before such a strict union.  
What shall we think, or what shall we esteem of our dear brethren for this? We know not how to excuse them of lying; but however this will we boldly affirm to our Brethren of Scotland, that this latter argument utterly cuts off our Brethren from the refuge of what ever our Brethren might have pleaded before the Covenant, and strictly testraines all their arguments, concerning the interest of the Kingdom of Scotland in the King of Scotland, and about their fundament all rights and liberties etc. for they all were before the Covenant, and so in this matter are quite out of date, and comes not into the compass or nature of the dispute, even by your own bounds and limits by yourselves thereto affixed: which considerations, may serve as an answer to one great part of the papers: & therefore we may well wonder at this your manner of reasoning & cannot otherwise reasonably judge, but it is to cast a Scotishmist before the eyes of the free men of England, on purpose to delude them.  
Scotish Pap. page 4.  
Scotland. The ends of the Covenant are not to be prosecuted by the two Kingdoms, as they are two distinct bodies acting singly: but they were united by solemn Covenant made to Almighty God, & by league each to other, as one entire body, to prosecute the cause.  
Answer. As by this argument, you were not to meddle at all in the least kind about the disposing of his Person, not so much as to give him entertainment (that being an actual disposing pro tempore as aforesaid) without the mutual consent and Order of both Kingdoms proceeding: So by this argument also a second is absolutely excluded from this (Covenanted) disposal: for hereby there is an union of two Kingdoms in one for one end; and an unite admits not of a second or third, for than it is no more one, but two or three: So that it is as clear as the Sun, that this unity of consent betwixt the two Kingdoms admits of no addition or division whatsoever; for so the property of that Bi-unity were lost: If another were added to that unity, than were it a Triunity, and not a Bi-unity: and if that unity should be divided, then were it no unity, for pura unitas est indivisibilis: Why therefore you should bring in the King's consent betwixt the two Kingdoms, we see not; except you mean to play fast and lose, and set open a door to all foreign Nations, to have a title to this consent: for as well may you say, that France, Spain, etc. must have their consent in this business as well as Charles Stevart himself; for the Question is not, what Mr. Stevart would do with his person, or what France or Spain &c. would do with it, but what the two Kingdoms by this Covenant are bound to do; therefore the bringing in the King's consent and will into the bargain, is a mere nullity (as concerning this matter) to the Covenant; So that your repairing to his Will and consent, is an absolute departure from the joint interest of the two Kingdoms, and from the Covenant obliging there to: for you will not deliver him, or do any thing with him without his consent: Therefore why do you at all talk of the Covenant, or the interest of the two Kingdoms? Tell us no more of such blue shadows and Sculcaps; but tell us of the Will of Charles Stevart: And if we must needs dispute, let that be the question, whether the will of Charles Stevart be the Law of all Laws, whereto Parliaments Covenants and Treats, Kingdoms must be subject? If you will deal with us upon that point, we shall not doubt but to make a reasonable return.  
Scotish Papers, page 6.  
Scotland: If the Scotch Army should deliver up his Majesty's Person without his own consent etc. this act of the Army were not agreeable to the Oath of Allegiance, (obleiging them to defend his Majesty's Person from all harms and prejudices) nor to the solemn League and Covenant, which was not intended to weaken but to stregthen our Allegiance etc.  
— Whom therefore our Armies cannot deliver, to be disposed of by any others at pleasure:  
Answer.  
England: By this it seems, that the Scotch Army, are absolutely devoted to the will of his Person; for except he will, you say, that your Armies cannot (you might as well have said will not) deliver him up to be disposed of by any others; which saying excludes the whole world, except his Will: So that in effect by this you have as well excluded the pleasure of your own Parliament, as the pleasure of ours or any others.  
Sure our dear Brethren of Scotland are not themselves, to speak thus they cannot tell what; one while to urge the consent of their Parliament, and then by and by to deny themselves of it again.  
