A LETTER OF DUE CENSURE, AND redargution TO Lieut. Coll: JOHN LILBURNE: touching his trial at Guild-Hall-London in Octob: last. 1649.  
WHEREIN If there be contempered some corrosive ingredients, 'tis not to be imputed unto malice: The intent is, to eat away the Patients proud, dead flesh, not to destroy any sincere, sound part.  2 SAM: 16. 5. 
And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gerah: he came forth, and cursed still as he came.  
6. And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and all the people, and all the mighty men were on his right hand, and on his left.  
7. And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial:  
8. The Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul: and behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man.  
11. And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, &c. Let him alone, and let him curse; &c. It may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction, and that the Lord will requite good for his cursing this day  
LONDON: Printed by Fr: Ne●le. 16●0.   

YOu Benjamites which envy Judah's Crown,  
Cursing weak Princes, when their hands hang down:  
Which limit God by your entails, and spite  
Sceptres transported by his sovereign right:  
Which scorn the Son of Noble Jonathan,  
As a desponding, poor, unhearted man,  
Because he can behold without regret  
His father's Flowers in David's garland set:  
Expect black-mouthed Shimeis tardy fate,  
The sword of Heaven trenches deep, though late.   

SIR,  
God's strict injunction obliges us all, to reprove sin, wheresoever we find it: and as far as reproof has any vigour in it, to endeavour the reducement into the right way of all such as wander from it through ignorance. I being therefore to direct this my reprehension, and censure to you, desire you to accept of it, as enjoined by God himself: For I have read the relation of your Arraignment in Octob: last, (the same as is verified, and avowed under your own hand) and my conscience tells me, I should deal unfaithfully with you, and neglect God's command, if I should not strive to convince you, of the great scandal, that has been given by it to all good, and wise men. If I myself err, or transgress my bounds in this censorious, redargutory address of mine: I desire the like freedom from you; well knowing that in many things, we offend all: and therefore, God forbid, but I should be as ready to ask pardon, where I give offence, as to grant pardon where I receive any. Nay I am not more forward in begging your pardon when I know I have offended, than I am in challenging your censure, wherein I have offended, when I know not the same myself. Alas, it is a woeful obstinacy in some men that they will not hear, and it is as woeful a timidity in others, that they will not give just, and due reprehensions. I doubt you are hardened in your errors, because so few declare against you: yet I hope, this will easily sink into you, that other men's silence, when you are really become a public scandal, will neither be able to acquit you before God, nor disoblige them. This man pretends you are a stranger to him, that man intimates you are below his reprehension: a third, objects, that you are mordacious, and so wilful, that you are beyond the benefit of any ingenuous reprehension: but sure, God's command of an office so just, and charitable, as Christian objurgation is, is not so to be superseded, or eluded. Your sin becomes mine, upon my silence, because I endeavour not to cure you: and my sinful silence adds to your trespasses, because it renders you the more incurable. For, first, All English Protestants are to regard you as a brother within God's command, and not as a stranger without it, for our common Mother the State of England, and our common Mother the Church of England, has a share in you: and necessarily must suffer loss by the losing of you, or gain by the reduction of you: and so in both these respects, or consanguinious relations (religious, and politic) you are to be tendered as a brother, though perhaps your face be strange to us. Nay God's command of reprehension is so large, that he that may be made my brother by it, though he be not so as yet, is capable of, and may require at my hands all faithful brotherly offers from me. 2ly, If you were bred a man of Trade, and not of letters: no man, how learned soever, can therefore allege, that 'tis too inglorious a task for him, to contest with you. Your want of literature at the last day will not make you uncapable of charity, or absolve them, who fail in the offices of charity towards you; the duty of reproof was not imposed upon us by God, that we might gain victory to ourselves, but that we might recover souls to him: wherefore if any man make use of reproof only for trial of his wit, and affect therein a garland above truth: that man setting himself on work is to receive wages from himself: he remains still a debtor unto God, but 'tis not to be expected that God should be made a debtor unto him. 3ly: others testify not against you for fear of your maledicency and inflexibility: but neither are these so to be acquitted before God. For God does not call all men in the forenoon, nor in the third, nor fourth hour of the afternoon: it belongs to us, early and late to admonish, and advertise, and with patience to expect God's time, and good pleasure whether he will prosper our first, or our latter endeavours. Besides if God's call has preceded, yet we still must wait with patience, for his call does not always work a sensible change in the first moment, especially in men of rugged dispositions, and in those things which are most congenial to the ruggedness of their dispositions. Lastly, if a sensible, apparent change has been wrought by God's call, yet still more patience is required of us, forasmuch as there is so much instability, and lubricity in the best men, that none of us are absolutely free from temporary relapses, and strange defections at sometimes. These things therefore will charge justly all of want of charity, or pusillanimous despondence, who see other men's deviations, yet seek not to reclaim them, and receive scandals often times, yet use no endeavours to amend them.  
But I hasten to the principal scope of this Letter, and to the particular heads of those things, for which you are liable to reproof.  
1. The first thing, which in reading the manner of your trial gave me scandal was: your prolix urging, and repeating of very many impertinent things, and yet complaining withal, that a just, and due freedom of speech was taken from you; 'tis most evident, (though you were not satisfied with your own vain loquacity) that a multitude of frivolous things fell from you too unworthy to detain the meanest and idlest of your Auditors, much more unworthy to entangle a Bench of such honourable, and sage Commissioners.  
2. The second was: your laying hold of divers shifting cavils, and shuffling exceptions in Law which were only fit to waste time, and procure trouble to the Court, (they were far from making any defence for you at all) and yet complaining at the same time, that the Law was forced, and violented to your destruction.  
3. The third which convinced me of your ignorance, if not of your impudence, was the utmost strength of your most formal pleas, and reasons in Law: for in my mind even those, though you demeaned yourself strangely presumptuous upon the justice of your cause, and upon your knowledge of the Law, were exceeding defective, and insufficient.  
4. The 4th. thing which gave me deep offence, and left you totally inexcusable in my judgement, was your bitter railings against the Judges, nay your most filthy reproachings against all Law, and Authority, I might almost say against humanity, and Divinity too; and yet still whilst you treated your Judges as the most despicable creatures in the world, your complaint was, that you were most villainously treated yourself.  
5. The 5th. thing which deserves a keen reproof from all honest men, was your assailing the sincerity of your Jurors so diversely, it was very plain that by the insidious clamours of your disciples, you attempted them one way, and by other subtle blandishments you seemed to wind yourself into their favours another way. For though you had the hap to amuse your 12. men, there is scarce any honest man in England, that is not moved to a great deal of disdain at the gross attempts which you made to debauch them both ways.  
Of these in this order.  
1. In your Arraignments first entrance being called upon to hold up your hand▪ acco●ding to the old custom and Law of England, by way of anticipation you demand freedom of speech: a thing you could not d●ubt of, provided you would not extend the bounds of your freedom too far. But it should seem your demand was for freedom of speech void of all bounds, and that your Judges might put no difference betwixt matters alleged proper for the time, place, and trial in hand, and matters utterly improper: you must have it as free for you to waste time away, and to abuse the Courts patience by trifling, as to defend yourself by opening the true state of your cause, and giving judicial answers to your Indictment. You begin therefore with long harangues of what had passed at Westminster, and Oxford, at some Arraignments of yours before the House of Peers, and Judge Heath: and then making no just use thereof: you descend as causelessly to speak against clandestine Trials, and upon that occasion you inform the Court, what had once been debated betwixt M: Miles Corbet, and yourself at a Committee for Examinations. From thence you slide to the great exploits that were done at Brainford against the King's Army by yourself, and some few others. From thence you digress to some conference betwixt the Lieutenant of the Tower, and yourself, wherein is laid open what faith you had given him to be his true Prisoner. You next rove further from thence, and inform the Court what the L: President Bradshaw, and M. Cook had pleaded for you in 1641. against the rigorous urging of Oaths by the Lords of Star-Chamber: likewise, what your City friends formerly had suggested for you in their Petition: what estate of yours had been seized upon by some Ministers of the Parliament: what incivility the soldiers had showed in apprehending you: what Coll: Walter Long had spent the King during his imprisonment in the Tower: what you had read in the Law-books against special Commissions of Oier and Terminer: how requisite it was that your Judges should expose their Commission to your exception, that their power of judging you might so be submitted to your power of judging them.  
To conclude, (though you concluded not so) after much more obstreperous contestation about so many several impertinences, you vouchsafe at last to arrive at your Trials Introduction, to wit, the first ceremony of holding up your hand to the Court, and even that ceremony also must afford you a larger field for your eloquence to expatiate in. This was your praeludium in the forenoon of your first day: and to trace you further through all your extravagancies, for two entire days would be endless: but by this praeludium any man may easily discern what lessons were played afterwards, when your pipes were once throughly tuned. You will perhaps say, though these and some other passages (by you repeated more than once,) were foreign to the main issue of guilty, or not guilty, yet inasmuch as they did some way tend to move commiseration in the people, they were not altogether unseasonable, or improper. But this supposes that you were brought to the bar as well to work upon the multitude, and catch the affections of the injudicious, as to satisfy your sworn Judges and Jurors in matter of Law, or Fact: which is a thing not at all to be supposed. For you must needs grant, that it belongs not to the common people that are admitted to see and hear, to pass any judgement at all: that it belongs not to the Judges to see or hear, as the common people do: that public persons are to divest themselves of private affections: that if your Judges might not look upon you with private eyes, or acquit you of present guilt in regard of past merits, or former sufferings (which is not allowed to them) yet they are not to be swayed at all with your bare averments of your own merits, and sufferings without sufficient testimony, and examination of others. You know the old Theorems of Law: Judges are to proceed, and pass sentence not secundum allegata, bu●secundum allegata & pro●ata: and therefore in all Courts of Justice, things not made apparent, are in the same predicament, as things not existent. It appears therefore, that all these discourses of yours, wherein so many hours were consumed, were improper, and extrajudicial; and this appearing so clearly: with what front could you pretend, and clamour as you did, that freedom of discourse was taken away from you, and that all that was due to an English man was denied you? Is it possible, is it reconcilable to sense, that you could be abridged of just liberty in pleading things pertinent, and yet at the same time range abroad so wildly, and profusely lavish away your oratory in things so impertinent? Two entire days were spent in your trial; and yet it is most evident by the short issue you were put upon, (viz: whether you were the Author or no of such, and such Pamphlets) that as much business of other men's uses commonly to be dispatched in a quarter of the space, as was dispatched then of yours. Your own Narrative also set forth by your own approbation (if not order and direction) shows, and ocularly demonstrates, that in your long trial, neither the Commissioners on the Bench, nor the Counsel● at Barre took up half so much time in speaking, as you yourself did. There can be no error in this, if we will but number your leaves, and lines of your own panegyrical, ostentatious Relation. Besides not only the prolixity, but also the acrimony of your language testifies against you: for men that are restrained from speaking, are much more restrained from speaking insolently, maliciously, and abusively: and the same Authority that checks modest language, will serve to choke up, and obstruct all immodest expressions. Sure, you were not well advised, when you suffered this book of your trial to pass the press: for it either contradicts you, or itself; inasmuch as in some places it contains very passionate complaints to yours against the Court, as if it triumphed over you, and debarred you of a free defence: yet the whole tenor of it from one end to the other declares amply, and pregnantly, that your Judges were by you treated as the most abject captives in the world, and, as it were, dragged up and down before the vulgar only to grace your chariot wheels. In due place I shall instance to you, and give in particulars how insulting you were, how the ears of your Judges were always deafened almost with their own reproaches, and all other men's mouths stopped with your hyperbolical boastings. Such odious shameless things were scarce ever vented by any brawler whatsoever, in any place whatsoever, much less did ever any prisoner at bar presume to spit such things in the face of Justice itself. But my order leads me next after your mere impertinences to your frivolous cavillations.  
