







 
   
     
       
         The cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His reply to H.P. barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, answered.
         Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
      
       
         This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A91220 of text R201593 in the  English Short Title Catalog (Thomason E393_9). Textual changes  and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more  computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life.  The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with  MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish.  This text has not been fully proofread 
       Approx. 58 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
       
         EarlyPrint Project
         Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO
         2017
         A91220
         Wing P400A
         Thomason E393_9
         ESTC R201593
         99862092
         99862092
         114241
         
           
            This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
             Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
            . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
          
        
      
       
         Early English books online.
      
       
         (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A91220)
         Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 114241)
         Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 62:E393[9])
      
       
         
           
             The cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His reply to H.P. barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, answered.
             Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
          
           [2], 30 p.
           
             Printed for Robert Bostock, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Kings Head.,
             London: :
             1647.
          
           
             A reply, by Henry Parker, to: Jenkins, David. The cordiall of Judge Jenkins, for the good people of London.
             Reproduction of the original in the British Library.
          
        
      
    
     
       
         eng
      
       
         
           Jenkins, David, 1582-1663. -- Cordiall of Judge Jenkins, for the good people of London.
           Jenkins, David, 1582-1663 -- Imprisonment -- Early works to 1800.
           Detention of persons -- England -- Early works to 1800.
        
      
    
       A91220  R201593  (Thomason E393_9).  civilwar no The cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His reply to H.P. barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, answered.: Parker, Henry 1647    10571 6 5 0 0 0 0 10 C  The  rate of 10 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the C category of texts with between 10 and 35 defects per 10,000 words. 
        2007-05 TCP
        Assigned for keying and markup
      
        2007-05 Aptara
        Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
      
        2007-06 Pip Willcox
        Sampled and proofread
      
        2007-06 Pip Willcox
        Text and markup reviewed and edited
      
        2008-02 pfs
        Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
      
    
  
   
     
       
       
       
         
           THE
           CORDIALL
           OF
           Mr.
           David
           Ienkins
           :
           OR
           HIS
           REPLY
           To
           
             H.
             P.
          
           Barrester
           of
           
             Lincolnes-Inne
          
           ,
           ANSWERED
           .
        
         
           
             LONDON
             :
          
           Printed
           for
           
             Robert
             Bostock
             ,
          
           dwelling
           in
           
             Pauls
          
           Church-yard
           ,
           at
           the
           signe
           of
           the
           Kings
           Head
           .
           1647.
           
        
      
    
     
       
       
       
         
           Master
           JENKINS
           his
           REPLY
           Answered
           .
        
         
           IN
           all
           the
           Papers
           which
           
             M
             J.
          
           weekly
           almost
           publishes
           (
           to
           slander
           and
           condemne
           the
           Parliament
           of
           Rebellion
           ,
           Perjury
           ,
           Oppression
           ,
           Cozenage
           ,
           &c.
           )
           his
           maine
           artifice
           ,
           and
           that
           which
           most
           infects
           the
           people
           ,
           is
           ,
           his
           blending
           and
           confounding
           things
           together
           ,
           which
           are
           in
           nature
           different
           ,
           and
           by
           all
           meanes
           ought
           to
           be
           discriminated
           .
           In
           three
           things
           especially
           his
           want
           of
           ingenuity
           is
           most
           obvious
           ,
           and
           his
           not
           distinguishing
           most
           advantagious
           to
           him
           .
           For
           ,
           first
           ,
           He
           puts
           no
           difference
           betwixt
           that
           latitude
           of
           power
           which
           is
           due
           to
           a
           just
           just
           in
           just
           things
           ,
           and
           when
           he
           pursues
           the
           true
           interest
           of
           his
           people
           ;
           and
           that
           power
           which
           consists
           in
           doing
           wrong
           .
           And
           yet
           nothing
           is
           more
           notorious
           then
           this
           ,
           that
           the
           Kings
           of
           
             England
          
           have
           vast
           Prerogatives
           in
           doing
           good
           ,
           but
           none
           at
           all
           to
           do
           any
           man
           ,
           much
           lesse
           the
           whole
           State
           ,
           harme
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           He
           distinguishes
           not
           betwixt
           those
           actions
           of
           the
           Subject
           which
           are
           done
           in
           times
           of
           necessity
           ,
           and
           upon
           extraordinary
           
           extremities
           ;
           and
           those
           which
           are
           done
           in
           ordinary
           times
           ,
           when
           there
           is
           no
           speciall
           emergent
           cause
           to
           inforce
           them
           .
           Thirdly
           ,
           He
           compares
           not
           the
           smaller
           matters
           of
           the
           Law
           with
           the
           weightier
           ,
           but
           attributes
           to
           both
           alike
           ;
           nay
           ,
           when
           both
           〈◊〉
           consist
           or
           take
           place
           at
           the
           same
           time
           ,
           he
           makes
           the
           weightier
           Law
           give
           way
           to
           that
           which
           is
           of
           lesse
           consequence
           ,
           and
           may
           be
           reckoned
           ,
           
             inter
             apices
             juris
             .
          
           The
           Law
           will
           admit
           of
           a
           private
           mischiefe
           rather
           then
           a
           publike
           inconvenience
           ;
           as
           nature
           will
           suffer
           this
           particular
           quantity
           of
           water
           contrary
           to
           its
           owne
           propenfity
           to
           be
           violented
           and
           rapt
           upwards
           ,
           rather
           then
           that
           any
           vacuity
           should
           be
           in
           the
           universe
           .
           But
           
             M.
             J.
          
           sometimes
           will
           indure
           publike
           mischiefe
           ,
           rather
           then
           private
           inconveniences
           ;
           he
           will
           rather
           allow
           that
           
             Salus
             Populi
          
           shall
           be
           opposed
           ,
           then
           such
           or
           such
           a
           branch
           of
           Prerogative
           ,
           or
           the
           propriety
           of
           the
           Subject
           should
           be
           strained
           .
           Law
           is
           not
           so
           dull
           a
           study
           as
           some
           men
           would
           have
           it
           ,
           nor
           are
           its
           bounds
           restrained
           to
           the
           ordinary
           actions
           and
           pleas
           of
           
             J.
             a
             Nokes
          
           and
           
             J.
             a
             Stiles
             ,
          
           about
           a
           carve
           of
           ground
           ,
           &c.
           no
           ;
           the
           profession
           is
           farre
           more
           noble
           ,
           and
           as
           its
           
             basis
             ,
          
           is
           reason
           improved
           with
           Logick
           ,
           so
           its
           
             pyramis
          
           is
           policy
           crowned
           with
           History
           and
           Philosophy
           .
           That
           Lawyer
           therefore
           that
           will
           argue
           upon
           this
           high
           subject
           ,
           which
           
             M.
             J.
          
           now
           undertakes
           ,
           ought
           to
           roote
           himself
           deeper
           ,
           before
           he
           begins
           to
           build
           up
           his
           argument
           ,
           and
           to
           take
           notice
           of
           these
           premisses
           :
        
         
           1.
           
           That
           all
           men
           who
           are
           qualified
           ,
           and
           exalted
           to
           beare
           rule
           in
           a
           spheare
           above
           other
           men
           ,
           are
           so
           dignified
           and
           differenced
           by
           some
           Commission
           ;
           which
           Commission
           must
           be
           granted
           by
           man
           immediately
           ,
           
           or
           else
           by
           God
           extraordinarily
           ,
           and
           immediately
           .
        
         
           2.
           
           That
           in
           this
           age
           (
           which
           knowes
           of
           no
           Oracles
           ,
           or
           miracles
           remaining
           )
           God
           does
           not
           immediately
           ,
           and
           otherwise
           then
           by
           the
           same
           providence
           (
           as
           rules
           in
           other
           humane
           affaires
           )
           either
           designe
           the
           persons
           ,
           or
           distinguish
           the
           Prerogative
           of
           any
           Kings
           or
           Potentate
           .
           God
           is
           not
           said
           more
           properly
           to
           promote
           to
           the
           Crowne
           of
           
             England
             Edward
          
           the
           fourth
           ,
           then
           
             Henry
          
           the
           sixth
           ;
           nor
           to
           make
           a
           King
           of
           
             France
          
           more
           unlimitable
           then
           a
           King
           of
           
             England
             :
          
           These
           things
           are
           left
           to
           men
           ,
           the
           same
           providence
           of
           God
           attending
           them
           ,
           as
           attends
           other
           matters
           .
           Yea
           ,
           the
           Scripture
           is
           most
           cleare
           in
           this
           ,
           that
           when
           God
           by
           immediate
           and
           extraordinary
           orders
           from
           heaven
           did
           interpose
           in
           designing
           
             Saul
          
           to
           the
           Throne
           of
           
             Israel
             ,
          
           yet
           he
           did
           it
           by
           lottery
           ,
           and
           did
           it
           so
           ,
           that
           
             Saul
          
           might
           be
           said
           elected
           ,
           and
           constituted
           by
           the
           people
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           designed
           by
           God
           .
           And
           indeed
           since
           all
           Princes
           ,
           whether
           hereditary
           ,
           or
           elective
           ,
           whether
           more
           absolute
           ,
           or
           more
           conditionate
           ,
           whether
           inthroned
           by
           just
           Title
           ,
           or
           by
           tortion
           ,
           and
           meere
           force
           ,
           have
           Commissions
           equally
           from
           Heaven
           :
           How
           can
           we
           thinke
           that
           Heaven
           acts
           immediately
           alike
           in
           all
           ?
           since
           
             Cyrus
          
           is
           as
           well
           Gods
           anoynted
           in
           those
           Provinces
           which
           he
           wins
           by
           the
           sword
           ,
           as
           in
           those
           which
           come
           to
           him
           by
           descent
           ;
           and
           the
           French
           King
           is
           as
           truly
           Gods
           Vicegerent
           now
           in
           
             France
             ,
          
           as
           
             Charles
          
           (
           whom
           he
           has
           intruded
           upon
           )
           is
           in
           
             England
             ;
          
           and
           since
           the
           King
           of
           
             Spaine
             ,
          
           by
           speciall
           Law
           of
           Heaven
           ,
           can
           claime
           no
           larger
           supremacy
           in
           
             Castile
             ,
          
           then
           in
           
             Burgundy
             ,
          
           in
           
             Naples
             ,
          
           then
           in
           
             Arragon
             ;
          
           what
           an
           unreasonable
           thing
           is
           it
           ,
           to
           ascribe
           all
           these
           devolutions
           of
           rule
           ,
           and
           variations
           
           of
           power
           to
           the
           immediate
           hand
           of
           God
           ,
           which
           changes
           not
           ,
           rather
           then
           to
           the
           acts
           of
           men
           ,
           which
           are
           seldome
           permanent
           ?
        