Well, but you say it is against the Oath of Allegiance, and the Covenant, for the Armies to deliver him up against his WILL. And why so (dear Brethren we beseech you) is the Oath of Allegiance and the Covenant confined to the dictates of his Personal Will? that what is contrary to his Will, is contrary thereto? For here you make his Will the very Axletree upon which your argument turns; and therefore by this your reasoning, both Kingdoms are by the Oath of Allegiance and by the Covenant, obleiged and irrevocably bound (it being made to Almighty God) to be subjected to his Will; yea, and as much as in you lies, you have thereby concluded and conformed a title upon him, even from Almighty God, to Rule by his Arbitrary pleasure; and made both Kingdom's Vassals to his Will. Is this the affection and duty which becomes Brethren that 5.) you tell us, you were put in mind of; That after you had espoused your brethren's quarrel (page ibid.) by that espousal to contract your brethren to his Arbitrary pleasure? But as you in another case, so say we in this we cannot but expect better things from our Brethren (page ibid.) Sure it is not our dear Brethren of Scotland that thus write: h●w shall such a thing (as becometh Brethren) enter into the hearts o●●●r Brethren of Scotland? except since his Majesty's arrival our dear Brethren are run quite besides themselves▪ as aforesaid,  
Some indeed have strange thoughts of our Brethren, and conclude them m●●● knaves than fooles, and that little better ever wa● to be expected from them, seeing now they are not ashamed only to tell us (pag 7.) that the Scotish Army came not into this Kingdom in the nature of Auxiliaries (or helpers) and indeed they have proved as good as their words for what Auxiliaries or helpers have they been unto us, except to carry away our gudes, and to drive away our cattle &c) but also in plain terms (to make all the blood that hath been shed but as water spilt upon the ground) to capitulate with us, about the King's personal Will, whether his Will must rule the roast or no? By our consent he shall first turn the spit, before his will shall rule the roast; our Law's Lives and Liberlies are more precious, then to be prostitute to the exorbitant boundless will of any mortal Stevart under the Sun: And therefore both He and your revolted Armies may be content, for we will spend a little more of our blood before that come to pass; you may as well twerle up your Blue caps, and hurl them up at the Moon, as to expect England's assent unto that: no, no, Dear Brethren, we are neither such fool● not such cowards, or yet such Traitors to ourselves or to our posterities, to our Laws or to our Liberties, as after we by the blood of us and our children have gained a conquest over that Arbitrary faction so basely to return like Sows to the mire, or Dogs to the vomit again; no sure dear Brethren we have not been thromming of Caps all this while; and therefore that is not to be expected: we are content that our Brethren of Scotland should be our Brethren, but notonr Lords and our Kings, to snatch the Sceptre of England out of our hands, and to make us their slaves and Uassailes: what care we for Charles Stevarts assurance thereof under his Hand and Seal: we will maintain our just Rights and Freedoms, in despite of Scot, King, or Key●●r, though we welter for it in our bloods; and be it known unto you, O ye men of Scotland, that the freemen of England scorn to be your slaves; and they have yet a reserve of gallant blood in their veined, which they will freely spend for their freedom. But to return to the Game in hand.  
Further. From the words of the forementioned clause of your papers, this you import, that you are by the Oath of Allegiance bound to keeps his person from all harm, and therefore your Armies will not deliver up his person to be disposed of, as▪ the two Houses shall think fit: As if the two Houses by that their vote, had intended mischief to his person, or else why should you urge that in competition with their vote, if thereby you did not plainly conclude that their vote was an absolute intent of harm unto his person: But (good brethren) let us tell you, that though the two Houses of England have voted the disposal of the King of England as they shall think fit, it doth not therefore follow, that there is absolute harm to his person thereby intended in their vote, but you make a surmise, then take it for granted, and forthwith thereon build the structure of your defence: But we hope it doth not therefore follow, because our brethren surmise it, except the sense of our Votes, our Orders and Ordinances of Parliament must follow the surmise of our brethren, that what ever their surmise is, that must be their Sense and Intent and no other. And if as you say; you will not enforce any sense or construction upon their Votes, then why will not your armies deliver him upon their Votes for fear of harm to his person, as if they had plainly intended with salomon's sword, by that their voted disposal to have divided the King of England from the King of Scotland, and so give each kingdom their just portion in his person.  
But why should our dear brethren reason thus sophistically and deceitfully with us, and conclude thus inconsequently against us? Sure they have better Covenant Logic then this, for the antecedent of that Argument doth nothing at all prove the consequent thereof: Therefore if our dear brethren please (for the better discovery of their falcity) we shall cast that their kind of Argument into a form after its own nature and kind, which is thus.  
A Scotch Argument. The two Houses of Parliament have voted the disposal of the King's person as they shall think fit.  
Ergo. The Scotch Armies may not deliver up his person to the said two Houses, for fear of harm to his person.  
Truly dear brethren, this Gear hangeth together like an old broken Pot Sheard: And we deem, that you would be much displeased with your dear brethren of England, should they return the like reasoning to their brethren of Scotland. But lest our dear brethren of Scotland should judge us their brethren of England ingrateful, their brethren here send them a congratulatory pair of reasons form after the same or the like kind desiring in their next papers, to be resolved, whether such reasoning with them, be fair dealing or not? to wit.  
1. Argument. My good Lord Lesley, came to Montrevill (Ambassador for France) residing at Southwell, there to commune with the King  
Ergo. My good Lord Lesley fell down on his knees, resigned up his sword, and laid it at the feet of the King, and then received it again of the King.  
2. Argument. My Lord of Northumberland, and Sebrant the French Agent looked through an hedge, and the one saw the other.  
Ergo. They two are both nigh of a kindred.  
Now having sent you a pair of brave Scotified arguments, we'll throw an English bone after them, for your armies to gnaw upon.  
A scandalous person may chance to prove a good man.  
But some of your army, are full of Backbiters.  
Ergo, your whole army are scandalous persons.  
But now dear brethren, we cannot think that this will be judged fair reasoning in us; but if you condemn it, then why do you use it? until you revoke, and renounce your error therein: this our like reasoning must not be condemned by you.  
But by this we may plainly see, that you have some mischievous design against the two Houses of Parliament, that you would insinuate such an opinion into the people of England, against their two Houses of Parliament. And that upon such high terms of contestation, to wit, that for that reason (to wit, harm) you will not deliver them their King upon their Vote, what may we judge by this, but that you intent destruction to them, thus to set the hearts of their people against them by your scandalous and seditious surmises and jealousies sown amongst the people of England, for absolute truths: for if you give it not forth as a truth, why will you urge an argument from thence? Sure our Holy Brethren of Scotland, are not so void of Conscience and grace, as to make a Lie a foundation of their practice.  
We do assert, that the King coming voluntarily to the Scotish Army, they cannot in duty deliver him against his will, to the two Houses of Parliament, without consent of the Kingdom of Scotland.  