2. I shall here only recite, with much brevity, some of your principal subterfuges, and demurring pretences, and then let the world judge, whether ever any tribunal before would suffer Justice to be so baffled: or any Prisoner before ever thought it worth while to lay hold of such poor advantages. The ceremony of your hands erection must first be explained to you; and when by its explanation it appears harmless, and of a reasonable signification, you will agree to do something equivalent, and tantamount, but the ceremony itself, and its ancient Authority you will not submit to. For your judge's Commission, you must first be advised whether it be general, or special: and when you are advised that it is not special: yet you must have leave a great while to show your learning and reading against special Commissions. When you are to plead to your Indictment of Treason (Guilty, or not Guilty:) you must first spend time in pleading against such pleading: and when that will not prevail, you give in a conditionate, delusory plea, such as you think is good enough for the trial to proceed upon whilst you please, but may be revoked at your pleasure. When your Indictment is read, you must have a copy of it, you must have space for eight or nine days to put in exceptions against it: you must have counsel assigned you to prepare those exceptions: and if these things be granted, (which you know were never granted in England, or elsewhere) you will vouchsafe to make an absolute, binding plea. When the question is put, by whom you will be tried: you will not say by God and your country, because that is a form anciently prescribed, but after some time wrangled away, you will yield to the same in substance: that is, you will be tried in the presence of God by a Jury of your Equals, according to Law. When you see your sophisms are not able to blind your Judges, you carp at the very Honour of your trial: you repine at the Bench for being adorned with so much learning, and for being filled with so great a number of Judges, Aldermen, Knights, Esquires, &c. no less than forty in all: nay neither your Judges, nor the Grand Jury (though they were choice men also) could escape the brands of suborned persons, and conspirators against your life. When the Judges, to pacify your impetuous noise for counsel, promise you shall have it, as soon as matter of Law arises out of matter of Fact, and in the mean time assure you they (according to their duty) will be faithful counsel to you, you answer, that your Indictment is nothing else but matter of Law. When a second day is granted you to produce witnesses (a favour not expected by other Delinquents, who at their perils are to be always ready with their witnesses to purge themselves of any crime) instead of bringing witnesses, you begin that second day with a disavowing of your Plea. When you have used all art yourself in consuming, and dallying away time, you demand leave for your solicitor that he may come in upon the Court, as a fresh Reserve of yours. When the Petit-Jury appears to be sworn, you are not contented to except against them yourself upon your own discretion; you desire your friends may be admitted also to except against them, because perhaps some of your Friends may know some of them better than you do. When witnesses appear to prove you the Author of such a book, you prescribe them to swear to this individual book, viz: that this identical book was delivered to the Printer, and this identical book is intimated in the Indictment. When a single witness appears against you, though he be seconded with never so many pregnant circumstances, and strong presumptions, yea though others contest also to the same thing, only not acted in the same place, and at the same time; you then waive the municipal Law of England, and prefer the civil Law before it: 'tis in vain for your Judges to cite Statutes against you: for either you are wiser than the Statutes of England, or you are a wiser Interpreter of the Statutes of England, than your Judges. When three competent witnesses depose against you as to the same seditious book, you say those books were not without erratas, and 'tis possible that the same book had had no seditious passages in it, had it not been for those erratas of the Printer. When some of the books carried the signature of your own hand upon them, you put the attorney general to his proofs that that was your hand: and if that be proved by the attorney, you tell him plainly, He gains nothing by it, for except the book be proved yours otherwise, the signature of your hand proves it not so. When the Printers erratas will not help you, you say the book perhaps might be misdated, for if the book was made and dated before the Act of Parliament (which condemned such books as seditious) it was not seditious. When the Act of Parliament is proved precedent to the date, you say, perhaps the Act was not duly proclaimed, or else the copy of the Act read now, was not examined duly by the clerk's book at Westminster, or else the clerk's book at Westminster was no true Parliament Record. Let it be supposed also that you are proved the Author of such books, and the same to be treasonable; yet still you defend yourself with this, that in those treasonable books, you had no treasonable intent, and then you are still upon this guard: Mens, non Actus facit rem: The Law condemns none for a Treasonable Act, except his intent be proved treasonable. Alas, what is there, that can escape your exception? From the Judges, and the Laws, and the Witnesses, and the Informers, and the Jurors, you proceed at last to except against the doorkeeper of the Jurors. You pretend, forsooth, that the very doorkeeper has expressed something of bitterness against you: and therefore you move that the door of the room where the Jurors are to agree of a Verdict, may be kept by some other man more impartial towards you. Who ever heard of such dallying capritios before in any Court of Justice? who ever heard of any Judges hands bound up before by the like nugatory cavillations of any Prisoner whatsoever? You think your life a strange prey, that all the world should be such greedy hunters of it: but I think your soul a strange Purgatory rather, that so many jealous, uncharitable thoughts, like Zim, and Ohim, should be disquieting haunters of it. The Parliament is partial, and conjured against you, because some Members of it have been provoked by, and put at a distance with you by some enmity of yours: The attorney general is no competent Prosecutor against you, because he is a burgess of Parliament: The Judges are excepted against, because they are created by the Parliament: and all the rest of the Bench are to be suspected, because, forsooth, they may be mislead, and overborne by these creatures of the Parliament. Thus to you justice can never be administered, till the world be new moulded, nay nor yet so, except you have the new moulding of it. But I pray tell me, do all these objections, and prolongations of yours savour of a dejected, oppressed spirit, or could they proceed from an imprisoned, overawed tongue? Judicet Orbis. Surely you did direct these futilous, empty umbrages of reason either to sway wiser judgements, or only to infect, and trump the ruder multitude: if the first, you render yourself a very deliring man notwithstanding all your reading of the Law, which you vaunt so much of: if the second, you merit the brand of a frontless impostor, and seem to prefer Mahomet's politics before Machiavel's.  
3. I come now from your impertinencies, and cavils to the more rational, and formal part of your defence: but what true strength there was in your best arguments, and pleas; let the world judge, and decide.  
You begin with the Commission, by which the Court sits upon you, and is qualified to absolve or condemn you. You argue stiffly that you ought to hear it read, and pass your censure of it; nay you pretend all other Commissions, besides those ordinary ones, whereby the country Assizes, and Quarterly Sessions are held, are against Law.  
By this, it should seem, the Judges come upon the Bench to be judged of by Prisoners at the bar, as well as Prisoners at the bar come to be judged by the Bench. For if the party arraigned may freely question, and dispute the Authority before which he is arraigned, there must be some other Court to determine betwixt him, and his Judges, or else he and his Judges being both clothed with equalty of jurisdiction, must depart upon equal terms, without any judgement passed on either side. And if so, what issue, what effect can Justice have? I do not deny, that a Prisoner may be wrongfully condemned, I do not deny that a prisoner so wronged is remediable: I only deny, the Prisoner to be a competent Judge of such wrongs. Upon this reason it stands, that a Prisoner may appeal to a higher Judge from the lower, but his right of appeal derives to him no right of Judgement: nor can appeals lie but only from inferior Courts. For if there were a freedom of judging due to Prisoners, as well as of appealing, all impeachments, and criminal charges would be endless, and utterly uncapable of determination. Commissions hereupon are directed to the Judges, not to Prisoners, and being Warrants for the Judges to proceed upon, and to justify their sentences, not rules, or Laws by which Prisoners are to stand or fall, they ought to be read, and examined by the Judges, but not so by Prisoners. Besides, though it may be proper for a Prisoner in some cases to appeal at last from his Judges, where they have not rightly pursued their Commission: you he cannot plead at first to the virtue of the Commission, forasmuch, as in so doing he appeals not to, but from the Supreme Authority: nor can he plead want of legal form in the Commission, forasmuch as that pertains to the danger, or indemnity of his Judges, not of him: and if he were as much concerned in it, as his Judges (which he cannot be) yet 'twere absurd that his judgement should be made equal, or superior to the judgement of his Commissioners. 'tis by you taken for granted, that the special Commissions of Oier, and Terminer in the North (which were first granted by Hen: the 8th: and after continued by all his Successors) were illegal, and unformall: if we should grant this too (as we do not) you may conclude, that the Commissioners which acted thereupon, were answerable for acting without a sufficient warrant: but you cannot conclude notwithstanding, that any Delinquent, or Defendant suffered unjustly thereby, or was condemned contrary to Law thereupon. Moreover, it is high arrogance in you to condemn all extraordinary Commissions of Oier, and Terminer; and to say that the Stat: of Westmist: the 2d. (where the Supreme power of the Nation, King, Peers, and Commons, was present, and did cooperate) by which such extraordinary Commissions were established, was an irrational innovation. You may as justifiably say, that Ed: the 3d. and all the Kings, and Parliaments since to this day have deserved your correction, and subjected themselves to your vile exprobration, for that they also have confirmed, and kept in force the same irrational innovation. What an unlimited liberty do you take to yourself? such things are irrational Innovations, because you affirm, they are contrary to Magna Charta: and yet you know well, the power and Majesty of England, the same as created Magna Charta itself, by several Statutes, and by a continual confirmation of practice for the space of above 300. years, have declared them neither to be innovations, nor contrariant to Magna Charta. wherefore since your judgement cannot bow to any, nor can pay a reverent submission to the Authority of so many Parliaments, or to the prudence of so many ages, what satisfaction are you capable of? You will say this Parliament in 1641. when it consisted of 4. or 5. hundred Members, and when it was an undeflowred counsel condemned, and abolished the Northern Court. Let it be so: that particular Court had declined from its primitive institution, and so was thought fit to be dissolved: but you know after much debate about the abuses of extraordinary Commissions in general, and after a full poizing of all that could be urged on both sides, nothing was concluded further against them; and so the Parliaments resolution at last makes as much against you, as its debate at first makes for you, Exceptio in non exerptis firmat regulam. More was delivered at your trial by the attorney general, and the Judges touching this subject: and that this Commission by which you were to be judged, was not special but general: I shall not therefore add any more at present upon the subject, but refer you to your own memory. I shall only supply this advertisement, that whatsoever illegality can be objected against special Commissions, it more befits and imports the Commissioners, than their Prisoners arraigned before them, to dispute the same. And whereas you appeal (as it were) from this present devirginated Parliament, to that which sat in 1641. which acted so gallantly, as you say, for universal liberty; and not for self-interest: you must be reminded, that none but Parliaments ought to judge of Parliaments: and that Parliaments become no Parliaments when they are liable to the censures of private persons. You may be also further reminded, that the Parliament of 1641. which was so pure, yet in 1642. afforded a great number of revolting Members to the King: such as you yourself then judged revolters. Nay the same Parliament in 1647. afforded yet many more revolters in your construction, for your first quarrel against the Parliament was, that it did not then purge itself of the degenerate Members that assembled with M. H: Pelham. This is therefore a contradictorious humour in you to decry the Parliament in 1649. that you may extol the Parliament in 1641, when according to your own former judgement, the Parliament of 1649. is only the unrevolting remainder of the Parliament in 1641.  