         
           3.
           
           That
           if
           we
           will
           suppose
           that
           Princes
           Commissions
           are
           all
           immediately
           drawne
           and
           signed
           by
           God
           ,
           yet
           we
           cannot
           suppose
           that
           Gods
           Commission
           ever
           inabled
           any
           man
           to
           do
           injury
           ;
           his
           charge
           to
           all
           Kings
           is
           contrary
           ,
           and
           does
           inhibite
           all
           insolence
           in
           comportment
           ,
           nay
           even
           all
           elation
           of
           heart
           .
           And
           for
           man
           ,
           (
           so
           far
           as
           Princes
           are
           inaugurated
           upon
           earth
           )
           we
           see
           by
           experience
           they
           all
           almost
           have
           their
           visible
           Terries
           ,
           and
           Boundaries
           set
           to
           them
           ;
           and
           it
           were
           most
           unnaturall
           if
           the
           intendment
           of
           all
           humane
           Lawes
           should
           not
           referre
           to
           the
           safety
           of
           the
           people
           .
        
         
           4.
           
           That
           if
           any
           obscurity
           or
           ambiguity
           be
           in
           other
           Lawes
           ,
           yet
           in
           the
           Lawes
           of
           
             England
          
           there
           is
           none
           at
           all
           .
           All
           our
           Books
           proclaime
           our
           Nation
           to
           be
           a
           free
           Nation
           ,
           and
           our
           Kings
           to
           be
           limited
           from
           doing
           any
           wrong
           .
           And
           because
           there
           may
           be
           dispute
           about
           the
           interpretation
           of
           these
           generalls
           ,
           therefore
           particulars
           are
           deduced
           out
           of
           them
           ,
           and
           our
           Lawes
           do
           not
           onely
           declare
           us
           free
           ,
           but
           wherein
           our
           freedome
           consists
           ;
           nor
           do
           they
           binde
           the
           King
           from
           wrong
           but
           specifie
           withall
           ,
           what
           is
           wrong
           to
           the
           Subject
           .
           If
           the
           King
           arbitrarily
           change
           our
           Lawes
           ,
           raise
           Subsidies
           ,
           impose
           Taxes
           ,
           imprison
           our
           bodies
           ,
           deny
           ,
           delay
           ,
           or
           sell
           justice
           to
           us
           ;
           this
           is
           declared
           to
           be
           wrong
           ,
           and
           inconsistant
           with
           our
           freedome
           .
           And
           if
           any
           question
           arise
           about
           our
           Charters
           ,
           the
           King
           himself
           cannot
           interpret
           ,
           or
           sit
           as
           Judge
           ,
           he
           is
           in
           all
           cases
           taken
           to
           be
           a
           party
           ,
           and
           so
           incompetent
           to
           sit
           as
           Judge
           .
           His
           sworne
           Judges
           are
           to
           do
           right
           betwixt
           him
           and
           
           the
           Subject
           out
           of
           Parliament
           ,
           and
           the
           two
           Estates
           are
           to
           do
           right
           above
           the
           Judges
           ,
           if
           need
           be
           ,
           in
           Parliament
           .
           And
           in
           case
           of
           any
           perplexity
           or
           doubt
           ,
           the
           liberty
           and
           safety
           of
           the
           people
           is
           to
           be
           preferred
           before
           the
           Prerogative
           of
           the
           King
           ;
           and
           all
           interpretations
           must
           rather
           favour
           that
           interest
           which
           is
           generall
           ,
           then
           that
           which
           is
           particular
           .
           And
           for
           the
           Military
           power
           of
           
             England
             ,
          
           as
           the
           King
           ought
           not
           to
           use
           any
           other
           then
           the
           naturall
           Liege
           people
           of
           
             England
          
           in
           his
           Warres
           ;
           so
           neither
           can
           he
           presse
           the
           people
           of
           
             England
          
           to
           serve
           in
           his
           Warres
           at
           discretion
           .
           If
           the
           Warre
           be
           forraigne
           ,
           or
           against
           a
           forraigne
           power
           ,
           the
           Parliament
           ought
           to
           be
           consulted
           in
           it
           ;
           but
           if
           force
           be
           to
           be
           used
           against
           Subiects
           ,
           that
           force
           is
           to
           be
           meerely
           sub-servient
           to
           Law
           ,
           and
           whether
           it
           be
           to
           execute
           ordinary
           Judgements
           ,
           or
           to
           suppresse
           Riots
           ,
           or
           Insurrections
           (
           how
           dangerous
           or
           great
           soever
           )
           the
           Sheriffe
           ,
           and
           other
           ordinary
           Officers
           of
           Justice
           ought
           to
           be
           imployed
           in
           the
           businesse
           ,
           and
           those
           which
           are
           so
           imployed
           are
           to
           be
           directed
           solely
           by
           the
           Judges
           and
           Courts
           of
           the
           Land
           in
           speeding
           Law
           ,
           and
           not
           at
           all
           by
           any
           extrajudiciall
           command
           of
           the
           King
           in
           opposition
           to
           Law
           :
           If
           these
           things
           were
           not
           so
           ,
           the
           King
           of
           
             England
          
           could
           not
           be
           restrained
           from
           doing
           wrong
           ,
           our
           Kings
           would
           be
           above
           all
           Law
           ,
           and
           the
           Law
           could
           have
           no
           power
           above
           them
           ,
           and
           if
           our
           Kings
           were
           above
           Lawes
           ,
           and
           not
           restraineable
           thereby
           from
           doing
           wrong
           ,
           the
           people
           of
           
             England
          
           were
           not
           a
           free
           people
           ,
           but
           as
           remedilesse
           Slaves
           ,
           as
           the
           Grand
           Signiors
           Vassells
           are
           .
           Our
           Lawes
           provide
           against
           servitude
           in
           us
           ,
           but
           that
           were
           vaine
           if
           they
           did
           not
           provide
           also
           for
           efficacy
           in
           themselves
           ,
           in
           so
           
           much
           as
           Lawes
           ,
           if
           the
           King
           were
           above
           them
           ,
           and
           so
           might
           alter
           them
           at
           pleasure
           ,
           or
           interpret
           them
           according
           to
           his
           owne
           sence
           ,
           or
           could
           execute
           ,
           or
           not
           execute
           at
           discretion
           by
           being
           sole
           Master
           of
           the
           sword
           ,
           would
           be
           no
           better
           then
           Cobwebs
           to
           us
           .
        
         
           By
           the
           light
           which
           reflects
           from
           these
           fundamentalls
           premised
           ,
           we
           shall
           now
           the
           better
           view
           and
           examine
           that
           which
           Mr.
           
           
             Jenkins
          
           replyes
           to
           the
           eight
           particulars
           of
           
             H.
             P.
             
          
        
         
           In
           the
           first
           particular
           the
           question
           is
           ,
           Whether
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           have
           power
           to
           examine
           a
           Delinquent
           or
           no
           ,
           Mr
           
             Ienkins
          
           holds
           the
           negative
           upon
           this
           ground
           ,
           that
           they
           have
           neither
           the
           Kings
           Writ
           ,
           Patent
           ,
           nor
           Commission
           for
           it
           .
           It
           was
           answered
           ,
           That
           they
           did
           both
           sit
           and
           act
           by
           the
           Kings
           Writ
           ,
           and
           something
           greater
           then
           the
           Kings
           Writ
           .
           Mr
           
             Ienkins
          
           not
           being
           able
           to
           deny
           that
           the
           Parliament
           was
           summoned
           by
           the
           Kings
           Writ
           ,
           and
           that
           it
           is
           continued
           still
           by
           an
           Act
           passed
           since
           ,
           onely
           quarrells
           at
           the
           Act
           of
           continuance
           ,
           pretending
           that
           the
           Act
           by
           which
           this
           Parliament
           is
           continued
           agrees
           not
           with
           the
           Act
           passed
           lately
           for
           a
           Trienniall
           Parliament
           ,
           nor
           with
           that
           for
           an
           Annuall
           Parliament
           ,
           passed
           in
           
             Edw.
          
           the
           thirds
           time
           ,
           as
           also
           that
           it
           is
           mischievous
           ,
           otherwise
           by
           Protections
           ,
           Priviledges
           ,
           &c.
           
