and at all times in the choice of every free people, or their reprefenters? This choice of government is fo effential to their freedom, that longer than they have it, they are not free. In this land not only the late king and his pofterity, but kingship itself hath been abrogated by a law; which involves with as good reason the pofterity of a king forfeited to the people, as that law heretofore of treafon against the king, attainted the children with the father. This law against both king and kingfhip they who most question, do not lefs question all enacted without the king and his antiparliament at Oxford, though called mongrel by himself. If no law must be held good, but what paffes in full parliament, then furely in exactness of legality no member must be miffing: for look how many are miffing, fo many counties or cities that fent them want their reprefenters. But if, being once chofen, they ferve for the whole nation, then any number, which is fufficient, is full, and most of all in times of difcord, neceffity, and danger. The king himself was bound by the old mode of parliaments, not to be abfent, but in case of sickness, or fome extraordinary occafion, and then to leave his fubftitute; much lefs might any member be allowed to abfent himself. If the king then and inany of the members with him, without leaving any in his stead, forfook the parliament * upon a mere panic fear, as was that time judged by moft men, and to levy war against them that fat, fhould they who were left fitting, break up, or not dare enact aught of nearest and prefenteft concernment to public fafety, for the punctilio wanting of a full number, which no lawbook in fuch extraordinary cafes hath determined? Certainly if it were lawful for them to fly from their charge upon pretence of private fafety, it was much more lawful for thefe to fit and act in their truft what was neceffary for the public. By a law therefore of parliament, and of a parliament that conquered both Ireland, Scotland, and all their enemies in England, defended their friends, were generally acknowledged for a parliament both at home and abroad, kingthip was abolished: this law now of late hath been negatively repealed; yet kingship not positively reftored, and I fuppofe never

he

Ff3

was

was established by any certain law in this land, nor poffibly could be: for how could our forefathers bind us to any certain form of government, more than we can bind our pofterity? If a people be put to war with their king for his mifgovernment, and overcome him, the power is then undoubtedly in their own hands how they will be governed. The war was granted juft by the king himself at the beginning of his laft treaty, and still maintained to be fo by this laft parliament, as appears by the qualification prefcribed to the members of this next enfuing, that none fhall be elected, who have borne arms against the parliament fince 1641. If the war were juft, the conqueft was alfo juft by the law of nations. And he who was the chief enemy, in all right ceafed to be the king, especially after captivity, by the deciding verdict of war; and royalty with all her laws and pretenfions yet remains in the victor's power, together with the choice of our future government. Free commonwealths have been ever counted fitteft and propereft for civil, virtuous, and induftrious nations, abounding with prudent men worthy to govern: monarchy fitteft to curb degenerate, corrupt, idle, proud, luxurious people. If we defire to be of the former, nothing better for us, nothing nobler than a free commonwealth: if we will needs condemn ourselves to be of the latter, despairing of our own virtue, induftry, and the number of our able men, we may then, confcious of our own unworthiness to be governed better, fadly betake us to our befitting thraldom: yet choofing out of our own number one who hath beft aided the people, and best merited againft tyranny, the space of a reign or two we may chance to live happily enough, or tolerably. But that a victorious people should give up themselves again to the vanquished, was never yet heard of, feems rather void of all reafon and good policy, and will in all probability subject the fubduers to the fubdued, will expofe to revenge, to beggary, to ruin, and perpetual bondage, the victors under the vanquished: than which what can be more unworthy?