The next thing you complain of, is: that you are not arraigned in your own County at the Assizes, and that you were not apprehended by the civil Officer, although the Nation be now in peace, and you one that neither sought to fly, nor make resistance. Here you suppose that you are an ordinary person, that these are ordinary times, that the crime you are Indicted for is an ordinary crime, and so you infer, that this apprehension, and arraignment of yours being extraordinary is against the common right and Freedom of the Nation. But. 1. for your person, you are not a common malefactor; you are presumed, upon no light grounds, to be the Head, or one of the heads of a dangerous, and desperate faction; and faction that has already been in Arms, and is still watching new opportunities of rising again in Arms; a faction that has used all endeavours to disband, divide, and debauch the Army, and to effect the same is willing to combine with Royalists, or any foreign Invaders whatsoever: the Crime charged upon you is as heinous as can be, 'tis vigorously attempting by all manner of practices, and correspondencies, especially by seditious Pamphlets, to embroil this Nation in a third civil war, and so to subvert the settled Form of Government. The former Wars have been exceeding bloody, and long it was before the Nations wounds could be staunched, wherefore another tearing open of the same wounds, would in probability make them more mortal, and more hard to be healed, than they were before. 3. For the times they are not so calm, and secure, as your party, together with the Royalists, would fain make us to believe they are, to the end that you might the better incense the people against Taxes and Excise, and so wrest our Arms out of our hands: We have not indeed ensigns flourished against ensigns in the field, nor weapons openly drawn against weapons, but every Summer almost we have new Insurrections, and even now we keep our Colours unfurled, that we may keep yours furled: and our Swords remain unsheathed to daunt you from unsheathing yours. Non recurrendum est ad extraordinaria in iis quae fleri possunt per ordinaria: we grant you so much: but you must then as freely grant to us; that where ordinary remedies are not so safe, and available, we must have resort to such, as are extraordinary. Judge Jenkins never read this maxim of the Law to you, that a private mischief is rather to be chosen, than a public inconvenience. For certainly neither he, nor you would so confound perpetually all persons, cases, and times, and be so oblivious of all necessity, and reason of State, as to put a private man's liberty in balance against public safety, and to value some formalities in practice equal with the highest of all Laws, if ever you had seriously studied this incontroulable, unerring maxim. Besides, were that Law by which you challenge an ordinary Trial at the Assizes in Surrey, every way equivalent to the Empress of all Statutes, customs, and formalities (Salus Populi): yet neither so would your challenge hold: forasmuch as your Treason (if proved against you) was committed not only in Surrey where perhaps your books were written, but in London also where your books were Printed, yea in every County of the Land where they were published, and dispersed amongst the people. There is not a Parish in England, or Wales, but may appear to prosecute you for a general disturber of Peace, and mover of sedition, and one that has most desperately conjured against his whole country, and every part of it.  
The 3d: thing you argue against is the plea of Guilty, or not Guilty: 'tis against the Petition of Right, you say, that any man should be compelled to answer Interrogatories against himself: that the Star-Chamber Court was abolished for forcing such Interrogatories upon us: lastly, that the practice of Christ himself, and his Apostles, discharges us from answering to such Interogatories. You run here into a gross mistake, for that you distinguish not betwixt the abusive framing, and enforcing of some special Interrogatories upon oath, where the crime is not of public concernment, and where other proof is failing, and where they extend further than to the point in issue: and demanding an affirmative, or negative without oath to the direct point in issue, where according to valid evidence a legal charge of public concernment is preferred. If these things were distinguished, you would not find any thing in the Petition of Right repugnant to the old Interrogatory of Guilty, or not Guilty. For since the 3d: of K: Charles Delinquents have been tried, and held to this old plea, as well as before in all ages, and none of our Judges ever yet sprung any such new interpretation, as you now spring, contrary to the custom of all times, and all Nations. The odium that now lies upon some Interrogatories has been contracted either by the fraud of the party interrogating, or obstinacy of the party interrogated: whereupon the sweet-tempered Law of England, to prevent the mischief that might arise from either of these parties, that neither the one might strain questions too high, nor the other decline them too far, finds out a channel in the midst of the stream, neither totally abandoning them, nor giving too wild a licence to them. The civil Law is very rigorous, and in many places uses racks to extort evidence from ordinary Delinquents, where there is but moderate presumption against them: and yet doubtless this rigor is more salubrious, than such a fondness as you now contend for, when you would reject all Examinations in all case whatsoever. The Star-Chamber was grown to a great abuse of Interrogatories in private Suits and differences, and was therefore wisely abolished: but this proves not, that the first institution of the same Court, yea and its long continuation after under so many wise Parliaments was unpolitic. For in times of Reformation it often happens, that even good things, when they have been far debauched, are prudently laid aside, and sometimes justly burnt, yea ground to powder, and made subjects of our detestation. Well therefore might the Lord President (whom) I shall always mention with as much honour, as you with contempt, nay whom your contempt confirms to me to be the more honourable) well might He detestate Star-Chamber Examinations, as they had been abused in the late King's days, and yet not declare himself now an absolute enemy to all Examinations whatsoever. The obstinate silence of Delinquents, when they will not confess, nor deny their guilt, is ever taken for a Confession not only by the Laws of England, but by the Laws of all other Nations: and 'twas more favour to you than you could challenge from your Judges, that your plea, which you would not allow to be negative, was not taken for affirmative against you. 'tis true, if it were sin in a prisoner to confess his guilt, it would be sin in a Magistrate to press him to such a Confession; but since 'tis rather a service to the God of truth, to affirm a truth in the midst of danger, I mean such a truth, as is of more advantage to justice, and to the safety of a State, than it is of disadvantage to the party confessing, what rigor is in the Law, or in the Judge, that requires such a plea from the prisoner? For the objection, that evil minded men will deny guilt contrary to truth, of which untrue denial the Magistrate by this means becomes the occasion: 'tis answered easily: in as much as he which is no proper cause, though he be an occasion of offence, offends not therein: in as much also as the Magistrate is not to prevent an uncertain offence by declining a certain duty: nor will the Law presume all men false, because many are not true. As for our saviour's example, who you say being examined before Pilate, would not by his own confession, or asserting of a truth, make himself obnoxious to judgement: It shows you as pseudodox in Divinity, as you are in Law. I shall by and by make it appear, that our Saviour who neither had any guilt to confess, nor did refuse to give answer to any pertinent, judicial questions of the Magistrate, nor had any hope of escaping condemnation by being silent, is very much blasphemed by you.  
A 4th. thing, for which you conceive your arguments are valid, and concludent, is allowance of counsel, as also time for eight or nine days to consult with them, before you answer your Indictment. Your reason is, because you know not the formalities of Law, as neither having Latin, nor French to read the books, and you say 'tis a great deal of nicety and danger for an ignorant man to be locked up to single formalities. The Judges tell you, that when matter of Law arises out of matter of Fact, you shall have counsel assigned you; that till such matter arise, they are your sworn counsel, and are bound to be indifferent betwixt the State, and you: and they will take care that no niceties, nor single formalities shall overthrow you. You do as good as reply, that because you are void of Latin, and French, you must have counsel; and because they are partial, and you dare neither trust their Offices, nor Oaths, you must have counsel such as you dare trust: the sum is this: because you are ignorant of the practice of Law, you may rail at your Judges, and because you may rail at your Judges, you may claim time, and other counsel besides them, of your own choosing: if you were not as unskilled in the theory, as you are in the practice of the Law, you would not upon all occasions so often infist upon inconveniencies likely to ensue to yourself, and take no notice of public mischiefs. You would then be satisfied, that your Judges ought rather to admit of a mischief to you, then of an inconvenience to the State: although you perpetually urge them to admit of mischief to the State, rather than inconveniences unto you. You pretend in the next place, that your Indictment is long, and consists wholly of matter of Law: and therefore time and counsel ought to be assigned you. Your Judges answer you again, that though the Indictment be long, yet you need not charge your memory with every part of it, the main matter of it is very brief, and no other but matter of Fact: viz: whether, or no, you were the Author of the several books therein nominated. Now no study of Law in England, neither that which is published in English, nor that which is locked up from the vulgar in-Latin and French, can avail you in this matter, you may perfectly inform your counsel whether you composed those books, or no, but your counsel can inform you nothing at all therein. You still allege, that after proof of the fact, it may be too late for counsel to assist you: and you are not able now to give answer without counsel, because you knew not before what would be the matter of your Indictment. I wish you would at last remember, that the Judges are not to consider only, what is most behooveful for you, but what is most behooveful for you, and the State: but still you continue your error in this, that, you suppose your Indictment to be mere matter of Law, when as you might as well have pretended that it was all mathematics, or metaphysics, as all Law. For is there any impossibility at present for you to answer without counsel whether these were your books, or no: because you knew not before, what you were to answer to? When you say, your counsel may come too late after confession of the Fact, your meaning is plain: 'tis insinuated thereby, that when you have disowned, or owned a thing, they cannot procure you a new liberty to own, or disown it the second time, and so not being able to nullify your answer; they cannot procure you new counsel, or new respite for eight or nine days more to give in a new Answer: but when you say 'tis impossible for you upon the sudden, and without advice of counsel to own, or disowned books, you seem very dark to me, I cannot dive into your meaning. You come now to precedents, and say first, that Ju: Heath at Oxford allowed you counsel before pleading. The Judges Answers might give you full satisfaction herein. For, 1. Heath well enough understood that your charge was not Treason: 2ly, if it were Treason, He understood, as well, that the Parliament had more prisoners of the Kings, than the King had of the Parliaments, and so the retaliation would turn to the disadvantage of the King. 3ly, The proceedings at Oxford are no fit rules for our Courts at Westminster, nor is it congruous that you who then fought against Heath, and his confederates, for subverting Law, should now cite his practice at Oxford for Law, and bring us to rely upon him as a main pillar of Justice. For another precedent, you cite the Parliament in the Earl of Straffords Case, who, you say, had counsel assigned him before pleading, but this is contradicted by Justice Jermyn: and He better informs you, that the Earl of Strafford before pleading had no counsel granted Him: and if He had, the Parliament was not so subject to the common rules of Law, as inferior Courts are. Your 3d: precedent alleges that Major Rolph had counsel allowed him by the Lord Ch: Baron Welde in a Charge of Treason before the Grand Jury had past upon Him. But the Answers of your Judges clearly avoid the force of this allegation; for first, it is no more evident to this Court what was done by the Lord Ch: Baron in Rolphs' Case, then upon what reason it was so done. If counsel was allowed, it may be Rolph confessed the Charge, or there might be some other difference in the Case: and so the allowance of Counsel might be legal. But 2ly, suppose it to be illegal, and then it has no obliging force upon this Court▪ That Court which is engaged to administer justice according to the form of the Common Law of England, may not so safely follow one example varying from the old usage, as they may a thousand keeping more close to the same.  