           Is
           not
           this
           to
           quarrell
           with
           the
           King
           and
           both
           Houses
           ?
           Is
           not
           this
           to
           tell
           us
           that
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           is
           wiser
           then
           all
           the
           three
           Estates
           ,
           though
           joyned
           together
           ?
           The
           King
           ,
           the
           Lords
           ,
           and
           Commons
           judged
           that
           this
           Act
           did
           agree
           with
           the
           other
           two
           ,
           yet
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           judges
           contrary
           .
           The
           King
           ,
           the
           Lords
           ,
           and
           Commons
           judged
           the
           advantage
           of
           this
           Act
           to
           be
           greater
           then
           any
           inconveniences
           ,
           
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           is
           of
           another
           minde
           .
           Our
           Bookes
           have
           a
           Rule
           ,
           That
           no
           man
           ought
           to
           be
           wiser
           then
           Law
           ;
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           exempts
           himselfe
           out
           of
           this
           Rule
           ;
           but
           in
           the
           next
           place
           ,
           whatsoever
           the
           three
           Estates
           may
           doe
           ,
           yet
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           tells
           us
           ,
           that
           the
           two
           Houses
           make
           no
           Court
           ,
           nor
           Body
           Corporate
           ,
           nor
           Parliament
           without
           the
           King
           ,
           no
           more
           then
           a
           man
           remaines
           a
           man
           without
           a
           head
           ;
           Here
           is
           the
           mistake
           ,
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           thinkes
           the
           King
           is
           a
           head
           to
           the
           Parliament
           
             simpliciter
             ,
          
           or
           
             phisicè
             ,
          
           whereas
           he
           is
           so
           but
           
             secundum
             quid
             ,
          
           or
           
             metaphorisè
             ,
          
           for
           if
           he
           were
           such
           a
           head
           to
           the
           Politick
           Body
           ,
           as
           the
           true
           head
           is
           to
           the
           naturall
           Body
           ,
           the
           body
           could
           have
           no
           subsistence
           without
           him
           ;
           but
           experience
           in
           our
           case
           teaches
           us
           the
           contrary
           ,
           and
           we
           can
           easily
           calculate
           that
           if
           the
           whole
           Royall
           Line
           should
           be
           spent
           ,
           and
           the
           Crowne
           Escheat
           sitting
           a
           Parliament
           ,
           the
           Lords
           and
           Commons
           would
           remaine
           a
           living
           Parliament
           ,
           and
           be
           the
           supreame
           power
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           without
           a
           King
           :
           Also
           if
           this
           should
           happen
           out
           of
           Parliament
           ,
           the
           Lords
           joyning
           with
           the
           chosen
           representants
           of
           the
           whole
           Kingdome
           would
           be
           equally
           as
           competent
           (
           if
           not
           more
           )
           for
           all
           Acts
           of
           Majesty
           ,
           and
           supreame
           dominion
           as
           now
           they
           are
           in
           Parliament
           .
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           must
           needs
           also
           know
           ,
           that
           there
           are
           some
           Acts
           of
           Parliament
           yet
           of
           force
           in
           this
           Land
           ,
           which
           by
           the
           Lords
           and
           Commons
           were
           carried
           and
           consumnated
           ,
           not
           onely
           without
           but
           even
           against
           the
           King
           ;
           but
           I
           forbeare
           to
           draw
           Censure
           upon
           my selfe
           by
           citing
           them
           ;
           and
           whereas
           it
           was
           objected
           ,
           That
           the
           Parliament
           was
           in
           a
           meaner
           condition
           then
           other
           inferiour
           Courts
           ,
           if
           the
           Kings
           meere
           discretion
           could
           so
           make
           
           their
           deliberations
           voyd
           and
           vaine
           .
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           replyes
           ,
           That
           this
           is
           most
           true
           and
           just
           ,
           for
           as
           much
           as
           in
           other
           Courts
           the
           King
           can
           neither
           judge
           nor
           controle
           ;
           but
           in
           the
           Court
           of
           Parliament
           
             (
             quoad
             Acts
             )
          
           the
           King
           is
           both
           Judge
           and
           Controller
           .
           And
           why
           cannot
           the
           King
           judge
           and
           controle
           in
           the
           ordinary
           Courts
           ?
           because
           there
           they
           have
           the
           Kings
           power
           committed
           to
           them
           by
           Patent
           ,
           and
           as
           they
           are
           sworn
           to
           doe
           right
           ,
           so
           the
           King
           is
           sworne
           not
           to
           interrupt
           or
           frustrate
           them
           .
           Thus
           :
        
         
           1
           We
           see
           the
           Kings
           Patent
           to
           a
           few
           men
           is
           more
           vigorous
           ,
           then
           the
           most
           honourable
           Writ
           of
           the
           Law
           is
           when
           it
           is
           directed
           from
           the
           King
           to
           all
           the
           Peeres
           ,
           and
           Commons
           of
           the
           Land
           abetted
           besides
           with
           formall
           Statutes
           .
        
         
           2
           We
           see
           an
           Oath
           taken
           from
           the
           Judges
           is
           of
           more
           valew
           then
           the
           faith
           and
           loyalty
           of
           the
           whole
           people
           .
        
         
           3
           We
           see
           the
           King
           by
           his
           Coronation
           Oath
           is
           stronglier
           obliged
           not
           to
           obstruct
           Justice
           in
           private
           cases
           ;
           depending
           before
           lower
           Courts
           ,
           then
           the
           generall
           safety
           and
           welfare
           of
           the
           people
           in
           that
           Treshault
           Counsell
           ,
           which
           is
           so
           honourable
           that
           none
           ought
           to
           thinke
           ignobly
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           4
           We
           must
           grant
           ,
           that
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           can
           better
           tell
           what
           the
           Law
           is
           in
           this
           point
           then
           both
           Houses
           .
        
         
           5
           Whereas
           an
           Argument
           
             Ab
             inconvenienti
          
           was
           valid
           in
           Law
           before
           ,
           now
           an
           Argument
           drawne
           from
           the
           safety
           and
           liberty
           of
           the
           whole
           State
           ,
           and
           from
           the
           end
           of
           all
           Law
           is
           made
           rediculous
           by
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
             ;
          
           for
           he
           which
           grants
           we
           are
           borne
           to
           liberty
           and
           safety
           as
           our
           right
           ,
           yet
           grants
           no
           meanes
           to
           attaine
           to
           
           that
           right
           ,
           nor
           remedy
           to
           recover
           it
           ,
           except
           the
           Kings
           Grace
           ,
           and
           even
           then
           the
           Grand
           Seigniours
           Subjects
           have
           their
           Masters
           grace
           and
           discretion
           to
           depend
           upon
           as
           well
           as
           we
           .
        
         
           Thus
           is
           our
           state
           like
           a
           goodly
           Ship
           ,
           exquisitely
           decord
           ,
           strongly
           man'd
           ,
           and
           abundantly
           riggd
           with
           all
           kinde
           of
           Tackling
           ;
           and
           so
           built
           for
           agility
           in
           faire
           weather
           ,
           that
           nothing
           in
           that
           respect
           can
           be
           added
           to
           her
           perfection
           ;
           yet
           still
           she
           is
           so
           moulded
           by
           these
           kinde
           of
           Royalists
           ,
           that
           the
           least
           foule
           weather
           over-sets
           her
           .
           We
           have
           excellent
           Lawes
           to
           secure
           our
           proprieties
           against
           the
           Crowne
           ;
           we
           have
           excellent
           Priviledges
           in
           Parliaments
           to
           secure
           our
           Lawes
           against
           the
           Judges
           ,
           and
           other
           Ministers
           of
           the
           Crowne
           ;
           and
           yet
           neverthelesse
           the
           Parliament
           it self
           is
           so
           discontinuable
           ,
           dissolvable
           ,
           and
           controllable
           by
           the
           Crown
           ,
           that
           our
           all
           which
           depends
           upon
           it
           ,
           has
           nothing
           in
           the
           last
           place
           ,
           to
           make
           it self
           good
           to
           us
           ,
           but
           the
           favour
           of
           the
           Crowne
           .
        
         
           Thus
           may
           our
           Lawes
           and
           Priviledges
           ,
           in
           which
           there
           is
           acknowledged
           to
           be
           a
           directive
           ,
           but
           no
           coactive
           force
           over
           the
           King
           ,
           be
           compared
           to
           an
           imaginary
           Mathematicall
           Line
           in
           the
           heavens
           ,
           but
           not
           to
           any
           fence
           or
           circumvallation
           upon
           the
           earth
           :
           Well
           may
           they
           informe
           the
           King
           what
           we
           ought
           to
           injoy
           ,
           as
           the
           Lawes
           of
           God
           and
           nature
           without
           them
           do
           to
           all
           other
           Nations
           ;
           But
           they
           can
           never
           assure
           us
           what
           we
           shall
           enjoy
           .
           And
           therefore
           I
           wonder
           why
           the
           Royalists
           should
           so
           much
           extoll
           the
           rare
           Constitution
           of
           this
           Kingdom
           ,
           when
           besides
           some
           other
           flowers
           of
           the
           Crowne
           ,
           they
           ascribe
           to
           the
           King
           such
           a
           negative
           voyce
           in
           Parliament
           ,
           as
           is
           sufficient
           alone
           
           to
           destroy
           all
           that
           is
           granted
           us
           in
           all
           things
           else
           .
           But
           to
           returne
           to
           our
           Reply
           .
        
         
           'T
           is
           maintained
           next
           ,
           that
           whatsoever
           power
           is
           in
           both
           Houses
           ,
           yet
           there
           is
           no
           power
           in
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           to
           examine
           at
           all
           ,
           because
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           cannot
           administer
           an
           Oath
           ;
           and
           examination
           without
           Oath
           is
           a
           meere
           communication
           ,
           and
           rejected
           as
           unprofitable
           in
           Law
           .
        
         
           One
           reason
           why
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           cannot
           examine
           upon
           Oath
           ,
           is
           because
           it
           is
           no
           Court
           ;
           and
           it
           appeares
           to
           be
           no
           Court
           ,
           because
           it
           has
           no
           power
           of
           tryall
           ,
           nor
           ever
           practised
           any
           such
           power
           ,
           by
           Bill
           ,
           Indictment
           ,
           Information
           ,
           Plaints
           ,
           or
           Originall
           .
           And
           for
           the
           Lord
           
             Cookes
          
           Relation
           ,
           that
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           have
           imposed
           Fines
           ,
           and
           imprisoned
           men
           in
           Queene
           
             Elizabeths
          
           time
           ,
           and
           since
           ;
           He
           saies
           these
           are
           but
           late
           ,
           and
           a
           few
           matters
           of
           fact
           ,
           and
           
             à
             facto
             ad
             jus
          
           is
           no
           good
           argument
           .
           Here
           we
           see
           though
           the
           greatest
           plea
           against
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           is
           the
           non-user
           of
           any
           such
           power
           ,
           yet
           when
           the
           non-user
           is
           proved
           ,
           then
           't
           is
           objected
           ,
           That
           it
           is
           but
           of
           late
           times
           ,
           and
           illustrated
           but
           by
           a
           few
           presidents
           .
        
