THE OBSERVATOR DEFENDED IN A modest Reply to the late Animadversions upon those Notes the Observator published upon the seven Doctrines and Positions which the King by way of Recapitulation lays open so offensive.  
THe Animadversor hath attached the Observator, just like a weak and degenerous enemy, that durst not encounter his adversary in open field, but lodgeth himself in some obscure and ignoble passage, to attempt at least upon his Arriere-guard, not being able to pierce into his main body. The ingenious peruser of both, I doubt not, may discern that the Observator in the conclusion of his Treatise only recapitulated seven Results out of His majesty's papers, in contradiction to his Antecedent disquisition, & the Parliaments proceedings, that so one might compendiously view the subject of his discourse, and as it were by an Index find out the confutation of His majesty's positions, by the foregoing Arguments of the book, which the Animadversor very cautelously is pleased never to take notice of in the whole Discourse.  
1. In the first position, the Animadversor grants the Observators Arguments for the declarative power of Parliament in respect of the safe residence of that power in the bosom of the Jutelary Assembly; But with this restriction, That he should have allowed the King his place in Parliament, and not have named a Parliament without him. But how could the Observator without affronting impudence speak otherwise? seeing His majesty in present is pleased actually to have his residence out of Parliament, and will not allow himself a place in it; but in stead of concurrence with it, seeks the remotest distances from it. The better therefore to see how the King and Parliament are in parts, we will first negatively and then positively open the present controversy betwixt them, which is the cause of their disjunction. Which in the first place is not this which most men conceive, That when His majesty shall agree, and the Parliament likewise agree, for establishing some new Law, or interpreting some old, which may be for the particular commodity of some conditions of men only, in the commonwealth; Whether then the King ought to declare this or that to be Law exclusively of the Parliament, or the Parliament do the same exclusively of the King: But positively it is this▪ When there is visibly a danger ready to confound the whole commonwealth, and consequently all particular commodities and persons, Whether the State if then convened, may not lawfully of itself provide for its preservation, especially if the King either see not the danger, or seeing it, will not provide for it in such manner as may give best security to Himself and commonwealth: When therefore such a Question shall justly arise betwixt King and commonwealth (which collectively is that we call a Parliament) it being of public interest of State, and so De jure publico, it cannot fall under the examination of any inferior judicature (with which those so known voted laws, the Animadversor speaks of, are to be found.) For that is furnished only with rules of particular (not universal) justice, for the decision of particular differences betwixt this or that man, for this or that thing. Which rules being too narrow for so capacious a subject, we must recur to those that the original Laws of Nature and policy hold out to us, which must needs be superior to the other. The chiefest rule of that is, Ne quovis modo periclitetur respublica, That by all means public safety be secured: And every State must principally endeavour to hold fast and sure our public sociable Incorporations one with another from public distresses, calamities and destructions, which may arise from ourselves or other foreign Kingdoms: And whilst that is done according as nature's laws and policy prescribes in universal justice, they may well in the mean time proceed to make or revile laws of particular justice, which is of particular things, whereby we may commutatively increase our fortunes and estates one by another, or by foreign commerce. But if those that fit at the head of the commonwealth shall let loose the helm of it, and so let it float at all hazards, or else unadvisedly steer it directly towards rocks and shelves, itself is bound by those original laws (which surely may be some means) to save itself from a wrack: And how the King is not invaded or wronged by having himself and his kingdom preserved from imminent danger, and how it is possible a King may ruin his Kingdom, follow in its just place. In the mean time from these premises we prove that the Parliaments method is most excellent; For in the first place it endeavours to secure the being of the commonwealth now floating at hazard; And afterwards to apply its self to quicken particular Laws for our well-being. Now therefore the fundamental Law which the Animadversor so hotly calls for, & the Parliament squares by is not such a one as (some say) was never known before it was broken; Nor (as he says) lies mentally or parliamentally in the walls of the Parliament House to be produced upon any emergent occasion: But is such a one as is couched radically in Nature itself (and so becomes the very pin of law and society) and is written and enacted irrepealably in her Magna charta, which we are not beholden to any sublunary power for, but belongs to us as we are living and sociable creatures. And no known act of particular Justice or right to this or that petty thing, can clash with this, but must in equity veil to it, as to its superintendent. For what can those particular Acts of Law, which are to increase our private and domestic profit advantage us? when it's doubtful in so great dangers whether we may enjoy our lives at all, or no. It is therefore notoriously calumnious and inconsequent which the Animadversor from hence affirms, That the Parliament affects an arbitrary power, or the particular rights in ordinary course of Justice, as also the safety of King and people must at all times totally depend on their Votes exclusively of the King: Which in the following Position comes to be more fully disproved: Which power we confess with him can never be safe either for King or people, nor is presidentable.  