In the 5th. place, you strive to invalidate the state's witnesses, saying, there are none but single witnesses now produced against you: and the validity of single witnesses is taken away by 2. Statutes of Ed: 6. To this the Judges answer, that the Statutes of Ed: 6. are overruled by a later Stat: of 1. and 2. of P. and Mary. That also by the Common Law of England, where Treasons are triable thereby, one witness is sufficient, especially when there are several facts of a Treasonable nature, and several testimonies given in to each respective fact. But if single witnesses be not sufficient, yet still in this case of yours, besides a concurrence of circumstances, and a triplication of witnesses to several facts of the same nature; and other strong presumptions, there wants not the complete number of 2. or 3. witnesses to one, and the same matter, and such as lie under no just or reasonable exception.  
In the 6th. place therefore supposing the books proved to be yours, yet you say, there might be erratas either in the dating, or Printing of them: and you are not to suffer for other men's errors. Here is a great weight hanged upon a small thread: you must not be admitted to be the Author of such, and such treasons, because there is a possibility, a very remote possibility, that you were not the Author of them. You strike, and wound a man that dies immediately, and have nothing to plead for yourself, but a mere distant possibility that the man might have some other mortal inward disease, of which he would have fall'n down dead at the same instant, though your hand had not been upon him. This plea will not hold good, you are here the affirmant, and the proof lies on your side, you must make it appear by chirurgeons, and physicians, that your blow was not mortal, and that there was indeed some other mortal cause, or else your mere alleged possibility will advantage you nothing at all. And if one possibility in that case will not acquit you, how should you be acquitted in this Indictment, where many seditious passages in many several books are charged against you, and you have nothing to ward them all, but possibility upon possibility that all those seditious passages might be caused by so many several mistakes of the Printers? You having no proofs, nor colourable presumptions to offer, that there were indeed any such mistakes? He that affirms (whether he be plaintiff, or Defendant, if the matter affirmed be very important) must prove, so far as he affirms, this is a rule in Law, and logic not to be dispensed with. And thereupon the Defendant, if by good specialty it has been proved by the plaintiff, that money was lent, shall not avoid the Action, by pleading payment, and satisfaction given, unless he prove, and make the same evident. Away then with these toys of your Printers possible erratas: away likewise with the possible misdating of your books. For the Act of July last did not so much make, as declare your books treasonable: and you know in my L. of Straffords Case, when he insisted upon this, that where there was no Law, therewas no Transgression: 'twas soon returned to him for answer, That endeavours to subvert settled Government, was against an internal Law, if there were none written against it, being malum in se, not quia prohibitum: and for that reason every man in such transgressions without written Law, is a Law to himself. It was also further pressed to him, that after the Statute of the 25. Ed: 3. wherein Treasons were specially enumerated, the Parliament nevertheless had attainted divers Delinquents, whose Treasons were not enumerated in that statute, & it was no relief to the offenders to plead, that they had offended without warning, and were made the first examples of public severity. There is nothing more notorious than this, that the people's safety is supreme to all judicial Laws, as well in order of time, as in order of Nature: and that as it was, the prime judicial Law engraven in our breasts at the Creation: so it ought to be the most fundamental Law enrolled in our public treasuries.  
The 7th▪ prop of our cause is, that you are only acoused, and impeached for words, and by several Statutes, you say, of Hen: 4. Q. Mary, and Q. Eliz: it is manifested, that they in those days detested the making of words, or writing to be Treason. He that rightly distinguishes, rightly delivers, and teaches truth: but you relying upon a contrary art, an art of confounding things, not of distinguishing, render yourself justly suspected, that your aim is subtly to infuse, and inspire falsehoods into your disciples, not to hold forth, or teach truths. You cannot but know there is sometimes a wide difference in words, yea in the same words; that some words signify more than others, and at sometimes sound forth greater matters then at others. For example, words in writing are more permanent, than words spoken: and words written are of a more transient nature than words printed, forasmuch as they intimate less of purpose, and premeditation: and the same words spoken, written, or printed by a discontented man, or at the point of death, or directed unto persons aggrieved, carry much more weight in them, and use to make deeper impression, than they would if they had been uttered by another person, upon another occasion, unto men of another condition. Therefore the Prophet, who regards some men's words no more than the crackling of thorns under a pot, or croaking of frogs in a puddle: yet likens other men's words to sharp arrows, and poisoned darts, yea, and other men's counsels to the venom of asps, and to the eggs of cockatrices. Adonijah had a request to present to his brother Solomon, and for the more reverence sake He would use the mediation of Solomon's mother therein: the matter also of his request was only for a wife, for a wife of ordinary parentage, who in Law could have no pretention to the Crown: Howsoever Solomon who found a great danger wrapped up in this plausible supplication, distinguishes further nevertheless, and by the sentence of his oraculous breast, that same design which deserved death, and was treasonable in his brother supplicating, was simple, and altogether inoffensive in his mother interceding. Achitophel was only of counsel with Absolom, we find not that He furnished Horses and Arms, or raised men with his manifestoes, yet doubtless his words were more pernicious to David at such a time, than the swords of ten thousand other Revolters; and David was more earnest with God to disappoint the inductions of Achitophel's tongue, then to rout and defeat all the other brigades, and stratagems of his Son Absolom. Tarquin when his Son consulted with him about the destruction of a neighbour State, conveyed his fatal, subversive plots by signs, and dumb gestures: for even by doing execution with his staff upon the highest grown, and fairest Lilies in the garden, He sufficiently taught, and instructed a young traitor to despoil a commonwealth of its most potent, and most politic Grandees. What Tarquin did without words, or writings against a foreign Enemy, may be practised nearer at home by an intestine conspirator to the ruin of his own country, and shall we say that no Law ought to take hold of such a conspirator, because his treasons did not amount to so much as words, or writings? Good Sir, study the superior Laws more, and the inferior less, at leastwise when you have attained skill enough to render to every private man what is his due in chattels real, and personal, make a further progress, and strive to satisfy yourself in that which is the due of the whole State, and concerns our general preservation. Mounsiur Du Bartas, as He is Englished, advertises well (you may find Law in verse sometimes, as well as in Litleton) 
Treasons are like the cockatrice's eye,  
If they foresee they kill, foreseen they die.  The story of the Basilisk perhaps is not to be credited in physics, yet it affords us this wholesome mythology in politics, that when we come within any near distance of traitors (where their designs like poisonous beams of the eye may possibly reach us) we must expect to surprise, or be surprised, to anticipate, or be anticipated. Away then with all your niceties in Law, whereby you retard justice, if our safety cannot be provided for without some incommodity of yours, nor the absolute Empress of all Laws be served, and obeyed without infringing some privilege of yours: you must give us leave to prefer the being of England, before the well-being of any Englishman: nay the well-being of England, before the being of any Englishman whatsoever. Two whole days are now consumed in one issue of yours, (whether such books were yours or no) and 2. whole months had been consumed, if all your Arguments of dilation and respite had been harkened unto: but if such a privilege be indulged to every prisoner in cases of Treason: what unprofitable, uneffectual things will justice, and judgement become in England? how will Treasons like Hydraes-heads spring forth? whilst one Delinquent is upon his trial, ten more will start up in his place: and either there will not be found Judges enough, or the Judges will not find time enough to arraign any considerable part of them. If words could not amount to Treason, Achitophel, and Adonijah would as easily purge themselves, as you can, and so will a thousand other delinquents: but if you will grant that Adonijah might couch Treason in an humble Petition for a wife, and Achitophel do the like in his advices to his Master's sons, grant also that the Laws of England may be as severe against such Traitors, as the Laws of the Jews were. And for all your other subterfuges, except you think yourself a better pleader than that Gilonite was, you may well think, his would have been as legal as yours are: grant him such a trial, as you claim, and as much prolongation of time, and he will make his cause as fair as yours: nay leave him to be his own Judge (as you in effect challenge to be) and he will justify Absolom's defeated Army, and prove them, as holy Martyrs, as you do your Burford brethren. Consider also, that there is now more Law against you for seditious books, than there was against Adonijah, for petitioning his brother: and consider withal that the Laws of England now, are not therein more rigid than they were in former times. You profess yourself exact in all the body of our English Law (except only in the practical formalities of it) therefore I question not, you have read Burton's Case in the 10th: of H: 7. the Duke of Norfolk's Case in the 13. of Eliz: together with Owen's Case in the 13th. of K: James: and you know these (with divers others cited against the Earl of Strafford, since the beginning of this Parliament) do inform you sufficiently, that many have suffered for merely traitorous words, even when no further traitorous act, or intent was proved against them. Correct therefore at last your own impudent arrogance, by taking notice that there is nothing due to you, but what is due to every man in England: and that if every man in England shall baffle Law, as you do, and therefore accuse the present Government, of Tyranny, and usurpation, because it refuses to be baffled: there remains nothing but that we all dissolve into our first chaos of confusion.  