Ans. Then it seems if he had come against his will, you had been bound in duty to have delivered him against the same, to the two houses of Parliament, without the consent of the Kingdom of Scotland, for if his voluntary coming be the reason of the one, than his unvoluntary coming must needs be the reason of the other, for as your own paper Champion saith, contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia, therefore hereby you have brought the consent of your own Parliament to be inferior and subject to his will, the which notwithstanding the said Champion told him, they should be forced to settle things without, in case he should not assent. pag. 19 The which reasonings, if they be not pro and con, be you yourselves judges: and let the world judge, whether it be fair dealing so to reason in a matter so nearly concerning, the weal of the two Kingdoms, the lives and states of thousands and ten thousands.  
Scotch Papers. Ibid  
The place of the King's vesidence is at his own Election in either of the Kingdoms, as the exigency of affairs shall require, and he shall think fit, or else must be determined by the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms.  
Ans. What, more fast and lose still? Sometimes with your consent, and sometimes without your consent, sometimes with the joint advice of both Kingdoms, and sometimes without it, sometimes with his personal will, and sometimes without his personal will, and now to make all indifferent! What is the meaning of our brethren in this? are they not in their wits, thus to jumble and jump forward and backward, and backward and forward again, and then to lie all along betwixt both? For by this clause it seems, that the disposal of his person is indifferent, either at his will, or at the joint advice of the two Kingdoms. Vtrum horum mavis accipe, one of the twain, choose you whether, so that if his person be either wise disposed, yet by this clause it is justified, the one as well as the other being asserted in that clause: then again to add to the number of those juggling Husteron-Proteron tricks, by the position of their order, they make the will of the King predominant to the consent of the two Kingdoms; for if by local position, we may judge of pre-eminence, according to our national custom, the greater to take the wall of the less, than the will of the King is thereby preferred before the consent of the two Kingdoms, for it hath the precedency therein: How ever by that clause they are made of equality, for they are not urged by the way of disparity, but by the way of equality therein. Therefore by that clause there is not a pin to choose betwixt them: So that which is first gone forth, whether his will, or the two Kingdom's consent, that must stand irrevocable, and not to be moved by the other, for could it, than were it as nothing, a mere shadow without substance, for then the absolute disposing were only in one, because if one may depose what the other disposes, then that which disposeth is all in all; and the other hath no will, vote; choice or consent in the thing, but is wholly dependant, and must be subject to the power of the other, which may conclude, order, revoake, and reverse at its pleasure. Therefore from this reasoning of our dear brethren, it follows thus.  
1. That this present disposal of his person (being as yourselves say voluntary) is irrevocable by either or both Kingdoms, because his will for that disposal was first passed forth; which for that matter (as is already proved) by this present ground of yours, is as unalterable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians: So that it is in vain for the two Houses of England to expect a delivery of the King of England from the Scotish Armies,; for by this (to make sure work of his person) they have put themselves out of a capacity of his delivery upon any terms whatsoever: And therefore we may bid our good King, good morrow my Liege for all the day, and for ever, Amen. Farewell frost, if he never come more, nothing is lost.  
2. If by the sentence and judgement of our dear brethren of Scotland, the King's personal disposal be at his own Election and Will, and so inherent therein, then by the sentence and judgement of our dear brethren of Scotland, the dislocation of the King's person by his personal will all this while from the two Houses of Parliament of England, is justified, and our dear Brethren of Scotland thereby made confederate with him, in that act, and so consequently guilty of all the rebellion made by his personal will against the two Houses of Parliament and the People of England.  
3. If by the Argument of our dear brethren of Scotland, the King according to the exegencie of affairs may dispose of his person at his pleasure, then by the Argument of our dear brethren of Scotland according to the exegencie of affairs, the King may departed from our dear brethren of Scotland at his pleasure, when, or whether he pleaseth, although his pleasure should be never so pernicious or perilous to our dear brethren of Scotland: for his pleasure may only be known to himself, and not at all to our dear brethren of Scotland, no more than it was foreknown (as our dear brethren would make us believe) at his coming to them. Therefore if our dear brethren of Scotland will have him according to the exigency of affairs to be disposed of at his pleasure, then according to the exigency of affairs, our dear brethren of Scotland must run the hazard of his pleasure.  
But for be better deciding of the matter about his will, it is to be questioned, 1. Whether since the Covenant and Treaties, either England or Scotland may assert that the place of the King's residence is at his own Election; the which as the case since hath stood, may in no wise be honourably granted, for thereby in all reason it must be concluded, that the two Kingdoms took upon them, the sole disposal of his person, without the least relation or respect to his personal will: For should that not be concluded, than his arbitrary disposal of his person, so many times in open and actual hostility against the Parliament and people of England were justifiable.  
2. It is to be considered, that though before this his hostility against the Parliament and people, he might dispose of his person from White-Hall, to Hampton Court or the like, without the joint advice of the two Kingdoms, whether now the case be nor altered or no?  
3. In regard he hath most properly levied and made war against the Parliament and People of England, and in regard the Scotch engagement was but in assistance of their brethren of England, Whether his person thereupon, is not most properly due to the two Houses of Parliament▪ and thereupon they might properly vote the disposal thereof, notwithstanding his King-ship of Scotland; by reason the Offence was properly against them, and a main end of the war, was to reduce and recover his person unto the Custody and power of the two Houses?  