         
           A
           second
           reason
           against
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           being
           a
           Court
           ,
           is
           because
           it
           has
           neither
           the
           Kings
           Patent
           ,
           nor
           any
           Statute
           nor
           common
           usuage
           to
           make
           it
           so
           .
           The
           House
           of
           Lords
           is
           acknowledged
           to
           be
           a
           Court
           of
           Record
           to
           many
           purposes
           ,
           partly
           because
           the
           King
           sits
           there
           ,
           and
           partly
           because
           there
           is
           cleere
           Law
           for
           their
           Priviledges
           ;
           but
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           is
           excepted
           against
           (
           as
           not
           within
           these
           reasons
           .
           )
           The
           truth
           is
           ,
           both
           Houses
           are
           but
           one
           Court
           ,
           and
           one
           Councell
           ,
           and
           the
           time
           has
           been
           when
           they
           
           have
           both
           sate
           in
           one
           place
           together
           ;
           and
           there
           may
           be
           good
           reason
           given
           why
           they
           may
           sit
           severall
           and
           have
           their
           priviledges
           kept
           distinct
           ;
           and
           why
           the
           Lords
           should
           be
           more
           active
           in
           some
           matters
           of
           judgement
           ,
           where
           the
           whole
           Commonalties
           interest
           is
           not
           touched
           :
           But
           this
           is
           no
           proofe
           ,
           That
           what
           the
           Lords
           act
           by
           themselves
           ,
           receives
           no
           influence
           from
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           ;
           Or
           that
           the
           House
           of
           Peeres
           is
           of
           more
           value
           in
           the
           eye
           of
           the
           Law
           ,
           or
           has
           any
           greater
           jurisdiction
           by
           the
           Law
           ,
           then
           the
           Representative
           Body
           of
           the
           whole
           State
           .
           As
           for
           the
           Kings
           sitting
           in
           the
           House
           of
           Lords
           ,
           there
           is
           but
           little
           moment
           in
           that
           ,
           in
           regard
           that
           he
           sits
           not
           there
           to
           judge
           ,
           or
           to
           debate
           ,
           but
           onely
           to
           propose
           and
           consent
           .
           And
           there
           is
           no
           Law
           to
           debarre
           him
           from
           the
           like
           in
           the
           Commons
           House
           ;
           and
           so
           it
           was
           when
           both
           Houses
           sate
           together
           ,
           and
           still
           is
           when
           they
           meet
           together
           .
           And
           secondly
           ,
           whereas
           some
           Patent
           ,
           Statute
           ,
           or
           Usage
           ,
           is
           demanded
           from
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           ,
           in
           maintenance
           of
           their
           judiciall
           power
           ,
           This
           we
           say
           is
           unreasonable
           :
           Nay
           ,
           if
           any
           Patent
           ,
           Statute
           ,
           or
           Usage
           ,
           could
           be
           produced
           for
           preferrence
           of
           the
           Peerage
           before
           all
           the
           Knights
           ,
           Gentlemen
           ,
           and
           Commons
           of
           
             England
          
           in
           this
           point
           ;
           that
           were
           rather
           to
           be
           rejected
           ,
           as
           most
           unjust
           and
           unnaturall
           .
           A
           third
           reason
           is
           brought
           against
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           out
           of
           the
           Writ
           of
           Summons
           ,
           forasmuch
           as
           in
           that
           Writ
           ,
           the
           King
           resolves
           ,
           consults
           ,
           and
           treats
           with
           his
           Peeres
           ,
           
             super
             ardua
             regni
             ,
          
           but
           the
           Commons
           are
           called
           
             ad
             faciendum
             &
             consentiendum
             in
             iis
             quae
             ibidem
             de
             communi
             concilio
             ordinari
             contigerint
             .
          
           These
           words
           of
           the
           Writ
           ,
           though
           they
           are
           generall
           ,
           and
           in
           
           some
           things
           ambigious
           ,
           yet
           they
           are
           no
           more
           disadvantagious
           to
           the
           Commons
           ,
           then
           to
           the
           Lords
           or
           King
           .
           But
           if
           words
           are
           to
           be
           interpreted
           by
           the
           practise
           of
           Parliaments
           ,
           and
           by
           the
           tenour
           of
           all
           our
           other
           Lawes
           ,
           we
           shall
           finde
           that
           the
           Kings
           part
           is
           to
           propose
           and
           consent
           ,
           but
           not
           to
           debate
           ;
           that
           the
           Lords
           part
           is
           to
           propose
           ,
           debate
           ,
           and
           consent
           in
           some
           things
           ,
           but
           not
           in
           all
           :
           that
           the
           Commons
           part
           is
           to
           propose
           debate
           ,
           and
           consent
           in
           all
           .
           And
           this
           appeares
           by
           the
           raising
           of
           Treasure
           ,
           the
           grand
           concernment
           of
           the
           Kingdom
           ,
           called
           justly
           ,
           
             Ornamentum
             pacis
             &
             firmamentum
             belli
          
           and
           in
           this
           ,
           though
           the
           King
           and
           Lords
           may
           propose
           &
           consent
           ,
           yet
           none
           but
           the
           Commons
           may
           propose
           ,
           debate
           ,
           and
           consent
           .
           From
           reasoning
           Mr
           
             Jenkins
          
           now
           betakes
           himself
           to
           rayling
           ,
           and
           tells
           both
           Lords
           and
           Commons
           ,
           that
           whatsoever
           their
           Writ
           meant
           ,
           they
           act
           now
           quite
           contrary
           ;
           for
           by
           their
           Writ
           they
           were
           required
           to
           treat
           and
           consult
           with
           the
           King
           ,
           concerning
           the
           King
           ,
           the
           defence
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           ,
           and
           the
           Church
           ;
           whereas
           they
           first
           imprison
           the
           King
           ,
           next
           arme
           the
           Kingdome
           for
           themselves
           against
           the
           King
           ,
           and
           lastly
           demolish
           the
           Church
           by
           abolishing
           Bishops
           ,
           Deanes
           ,
           &c.
           
        
         
           For
           the
           first
           ,
           the
           King
           left
           them
           unconstrained
           ,
           and
           deserted
           
             Westminster
             ,
          
           whether
           they
           were
           summoned
           to
           attend
           him
           ,
           and
           after
           tooke
           Armes
           to
           dissolve
           them
           ;
           but
           those
           Armes
           being
           now
           broken
           ,
           the
           Parliament
           keepes
           him
           from
           raising
           new
           broyles
           ,
           but
           so
           farre
           are
           they
           from
           refusing
           to
           treat
           with
           him
           ,
           that
           they
           prepare
           Propositions
           for
           him
           ,
           and
           reject
           no
           messages
           or
           Letters
           that
           come
           from
           him
           ;
           neither
           is
           the
           Kings
           restraint
           properly
           to
           be
           called
           imprisonment
           
           being
           much
           different
           therefrom
           ,
           both
           for
           the
           manner
           and
           for
           the
           end
           of
           it
           ;
           the
           manner
           of
           it
           is
           ingenuous
           ,
           and
           accompanied
           with
           many
           accommodations
           ,
           which
           thousands
           of
           other
           Free-men
           ,
           nay
           Gentlemen
           of
           
             England
          
           cannot
           attaine
           too
           ;
           and
           for
           his
           Attendants
           ,
           they
           are
           truly
           his
           Servants
           ,
           and
           as
           observant
           in
           all
           Offices
           compatible
           with
           the
           peace
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           as
           ever
           he
           had
           any
           .
           The
           end
           of
           his
           restraint
           also
           is
           not
           to
           incommodate
           him
           in
           any
           degree
           ,
           there
           is
           nothing
           aymed
           at
           in
           it
           but
           to
           preserve
           the
           Kingdome
           from
           new
           disturbance
           ,
           till
           he
           appeares
           fully
           reconciled
           ,
           and
           to
           preserve
           him
           from
           drawing
           prejudice
           upon
           himselfe
           .
           For
           the
           second
           ,
           since
           't
           is
           not
           for
           the
           Kingdoms
           damage
           ,
           nor
           the
           Kings
           ,
           that
           future
           Commotions
           be
           supprest
           ;
           the
           Lords
           and
           Commons
           could
           no
           way
           better
           satisfie
           the
           intent
           of
           their
           Summons
           ,
           then
           by
           suppressing
           Commotions
           by
           the
           same
           posture
           of
           defence
           as
           they
           now
           are
           in
           .
           I
           could
           wish
           also
           ,
           that
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           would
           understand
           ,
           that
           as
           the
           Kingdome
           is
           called
           the
           Kings
           ,
           so
           the
           King
           is
           called
           the
           Kingdoms
           ;
           and
           that
           propriety
           which
           the
           Kingdome
           has
           in
           the
           King
           ,
           is
           more
           tenderly
           to
           be
           expounded
           then
           that
           which
           the
           King
           has
           in
           the
           Kingdome
           .
           For
           the
           third
           ,
           that
           the
           word
           Church
           should
           onely
           be
           applyed
           to
           Church-men
           ,
           or
           the
           word
           Church-men
           to
           Bishops
           ,
           Deanes
           ,
           &c.
           is
           more
           then
           the
           Law
           teaches
           :
           and
           if
           the
           businesse
           be
           studdied
           well
           't
           will
           not
           be
           found
           a
           thing
           impossible
           ,
           as
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           supposes
           for
           the
           Parliament
           to
           abolish
           Bishops
           ,
           Deanes
           ,
           &c.
           and
           yet
           to
           advance
           Church-men
           ,
           or
           to
           take
           away
           some
           of
           the
           excessive
           Grandour
           of
           Church-men
           without
           any
           destruction
           to
           the
           Church
           .
        
         
         
           2
           Thus
           much
           of
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           Reply
           to
           the
           first
           particular
           ,
           I
           come
           now
           to
           his
           second
           ,
           where
           he
           takes
           it
           ill
           ,
           that
           in
           cases
           of
           pardons
           the
           King
           should
           be
           thought
           to
           be
           vertually
           in
           the
           two
           Houses
           ,
           for
           as
           much
           as
           that
           power
           he
           sayes
           remaines
           solely
           in
           the
           King
           ,
           and
           therefore
           cannot
           rest
           at
           all
           in
           the
           two
           Houses
           .
        