Your 8th: help, or strength upon which you rest, is the power of your 12 Jurors. For you first pull down the Judges from their tribunal as mere ciphers, and as Clerks that have nothing to do, but to cry, Amen: and then into their seats you promote your 12. men, whereupon you grow confident, that this gratification of yours, together with your condiscending to be their City brother, will bring them to your devotion, and cause them to employ their new given jurisdiction only to the advantage of the giver. We perceive hereby plainly the substance of your Levelling philosophy to be briefly this: The Judges because they understand Law, are to be degraded, and made servants to the Jurors: but the Jurors, because they understand no Law, are to be mounted aloft, where they are to administer justice to the whole Kingdom. The Judges because they are commonly Gentlemen by birth, and have had honourable education, are to be exposed to scorn: but the Jurors, because they be commonly mechanics, bred up illiterately to handy crafts, are to be placed at the helm. And consequently Learning and gentle extraction, because they have been in esteem with all Nations from the beginning of the world till now, must be debased; but ignorance, and sordid birth must ascend the chair, and be lifted up to the eminentest offices, and places of power. Cobbler's must now practise physic instead of doctors; Tradesmen must get into Pulpits instead of Divines, and plowmen must ride to the Sessions instead of Justices of the Peace. The pretence of levelling is to put all men upon an equal floor, by adding to the inferior so much as may match him with his superior, and taking from the superior so much as may match him with his inferior: and this is sufficiently heretical in policy. But the intention of our Levellers, we see, is more diametrically opposite to the order of Nature, for it leaves an inequality amongst men as great as ever; It does not partially alter, but totally cross Divine Providence, whilst it elevates that which was depressed, & depresses that which was elevated: and so makes that the Head which was the Foot; and that the foot, which was the Head. The turbulent Kentish spirits that followed Cade, and Tyler, as they intended the ruin of all men generously born, and qualified, so they professed their intention, and upon all occasions fell foul upon any, whom they found guilty of Inkhorns and pens: but our modern perturbators intend one thing, but profess another; their mystery is to destroy Law under pretext of Liberty; and to supplant Liberty under pretext of Law. You which sometimes would appear the grand Patron of Law, yet at other times deride the whole profession of Lawyers, revile all the Benches of Justice at Westminster, spurn at Statutes more than 500 years old, set at nought the wisest of our Kings, and Parliaments, yea and the most salubrious Acts that ever our Kings and Parliaments passed. If any Law crosses you, you break through it as great flies use to do through cobwebs: 'tis sufficient for you to say 'twas a part of the Norman yoke, or an irrational innovation: nay some of our ancient customs, such as holding up of hands at the bar, are so beyond all exception, that no man can see why they should be unsuitable to your fancy, but only because they are ancient, and bear the stamp of Authority. You a prisoner judge, and condemn your Judges for going against Law: and yet nothing can be more against Law, then for Judges to be so judged, and condemned by prisoners; especially when the sense of the Law also is manifestly distorted by such prisoners for upholding things illegal, and opposing things most legal. The like may be said of Liberty, that also as well as Law finds you a propugner in show, but an impugner indeed; you bear a buckler in one hand to defend it seemingly, but a sword in the other hand to wound it really. You had the breeding of an Apprentice to enable you for Trade, and want Latin and French to enable you for Law, or for the true understanding of its terms: yet you nevertheless must interpret Law to the Judges, and by your interpretation make them mere Ciphers; and this is your birthright due to you, as an Englishman: when as the Judges notwithstanding, because perhaps you deny them to be Englishmen, or to have any share in your birthright, have nothing to do but to submit to your magisterial Interpretation; by your doctrine the Flower of the Nation must be subjected to the bran, or else liberty cannot prosper: the Gentleman must be ordered at the peasants' discretion, the Judge must do the mean office of a Clerk, and cry Amen to the Juryman, (which all hitherto have judged villainous, and servile) or else villainous servility is introduced amongst us. But if Liberty be a public, common benefit, does it not appertain to the Gentleman, as well as to the peasant, and to the Judge as well as to the Juror? nay does it not extend to the securing, and preserving (as far as is possible) of every man in every due right? or is there not something that is the proper interest of a Gentleman quatenus a Gentleman? and of a Judge quatenus a Judge, as well as there is of a peasant quatenus a peasant, and of a Juror, quatenus a Juror? That most excellent, harmonions eutaxy in Heaven which God himself settled from the beginning amongst the Angels, is a thing more perfect than that which we call political liberty on earth; yet even amongst the Angels there are different thrones and Preeminences, and though all oppression be excluded, all subordination is not. How Levelling therefore should stand with Liberty amongst men, when it stands not with that more perfect Order which is amongst Angels, I cannot see: and yet Levelling itself is far more tolerable, than that extreme ataxy which our Levellers seek to introduce under that more plausible name. But you bring Authorities for what you say, concerning the Jurisdiction of your 12. Men, and cite Litleton and Cook for that purpose. All that is affirmed by Litleton, and Cook is this, that in some Cases the Inquest may render a verdict at large upon the whole matter: that they may have cognizance of the condition of a Lease, where they have cognizance of the Lease itself: that a special verdict may be given in any Action, whether the issue be special, or general: that where the Inquest may give a verdict at large, if they will take upon them the knowledge of the Law, they may give their verdict generally. In the application of these Authorities, you rush hastily upon three gross errors. For first you strain these your Atthorities to all cases and questions of Law, whether easy or uneasy whatsoever, and this cannot be done without manifest violence to the words of your Authors. 2ly. You strain these Athorities to all Jurors whatsoever, whether they have knowledge of the Law, or not: and yet the words themselves cry out against such a torture. For both Litleton and Cook are express in this, that the Jurors must be such, as take upon them the knowledge of the Law. Now we know well that some Cases are so plain in Law, that the meanest men may understand them: and that Jurors at sometimes have been so chosen, that they might well take upon them the knowledge of the Law in matters of greater difficulty. But he that shall conclude from hence, that all Jurors in all cases understand Law, or that their verdicts ought to sway, though they understand not Law, shall show himself strangely ridiculous. For we all know, that of common Tradesmen, and Husbandmen, such as ordinarily use to be impanelled, there is not one of a thousand that understands Law in a point of any intricacy: and we know as well that scarce any thing in the world could be more mischievous in a State, then to leave differences, and Suits in Law to Judges utterly ignorant, and unlearned. I make no doubt, but if our Levellers could obtrude this imposture upon the world, and procure any favourable reception for it, it would advance their cause much, and exceedingly hasten that general confusion and disorder, which they aim at, I know nothing more conducing to their ends. 3ly, You strain the word Verdict here beyond Litleton or Cook, for they only say they may give their judgement upon the whole matter; but you infer, therefore the Judges are mere ciphers, therefore the Judges have no right or power to deliver their Judgements, therefore the determination of the Judges is no way forcible, or obliging. This is a Non sequitur. For though the Verdict be given in upon the whole matter, and so enclose Law as well as Fact, yet the binding Force of the Verdict, as to matter of Law, may be derived from the sanction, and ratification of the Judges, not from the jurisdiction of the Inquest. And it may well be supposed, that the Jurors may err in matter of Law, in which case the Judges must alter the erroneous verdict by a contrary judgement; and that judgement questionless shall nullify the erroneous verdict, not the erroneous verdict the judgement. Whereby it plainly appears, that in a verdict upon the whole matter there is no new jurisdiction acquired by the Jurors in matter of Law, nor lost to the Judges, forasmuch as the Judgement stands good, and obliges not as it is rendered by the Jurors, but as it is confirmed by the Judges.  