But now whereas you urge his voluntary coming, as if it were only voluntary in him, and not like voluntary in you (which by Covenant compact and treaty, was not upon any terms or in any wise without our consent to have been by you.) It is a plain case, that there was a voluntary concurrence betwixt you, even of the Kingdom of Scotland with the King of England, before he had laid down Arms taken up in Rebellion against the Sovereign power of his Throne, the two Houses of Parliament, and against the Free-People of England, and that absolutely by you, without the joint advice and consent of the said Houses and Kingdom; for you foreknew of his intent, and were fore acquainted with his coming, before his arrival at your Army, and this is not only to be proved from the secret and trayto●rous Treaty betwixt you and the King, from the latter end of March last, 1646. Managed by the intervention of Montrevill the French Ambassador, and designed in France, but also by what was-open, manifest and undeniable. For to omit his footsteps from Oxford, he came publicly into Southwell, four miles distant from your Army, and there was entertained by the said Montrevill, who was deputed and provided to receive him, and forthwith he sent unto your Army, to inform you that he was come thither, then Lesley your General (Metrapolitan over all the Blew-Caps of Scotland) repaired unto him and with him entertained a Treaty; and so he came voluntary to your army, and there voluntarily ever since doth continue, as you yourselves do confess. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether here were not a mutual concurrence of voluntary consent, before his entrance into your Army without all advice and consent of ours. And whether it is reasonable to imagine, that the King should cast his person voluntarily into the hands of those which were the first commoters and raiser of troubles and wars, entering his dominions of England with open hostility, for which he proclaimed them Traitors and Rebels, and now again●stand Traitors and Rebels by his Proclamations and Declarations, and which are still in Arms against him; and by solemn League and Covenant contracted and aspoused to the two Houses of England, in their war-fare against him; without the fore knowledge consent, compact & assurance of your army and Kingdom; truly for our parts, considering all his politic, subtle, and crafty plots and proceed, in all his Military designs, we cannot imagine him so inconsiderate and mad● as to run his person without all assurance, on such a perilous hazard, or play such a card as that at a vensure amongst you, without a full fore surety from you, and a compact betwixt you under hand and seal, for his entertainment and success with you, and if we may judge the tree by its fruits, we are sure it can be no other.  
Besides, had you not been concurrent in will with him (contrary to our privity and consent) he could not have entered, much less continued in your army, without your consent and whether you would or no. So that indeed and in truth as the matter now stands, betwixt you and us, his coming must needs be reputed and concluded your single act, and neither may we, nor can we esteem it otherwise, for his will or his Action is nothing to the state of the question or difference betwixt England and Scotland in this matter; for you yourselves say, (pag. 9) that, it is clear from the third Article of the Treaty, that the Scotish army is to receive the directions of both Kingdoms, or of their Committees in ALL THINGS, which may concern the pursuance of the ends of the Covenant and Treaty, whether in relation to PEACE or WAR. In the eight Article, no cessation, pacification, or agreement for peace WHATSOEVER is to be made by either Kingdom or the army of either Kingdom, without the advice and consent of both Kingdoms. Now dear brethren, by these very words of the Treaty thus cited by yourselves, you are by yourselves exempted and denied of all power of intermeddling about any thing whatsoever concerning peace or war, without the advice and consent of the two Kingdoms: If so, then why have you attempted this act of reception and detaining of his person without the mutual concurrent advice and consent of the two Kingdoms, which so mightily concerneth our weal or our woe, our peace or our war, for this your seizure of his person in this manner, is of as high and great concernment about the matter of war, as can be imagined, for it openly and apparently threatneth division and war betwixt the two Kingdoms; and thereby you yourselves are the deviders and threatners, contrary to your old and present asseverations and abjurations: in your book of former Intentions, thus you assert of yourselves, we could judge ourselves the unworthiest of all men, 
See intentions of the Army of Scotland, pag. 3.  and could looks for no less than vengeance from the Righteous God, if we should move hand or foot against that Nation, so comfortably represented to us, in that honourable meeting And pag. 10. Let them be accursed, that shall not seek the preservatition of their neighbour Nation: and in your former Informations, Declarations and Remonstrances, you have cursed all Nationall Invasions, and Treachery: And now in the Papers you cry, God forbidden, that the ways of separating interests of the Kingdoms, should now be studied, pag. 5. And in the Lord Loudouns speech in the Painted Chamber. pag. 21. That no man hath conscience and honour, who will not remember our Solemn League and Covenant, as the strongest bond under Heaven, between God and man, and between Nation and Nation, etc. Yet these asseverations and execrations, are now made as nothing, and these your strongest bonds between God and man as you call them, are but as Sampsons' cords to be burst asunder at your pleasure, but God will deliver up your strength, if by your timely repencance you do not prevent the vengeance of Heaven which hangs over your head. For why will you thus fairly profess with your tongues unto us, and deal so treacherously with us in your hearts, why should you receive and entertain the King and yet protest against all sole disposal of his person? and why should you tell us, that his Majesty's coming to your army, is a more probable and hopeful way to preserve the union of the two Kingdoms; when as yourselves see, that it is the most unluckiest means of division, and of fomenting a war betwixt the two Nations, as Hell could broach: and though the Lord Londoun breath out your menaces about that disposal, and openly threatens us with forces from Scotland and Ireland, and with the assiistance of foreign Princes, yet all this you would make us believe, (were we but as the Horse and the Mule, which have no understanding) is for the stricter and firmer union betwixt the two Kingdoms; but dear brethren we are not so undiscerning and sottish, so to be possessed and deluded. But further in the said pag. you say, because you came into England, for prosecuting of the ends of the Covenant, whereof one is to defend. His Majesty's person, you think it a strange thing, that your being in England should be urged as an argument, why you should deliver up the person of the King, to be disposed of, as the two Houses should think fit.  