         
           That
           the
           power
           of
           pardoning
           Delinquents
           is
           so
           in
           the
           King
           solely
           ,
           as
           that
           he
           cannot
           derive
           the
           same
           to
           the
           Parliament
           as
           he
           does
           his
           other
           power
           is
           not
           proved
           by
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
             ,
          
           nor
           can
           it
           be
           possibly
           proved
           ,
           and
           that
           the
           King
           does
           not
           derive
           the
           same
           (
           as
           he
           does
           his
           other
           )
           is
           as
           farre
           from
           being
           proved
           also
           ;
           for
           doubtlesse
           in
           all
           Acts
           of
           Oblivion
           ,
           the
           two
           Houses
           convey
           an
           additionall
           vigor
           ,
           and
           so
           make
           the
           Acts
           more
           vertuous
           then
           the
           Kings
           meere
           Act
           could
           doe
           ,
           and
           therefore
           this
           new
           vigour
           which
           is
           conveyed
           by
           the
           Houses
           ,
           if
           it
           be
           not
           that
           which
           is
           derived
           from
           the
           King
           ,
           as
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           Tenets
           deny
           ,
           then
           it
           flowes
           naturally
           and
           originally
           from
           the
           two
           Houses
           ;
           and
           what
           can
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           cause
           gaine
           by
           this
           ?
           But
           sayes
           Mr.
           
             Ienkin
             ,
          
           The
           King
           is
           a
           Prisoner
           ,
           and
           so
           having
           no
           power
           but
           what
           is
           divested
           by
           his
           imprisonment
           ,
           the
           power
           of
           the
           Houses
           is
           usurped
           by
           themselves
           ,
           and
           not
           derived
           by
           the
           King
           .
           The
           block
           which
           Mr.
           
             Ienkens
          
           here
           stumbles
           at
           is
           this
           ;
           He
           thinkes
           an
           imprisoned
           King
           has
           no
           power
           at
           all
           ,
           or
           remaines
           indeed
           no
           King
           ,
           but
           this
           is
           not
           absolutely
           true
           of
           all
           Kings
           imprisoned
           ,
           for
           as
           our
           case
           is
           ,
           either
           imprisonment
           is
           something
           more
           then
           that
           which
           our
           King
           suffers
           ,
           or
           else
           imprisonment
           as
           to
           some
           Acts
           may
           stand
           with
           freedome
           as
           to
           other
           Acts.
           I
           have
           toucht
           upon
           this
           
           subject
           already
           .
           But
           let
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           bee
           as
           bitter
           as
           he
           pleases
           in
           his
           censures
           and
           reproaches
           ,
           't
           is
           not
           intended
           by
           the
           two
           Houses
           that
           the
           King
           should
           be
           disabled
           from
           doing
           any
           acts
           of
           justice
           and
           piety
           ,
           't
           is
           only
           from
           raising
           new
           Forces
           ,
           and
           begetting
           new
           concussions
           ,
           that
           this
           new
           guard
           desires
           to
           prevent
           him
           .
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           next
           sayes
           ,
           that
           the
           King
           may
           revoke
           and
           discharge
           his
           Commissions
           at
           pleasure
           ,
           but
           what
           of
           this
           ?
           the
           question
           is
           ,
           whether
           or
           no
           the
           King
           may
           frustrate
           and
           elude
           his
           Commissions
           ;
           and
           this
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           speakes
           not
           directly
           to
           .
           Wee
           need
           not
           quarrell
           therefore
           further
           about
           this
           ,
           we
           will
           grant
           to
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           that
           Parliaments
           may
           be
           justly
           determined
           and
           dissolved
           by
           our
           King
           ,
           provided
           he
           will
           grant
           to
           us
           that
           the
           same
           may
           be
           justly
           frustrated
           or
           eluded
           .
           But
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           stomacks
           much
           at
           our
           calling
           the
           two
           Houses
           a
           Parliament
           ,
           and
           censures
           it
           in
           us
           as
           a
           great
           delusion
           ,
           although
           we
           know
           well
           that
           nothing
           is
           more
           common
           in
           speech
           ,
           then
           to
           say
           that
           the
           King
           cals
           his
           Parliaments
           ,
           writes
           to
           his
           Parliaments
           ,
           dissolves
           his
           Parliaments
           ,
           &c.
           
           The
           King
           must
           be
           taken
           abstracted
           from
           that
           which
           he
           cals
           ,
           writes
           to
           ,
           and
           dissolves
           ,
           or
           else
           wee
           must
           consider
           him
           calling
           himselfe
           ,
           writing
           to
           himself
           ,
           dissolving
           himselfe
           ,
           which
           cannot
           be
           without
           absurdity
           .
           Besides
           ,
           when
           we
           speake
           of
           the
           great
           Councell
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           ,
           we
           meane
           the
           Parliament
           abstracted
           from
           the
           King
           ,
           forasmuch
           as
           the
           King
           in
           Parliament
           does
           not
           so
           properly
           give
           as
           receive
           Counsell
           ,
           and
           why
           we
           may
           not
           aswell
           call
           the
           two
           Houses
           a
           Parliament
           ,
           as
           the
           great
           Councell
           ,
           treshault
           Court
           ,
           or
           mickle-gemot
           of
           the
           King
           and
           Kingdome
           ,
           I
           cannot
           devise
           .
           The
           Law
           sayes
           the
           King
           cannot
           be
           absent
           from
           his
           Parliaament
           ;
           
           this
           must
           be
           meant
           authoritatively
           ,
           not
           personally
           ,
           for
           divers
           of
           our
           Kings
           have
           been
           in
           
             France
          
           sitting
           Parliaments
           here
           ,
           and
           yet
           even
           they
           were
           politically
           present
           ,
           though
           physically
           absent
           ,
           as
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           himselfe
           must
           needs
           grant
           .
           Now
           if
           the
           Parliament
           be
           the
           Kings
           Court
           or
           Councell
           ,
           and
           such
           a
           Court
           or
           Councell
           as
           he
           cannot
           virtually
           bee
           absent
           from
           ,
           though
           in
           person
           he
           be
           often
           distant
           ,
           and
           at
           some
           time
           must
           not
           be
           otherwise
           ,
           how
           can
           it
           be
           maintained
           by
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           that
           the
           two
           Houses
           are
           not
           the
           Parliament
           ?
           Another
           objection
           of
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           against
           the
           two
           Houses
           is
           ,
           that
           they
           were
           deserted
           by
           divers
           of
           their
           own
           Members
           ,
           who
           in
           considerable
           numbers
           went
           to
           the
           King
           at
           
             Oxford
             ;
          
           but
           this
           is
           no
           other
           objection
           then
           might
           be
           made
           against
           the
           Husband
           ,
           when
           the
           wife
           elopes
           and
           withdraws
           from
           his
           bed
           ,
           shall
           that
           party
           which
           remaines
           constant
           ,
           and
           attends
           duly
           at
           the
           place
           assigned
           in
           the
           summons
           for
           transacting
           of
           that
           businesse
           which
           was
           specified
           in
           the
           summons
           ,
           suffer
           for
           that
           parties
           sake
           which
           proved
           inconstant
           ,
           and
           neither
           observed
           the
           place
           nor
           businesse
           of
           the
           writ
           by
           which
           it
           was
           convened
           ?
           sure
           this
           is
           most
           unreasonable
           ;
           doubtlesse
           when
           the
           King
           cald
           these
           uncertaine
           members
           
             mungrels
             ,
          
           who
           together
           with
           their
           whole
           faction
           would
           neither
           be
           cordially
           true
           to
           Religion
           and
           Liberty
           at
           
             London
             ,
          
           nor
           totally
           consent
           to
           subvert
           them
           at
           
             Oxford
             ,
          
           hee
           had
           more
           reason
           on
           his
           side
           then
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           has
           ,
           who
           disparages
           those
           that
           kept
           their
           stations
           because
           of
           the
           defection
           of
           their
           
             mungrell
          
           brethren
           .
           In
           the
           last
           place
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           though
           he
           confesses
           that
           the
           common
           Law
           did
           alwayes
           restrain
           our
           Kings
           from
           all
           tallages
           &
           subsidies
           but
           by
           consent
           in
           Parliament
           ,
           as
           doth
           
           appeare
           by
           
             Magna
             Charta
             ;
          
           yet
           he
           sayes
           this
           is
           no
           consequence
           ,
           because
           the
           King
           cannot
           take
           the
           subjects
           good
           at
           pleasure
           ,
           therefore
           the
           Commons
           have
           a
           concurrent
           power
           with
           the
           King
           in
           Parliament
           ;
           indeed
           this
           consequence
           is
           ill-framed
           ,
           but
           in
           its
           right
           forme
           it
           appears
           thus
           ;
           if
           the
           Commons
           in
           Parliament
           have
           that
           great
           power
           to
           raise
           treasure
           out
           of
           the
           whole
           Kingdome
           ,
           which
           the
           King
           has
           not
           our
           of
           Parliament
           ,
           then
           they
           must
           deduce
           this
           power
           from
           themselves
           ,
           or
           those
           whom
           they
           represent
           ,
           and
           not
           from
           the
           King
           ,
           who
           cannot
           give
           that
           which
           he
           has
           not
           in
           himselfe
           ;
           but
           so
           it
           is
           that
           the
           Commons
           have
           this
           power
           ,
           
             Ergo
             .
          
           If
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           will
           answer
           this
           hee
           shall
           befriend
           my
           intellect
           .
           The
           last
           objection
           which
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           makes
           against
           this
           concurrent
           power
           of
           the
           Commons
           in
           granting
           subsidies
           is
           this
           ,
           that
           Parliaments
           may
           be
           held
           ,
           and
           be
           complete
           Parliaments
           without
           subsidies
           ,
           and
           hereupon
           he
           tels
           us
           that
           former
           Parliaments
           rarely
           granted
           any
           unlesse
           in
           time
           of
           forrain-Warres
           ;
           and
           
             Q.
             Eliz.
          
           refused
           a
           subsidie
           granted
           ,
           &
           
             K.
             Ia.
          
           in
           his
           first
           year
           had
           none
           granted
           him
           .
           Is
           there
           any
           solidity
           in
           this
           objection
           ?
           I
           appeal
           to
           all
           ingenuous
           men
           ,
           Parliaments
           may
           be
           without
           subsidies
           ,
           
             Ergo
          
           the
           granting
           of
           subsidies
           is
           no
           act
           of
           power
           in
           Parliaments
           ;
           or
           thus
           ,
           giving
           of
           subsidies
           is
           an
           Act
           of
           power
           in
           Parl.
           but
           since
           at
           some-time
           it
           may
           be
           difused
           and
           intermitted
           ,
           or
           a
           power
           that
           at
           some-times
           is
           not
           reduced
           into
           acts
           ,
           therefore
           it
           is
           no
           power
           ,
           or
           not
           inherent
           in
           the
           people
           ,
           but
           onely
           derivative
           from
           the
           King
           .
           Let
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           apply
           his
           owne
           words
           to
           himselfe
           here
           ,
           for
           certainly
           hee
           ought
           to
           make
           a
           conscience
           of
           blinding
           the
           people
           with
           such
           untrue
           colours
           to
           the
           ruine
           of
           King
           and
           Kingdome
           .
        