But in case all your Forces should be routed, you have yet another place of strength to retreit to; you say, Mens non Actus facit reum; if the books be found yours, if the matter of the books be found treasonable, yet you having never had any treasonable intention in those books, aught to be judged according to your guiltless intention, not according to your guilty books. This rule of yours cannot be denied to hold in cases where the intention is as manifect as the Act; but in other dubious cases, where the Delinquent hath no evidence for his guiltless intention, besides his own averment, Judges, and Juries observe it not. God therefore before whose all-piercing eye nothing is obscure, to whom the inward intention is as visible as the outward act, judges of the Act by the intention: but in human Courts it is otherwise, for man cannot judge the secret intention, but by the overt act; and so where any doubt is of the Intention, he leaves that, and safely passes his judgement upon the act, which proof has put out of all doubt. And therefore by God's own Law, in cases of chance-medley, where one neighbour unwittingly and unwillingly had slain another by the fall of an axe, &c. the casual delinquent was absolutely free before God's unerring tribunal above, but not so before his earthly, deceivable Judges here below, for if he made not haste to exile himself from his own habitation, he remained obnoxious to the sword of the Marshal. Wherefore if the innocency of the mind did no further absolve in contingent transgressions, where no testimony but the act itself came in against the transgressor: you have little reason to expect absolution in such studied, premeditated crimes as you are arraigned for, when no testimony of innocency but your own comes in for you. I have now done with all your more plausible, and specious justifications, and if I have proved most of them to be ungatory, sinewlesse cavilations, having only the shadow of reason, but nothing of the substance in them, blame me not for handling them under both Notions. I come now to your scurrilous, opprobious, unchristian language, wherein the detestable eructations of your mouth (being but the envenomed, imbittered ejections of your proud heart) have violated Heaven, as well as earth, consparcated Laws, as well as Magistrates, and denigrated the actions of our Forefathers, as well as ours of modern times. A man would think, that the abyss of Hell itself had been ransacked, and rummaged for the making up of some railings, that issue almost daily from your mouth, and of some seditious passages that flow almost weekly from your pen: howsoever I will not say as Peter said to Magus, you are in the gall of bitterness, I will only say (as I may safely) the gall of bitterness is in you. He that was the Recorder of your story, as if you had been too short in your incivilities, has made his Margin a supplement to help out what was wanting, and therefore to confute Mr. Nutleys' testimony against you, He adds, This as an arrant lie. pag: 81. and to confute Judge Nicolls, He adds, What a lying Judge is this Mr. Nicolls? p. 34. also to cast an odium upon our Laws, He calls our term Judges the intolerable bondage of Westminster-Hall, and all proceedings in Law there, Outlandish, the mere introductions of the Norman Tyrant. p. 20. But you were not the penman, you only approved of this story thus being penned, and set your hand as a licence for its publication. You say well, you need not to be loaded with more than what you must needs avow to be your own. Some that were absent, as the Lo: President, p. 12. some that were dead, as the King: p. 36. did not escape your lashes: nay the whole Army, p. 145. though not appearing at all in this business, escaped not without this brand from you, that they had twice rebelled against their Creators, Lords and Masters. But I hasten to those that were present in Court, or that were interessents in the Courts proceedings. The attorney general, though a Member of the Parliament, and a servitor to the State in place, and trust very eminent, is more than ten times abusively treated by you. You ask him, p. 143. What baseness is this in you to use me thus falsely. p. 114. you say He used you, as the Scribes and Pharisees did our Saviour: p. 60. You call him Your prosecutor, and that in an extreme foul, and dishonest way. Upon divers occasions you tax him of notorious, gross, impudent untruths. See p: 145. 142. 141. 99 52. 17. &c. The L: Commissioner Keeble, told you no prisoner had ever such favour as you; to which you answered immediately, that to disprove what He said, you could show an hundred precedents to the contrary. p. 49. the Margin has this tante also: Take notice the Judge stood up, and spoke out an appeal to the people. Moreover, p. 121. when He told you the Commissioners could not bear any further delays from you, you returned presently, Will you not give me breath? if you thirst after my blood, and nothing else will satisfy you, take it presently. your unreverence to the whole Bench is incredible, sometimes you single out the Judges, as the principal members, and sometimes you discharge your rancour against the whole array of your Commissioners. P: 34. You say 'tis the unjustest thing in the world, that you for your life should have to do with all the Judges (who are all engaged men) that have had above six months' time, with the assistance of divers Parliament-men your enemies, to beat their brains together against you. P: 35. O Lord, was there ever such a pack of unjust and unrighteous Judges in the world. My life is before you, you may take my blood if you please. P: 40. You make the Judges greater tyrants than the King, and pray God to deliver you again, and again from all such Justiciaries. P: 44. I am willing to die the object of your indignation, and malice. P: 46. Contrary to your solemn promise you make my ignorance in the formalities of Law, to be the means of my destruction: you divers times call them faith-breakers, cruel, bloody men, Norman intruders; and wish your innocent blood may be charged upon them, nay and upon their posterity for divers generations. You frequently tax them of surprising, circumventing, ensnaring, murdering you with niceties, and punctilios. I could cite more than 20. more passages to this purpose. As for the whole Court, you handle them also no less ruggedly. P: 146. you oppress me first, and then go about to hang me as a Traitor, for crying out of your oppression: the Lord deliver me, and every honest man from you the vilest of men. P. 148. There was never such a trial upon English ground as this, where all the legal rights of an Eng: have been denied. P: 31. All the proceedings hitherto have been so absolutely arbitrary, that 'twas impossible for me to come provided. P: 64. You make your Protest against their unjust and bloody proceedings, and in other places you sometimes appeal from them to the Jury, sometimes to your Auditors, sometimes to all mankind, sometimes to God. Many quotations might be to this effect. Next after the Court, your spiteful, exulcerated mind breaks forth extremely against the Parliament, the supreme Power of England. P. 146. you say you were imprisoned most unjustly by their Power, without any the least shadow, or colour in Law many months before their Acts were made. P. 117. 'tis very hard for me to contest with the present Power, whose Agents have free liberty to say any thing against me, whilst I am denied all the privileges of an Englishman. P. 86. when the Parliaments Act of Treason was pressed against you, you say, as there may be counterfeit money, so there may be Statutes too, and for ought you know this may be one too; and than you desire proof that these are true Acts of Parliament. P. 79. you except against the testimony of Coll: Purefoy, because a Parliament-man, and so a party against you. P. 47. Imprisonment, and many provocations were long since put upon me, to make me cry out of oppression; but to hang me therefore by a Law made after the pretended crime, is not just. P. 34. You and the Parliament set us long since together by the ears with the Caveleers, to fight pretendedly against their injustice. P. 31. I have been imprisoned seven months for nothing. P. 14. All my enemies base, wicked Petitions, Papers, and books preferred against me were hugged, and embraced by the Parliament: but my friends, p. 13. could get no Answer to their Petitions, but received slights, abuses, and scorns. P. 11. Contrary to the Petition of Right, and other wholesome Laws (though there hath been eight years' wars in England, pretendedly for preservation of Law, and Liberty) was I by force of Arms apprehended, and proceeded against. Thus rash, and harsh you are against this present Parliament; and yet not only against this present Parliament, for former Parliaments also, as often as they side not with you, find you the same man. Ex: gratia all the Parliaments that settled, or established term Judges, and Commissions of Oier and Terminer, you charge of bringing in upon us intolerable burdens, and irrational innovations. And thus in taking upon you a censorian, and Praetorian Power over all Laws and lawmakers, you raise yourself above all that is called God upon earth; and in so raising yourself, you affect a tyranny over us not so truly unchristian, as Antichristian. Give me leave now hereupon freely to expostulate with you, and lay aside all partiality. 1. Why will you, being a private person, rise up so fiercely against the government of a State, when you see you must either perish in the design, or compass the same with so vast an effusion of other men's blood? By God's Law, every soul is to be subject to the higher Powers, and whosoever refuses to stand to the final sentence of the highest Power, is punishable by death. Upon this account the Magistrate is owned by God, as his anointed Vicegerent; and the good King of Judah giving a charge to his Judges before they went forth to execute his special Commission of Oier and Terminer, therefore presses them to integrity, because they were to judge for God, and not man. Our Law directs you also to be tried by God and your country, but you except against that direction purposely, because you conceive God is not in the Court present to pass upon you, but has only an ordinary presence there, such as he has everywhere. But if the judgement-seat be Gods, and not man's, and if the sentence which the Judges speak upon that seat be Gods, and not man's, (as we must needs believe it is, if we will believe the express words of God's book) how can you deny God to have an extraordinary judicial presence in the Court? a presence to try and pass upon you? for this is most plain, if God were not judicially, and extraordinarily in the Court, the Judges than should be said to determine for man, and not for God, to give sentence in their own names, and not as God's ministers. You will answer, that the men in present authority now at Westminster, which granted this Commission are Usurpers, and we are not to look upon Usurpers, or imagine that they so represent God, and do God's business, as other legal Magistrates that are rightly invested by God himself. Hereunto I shall reply, that judgement in this case (whether the present Parliament be rightly the Supreme Authority of England, or no) belongs not to you being a private person, more than it does to me, or any other man in England. You know also, that when such judgement belongs not to one private person more than to another, and the judgements of all private persons are so apparently divided, as now they are, that no one can decide without endangering the peace of all; that private person can never discharge himself of sedition, and Treason, which breaks the common Peace out of a fond preference of his own fancy before other men's. In England there are now some that hold the Supreme Authority to be in the last King's Heir absolutely, and their endeavours are to bring him in upon his own terms; you and your party, hold it lawful to join with him, upon your terms, but till you join with him, and He submit to your terms, the supreme Authority is not in him: We, and our side, which is now prevalent, after a long dispute in Arms, hold this to be a true Parliament, and that the true Parliament is ever the Supreme Authority of England; and we have not only the decision of the Sword (which in such like dubious cases after the last appeal hath been made to it, is no contemptible plea) but also the strongest reason, and majority of suffrages of all the people throughout the Land on our side. 'tis your manifest regret that your party, and the Royalists, though they correspond, and conspire together, cannot both counterpoise the third greater, and better party, that stands for the majesty of Parliaments. You, and the Royalists, have divers times endeavoured to persuade the people, that they are generally against the Parliament, and by several acts, and attempts against the Parliament, you have put it to the trial, whether the people would adhere to you, or the Parliament; yet still the major and better part of the people have declared against you, and continued their loyalty to the Parliament. The City of London, if it had been so adverse to the Parliament (as was presumed by you, and the Royalists both) was strong enough to master the Army, (the only advantage of the Parliaments you cry out upon) yet when it came to proof, would not draw a sword against the Parliament: if these demonstrations will not satisfy you, but you will still plot new commotions, and study to engage the people in new bloody broils, you show yourselves to be thirsty of human blood, and all your endless cavilling pretensions will not absolve you before God. Jehoiadah the Priest of the royal line, and a public person, affords us an excellent example; his part was to subvert a manifest Usurpres, and idolatress, and to reinthrone a true Prince, of whose title there was not one man in the whole Nation that could make any doubt, yet to avoid bloodshed, and the mischiefs of a dubious, open war, He divers years concealed the rightful Title, and submitted to the yoke of a heathenish murderous tyranness, making no insurrection at all, till he was sure to do right to the young King, without causing any destruction of the people. How unlike are your actions to Jehoiadahs', who being no public person, nor interessed extraordinarily in the present differences above any other man, will needs hazard the peace of the Land against a lawful Authority, when you have little hopes of effecting what you strive for, without a vast expense of blood? But in the next place, suppose the power of the Parliament were indubitably usurped, as you can never prove it, (for it is still but the Nations power, and what Nation ever usurped over itself?) yet by what Law of God, or man, is it lawful for such a common person as you are to machinate against it? Herod had usurped over the Jews, the Romans had usurped over Herod, Caesar had usurped over the Romans, yet our Saviour shows himself submissive upon all occasions to all these Powers. When He is brought before Annas, he comports himself humbly, and as becomes a prisoner when he is lead to Caiphas, and presented before the Jewish counsel, he yields to be examined, and makes there such answers as He knew would be adjudged blasphemous, and capital. When he was turned over to the tribunal of Pilate the Roman Deputy, and transmitted from thence to Herod the Deputy in Galilea, He still made reverent dutiful confessions upon all legal Interrogatories, though to the eminent forfeiture of his own life. Yet no man will suppose all these had a proper jurisdiction over our Saviour, or such power as was free from all force, and usurpation. All the