Ans. For the matter of your being in England, we shall for the present refer you to Mr. Chalenros' speech: and only consider the reason of this clause, which we conceive to be on this wise, that because you are by the Covenant bound to defend His Majesty's person, that therefore you will not deliver up his person, to be disposed of, as the two Houses shall think fit: which is as much as to say, because you are to defend his person, that therefore the two Houses of Parliament are his enemies: which manner of reasoning is as if we should say, because there were daily secret whisper and wish at our Queen's Court in France, that the King might but get safe to the Scots, and because the day of his setting forth out of Oxford towards them was fore-known at her Court; That therefore Sehrant the French agent ran up into the Earl of Northumberlands Bedchamber, in the morning before he was up, and surreptitiously surprised in his Chamber window; a packet of Letters, (enclosed in a blank paper superscribed (forsooth for their better conveyance to the Earl) and break the same open, and said they were his, and so the one peeped at the other, and saw one another and away hied Sebrant as fast as he could, and carried with him the whole platform of your— you know what!  
Now Brethren, how like you your own kind of reasoning? Is not this a pretty, kind of Argument think you, neatly form after that most hallowed pattern received from the Angel at Le font bl●u?  
And therefore seeing our Brethren have so far discharged their trust, as (after all their Protestations, Covenants and Oaths to Almighty God, their Solemn League, and Treaty with their Neighbour Nation of England) thus in the field to meet us in this free and brotherly conference with such Solemn Covenant-Logick, we may have doubtless great boldness & confidence, with our dear brethren of Scotland, to pay them in their own coin, for current and good Silver, especially considering whose Image and superscription it berreth: So that upon the point (we wish it be not of the sword) we are agreed with our good Lord Loudoun, to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, &c pag 26.  
But now since our brethren take upon them in their armies to defend his person, we desire of our dear brethren to tell u●, against whom is this their defence? If against us and our armies, then we●e●ly, that if your Covenant now bind you thereto, then why did you not by this Covenant join armies with them before, in all his. H●●●i●ity against the two Houses, for by our s●●●tility his person was endangered and subject to the casuality and execution of war, himself in person and in arms appearing against ●u●●?  
Scotch Papers Pag. 9  
And whereas it is affirmed by the Treaty▪ the Scotch Army ought to do nothing without a joint resolution of both Kingmdomes or their Committees; there is no such clause in the Treaty, but they are to be subject to such resolutions as are and shall be agreed upon, and concluded mutually between the Kingdoms and their Committees.  
Ans. By thit we may see how willing our brethren are to get a creep hole, and how they shuffle and cut to struggle themselves out of the Btyers: But good brother Jockey be content to stick here a while, for if to their Resolutions (as you say) you must be subject, than you must not be subject to that which is contrary to their resolutions: But your armies retaining of his person is contrary to the joint advice and consent of both Kingdoms, for as yet both parties are not agreed. Therefore this is a manifest breach of the Treaty; so that (if you would have done as becometh brethren) you should have stayed first to have heard the joint advice or consent of both Kingdoms, before you had given him entertainment. For indeed, had there not been mischief designed in the thing and intended against this Kingdom, the King (knowing the mutual obligation, and solemn Union betwixt the two Kingdoms, and the mutual relation he had to them both, and each mutually to him) would (if he had intended to lay down arms against this Kingdom) rather (in this emergency of War) have dsiposed of his person (honoured by both Kingdoms with the title of the King of both Kingdoms) to the Committee of both Kingdoms, wherein the joint military interest of both Kingdoms is represented, conferred and united, and both thereby incorporated into one deputative body, and as it were both made flesh of each others flesh, and bone of each others bone, that so in that, one act and at one time both Kingdoms equaliy and respectively would have received their King of each Kingdom, though presented in one person, even England and Scotland have received and kept the King of England, and the King of Scotland in that their entertainment of his person for the bet●er disposal thereof by the Parliaments and Estates of both Kingdoms (being conquered by the mutual force & conjunction of their armies) for then neither Parliament, Kingdom nor Army had acted singly or divided, but it would been absolutely an act of both Kingdoms: This we say, he rather would have done, then in this factions divided neture to have thrown himself upon one Kingdom unknown to the other, and without the others advice and consent, had it not been on set purpose to have cast a bone of division betwixt them; that both He and yourselves by joint occasioned fair opportunity might compass your designs to subjugate the necks of the Freemen of England to your Scotch Monarchical Yoke of Bondage (in gendering strife.) And you yourselves, had your intentions to wards us been upright; should rather have referred him to the said Committee of both Kingdoms, than thus to have attempted the receivall of him by your own military power, which was a desperate thing; however in case unawares he were received, yet you might ere this, knowing the mutual and joint interest of the two Kingdoms so well as you do, and seeing it raiseth-such jealousies, and is likely to occasion such a desperate and bloody division betwixt us, you might ere this have delivered, or at least proposed the resignment of His person, if not to the two Houses, yet to the custody of the said Committee; to whom indeed naturally and properly (as the case now stands betwixt the two Kingdoms, he belongeth) (no joint power of the two Kingdoms but that being extant) to be by them retained till the joint consent and determination of both Kingdoms.  