         
           3.
           
           The
           third
           particular
           now
           offers
           it
           sel●●●n
           order
           ,
           
           and
           here
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           his
           reply
           ought
           to
           prove
           that
           if
           the
           two
           Houses
           had
           a
           Parliamentary
           power
           in
           themselves
           ,
           they
           needed
           not
           send
           Propositions
           to
           the
           King
           ,
           but
           instead
           of
           opposing
           this
           (
           which
           was
           the
           only
           thing
           made
           good
           by
           his
           answerer
           )
           he
           diverts
           his
           force
           to
           oppose
           the
           equity
           and
           justice
           of
           the
           Propositions
           sent
           to
           his
           Majesty
           .
           This
           is
           not
           to
           reply
           to
           his
           Answerer
           ,
           but
           to
           satisfie
           his
           owne
           peevish
           disposition
           ;
           yet
           since
           hee
           may
           abuse
           the
           people
           aswell
           when
           he
           railes
           as
           when
           he
           argues
           something
           must
           be
           returned
           in
           answer
           to
           him
           .
           After
           he
           has
           magisterially
           condemn'd
           the
           Propositions
           in
           general
           as
           being
           contrary
           to
           law
           ,
           he
           vouchsafes
           at
           last
           thus
           particularly
           to
           interrogate
           us
           :
           Have
           the
           two
           Houses
           a
           strict
           right
           to
           lay
           upon
           the
           people
           what
           taxes
           they
           judge
           meet
           ,
           have
           they
           power
           to
           pardon
           all
           Treasons
           ,
           &c.
           
             subintelligitur
          
           without
           the
           Kings
           consent
           ?
           We
           answer
           they
           have
           not
           any
           such
           ordinary
           power
           ;
           but
           if
           the
           Kingdomes
           safety
           lye
           upon
           it
           ,
           and
           the
           King
           will
           not
           concurre
           in
           saving
           the
           Kingdome
           in
           an
           ordinary
           way
           ,
           they
           may
           have
           recourse
           to
           extraordinary
           meanes
           for
           the
           saving
           of
           it
           ordinarily
           the
           people
           may
           not
           take
           up
           Armes
           ,
           but
           in
           case
           of
           extraordinary
           invasion
           by
           forrain
           or
           domestick
           force
           they
           may
           justifie
           taking
           up
           of
           Arms
           ,
           and
           when
           War
           it selfe
           is
           justifiable
           ,
           all
           the
           necessary
           concomitants
           and
           expedients
           of
           a
           politick
           war
           are
           justifiable
           .
           Nature
           has
           confined
           water
           to
           a
           descending
           course
           ,
           yet
           not
           by
           such
           a
           rigid
           Law
           ,
           but
           that
           for
           the
           necessary
           subvention
           of
           the
           whole
           Fabrick
           ,
           and
           for
           the
           avoiding
           of
           that
           vacuity
           which
           Nature
           more
           abhors
           then
           the
           dispensation
           ,
           or
           temporary
           suspension
           of
           such
           ,
           or
           such
           a
           particular
           inferiour
           Law
           ,
           this
           ponderous
           element
           may
           forsake
           its
           ordinary
           course
           ,
           and
           mount
           upwards
           .
           
           In
           a
           Village
           where
           houses
           stand
           scatter'd
           and
           remote
           ,
           't
           is
           not
           lawfull
           for
           me
           to
           demolish
           this
           house
           ,
           because
           that
           which
           stands
           next
           it
           is
           all
           of
           a
           flame
           ,
           but
           in
           a
           Citie
           this
           is
           lawfull
           where
           the
           houses
           are
           so
           conjoyned
           ,
           that
           the
           flame
           of
           one
           house
           may
           extend
           it selfe
           to
           the
           consuming
           or
           indangering
           of
           a
           whole
           street
           or
           more
           .
           It
           is
           not
           generally
           lawfull
           for
           me
           to
           judge
           my
           neighbour
           unheard
           ,
           or
           to
           execute
           my
           neighbour
           unjudged
           :
           Yet
           if
           I
           find
           my
           neighbour
           ingaged
           in
           such
           a
           Treason
           as
           
             Faulx
          
           was
           ,
           and
           ready
           with
           his
           Match
           to
           give
           fire
           to
           such
           a
           Traine
           of
           Powder
           as
           he
           had
           layd
           ,
           and
           have
           no
           other
           meanes
           to
           prevent
           him
           ,
           I
           may
           runne
           upon
           him
           with
           my
           Sword
           ,
           and
           make
           my selfe
           both
           his
           Judge
           and
           Executioner
           .
           Now
           if
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           will
           say
           ,
           that
           such
           extraordinary
           acts
           as
           these
           are
           warranted
           by
           Law
           ,
           I
           shall
           cōply
           with
           him
           ,
           yet
           I
           conceive
           t
           is
           not
           upon
           any
           particular
           Law
           ,
           but
           upon
           the
           generall
           law
           of
           publick
           safetie
           that
           these
           warrants
           are
           grounded
           upon
           ;
           &
           if
           I
           am
           not
           mistaken
           ,
           t
           is
           rather
           policy
           ,
           then
           Law
           ,
           that
           admits
           of
           such
           strange
           deviations
           from
           the
           common
           practice
           and
           rule
           of
           Law
           .
           But
           sayes
           Master
           
             Ienkins
             ,
          
           these
           propositions
           cannot
           passe
           into
           Statutes
           but
           by
           the
           Kings
           concurrence
           ,
           and
           has
           not
           the
           King
           a
           free
           power
           to
           assent
           ,
           or
           dissent
           in
           those
           things
           which
           must
           receive
           their
           being
           from
           his
           concurrence
           ?
           Or
           is
           the
           seeking
           of
           the
           Kings
           concurrence
           nothing
           but
           a
           meer
           Complement
           ?
           We
           answer
           ,
           The
           King
           has
           a
           power
           to
           assent
           and
           dissent
           :
           yet
           without
           any
           impeachment
           of
           his
           libertie
           ,
           he
           may
           ,
           nay
           he
           must
           ,
           assent
           to
           such
           Bills
           as
           are
           for
           the
           publicke
           good
           ,
           and
           to
           dissent
           from
           such
           as
           are
           tending
           to
           the
           publicke
           detriment
           ;
           the
           reason
           is
           ,
           because
           the
           free
           choice
           of
           the
           King
           is
           to
           receive
           its
           determination
           from
           without
           from
           
           the
           matter
           of
           the
           Bills
           ,
           not
           from
           within
           ,
           or
           from
           the
           propension
           of
           his
           owne
           will
           :
           for
           the
           will
           injoyes
           a
           more
           perfect
           libertie
           when
           it
           is
           attracted
           ,
           and
           as
           it
           were
           necessitated
           by
           that
           object
           which
           is
           good
           ,
           then
           when
           it
           is
           left
           to
           its
           owne
           equilibrious
           motions
           ,
           and
           so
           wavers
           indifferently
           betwixt
           good
           and
           evill
           .
           If
           it
           be
           said
           ,
           that
           in
           the
           choice
           of
           that
           which
           is
           good
           ,
           the
           King
           cannot
           so
           well
           satisfie
           his
           own
           judgement
           by
           the
           advise
           or
           reason
           of
           other
           men
           ,
           as
           by
           that
           which
           is
           dictated
           to
           him
           by
           his
           owne
           breast
           :
           It
           must
           be
           answered
           ,
           first
           ,
           in
           the
           grand
           concernments
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           ,
           wherein
           the
           King
           has
           not
           so
           great
           a
           share
           as
           the
           people
           has
           ,
           t
           is
           more
           just
           that
           the
           reason
           of
           two
           Estates
           be
           satisfied
           ,
           then
           his
           .
           Secondly
           ,
           in
           cases
           where
           the
           King
           is
           severally
           interessed
           ,
           his
           particular
           interests
           ought
           to
           succumbe
           and
           give
           a
           preference
           to
           the
           generall
           .
           Thirdly
           ,
           either
           the
           matter
           in
           debate
           is
           intricate
           ,
           and
           admits
           of
           doubts
           ,
           or
           not
           ;
           If
           there
           be
           doubt
           in
           it
           ,
           then
           the
           King
           ought
           not
           to
           oppose
           his
           single
           judgement
           ,
           or
           rather
           opinion
           to
           the
           resolution
           of
           the
           Highest
           Court
           and
           Councell
           of
           the
           Kingdome
           :
           If
           there
           be
           no
           doubt
           in
           it
           ,
           (
           an
           accident
           sure
           very
           rare
           ,
           that
           the
           Lords
           and
           Representants
           of
           a
           whole
           State
           should
           judge
           a
           thing
           to
           be
           advantagious
           ,
           when
           the
           King
           knowes
           it
           certainly
           to
           be
           disadvantagious
           )
           then
           the
           King
           is
           to
           consider
           whither
           the
           matter
           in
           question
           be
           necessary
           or
           expedient
           ,
           if
           it
           be
           expedient
           onely
           ,
           then
           the
           King
           ought
           not
           to
           contest
           about
           it
           ,
           forasmuch
           as
           that
           contestation
           may
           be
           more
           inexpedient
           for
           the
           State
           then
           his
           concession
           .
           But
           if
           it
           be
           necessary
           (
           as
           the
           cause
           of
           true
           Religion
           ,
           &c.
           )
           where
           the
           King
           being
           Orthodox
           ,
           knowes
           his
           Subjects
           to
           be
           blinded
           with
           Idolatry
           or
           Heresie
           ,
           and
           cannot
           without
           sin
           give
           his
           Royall
           