2. Posit. Parliaments are not bound to precedents (saith the Observator) because not to Statutes, viz. Absolutely; For the cause both of the one and the other is not permanent: And 'tis true therefore which the Animadversor saith, that they are durable, till they be repealed, which had been to good purpose had he ever denied it, For he rightly attributes no more power to Statutes then to other particular laws, which (as is proved in the first Position, and further shall be in this) cannot in his case stand in equity, nor act beyond their power, and that contrary to the Legislative intent, viz. to be a violation of some more sovereign good introduceable, or some extreme and general evil avoidable; which evil otherwise might swallow not only Statutes, but all other sanctions what ever. And thus in respect of the effect, they may be said in some sort to Repeal themselves. For really in such a case they become mortified, and can do no more for us. For the Parliaments case and controversy (which the Animadversor still forgets to be of preserving the whole kingdom, and so, De jure publico) is of so transcendent a nature," de facto, it may not, and de jure it ought not to be restrained by petty and mortified Statutes or laws, in acting so much good for us. But how should precedents (as the Animadverso saith) be best warrants? or how should they be in the like degree limiting or binding that Oaths are? Consider the consequence, Such or such a Parliament did not or durst not do this or that, therefore may no Parliament do it? Some Parliaments, not comparable to the Worthies of this) have omitted some good out of supineness, difficulty, or to avoid a greater evil, which might be valuable with the good desired; some perhaps hath done ill which the integrity and worth of this abhors to think of; so that neither King nor Parliament have reason to plead so strongly for coherents to precedents. But both have better rules if they will not deceive them, which are, To direct all by the interest of State (which is never accusable of Injustice) And by equity, which we may call a general Law: and though it be variable according to the subject matter and circummstances, yet it is that only, which will not let summum jus be summa injuria, which is the supremest right that can be done us. And it remains to be wished that the Animadversor would have shown us in this main business, wherein the Parliament hath gone cross, either to public Interest of State or equity. To say (as the Animadversor doth) that this single and extraordinary case excludes the King from Supremacy (even above particulars) and divests him to the naked priority only of Place and Title, is that which blasts itself, unless the Animadversor, be able to prove the King's exercise of his former power totally intercepted, and the more now then in other Parliaments of the like circumstances, or that he is ruined by having his kingdom preserved. But sergeant Major Skippon (who is a particular) was not permitted to obey the King's summons of him, therefore the King (saith the Animadversor) is denied a power even above particulars. But we answer that his case reports to that of the Parliaments, and must stand or fall with the equity of that. In the mean time he is so employed, that he could not have been in any more redounding to His majesty's solid happiness, which (rightly understood) would have prodnced rather an excuse than an accusation. For the Parliaments discharging of their trust (which the Animadversor fears so much) It is so notorious to all uncorrupted and unbiast judgements, that we have reason to pray, that those who so advisedly elected them in a time of less danger to the kingdom, than this present is, be not more disloyal to them, than they are to their choosers. What they have actually effected with the King's concurrence, the Animadversor I hope will not except against; and what they desire further to effect (wherein they so humbly and pariently have attended his majesty's concurrence) is only for the happier continuation of that other to us, and is to be reputed good or ill, in order to that. Where then is the evil for which the Parliament must be so scourged by all sort of hands? why did we engage them so studiously to wipe off that Rust, which began to eat so deep into the letter of our laws, and all our possessions? and to make new purchases for us of all our estates? if now being assembled they cannot discern what and where those laws are to be found, by the luster and power of which they they should act all this for us. We have blessings plentifully in store for his Majesty, but desire he would not reduce the ultimate resolution and reserch of the Law (our blessing) to be in his own bosom, more than in that of the Parliament, lest when God in his anger shall deprive us of so great a blessing as is his life and government, that die with him. I shall not multiply on the Animadversors Arguments; Of the possibility of the Parliaments erring, and not rightly discharging their trusts: all which might be more powerfully urged on one man confiding in his own singularity. He might have known them to have been unanswerably refuted and killed before their birth. But since he will have the Parliament so great practitioners of Popish policy, in respect of some infallibility, which he says, and they never arrogated; save only a probability of less erring in that question betwixt his Majesty and themselves; let me, I say, nakedly recite what the learned, and yet unanswered Divine in this matter (which the Animadversor so triumphs in) hath urged against the Papists, 
Chil● c. 2. p●●  whom it most concerns, so to leave the Reader to assume what shall seem most deduceable to himself; His words are these.* He that would usnrp an absolute tyranny and lordship over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating his Laws, made to maintain the common liberty, for he may frustrate their intent and compass his design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and have his interpretarions stand for Laws. I shall not need to recapitulate the condition of our laws before the Parliament, nor yet what interpretations they received; Which interpretation were held so authentic, that they made the Law but a nose of wax, to wring sometimes this way for Ship money, and for the lawfulness of it, as to make the King likewise the sole judge and redresser of all public dangers, sometimes another way for legal monopolies, &c. Let the world then judge who arrogate most infallibility, or have more made use of Papists or Popish policy.  