From mifinterpreting our law, you return to do again the fame with fcripture, and would prove the fupremacy

of

of English kings from 1 Pet. ii, 13, as if that were the apostle's work: wherein if he faith that " the king is fupreme," he speaks fo of him but as an "ordinance of man," and in refpect of thofe "governors that are fent by him," not in refpect of parliaments, which by the law of this land are his bridle; in vain his bridle, if not alfo his rider and therefore hath not only coordination with him, which you falfely call feditious, but hath fuperiority above him, and that neither "againft religion," nor "right reafon:" no nor against conimon law; for our kings reigned only by law. But the parliament is above all positive law, whether civil or common, makes: or unmakes them both; and ftill the latter parliament: above the former, above all the former lawgivers, then certainly above all precedent laws, entailed the crown on whom it pleased; and as a great lawyer faith, "is for tranfcendent and abfolute, that it cannot be confined: either for caufes or perfons, within any bounds." But your cry is, no parliament without a king. If this be fo, we have never had lawful kings, who have all been created kings either by fuch parliaments, or by conqueft: if by fuch parliaments, they are in your allowance none: if by conqueft, that conqueft we have now conquered. So that as well by your own affertion as by ours, there can at present be no king. And how could that person be abfolutely fupreme, who reigned, not under law only, but under oath of his good demeanour, given to the people at his coronation, ere the people gave him his crown? and his principal oath was to maintain those laws, which the people thould choofe. If then the law itself, much more he who was but the keeper and minifter of law, was in their choice, and both he fubordinate to the performance of his duty fworn, and our sworn allegiance in order only to his performance.

You fall next on the confiftorian Schifmatics; for fo you call Prefbyterians, pag. 40, and judge them to have "enervated the king's fupremacy by their opinions and practice, differing in many things only in terms from popery;" though fome of thofe principles, which you there cite concerning kingfhip, are to be read in Ariftotle's Politics, long ere popery was thought on. The prefbyteriaus

Ff4

prefbyterians therefore it concerns to be well forewarned of you betimes; and to them I leave you.

As for your examples of feditious men, pag. 54, &c., Cora, Absalom, Zimri, Sheba, to these you might with much more reafon have added your own name, who "blow the trumpet of fedition" from your pulpit against the prefent government: in reward whereof they have fent you by this time, as I hear, to your "own place," for preaching open fedition, while you would feem to preach against it.

As for your Appendix annexed of the "Samaritan revived," finding it fo foul a libel against all the wellaffected of this land, fince the very time of fhipmoney, against the whole parliament, both lords and commons, except those that fled to Oxford, against the whole reformed church, not only in England and Scotland, but all over Europe (in comparison whereof you and your prelatical party are more truly fchifmatics and fectarians, nay, more properly fanatics in your fanes and gilded temples, than those whom you revile by those names) and meeting with no more fcripture or folid reason in your "Samaritan wine and oil," than hath already been found fophisticated and adulterate, I leave your malignant narrative, as needing no other confutation, than the just cenfure already paffed upon you by the council of state.

COMMENCED

GRAMMAR,

Supplied with fufficient

RULE S

For the Ufe of fuch as, Younger or Elder, are defirous, without more trouble than needs, to attain the LATIN TONGUE; the elder Sort efpecially, with little Teaching, and their own Industry.

TO THE READER.

T hath been long a general Complaint, not without cause, in the bringing up of youth, and still is, that the tenth part of man's life, ordinarily extended, is taken up in learning, and that very fcarcely, the LATIN TONGUE. Which tardy proficience may be attributed to feveral caufes in particular, the making two labours of one, by learning first the Accedence, then the Grammar in Latin, ere the language of thofe rules be understood. The only remedy of this was to join both books into one, and in the English Tongue; whereby the long way is much abbreviated, and the labour of understanding much more eafy: a work fuppofed not to have been done formerly; or if done, not without fuch difference here in brevity and alteration, as may be found of moment. That of Grammar, touching letters and fyllables, is omitted, as learnt before, and little different from the English Spelling-book; efpecially fince few will be perfuaded, to pronounce Latin otherwise than their own English. What will not come under rule, by reason of the much variety in declenfion, gender, or conftruction, is alfo here omitted, left the courfe and clearness of method be clogged with catalogues instead of rules, or too much interruption between rule and rule: which Linaker