           assent
           to
           such
           irreligious
           Bills
           ,
           as
           they
           present
           ;
           then
           as
           it
           were
           impious
           in
           him
           to
           signe
           them
           ,
           so
           it
           is
           outragious
           in
           him
           to
           disturbe
           the
           publicke
           peace
           about
           them
           .
           The
           reason
           of
           this
           is
           ,
           because
           Polititians
           guide
           themselves
           rather
           by
           the
           calculation
           of
           what
           is
           probable
           then
           what
           is
           possible
           onely
           ,
           and
           therefore
           though
           it
           be
           possible
           that
           a
           King
           with
           one
           eye
           should
           see
           more
           then
           a
           Parliament
           with
           many
           ,
           yet
           since
           this
           is
           not
           probable
           ,
           there
           is
           scarce
           any
           State
           but
           chuses
           rather
           to
           be
           swayd
           by
           the
           counsells
           of
           many
           then
           by
           the
           counsell
           of
           one
           ,
           and
           where
           the
           counsell
           of
           one
           claimes
           a
           prevalence
           above
           the
           counsells
           of
           many
           ,
           't
           is
           not
           obey'd
           without
           great
           reluctance
           commonly
           ,
           and
           publicke
           disturbance
           .
           Besides
           ,
           if
           one
           mans
           eyes
           perchance
           see
           more
           then
           the
           eyes
           of
           many
           (
           as
           is
           very
           rare
           ,
           though
           not
           impossible
           )
           yet
           t
           is
           very
           strange
           that
           that
           one
           mans
           discovery
           should
           not
           open
           the
           eyes
           of
           other
           standers
           by
           without
           force
           ,
           in
           respect
           that
           light
           is
           a
           thing
           lovely
           to
           all
           ,
           and
           ready
           to
           be
           imbraced
           upon
           the
           least
           glimpse
           of
           it
           ,
           and
           a
           very
           little
           thereof
           being
           let
           in
           through
           a
           narrow
           cranny
           ,
           may
           make
           all
           that
           is
           contained
           in
           a
           very
           wide
           roome
           visible
           .
           And
           if
           one
           man
           possibly
           in
           things
           indifferent
           should
           see
           more
           then
           many
           ,
           yet
           t
           is
           very
           neere
           to
           an
           impossibilitie
           ,
           that
           one
           man
           should
           apprehend
           truth
           more
           then
           many
           ,
           where
           that
           one
           man
           has
           more
           prejudice
           against
           the
           truth
           by
           selfe-interests
           ,
           then
           the
           many
           .
           And
           who
           can
           doubt
           ,
           but
           that
           Princes
           ,
           as
           Princes
           ,
           are
           more
           drawne
           by
           the
           by
           as
           of
           selfe-interests
           against
           that
           which
           is
           the
           good
           of
           the
           communitie
           ,
           then
           that
           Court
           which
           is
           not
           onely
           by
           the
           vertue
           of
           representation
           ,
           but
           even
           naturally
           also
           in
           some
           degree
           the
           communitie
           it selfe
           ?
           The
           root
           sends
           juice
           and
           nourishment
           to
           the
           branches
           ,
           but
           
           expects
           none
           backe
           from
           them
           ;
           and
           the
           fathers
           love
           has
           a
           strong
           ascent
           towards
           the
           fruit
           of
           his
           body
           ,
           but
           weake
           and
           virtulesse
           is
           the
           descent
           of
           that
           juice
           which
           falls
           from
           the
           branches
           to
           the
           root
           ,
           or
           of
           that
           love
           which
           the
           sonne
           refunds
           upon
           his
           progenitors
           ;
           and
           even
           so
           it
           is
           in
           the
           relative
           Offices
           of
           Prince
           and
           Subject
           ,
           the
           Prince
           lookes
           lesse
           tenderly
           upon
           the
           people
           as
           being
           his
           root
           or
           parent
           ,
           whilst
           yet
           the
           people
           lookes
           more
           tenderly
           upon
           the
           Prince
           ,
           as
           its
           owne
           stemme
           and
           issue
           .
           Hence
           it
           is
           ,
           that
           all
           States
           are
           accounted
           more
           or
           lesse
           slavish
           ,
           as
           their
           Princes
           are
           more
           or
           lesse
           arbitrary
           in
           their
           supreme
           counsells
           ;
           and
           all
           men
           are
           accounted
           more
           or
           lesse
           miserable
           ,
           as
           they
           are
           more
           or
           lesse
           slavish
           .
           What
           became
           of
           
             Rome
             ,
          
           and
           of
           the
           whole
           world
           that
           was
           subject
           to
           
             Rome
             ,
          
           after
           it
           was
           once
           yoked
           by
           the
           
             Caesars
             ,
          
           who
           might
           arbitrarily
           wave
           the
           advice
           of
           the
           Senate
           ,
           &
           consult
           with
           Slaves
           ,
           Eunuchs
           ,
           Women
           ,
           Panders
           ,
           &c.
           or
           what
           brought
           us
           to
           all
           our
           late
           bloody
           catastrophes
           ,
           but
           the
           discountenance
           and
           detestation
           of
           Parliaments
           ?
           Aske
           the
           Lord
           
             Digby
          
           himselfe
           ,
           and
           even
           his
           Speeches
           made
           in
           Parliament
           since
           
             November
          
           1640.
           will
           informe
           us
           ,
           that
           there
           were
           many
           causes
           of
           our
           miseries
           ,
           but
           the
           cause
           of
           all
           those
           causes
           was
           the
           abandoning
           and
           disgusting
           of
           Parliaments
           :
           Sure
           the
           Lord
           
             Digby
          
           may
           passe
           as
           an
           Authentick
           testimony
           for
           our
           side
           ,
           and
           yet
           even
           the
           Lord
           
             Digby
             ,
          
           before
           he
           turn'd
           Courtier
           ,
           had
           the
           ingenuitie
           to
           resent
           this
           Kingdomes
           servilitie
           ,
           when
           a
           woman
           of
           a
           false
           religion
           ,
           hostile
           nation
           ,
           and
           adverse
           affection
           ,
           together
           with
           her
           Jesuiticall
           traine
           ,
           had
           more
           predominance
           in
           our
           publicke
           affaires
           then
           the
           two
           Estates
           assembled
           in
           Parliament
           .
           But
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           will
           still
           say
           ,
           that
           the
           King
           is
           assisted
           
           with
           his
           Judges
           ,
           and
           other
           Counsell
           both
           Spirituall
           and
           Temporall
           ,
           and
           that
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           in
           some
           debates
           may
           be
           divided
           unto
           two
           or
           three
           oddes
           voyces
           ;
           and
           therefore
           why
           may
           not
           the
           King
           so
           assisted
           be
           better
           advised
           then
           those
           two
           or
           three
           oddes
           voyces
           ?
           This
           is
           an
           old
           objection
           ,
           and
           seemes
           plausible
           ,
           but
           is
           easily
           answered
           :
           For
           1.
           
           It
           is
           very
           unequall
           that
           a
           few
           Counsellours
           whom
           the
           King
           chuses
           should
           be
           preferr'd
           before
           many
           whom
           the
           Kingdom
           chuses
           ,
           in
           those
           matters
           which
           import
           the
           Kingdome
           ,
           more
           then
           the
           King.
           2.
           
           If
           the
           Kings
           Councell
           in
           the
           House
           of
           Peers
           were
           equally
           to
           be
           valued
           with
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           ,
           yet
           still
           so
           long
           as
           it
           is
           left
           arbitrary
           to
           the
           King
           to
           follow
           their
           advice
           ,
           or
           not
           ,
           the
           Kingdome
           is
           in
           the
           condition
           as
           
             Turky
          
           is
           ,
           where
           the
           Grand
           Signior
           is
           left
           onely
           to
           consult
           with
           himselfe
           or
           any
           of
           his
           Concubines
           or
           Eunuchs
           .
           And
           lastly
           ,
           there
           can
           be
           no
           lower
           or
           baser
           degree
           of
           slavery
           imagin'd
           ,
           then
           for
           a
           Nation
           to
           be
           subjected
           to
           a
           Lord
           that
           is
           so
           absolute
           in
           the
           highest
           results
           of
           State
           ,
           as
           that
           he
           may
           use
           no
           Counsell
           ,
           or
           make
           choyce
           of
           what
           Counsell
           he
           pleases
           .
        
         
           4.
           
           I
           hast
           now
           to
           the
           fourth
           particular
           ,
           where
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           affirmes
           againe
           ,
           that
           the
           two
           Houses
           do
           separate
           the
           Kings
           power
           from
           his
           Person
           as
           the
           
             Spencers
          
           did
           ,
           and
           from
           thence
           frame
           the
           same
           three
           condemned
           conclusions
           as
           they
           did
           .
           The
           separation
           of
           his
           Person
           from
           his
           power
           is
           proved
           ,
           partly
           by
           imprisonment
           of
           his
           Person
           ,
           and
           partly
           by
           usurping
           all
           his
           power
           ;
           for
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           tells
           us
           ,
           that
           the
           two
           Houses
           counterfeit
           a
           Seale
           of
           their
           owne
           ▪
           and
           thereby
           seal
           Writs
           ,
           make
           Judges
           ,
           settle
           Courts
           ,
           and
           this
           is
           done
           contrary
           to
           the
           Kings
           consent
           ,
           not
           declared
           only
           by
           Letters
           ,
           Ministers
           ,
           and
           word
           of
           mouth
           ,
           but
           by
           his
           true
           great
           Seale
           of
           
             England
             .
          
        
         
           It
           is
           here
           ,
           1.
           