3. The Observator saith that the Parliament deserted by the King in the whole kingdom's distress may relieve it and the King. Here is asserted the public Interest of State, which can fall under no notion of any inferior Court to examine. But the Animadversor draws this consequence from thence; That then every man's estate may be wrested from his propriety and possession: Quàm urceus exit. Here he doth most palpably discover the looseness of his logic and cause, and how little he holds to his premises, and state of the controversy betwixt King and Parliament, which I so oft noted before, and showed the case to be De Iure publico, and so political.  
Commutative therefore and Distributive justice being of inferior matters have their inferior Courts, and the apparent letter of the Law to decide, and power to actuate what is rightly decided. But this controversy being De jure publico, of a public right, it falls under the notion of another sort of justice, whereas particular proprieties and possessions fall under those two inferior sorts of justice, as hath been proved in the conclusion of the first Position, which together with this show the sandiness and incoherence of the Animadversors consequence. Here therefore we will only note, that even in a common distress (which is less than a public) without a Vote of Parliament, or expecting any other dispensation of Right, a particular propriety may be destroyed by a Community to preserve itself: as when the Sea breaks in upon a County, a bank may be made of and on this or that man's ground whether he please or no; And when our Neighbour Vcalygons' house blazes, frequently we see some houses plucked down (where the fire actually broke not out) lest it should consume the whole street. And 'twas equity (before poesy) that in reof the propinquity of the danger, we are supposed to be even in the danger it spect self; and that the house so plucked down, is not supposed so much to be dilapidated as burnt. Tum tuares agitur paries cum proximus ardet.  
But I wonder by what Act or Declaration the Parliament hath denied a compensation to the sufferer in that kind, as the Question now stands? If all men did not know that the Parliament hath so provided for the indemnity of those at Hull, perhaps the Animadversor might have gained the credit of some modesty in averring, That the Parliament upholds public good with private misery. With the like grace also, and with sufficient confidence doth he tell us, That if there be a great distress in the kingdom, it is caused by the Parliament claiming that power which cannot consist with the royal estate of his majesty. 'Tis prodigious to all honest understandings, that the near engagements of war the Scots twice merely upon misunderstanding; That the design of strangling the Parliament as soon as born (for proof of which the Parliament presumes to have had too much sufficiency) having the bloodiest and true papistical war in Ireland raised against our Nation, and that against the Parliament especially (in the walls of whose house they haac already endangered a breach, i am perlucente ruina) That even now among ourselves we see some, who with more alacrity are ready to employ themselves against that sacred Assembly, than against those unchristian Rebels, and yet that all this should be too little to evince the reality (as the Animadvertor saith) of a distressed kingdom; and who is yet more transcendent, That all this should be caused by the Parliament, which aims at nothing but the extirpation of the Parliament root and branch, and of which some part of it (viz. the Scots troubles) had being long before the Parliament had any; and then I pray, how could it be the cause of it? How the King is head and we the body, and how the King cannot be insulted over by having his kingdom and self preserved from ruin, is proved at large by the Observer, beyond the capacity of any his animadversions. Whether the people may revoke all they actually have transacted to their King, is a Question very impertinently inserted by the Animadsor, in respect of any thing that the Observator hath in the Parliaments case; which is such, That when the King shall have endeavoured his utmost, he will find, that he shall not be able to preserve the kingdom in extremity of distress, without the assistance of the kingdom itself. However this the Observator denies, that the people could make such a conveyance of power to their Kings, as might prove destructive of humanity: So that much of the Animadvertors Divinity might have been husbanded for an apter occasion. Nevertheless St Paul in the 13. of the Romans, tells us not what power is the highest, but that that power which is the highest ought to be obeyed. Again as St Paul speaks first of a few particular dispersed men, and those again in a primitive condition; who had no means to provide for their preservation. Moreover it is very observable that Sⁿ Paul in the 3. verse speaks of a Ruler, as our Law speaks of our King, viz. That he is not a terror to good but to evil works: The Law likewise saith, The King can do no injustice. The interpretation of the one must square with the other, and that must be according to the distinction of Fact and Right. For according to Fact, St Paul's Ruler may be a terror to good, and a cherishing to evil works; but by Right he ought not to be so. Our Law saith, Our King rather ought noi in Right, than that de facto he cannot do injustice; For we know there have been both unjust Kings and ill Rulers. But least there should be such, Scripture itself as well as our Parliament doth endeavour to bind them from exercising ill. As Deut. 17. ver. 18 19 20. The King shall have a book to learn to keep the Law, and do according to it, lest his heart be lifted up above his Brethren. And Ezek. 46. 18. The Prince may not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, and thrust them out of it, but shall be content with his own possession, lest other men be scattered from their possessions. Wherein then hath the Parliament denied the King that due which St Paul allows his Ruler? Who he saith, (as is very observable through the whole Chapter) that he may be a Minister to us only for good: And to keep the Parliament even with St Paul, What else doth it hazard itself for, but for refusing to favour the King in an uncircumscribed power of doing ill? Which faculty he vindicates to himself irrestrainably, And that by virtue of some Right and enlargement of Law and Religion, even to do all manner of ill, if so be he shall ever be pleased so to do. Moreover S. Paul hath not, nor could anywhere repeal the laws of nature, so that if the Parliament in its case hath neither declined them, nor our own original Contracts, nor the present interest of State, nor S. Paul, Then I hope, it hath kept itself consonantly to Law and Religion.  