Apostles also walked in our saviour's steps, for we read that they though innoent were examined, scourged, imprisoned, and did suffer martyrdom by Magistrates in all Nations under Heaven, and we read not that any one of them at any one time unreverently treated, or declined any Court, or counsel, except it were by appeal from the inferior to the superior Judge: yet we may safely believe that some of all the States, and Potentates before whom they were convented, might be liable to this exception of yours. You will say, all men in justice ought to be enemies to Usurpers, and Friends to such as are unduly depressed. I reply on the contrary, that private men, let the case be what it will, of their own heads, or upon their own conducts, are not to rise against a settled Usurper, or enterprise any thing that may disturb the common Peace: nay even public persons are to prefer the safety of the people, before any lower interest, or right, or Law whatsoever. The story of Jehoiadah justifies this, during so many years as He suffered Athaliah; and the story of David also, who by right, and Law, was to proceed against Joab for murder; but the superior right, and Law of Common safety bounds his hands many years from doing justice: and yet we cannot say therein, that the not doing of justice was the doing of injustice, inasmuch as He obeyed the superior Law rather than the inferior, and chose to spare one guilty murderer, rather than to expose thousands of innocent men to the chance of war. But in the 2d: place, if you will needs suppose you have a right to pronounce this Government usurped, and so justly liable to your opposition, yet why do you not then circumscribe yourself within the bounds of this Government? how is it, that you assume to yourself as great a prerogative of censuring the acts of other Parliaments, as you do of this, and the ordinances of our Ancestors as imperiously as you do ours? If you did seem wiser in the Laws of England then all the Judges, and Lawyers of the Land, you did arrogate too much to yourself: but when you will pretend to be wiser than the Laws themselves, when you will with opprobrious terms revile the Legislative power of this Nation, and say, that for six hundred years together our Ancestors, assembled in Parliament, were the Introducers, or continuers of foolish and slavish Acts; you arrogate more to yourself, than any man till this day ever arrogated. In this you challenge the obedience due to some great, new-raised Prophet, such as Mahomet pretended to be amongst the brutish Arabians; or that Vice-God at Rome, who amongst a more dementated, obdurated generation changes times, and customs at his pleasure. In the 3d: place also if you will believe that you have a Dictatorian power over all times, and Laws past, and present, and so may justify all that you act against them: yet why do you not act against them without such detestable cursings, odious railings, and unsavoury derisions, as your mouth is perpetually defiled with? Michael the Archangel when He was in the lists engaged against God's most rebellious enemy, broke not out into any distempered expressions, nor thought it beseeming his holy cause to pass the bounds of just reproof. 'tis likely Satan which found no matter in Michael worthy of reproof, was diverted by his malice into blasphemous provocations; but Michael notwithstanding all the bitter provocations, and all that matter of scandal, which abounded in his traitorous adversary, restrained himself from foul retortions. So our Saviour in the Gospel died praying for his murderers, that they might obtain remission, even for that desperately flagitious cruelty, which made the earth tremble, and the Sun contract his beams. Stephen also the first disciple of our Saviour that exposed himself to martyrdom, yet in the very agony of death recommended his sanguinary persecutors to mercy. Wherefore if the Son of God, if Angels, if all the Apostles use blessing instead of cursing, and if all holy men still pray for their most merciless executioners, instead of railing where guilt is never so evident: what is it for you to imprecate heavy judgements upon God's Judges sitting on his Bench to speak his sentence? and from what kind of spirit do your filthy upbraidings, and sarcasms proceed, when you pour them not only upon Magistrates, but upon righteous Magistrates, such as offer you no wrong, but suffer much at your hands? Certainly if these things proceed from a right Christian spirit, we must believe that the mild white Dove which descended upon our Saviour in the river of Jordan, has now changed wings with the black, carnivorous raven. Paul once out of a sudden passion, and incogitancy called an high Priest painted wall (a term not undue to the man, though ill applied to the Ruler) but being presently returned to Himself, He recovered his wonted meek, and patient temper; and though he had suffered a most unparalleled piece of injustice from a wicked man, He was not ashamed after to retract, and check himself publicly for deriding a wicked Ruler. Tell me then seriously, is this contumelious spirit that rages in you the same that possessed Christ and his Disciples? can you imagine, that you who not only defy God's Ministers of Justice, in the place of Judicature, and speak vilifyingly of the highest of Powers, but also harden yourself therein, and trumpet it forth to the world, as if you had achieved thereby some glorious conquest, are of the same spirit, as those which went like sheep to the slaughter, and never opened their mouths before their shearers? St. Paul condemns in himself an unwitting, precipitated taunt against a Judge very impious and scandalous, but you think you may justly pride yourself in blaspheming many righteons' Judges, and this you do at such a time, in such a place, and before such an Auditory, that your blasphemy must needs reach God mediately, though it strike his anointed vicegerents immediately. I can say no more but this, the same thing which in your own practice makes you boast, makes me being practised by another, tremble. Lastly, if you must have a licence to oppose Authority; to oppose all manner of Authority, ancient as well as modern; and further, if you must be licenced to join all manner of reproaches, execrations and blasphemies to your opposition: yet what means this, that you ubraid other men most of that, which you are most apparently guilty of yourself, and for the most part afperse, and columniate those whom you take for enemies with such things, as all men know to be most apparently false? when you have insolently tyrannised over our ancientest Laws, and Customs, and the Powers from whence they were derived; when you have pursued our high Court of Parliament with bitter exprobrations; when you have entertained the whole Bench of your Judges with such language as is only due to the basest, and worst of men; when you have obstructed the proceedings against you with the most trifling niceties, and scruples in Law that everwere invented; when you have spent your strength, and tired your lungs (as yourself complains) not by pleading, but by seeking an exemption from pleading, and therefore have scarce allowed any freedom to the Court to answer you; you nevertheless complain, that all Law, and right has been denied to you: that 'tis the sworn design of the Parliament to compass your life by indirect means: that your Judges have insolently overawed you; that you have been ensnared with mere puntilios, and formalities of Law; that freedom of pleading hath been taken from you. Never was case more clear in the world than yours is: if there were no Court to judge your books seditious, nor no testimony to prove the books yours, yet I am persuaded there is scarce a man in England that doubts of either; That very Jury that pronounced you not guilty of composing those books after proof by witnesses, I am most confident did in their hearts believe you unquestionably the Author of them, before they heard any witness speak at all. Violent presumptions heretofore were held ever sufficient convictions, and as good as legal testimonies, and yet though all men's consciences in your case are satisfied with violent presumptions, and violent presumptions are now seconded with competent, pregnant, abundant testimonies, that you are the Author of these books: and though you yourself think not fit to deny them, yet you are not ashamed to inveigh against them, that judge you to be the composer of them. I cannot indeed imagine that thing of which you are ashamed: if you are ashamed of any thing, 'tis the absolute denial of your books, for which you are Indicted; but I am persuaded 'tis some other respect, and not shame that makes you abstain from that denial. You seem frontless enough, when you cry out upon your easy, contemned Judges for entrapping, and oppressing you: but when you cry out upon their snares, and oppressions at the same time that you call them shadows, and non-entityes, ubraid them as Norman Intruders, denounce against them as wilful, perjured murderers, and in very deed make yourself a Judge at the bar, and arraign them as your prisoners on the Bench; you seem more impudent than Impudence itself: your want of blushing is enough to make not only Friends, but even strangers, and opposites to blush for you. But you that acknowledge no Law, unless it be consonant to your own humour, and unless it receive its obliging force from your sanction, how can you offend? and you that cannot offend, why should your face be stained with that ordinary tincture of modesty that abashes other men? Human rules and precedents are all liable to your condemnation: if you say they are irrational, or savour of innovation, that's sufficient to over rule them: and as for Divine Authorities, 'tis in your breast to interpret them, and no man's else, whereupon they are made Lesbian rules to you, and they must not conform, but must be conformed to your judgement. Ex: gra: The 4. Evangelists testify, that our Saviour being presented in judgement before divers Tribunals, made such pleas, and confessions as drew on upon himself a capital sentence, and were the only evidence, that either the Jews had to condemn him of blasphemy, or the Romans of sedition. You nevertheless say, that our Saviour by silence avoided the danger of his Examiners, and left you a warrant thereby to conceal your guilt from the Judges, and to evade that danger of condemnation which the prescription of our Laws would else entangle you in. When the state's attorney general presses you for an answer to his proofs, and not mere allegations, which make you the Author of seditious books: you more than once aver, that our Saviour shook off his Interrogators with an eluding answer; and therefore in imitation of Christ you say, Thou M: Prideaux affirmest, I am the Author of seditious books, but prove it if thou canst. This is ruff handling of human Magistrates, and Laws, but this is worse handling of Inspired Writers, and worst of all is the false gloss you set upon our saviour's actions. Our Saviour being demanded by Caiphas in the counsel of the Jews, whether he were the Son of God, or no, according to Matthew and Luke returned answer, Thou saidst it: and Mark repeating the same Answer, makes it a pure affirmation, or an assent confirming what the high Priest said. For Mark's relation which must be the same as the other Evangelists was, answers positively and fully to the question: I am the Son of God. 2ly, All these Evangelists record this further of our Saviour, that immediately after his answer to the high Priest, He proceeded to tell the counsel, that they themselves should one day see him sitting on God's right hand, and so be convinced of that now they would not believe. 3ly, The counsel understood our saviour's Answer to be affirmative, and positive, for upon that Answer, according to all the Evangelists, He was instantly condemned of blasphemy from the confession of his own mouth. Neither did our Saviour, being examined before Pilate concerning his regal interest, give an evading Answer: Pilate's question was, Art thou a King? our saviour's answer was, Thou sayest it: but to show that this Answer was a positive affirmation of the thing questioned, our Saviour added immediately, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth: And we find that Pilate doubted not of our saviour's meaning, whether it were affirmative, or elusive. This is therefore an high violation of Divine Authority, that you should call those Answers, and pleas of our Saviour dilatory, and fallacious, which the Evangelist makes to be so plain, and the Jewish, and Roman Magistrates both entertained as so positive: and that you should flatly say, our Saviour patronised obstinate silence in all Delinquents, and therefore would not reveal truth, when He says directly of Himself, that He was born, and sent into this world to bear witness to the truth. 4ly, How can you imagine, that our saviour's silence to some impertinet questions, was any justification of your not pleading, when our Saviour had not the same reasons of silence, as you, and other Delinquents have, and pretend for? For first, our Saviour was guilty of nothing, which in justice could take away his life, or expose him to any other the least lash of the Law. If you will believe the Roman Judge, before whom he was tried, He was convinced, and thrice laboured to save him, knowing that the Jews of envy prosecuted against him; and being driven to wash his hands of so foul, and murderous sentence, argued with the Jews, that He had not only examined him himself, and found no capital delinquency in him; but had also sent him to Herod, and by Herod He was also sent back acquitted: this makes our saviour's case very different from yours. 2ly, Our Saviour knew his doom was unavoidable, and so He could not make use of silence upon the same grounds as you do. 3ly, Our saviour's silence was not obstinate, against any clear Law, as yours is. 4ly, It was not general, or continual: when he was questioned either about his Divinity, or regality (things questionable in Law) He gave direct answers: and even when He was questioned extravagantly about his Disciples, or the nature of truth, or his doctrine, after some space of modest silence, He gave reasons of his silence; He told them they were resolved before hand not to believe him: and that he had always taught openly, and not in corners, so that the testimony of his auditors, and spectators, would be more proper in matters of that nature, than his own. Hereupon Pilate received satisfaction, as also Herod, though all their impertinent questions were not presently answered: and when Pilate washed his hands before the people in token of his innocency, and pleaded earnestly for his enlargement more than once, or twice: He told the people plainly, that Herod to whom He had sent him to be examined, had sent him back again, being of his judgement, and finding nothing worthy of death in him. Lastly, if our Saviour had refused to answer Caiaphas, Herod, and Pilate, who had not due jurisdictions over him, this affords no plea, nor patronage for your peremptory silence: forasmuch, as our Saviour was a King de jure, though He would not take upon him the office of a King de facto: and it may be believed, that in some acts of his He did transcend the capacity, and condition of a mere private person: in which He is not imitable by you. I shall infer therefore, that you, when you cite our saviour's example, and practise to justify your opposing Judges and Laws, and to smother Treason, and frustrate judgement, contrary to that which is asserted by all the Evangelists, you do blasphemously, and impudently make God the countenancer of sin, that you may make man the apter to sin against God.  