You tell us that at the hearing of the march of Sir Thomas Fairfax his Army marching Northward, you removed yours into Yorkshire, for preventing mistakes or new troubles between the Kingdoms (page 9) but were you so cautious thereof ●s you pretend, you would not have thus highly erred in the main, and then face us with trifles: brethren, we have been a little to much acquainted and cheated with such guilded pretences as to rest content with a flap in the mouth with a Fox-tayle: It is not you● candour freedom and plainness as becomes brethren which you tell us of (page 1.) in words what will satisfy us, if in deeds you deny us; We know you tell us he came valuntarily and continues uluntarily, and you a●e not hinder him from coming to do the duty of a King amongst you: which words indeed deed bear a spetious show; but Brethren we are not so undecerning and ignorant as to conclude all is gold that glisters; but these your serpentine delusions, puts us in mind of the trick you put upon us about Mr▪ ashburnham's escape; for in a paper from the Commissianers dated 25, of May 1645 the Lords of the Committee of Newcastle tell us, that directly, nor indirectly they had no hand in Mr. Ashburnhames escape; which by interpretation is as much as to say, that directly you had no hand in it, but indirectly you had; for after our English Ottography two negatives make an affirmative, and Nor and No are two negatives cupled to one verb, and therefore must needs make it affirmative: but we will return from this quirk to the matter in hand.  
Now though you say, there was not any such resolution between the Kingdoms or their Committees, as, that the Scotish Army should not receive the King if he came unto them: Our answer is, that it doth not therefore follow, that therein you may do singly as you list; for you were obleiged in all things, whether in relation unto peace, or to war, not to make any cessation, pacification, or agreement for peace whatsoever, without the advice and consent of both Kingdoms: And you your selves say, your Armies are to be subject to such resolutions, as ARE and SHALL BE agreed and concluded upon mutually between the two Kingdoms and their Committees. So that although neither present or future resolutions concerning unknown matters to come be expressed (as indeed are impossible) yet therefore you have not the liberty to do what you list, or to anticipate their resolutions with yours, for then Agreement, compact, and Treaty, were to no purpose at all; but you were strictly bound upon penalty of breach of Articles, first, to have known the joint advice and consent of the two Kingdoms, or their Committees in all things whatsoever, whether for peoce or for war; especially in a thing of so great and so high concernment, as to Treat with, Receive, and entertain the King's Person, though notwithstanding he should come voluntarily to you, for the matter is all one in the nature thereof, whether he come to you, or you go to him: treating with, recieving and entertaining, without a joint advice and consent (let it by what other means soever it be) is the main thing which those Articles respect: for indeed that is, as absolute treating, cessation, and pacification with the King on your behalf as can possible be: and therefore whereas you say, that you were not to impede, or restrain the person of the King from coming and doing the duty of a King amongst you, and thereupon have answerably received him; thereby you hold forth, and confess a compact and conclusion of peace with him: for if you receive him to do the duties of a King amongst you, and that without the joint advice and consent of the two Kingdoms or their Committees; what is this other then to pacificate with him without their joint advice & consent? but more of this by and by.  
Besides if you will make an exception, because it is un-expressed in the Treaty [that you should not receive the King's Person if he should come voluntarily to you] then may you as well except against all the resolves and results of the two Kingdoms and of their Committees, that therein are not expressed; and so confine all to the very letter of the Treaty, and utterly take away all liberty and power from the two Kingdoms and their Committees, of further advising, consenting, o● resolving.  
Scotch papers page 10.  
Scotland: The Scotch Army neither hath nor will take upon them to dispose of the King, he came unto them without capitulation or Treaty: his residence with them is voluntary and free, and they do nothing which may hinder him to come to the two Houses of Parliament.  
Answer.  
England: Whither now Jockey? Hoyt— Ho— Haufe— Ree— Give— Ho— Jockey: What? neither backwards nor forwards, one s●ide nor the other! Riddle me, Riddle me, what's this? You'll nether have him, nor be without him; neither keep him, nor deliver him: a pretty paredox! for you will not take upon you to dispose of him, and yet you will keep him nor will hinder his coming to the two houses of Parliament, and yet will not deliver Him: for his will in this matter of keeping and delivery is not at all respected in the Treaty and compact betwixt the two Kingdoms, but only the Act or Acts of the two Kingdoms, Therefore, what is this else but to say, you will, and you will not? you will neither receive him, nor will refuse him; you will not deliver him, nor will you keep him.  
Now whereas (as you say) you are so willing that he should come of his own accord to the two Houses, and you would not hinder him: We pray you tell us whether you would suffer him, provided his intent were unknown unto you? Or whether you would judge it suitable to the interest of Scotland, that the two Houses or their Army should receive him upon such terms? Doubtless you would hinder the one and condemn the other; for no reasonable man can judge otherwise by your present practice and papers, you have received him without the consent of the two Houses and (as you would makes believe) without any fore knowledge of his intent at his coming, therefore are not yourselves condemned by yourselves? even justifyers of that in yourselves, which you would condemn in others?  