Out of all this (with what follows in the sixth Position) we may easily answer to the Anymadversors Objection of Resistance. For out of those premises it appears. That in the King there are two things only; first, His Person; Secondly, His Office, authority, or as St. Paul calls it, his Power: for his Person we hold it always inviolable: For his Power or Office, because St. Paul saith, it respects us only for good, it's very reasonable that we apply ourselves in obedience to that for our own sakes as well as for his. But the Court Parasites they are not content with this distribution, but add to the person and power, or office of a Prince, that which they call, The will or pleasure of a Prince; or rather they marry the power or office of a Prince to his Will: and so by that subtle conjunction they proving them all one (Quia omnis potestas est voluntatis) then they ask us the Question, Whether we are not equally bound to obey the one in all latitudes as well as the other? As if we had contracted for the evil as well as the good, and that, as it should seem best to the Prince we contracted with. But to that we clearelier answer, That because the will lies under an indifferency of commanding the ill, as well as the good, we may lawfully embrace that part and power only of his good, (as St. Paul saith) which indeed is the very essence of his power, and makes him a King: and we may reject the other, which makes him a bloody Tyrant: Yet not so as to violate his person in any case (no more than David would King Saul) but preservatively to thrust as far from us as we are able all other bloodsuckers, who are forward to execute on us his ruining commands; because in such a case he contracts his own ruin as well as ours, and is supposed to be in a distemper, and in stead of a wholesome potion to call for poison, which I think no good or honest physician would obey, but rather resist those that would obey him. Wherefore in these considerations, it is not here as the Animadversor saith of the Parliament; Nolumus hunc regnare super nos; but Nolumus hos destruere no●. But of this in the sixth Position. And for this hath been asserted, I know I quote our own Gracious Prince, who hath been pleased thus to indoctrinate us in his several Protestations, of venturing his own life to preserve us in the fruition of our due liberties of subjects; which we are sure we cannot enjoy from him, if by that Protestation he intended to force upon us, a duty and allegiance of embracing all those tormentors whom he should send to us at any time, on any occasion (Lawful or not lawful) to spoil us either of our lives or subsistence; If so be so much evil should possibly hereafter enter into his majesty's secret thoughts and will, Of which therefore seeing there is never a known Law of the land, and that it hath no analogy with the true Protestant Religion, and our own just liberties of subjects, we will presume that his majesty abhors the thought of chaining us to such a slavery for his own part, both in Fact and Right; though alas he cannot promise us that all his Successors shall do the like. Wherefore the Animadversor doth plainly abuse his majesty in this Argument, and doth desperately corrupt his present cause. Thus we see what evils we may thrust from us, and how we are bound to preserve the King's power or office, together with his person as much as our own. But the Animadversor, together with his Tribe, preach another kind of doctrine, from whence they know how to raise better uses for their ends, than the King can do any; and that is, That in stead of opposing the worst of those evils which by a King's bare pleasure may be that we should suffer by the hands of other persons, that we should, I say, simply betake ourselves to flight, leaving all that we have in this world, but our lives, to the King's disposal, and to be transferred to those whom he shall think better worthy of them than ourselves, But in the Parliaments case it hath been observed, that as it is impossible (in a manner) for a whole kingdom to fly, so surely cannot that be required of it: This case is not as David's (a particular man's) was, who being in the right, yet in danger, fled indeed, but it was from one place to stand better on his guard in another.  