The 5th: and last matter of scandal in your book, is, your double dealings with the Jury: for though your 12. men are most religiously obliged to bring in a verdict without favour or fear, you nevertheless endeavour both ways to force them from their religious obligations as well by terror, as by arts of embracery. On one side, you are their brother Citizen, a great honourer doubtless of your City matriculation: some of them you know to be honest men, as you are a profound metaposcopist, there are lineaments of honesty drawn in their very faces, and the whole array of them has this preferment from you, that they were the only supreme dispensers of justice in England, and that the Judges that sit aloft in scarlet robes, are but Clerks to say Amen to their verdicts: and this you pronounce as a more profound Jurist. On the other side, lest these gentle strokings should not sufficiently win upon them, you place some hundreds of your Myrmidons behind in ambuscado, who are ready to break forth with mighty hums, and acclamations, at the closing of your defence, and before the attorney general enters upon his reply. You did conjecture doubtless that your 12. Jurors (half of them being congregated out of Chicklane, Picked-hach, and the other Suburbs of Smithfield, without one Butcher amongst them all) would be apt to shrink at such a new, unexampled impression. Former times would have looked strangely upon such attempts, and such divers assaults made upon a Jury: but in you all frauds, and riots are pious and plausible, so they may acheive to you a conquest over your opposites, nay in all your surprisals and oppressions of other men, you must have leave to complain, that you are surprised, oppressed, and cut off from all right by a State of conspirators.  
Sir, I could now let the reins of my discourse looser, and take occasion to range further, (for since the writing, and Printing of this Letter, I have seen some other Additions, and supplements of yours, or your Friends, about your trial, and I may perhaps hereafter animadvert upon them: But I will not at present pursue you too far, I will rather choose to give myself a sudden stop.  
The Angels that fell from Heaven had nothing to seduce them unto so desperate a revolt besides their own excellent Natures; there was not in Heaven any other object that could tempt, or pervert them. Had they dutifully, and piously limited their contemplations to the transcendent blessedness, and infinite perfection of their Creator, they had not so fondly enamoured themselves, upon themselves, nor dazzled their own eyes with their own created beauty: but when their eyes were once dazelled with objects less amiable, their devotions were easily alienated from objects more amiable, and that alienation in them was most ungracious, and damnable. Neither did excessive, doting self-love only exile the Angels out of Heaven, but also, men out of Paradise; for Adam likewise, judging himself nearest to himself, and so thereupon confining all his passions, or the supreme sway of his affections to himself, erroneously thought himself worthy of an equality with his Maker: and so not laying to heart the greatness, and goodness of God, but blinding himself with an undue zeal to his own person, he most unnaturally made himself God's rival, as if he himself were capable of Divine knowledge, or God deducible to human imbecillty. 'tis not worth inquiry, whether Adam's will first darkened his understanding, or his understanding first captivated his will: we know Adam had the principle of knowing, and the principle of affecting good in an eminent degree: and that He sinned against both those principles when he valued a finite, derivative, obliged excellency in himself above infinite, original, obliging excellency in his God. For in the conception, and birth of sins, it often happens, that at the same time the understanding contracts darkness from the factious vehemence of the will: and the will contracts obstinacy from obscurity in the understanding. And I think, we may safely believe that Adam's understanding was too unactive, and remiss at the same instant, for that it did not further improve, and feed the will by sublime, restless contemplations: and at the same instant that his will (having all ready received so much light from the understanding) was too cold and unaspiring, for that it did not still covet solid solace from objects more glorious, and to that end resollicite eagerly the Understanding for profounder illuminations. Such was the origination, and semination of sin in Adam, & such is still the traduction and propagation of sin in Adam's posterity: there is no difference but this: we now are not guilty of our own sins only which we daily commit ourselves, as we naturally partake of Adam's frailties, and are left obnoxious to a thousand new temptations thereby; but also of his first transgression, as we were morally engaged in the same Covenant, and so left obnoxious to the same punishment. We remain therefore all far more apt now, than He was to adore ourselves, and to circumscribe our own blind affections within the circle of our own excellencies: and this is so eminent in some men, that ignorance no sooner begets arrogance in them, than arrogance begets impudence: and impudence begets wilfulness, and an outrageous hardness in malice. Sir, if you who know yourself to be of Adam's race, would deal strictly with yourself, and impartially inquire into the cause that makes you so far to postpone all Powers, Laws, professions of men to yourself, and most immodestly to boast of those things in yourself, which you would disdain in other men, and which other men think as disdainable in you: you would soon discover your self-love had quite put out your eyes, and then betrayed you into the ambuscadoes of all those daring sins that use to fight under the banners of violent insolence, and of uncontrolled impudence. The main canker that festers inwardly, and infects your most retired thoughts is this, that you see other men promoted in the commonwealth to places of honour, and power before you, whereas you in worth, and value promote yourself far before them, nay, and all others whatsoever: and this gross error does not only swell you into disdain, and malice implacable against other men, but also inflames you towards yourself with arrogance intolerable, and arms you with immodesty most unmalleable. You ought here to consider, that as to other men you are no competent Judge of their parts and deportments, more than every other private man in England is: and when you see so many other men in England give a contrary judgement to yours, you ought to suspect your own judgement, rather than to despise theirs. 'tis well known who those men are, that are most obnoxious to your emulation: and let but their enemies judge, let their most conjured foes give sentence is this cause, whether they deserve your emulation, or no: and even they will contradict you herein, and tell you that they fear, and admire what you deride, and rail upon. Then as to yourself, whom you adore, and court as the most exquisite piece of mankind, and upon that account censure whole professions, whole States, nay and whole Ages not complying with your fancy: you ought to consider, that of all men, you are the most uncompetent Judge in your own case. Omit those whom you repute now your diametrical enemies, though they are the major, and better part of the Nation, and ask the Royalists, (whom you look upon as your late adopted Friends) or any others unconcerned, if you conceive there are any such: ask them what value they set upon you, and doubtless they will be bold to tell you, that you are an Incendiary and Innovator; as far short of Perkin Warbeck, as you are beyond Wat. Tyler. I know there is a party of your Adherents, that seek to foment these prodigious high conceits in you: and they perhaps may amount to some ten, or twenty thousand heads in all: but if my intelligence fails not exceedingly, the greatest part of them consists of women, boys, mechanics, and the most sordid sediment of our Plebeians, and only some few are Royalists, or turbulent Levellers, who rather make use of your fury, the admire your policy; and employ you as an Instrument, rather than follow you as a head. But if you think men whether Friends, Enemies, or Neuters, are apt to deceive, and as apt to be deceived, and therefore unfit witnesses, or Informers in this case, fix your thoughts more studiously upon things: consider your own ways, and positions, as I have here more nakedly presented them to your view. You see your main endeavour is, to open a way, and maintain, that any private, single person may dispute, nay damn any Command, Law, custom, or Power whatsoever, and lawfully frame parties to abet him in his disturbance of the common peace by any means whatsoever: that the diffusive, or rather confusive body of the people may be appealled unto, by malcontents in any common cause, although it be so vast a body that it is scarce to be congregated, or rightly ordered, or consulted with in any one place, or at any one time, when some one fundamental point is to be assented unto, or dissented: and much less is it fit for the ordinary administration, and exercise of rule in ordinary cases, as often as private men shall find themselves aggrieved: that all study of Law and Policy is mischievous, and therefore the judgement of all difficulties, and difference ought to be expected from unlettered mechanics, Plebeians, not from such as are nobly descended, such as have been versed in state-business all their days, and such as have made Law their study from their youth: that the Nation ought not to have any one common place of resort for justice, such as Westminster-Hall is: but for the better cautonizing of the commonwealth, and dissecting it into several independent (and by consequence repugnant) bodies, in each County there ought to be a several Tribunal: in which tribunal the ignoranter and meaner saeces of the multitude ought to possess the highest Chair: that popular liberty ought to be enlarged beyond all rational political bounds, so that no private Subject aught to pay any tax for defraying the public charge, unless it stand with his own liking: nor ought any felon, or Traitor, be examined, or held to any form of trial, further than it shall please his own humour. These are the crude traditions which your levelling sect abides by: now let not only those which have been bred under Eng: Laws, but let all other Nations that embrace the Roman civil Justitutes embodied by Justinian, nay let Heathens, Turks, Jews, let all men of former ages, as well as of this present declare, if any thing can be invented more destructive to society, and the congregative disposition of mankind, than these traditions are. No more need be said, if you profess the subversion of your country, and a general enmity to the kind of man, your philosophy must be held impious, though not stolid: but if you propose these things for the good of your country, and your kind, you will be held, as stolid, as impious: but what shall I say? in case self-love has wholly dementated you, all that I can press will be to no purpose, neither can the various testimonies of men, nor the irrefragable evidence that shines out of common maxims, nor the experience of all ages convince you, that you are to credit any thing besides yourself. What your present temper is therefore, whether flexible by counsel, or inflexible I cannot tell: but I must needs tell you this: for a close of all:  
Since you have acted your part so outrageously, it leaves an offence, and a regret too upon me: that your Commissioners should act so tenderly: that the Jury should act so disloyally; and that London should be the Scene, where hands should be clapped so unworthily.  

P: Script:  
Sir, I had sooner dressed, and sped these my plain, friendly Animadversions, had I been in England at your Arraignment, or if I had sooner recovered my health after my coming into England: therefore let not delay, and the interposition of so many months expose me to your misinterpretation. I had also kept these Papers from the press, had you only been concerned in them: but when my second thoughts suggested to me, that I was bound not to reprove you alone, but your abettors, and partakers also, and that the charity of my reproof ought not only to extend to the conviction of you, and yours, but also to the confirmation of all your dissenters, I was induced to make them public: wherefore pray, let this apologise for me in that behalf. adieu.  
Yours in the bonds of Christianity: H: P  
FINIS.