But you say, he came to you without capitulation: If so dear Brethren, then why did Montrevill go before hand to Lesley's Army to take order for his reception there? And how came the King to have the faith and honour of the Scots engaged to him in the business of the Militia? How came the information of Thomas Hanmer, June 12. 1646. (at the Committee for the Army, and after reported to the House of Commons) since by experience to have been confirmed in the most particulars thereof? we could be much more inquisitive with our Brethren about this matter, but it may be they have learned of Lieutenant Col. John Lilburne and Mr. Overton the two prerogative Archers of England, and of some others, not to answer to interrogatories concerning themselves, and therefore we shall forbear at this time further to question the faith and sincerity of our Brethren in this particular, only we shall desire (because our Brethren in their papers are verbally so tender over the Harrassed, oppressed, plundered North) wherefore besides the extraordinary losses and charges thereof, their ordinary cessements where the forces are quartered are levied and paid after the rate of about 140000 pounds a month upon the whole County, which is twenty times so much as they ought to leary by the Ordinance of Parliament, as appears by a Letter June 26. 1646. from sundry of the Committee of York to the Commicee of the Lords and Commons? We will assure you Brethren, that this dealing together with your several rapes, murders, oppressions & abuses which hath been & are daily acted upon the wellaffected in those parts, are fare from the first professed intentions of the Scots Army at their first coming into England 1640. Where page 11. you do declare that you would not take from jour friends and Brethren of England from a thread even to a shooe-latchet, so that our Brethren are not the same, or else they are much changed, for from the beginning it was not so; however, this will we say of our Brothers, that as (they tell 〈◊〉 page 6) that the Oath communicated to them for the disposal of the King's Person by the two Houses may suffer a benign interpretation, and be understood of the disposing of the King's person favourably and Honourably; yet as the words stands, they are comprehensive and capatious of more than is fit to be expressed; so answer we our Brethren, that though their unreasonable cessements, their daily rapes and murders, robberies, oppressions & insufferable abuses upon their dear Brethren and sisters in the North may out of a Brotherly construction receive a benign interpretation, and be understood but as escapes of their Armis, yet as the deeds so stand, they are comprehensive and capatious of more than is fit to be done.  
And therefore dear Brethren, we cannot but justly wonder why you should be so unbrotherly and unkind to your Brethren of England, notwithstanding thes●● great oppressions of yours upon them, now to capitulate with them for such vast sums of money, and that upon such high terms as not to surrender their Garrisons and quit their Kingdom of your Armies, without, 200000. pound down in your hands: Indeed Brethren let us tell you, we can judge it as yet, little  than invasion upon our Land, to capitulate with us upon terms, before you will resign us possession of our own Garrisons, Forts, Castles Countries etc. for upon no terms whatsoever have you any right or property unto any of the Forts, Castles, Garrisons, or Countries of the Kingdom of England, or in any wise to attempt possession thereof, or upon any terms to refuse there fignment thereof: for so long and so much are you invadors of our Land; for not an hare breadth of England nor a minute possession thereof is yours by any legal, equal, or National Right, except you will say, that you our Brethren of Scotland are now become Kings of England; and indeed your actions and usurpations are equivolent thereto, for as well, as to do what you do, you may possess it for ever, and make invasion upon the rest of our Land, for protraction of time and increase of quantity cannot alter the equity of your title, it being as much to the whole Kingdom as to a part, and as well for ever as for a minute: But indeed and in truth it is neither in the one or yet in the other.  
But you tell us, pag. 16. Reasonable satisfaction must be first given to your Armies for their pains and charges, before you will surrender: Why, brethren, must you therefore take possession of our Garrisons, Castles, etc. Because in equity we are bound to give reasonable satisfaction to you, for your mercenary assistance? Our Garrisons, Castles, Forts, Countries, etc. were not put into the bargain, neither were they ever as yet set over to you, as a pledge for your payment, but notwithstanding Covenant, Treaty, or any other obligation whatsoever betwixt us, they are still the absolute interest and property of England, which by this your refusal, to quit them, is absolutely invaded and usurped: and your continuance of their possession upon those tearm●●, is a continuance of be●●tile invasion and incursion upon England. And is as much as if you had entered by force, (for Dolus an virtus quits in host requirit?) it is all one to the nature of the thing, whether by force or by politic decerpt, for both can be but possession, so that this your possession of our Countries, Castles, etc. under the colour of expectation of pay before you depart, is in the nature of the thing as absolute invasion and incursion, as if you had entered and over run those places by force of Arms. For though we be bound to give you reasonable satisfaction, yet by that obligation, we are not bound to forfeit our Garrisons, Castles, Countries, etc. into your hands, till it be given: We will grant you that reasonable satisfaction is due; but what is that? whether a certain sum of money, or else our Garrisons, Castles, Countries, & c? Yourselves only make claim to the first, and therefore, and in respect of our own incerest, we will be so bold as not to disclaim and yield up our right in the second upon any pretence whasoever. And in case reasonable satisfaction should be denied, it could be but a falsity and breach of faith, it would not therefore follow, that our Garrisons, Castles, Countries, &c were become forfeit into the hand of our brethren the Scots: Or because we should do evil, it doth not therefore follow that they should do evil for evil again: for that were contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness, a clause of the second Article in the Covenane from which our brethren tell us, that no persuasion, terror, plot, sugi●stion nor combination, shall never directly nor indirectly with draw them: and in this Covenant there is no such clause expressed, intended or employed, that in case we should not give them satisfaction according to agreement, that then our Garrisons, Castles and Countries should be forfeit to our brethren of Scotland. Therefore if you would but deal friendly and as becometh brethren (whereof you make such profession) with us, you would not take advantage at your brethren's necessities, to deal thus unkindly and unbrotherly with them (as if they had entertained so many Turks, Pagans and Infidels into their bosoms in stead of brethren) as to seize upon their possessions, their Garrisons, Forts, Castles, Countries, etc. because this reasonable satisfaction cannot be provided as soon as you would have it, and as they desire and endeavour it. This is not a doing as you would be done to, this is no brotherly bearing of one another's infirmities, or of one another's burdens; but in stead of a brotherly easing, this is a ●unfriendly oppressing, besides the great standell it casteth upon your brother Nation of England, as it the Parliament and People thereof, were so unfaithful, unnatural and false hearted, not to be trusted upon their faith and honour with their brethren of Scotland (with whom there is such obligations of unity and brotherhood) for the palment of the said sum of money, with their utmost expedition, doubtless we should never have been so ungrateful and unfaithful with our brethren as to have dealt unjustly with them therein.  