4. No Member of Parliament ought to be troubled for Treason upon suspicion only; especially I say, in such a case, whereof not only the whole House, but the whole kingdom knows itself to be alike culpable. And that the accused were in safe custody, is not to be doubted of by the Animadversor, if the engagement of a whole kingdom can give security: which is sufficient enough for five men, for aught the Animadversor hath to the contrary.  
5. Because the Parliament to save a whole kingdom once from ruin, hath used some power which is communicable to a whole kingdom in such an extraordinary case; Therefore it may (saith the Animadversor) usurp it in ordinary cases; because it may declare the danger what it will at pleasure, and it is not infallible. As this consequence of the Animadversor is the same with that of the third Position, so may the answer of that be applied to this, to which I shall refer the Reader. This only will I add, That there is no need to create an Infallibility in the Parliament to discern matters of Fact within every man's cognizance; but to afford it only a probability of less erring, or being less deceived rather than a particular individual; And that its common interest joined with its indirectness and integrity (of which the extraordinary exact choosing of the Members at the beginning, it is an extraordinary proof) may be a forcible Improbability of its ever usurping such a power in ordinary cases, which as it cannot be serviceable any way to us (because ordinary cases have their most convenient courses certainly regulated) so can it not be but extremely dangerous to themselves alone, and no ways advantageous; Because in such cases we participate all of us of the like conveniences. This Position the Animadversor is pleased to conclude with a Riddle; That the ruins which the Parliament intends to save the kingdom from, is to save it from Monarchy.— Risum teneatis amici? Are we so overgrown with that government, which our Laws are locked and cabenetted in, in such manner, that the wounding of the one is the bleeding of the other? Or is it true which the Bishops have so long pulpited at Court, that the razesing of their power must be the eclipse of the other? although we know, and all the world with us, That Monarchy was of a more extended latitude and absoluteness before Christianity was professed by any Monarch, than ever it was since: Or more coherently to the Animadversors own words; Can there be no abuses or Cobwebs in Church or commonwealth, but they must needs be spun out of the bowels of Monarchy? so that the reforming & sweeping away of the one, must needs be the sweeping away of the other? For our own part●, we will not make them so much Son and Father, although the Animadversor be pleased to do his Majesty this good service. What then, the too too true ruin of the kingdom is conceived to be, is set down in the third Position; And what Connexion there is in making Monarchy the same with that, let the refinedst and the rudest logic collect.  
6 7. Whether levying of Forces against the personal Commands of the King, though accompanied with his presence, be to war against the King, is largely discoursed by the Observator beyond any force of reason which the Animadversor hath used to enforce the contrary. His Majesty acknowledged much of this to the Scots, whose preparations were in all respects like ours, and which his Majesty found to be Non tam contra quam praeter authoritatem Regis, after he had pressed the Animadversors arguments as warmly, as now he doth against other of his good Subjects, though yet suffering under the great calamity of his royal displeasure. But to say little of that which is so notorious to us all of this kingdom; Let us look over to France, and there we may see those who were as much Protestants as we, that levied arms against their King's commands, accompanied with his presence, and yet our King never thought them the worse Christi●ns or Subjects for that, and therefore made himself a partisan with them in their very cause; so clearly was the piety and lawfulness of such an act at that time reconciled to his majesty's conscience and understanding. All which the Animadversor must needs confess, unless he will own the present Declarations of the Rochelers, who with execrations of us say (upon the event of their war) that the Duke of Buckingham's design was to destroy and eat them up; and that they had preserved their liberties and Religion from any adulterate mixture of Popery, had they never seen him.  
But according to the Animadversor, It is impossible a King should ruin his kingdom, because he shall always have the Major part with him. But modern miseries show us the contrary, witness the near depopulated Principalities of Germany. But to answer the Argument with like reason, I say, that after a King shall have destroyed the Minor part of his kingdom with his Major, why may he not then, by some differences in the Major part, be a cause even to bring that to destruction too? But without supposing such a Fate, why may he not, Nero like, for pleasure sake, desire that all the heads of the Major part stood but upon one neck, that so he might chop them off at a blow? Seeing then such a King may ruin his kingdom, (by lamentable distresses and depopulations) and if a Parliament hath the power to hinder it, it doth that which it is bound to do, and which is neither against the person, or genuine authority of the King, unless we can apprehend a King's authority without a kingdom (which is the object it extends to, and acts in, and which we have proved he may destroy) and without which the Animadversor must needs reduce such a King to a barer Title, than he said our Parliament would reduce our King to.  
FINIS.