But ●e are afraid, that this money demand, was but a foreign invention to catch us upon the lurch, supposing by reason of the unreasonableness of the matter, and the invasive manner thereof, the two Houses would not assent thereunto and so by such meanacing provoking rearmes, as the detaining of our Garrisons under the pretence of acquiring reasonable satisfaction, to pick a quarrel with us, or else you would not the●s have demanded the same upon such high provokating terms nor detaining of our Garrisons, Castles, Countries, etc. for to deliver them unto us, you will not till you have money.  
Yea, you tell us, that if the 5000. l. at Nottingham already accounted unto you with some other competent portion of money be not sent unto your Army, you 〈◊〉 be forced (forsooth) to enlarge your Quarters for the ease of the country, so that we plainly see by this liberty of enlargement which you usurp unto yourselves, 〈◊〉 you intent that your enlargement of your Quarters shall be as large as our Bo●●● in the case of procrastination, and all under the colout (for sooth) of easing the Country: Indeed brethren by that means you would ease us of all. But if in your heart you be intended to ease us, then why do you not rather tell us that you will enlarge homewards, to your own native Country, for that were indeed an easement, this 〈◊〉 but a further enlargement of our burden, but we know your meaning by your g●p●●● Good brethren do not thus take advantage at your brethren's necessities; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brethren we tell you, it doth not become you to deal thus unkindly with you brethren: for it is an unnatural, unbrotherly part, to make a prey of their extremi●●● Yet here is not all they say of this matter, for they menacingly tell us, that in case, 〈◊〉 Thomas Fairfaxs Army shall march Northwards, that their Scottish Army shall en●●● their Quarters Southward, whereby (they say) it is easily to be seen, that those Kingdoms may unhappily be again embroiled in new ●●●d greater troubles than yet 〈◊〉 have been. Now how can we judge this otherwise, but as a shaking of the sword 〈◊〉 our heads? a dare, a threat even as much as to say to our Armies, come Norwa●●●● you dare. And if you do, we will advance Southward, and then you may ex●●●● greater broils and troubles then ever: but brethren, for the love of God, and 〈◊〉 peace of the Kingdoms, forbear such threatening language for the future, that 〈◊〉 may live together as brethren in love, peace and tranquillity: For brethren we 〈◊〉 assure you, that evil words corrupts good manners, tread on a worm and it will 〈◊〉 again, and surely Englishm●n have as much courage ●s worms.  
And now that you see that the two Houses have conditioned to your demands you enter into dispute with us about the disposal of the person of the King, in such a manner as is not possibe in honour and justice for this Kingdom to accept off, and you propose ways and means of delays and protraction of time, as 〈…〉 commissioners again unto the King in the name of both Kingdoms, with power to 〈◊〉 his desires and the like, when as indeed the matter belongeth to them joy●dy to ●●vise determine and conclude how they will dispose of him, and what they will coppell him to do, being conquered and fallen into their hands, therefore sending 〈◊〉, or treating with him now, is beside the matter in hand, so that those various devi●● of yours, give us great cause of suspicion and jealousies of you, that these, are but ways to bear us in hand for the better facilitation of your design. But we should be glad to hear of your innocency of those things, and should be willing 〈◊〉 judge better of our brethren, but they must excuse us if we judge the tree by its 〈◊〉 and may rather blame themselves for bringing forth such fruit, then us, for 〈◊〉 judging, when it is brought forth. Therefore to remove all scruple end different from betwixt us, we desire them to let their good works so shine before men that we may justly say that God is in them indeed, and that they are our faithful 〈◊〉 and friends who are resolved to live and die with us in the better sense, th●●gh●●● are now justly afraid of the Worst.  
FINIS.   

Errata, pag. 6. for you yourselves, read yourselves, p. 7. l 8. for 〈◊〉 consents r. and ousent. p. 8. l. 10. for proceeding r. preceding, p. 9 for and treaties r. treaties and p. 6●2. for my Lord of Northumber land, r. Genney with the wis●, p. 6. in some 〈◊〉, for some of your army, r some Regiments in your army, Of these and mo●y other 〈◊〉 〈…〉 the Author desires the Readers favourable correction and construction▪