           To
           be
           noted
           ,
           that
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           himselfe
           does
           now
           distinguish
           betwixt
           that
           which
           the
           King
           declares
           by
           word
           of
           mouth
           personally
           ;
           And
           by
           Letters
           and
           Ministers
           extrajudicially
           ;
           and
           that
           which
           he
           declares
           legally
           by
           his
           Writs
           ,
           and
           judicially
           by
           the
           great
           Seale
           :
           and
           this
           is
           a
           plaine
           concession
           ,
           
           that
           the
           Kings
           Person
           may
           urge
           one
           thing
           ,
           and
           his
           Office
           another
           ;
           that
           his
           personall
           command
           may
           be
           unjust
           and
           not
           to
           be
           obeyed
           ,
           at
           the
           same
           time
           that
           his
           regall
           command
           may
           be
           just
           ,
           and
           necessarily
           must
           exact
           obedience
           .
           It
           is
           to
           be
           noted
           2.
           
           That
           the
           reason
           alledged
           ,
           why
           the
           Kings
           commands
           in
           this
           warre
           are
           legall
           and
           just
           ,
           not
           personall
           and
           unjust
           ,
           is
           ,
           because
           they
           were
           authoriz'd
           and
           fortified
           with
           the
           true
           great
           Seale
           :
           and
           what
           is
           this
           but
           to
           proclaime
           ,
           1.
           
           That
           the
           great
           Seale
           of
           
             England
          
           is
           solely
           at
           the
           Kings
           dispose
           ,
           to
           be
           imployed
           according
           to
           his
           meere
           discretion
           :
           2.
           
           That
           the
           meer
           annexion
           of
           the
           great
           Seal
           makes
           any
           Act
           of
           the
           Kings
           legall
           and
           authenticall
           :
           3.
           
           That
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           is
           better
           able
           to
           judge
           of
           the
           two
           great
           Seales
           which
           is
           the
           true
           one
           ,
           then
           the
           two
           Houses
           of
           Parliament
           ?
           When
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           will
           be
           as
           learned
           in
           proving
           ,
           as
           he
           is
           audacious
           in
           presuming
           ,
           these
           new
           quaint
           poynts
           ,
           we
           shall
           know
           what
           to
           answer
           ;
           In
           the
           meane
           time
           we
           will
           expatiate
           no
           further
           then
           his
           discourse
           leades
           us
           .
           As
           for
           imprisoment
           of
           the
           Kings
           Person
           ,
           we
           have
           answer'd
           to
           that
           already
           ,
           and
           forasmuch
           as
           the
           keeping
           Chaplaines
           from
           him
           is
           objected
           ,
           we
           answer
           thereunto
           ,
           that
           not
           Chaplaines
           ,
           but
           such
           and
           such
           Chaplaines
           ,
           
             viz.
          
           such
           as
           the
           State
           judges
           Incendiaries
           ,
           are
           deny'd
           ,
           and
           there
           is
           no
           more
           injustice
           in
           restraining
           such
           Incendiaries
           then
           in
           restraining
           Commanders
           and
           Armes
           .
           Now
           to
           parallell
           the
           Houses
           with
           the
           
             Spencers
             ,
          
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           sayes
           ,
           that
           they
           having
           declared
           his
           Majestie
           to
           have
           broken
           his
           trust
           touching
           the
           government
           of
           his
           people
           ,
           they
           have
           raysed
           Armes
           to
           take
           him
           ,
           they
           have
           taken
           and
           imprison'd
           him
           ,
           they
           governe
           themselves
           ,
           they
           make
           Lawes
           ,
           impose
           Taxes
           ,
           make
           Judges
           ,
           Sheriffs
           ,
           and
           take
           upon
           them
           
             Omnia
             insignia
             Majestatis
             ;
          
           and
           is
           not
           this
           sayes
           ,
           he
           to
           remove
           the
           King
           for
           misdemeanours
           ,
           to
           reforme
           
             per
             aspertee
             ,
          
           to
           governe
           in
           aide
           of
           him
           ,
           the
           three
           conclusions
           of
           the
           
             Spencers
             ?
          
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           here
           ,
           as
           if
           he
           had
           abjured
           all
           ingenuitie
           ,
           confounds
           diverse
           things
           which
           he
           knowes
           to
           be
           exceeding
           different
           in
           nature
           .
           For
           1.
           
           He
           takes
           no
           notice
           whether
           the
           force
           which
           has
           
           bin
           used
           by
           the
           Parliament
           be
           offensive
           ,
           or
           defensive
           ;
           and
           yet
           none
           can
           be
           ignorant
           ,
           how
           many
           things
           may
           be
           justified
           in
           a
           defendant
           which
           cannot
           by
           the
           offendant
           .
           2.
           
           He
           distinguishes
           not
           betwixt
           that
           force
           of
           the
           defendant
           ,
           which
           aimes
           only
           at
           a
           temporary
           securance
           against
           the
           Assaylant
           ,
           &
           that
           which
           proposes
           to
           it self
           vindication
           or
           reparation
           by
           the
           total
           removall
           ,
           or
           destruction
           of
           the
           Assaylant
           .
           He
           knows
           well
           ,
           that
           the
           
             Spencers
          
           aimed
           at
           a
           totall
           dethronization
           of
           their
           Master
           ,
           whilst
           the
           Parliament
           aimes
           at
           nothing
           but
           beating
           down
           that
           Sword
           which
           was
           drawn
           against
           them
           .
           2.
           
           That
           the
           
             Spencers
          
           intended
           to
           levy
           offensive
           Arms
           ,
           for
           reforming
           that
           in
           their
           Master
           
             per
             aspertee
             ,
          
           which
           was
           not
           so
           dangerous
           to
           their
           persons
           and
           lives
           ,
           as
           that
           which
           has
           bin
           contrived
           and
           enterprised
           against
           this
           Parliament
           ,
           for
           not
           onely
           a
           partie
           of
           300
           Armed
           men
           to
           seize
           and
           teare
           five
           principall
           Members
           out
           of
           the
           House
           ,
           (
           and
           by
           consequence
           to
           menace
           all
           that
           retained
           any
           freedome
           in
           them
           )
           but
           Armies
           were
           solicited
           to
           attempt
           against
           this
           Parliament
           before
           they
           thought
           of
           any
           force
           ;
           and
           this
           is
           far
           above
           those
           provocations
           which
           were
           pretended
           by
           the
           two
           
             Spencers
             .
          
           3.
           
           The
           
             Spencers
             ,
          
           by
           pretext
           of
           governing
           in
           aide
           of
           the
           King
           ,
           intended
           to
           oppresse
           all
           the
           Nobility
           ,
           Gentry
           ,
           Communaltie
           of
           the
           Land
           ,
           but
           this
           is
           impossible
           to
           be
           suspected
           in
           a
           Parliament
           ,
           which
           consists
           of
           the
           choice
           ,
           and
           are
           a
           considerable
           part
           of
           all
           these
           .
        
         
           5.
           
           The
           5.
           particular
           now
           offers
           it selfe
           ,
           wherein
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           maintaines
           that
           every
           King
           of
           
             England
             ,
          
           and
           only
           the
           King
           in
           
             England
          
           can
           grant
           pardons
           ,
           and
           that
           in
           all
           cases
           ,
           and
           for
           this
           he
           cites
           
             Stanfords
          
           pleas
           99.
           
           It
           was
           not
           ,
           nor
           is
           denied
           to
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           that
           the
           Kings
           of
           
             England
          
           have
           power
           to
           pardon
           delinquencies
           ,
           so
           farre
           as
           themselves
           are
           parties
           suffering
           .
           But
           the
           question
           is
           whether
           the
           Kings
           of
           
             England
          
           onely
           can
           ,
           and
           alwayes
           can
           pardon
           delinquencies
           ;
           and
           whatsoever
           Master
           
             Ienkins
          
           thinkes
           ,
           the
           authorities
           of
           
             Stanford
          
           and
           
             Dier
          
           are
           not
           full
           to
           prove
           the
           affirmative
           ;
           and
           certainly
           if
           it
           were
           
             proprium
             quarto
             
             modo
          
           for
           the
           Kings
           of
           
             England
          
           to
           pardon
           in
           all
           cases
           ,
           it
           were
           very
           unproper
           for
           generall
           acts
           of
           indemnity
           to
           be
           passed
           by
           all
           three
           estates
           ,
           
             frustra
             fit
             per
             plura
             ,
             quod
             fieri
             potest
             per
             pauciora
             ;
          
           if
           one
           of
           the
           estates
           be
           sufficient
           ;
           to
           what
           purpose
           doe
           the
           other
           2
           concurre
           ?
           Secondly
           ,
           all
           remedy
           by
           appeale
           would
           be
           cut
           off
           from
           subjects
           .
           For
           either
           my
           appeale
           must
           make
           void
           the
           Kings
           pardon
           ,
           or
           if
           the
           Kings
           pardon
           be
           not
           void
           in
           this
           case
           ,
           and
           as
           to
           this
           murder
           committed
           ,
           my
           appeale
           must
           be
           dismissed
           .
           It
           had
           been
           candid
           in
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           if
           he
           would
           have
           replied
           some
           thing
           to
           this
           objection
           about
           appeales
           ,
           for
           now
           it
           may
           be
           supposed
           he
           replied
           nothing
           therein
           ,
           because
           he
           could
           reply
           nothing
           to
           the
           purpose
           ;
           besides
           ,
           if
           the
           Kings
           pardon
           cannot
           frustrat
           my
           appeale
           (
           as
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           knowes
           well
           it
           cannot
           )
           why
           should
           the
           same
           destroy
           the
           remedy
           and
           justice
           that
           is
           due
           to
           a
           whole
           state
           ?
           Treason
           may
           be
           committed
           against
           the
           State
           aswell
           as
           against
           the
           King
           ,
           even
           as
           murder
           may
           damnifie
           me
           aswell
           as
           the
           King
           ,
           and
           shall
           it
           be
           held
           lesse
           contrary
           to
           justice
           that
           the
           State
           should
           be
           deprived
           of
           its
           remedy
           by
           the
           Kings
           pardon
           ,
           then
           that
           I
           should
           ?
           Good
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           policy
           is
           not
           to
           be
           superseded
           by
           Law
           ,
           but
           Law
           is
           to
           be
           improved
           by
           policie
           :
           and
           as
           in
           quiet
           times
           and
           private
           cases
           't
           is
           safer
           to
           follow
           Law
           then
           Policy
           ,
           so
           in
           times
           of
           troubles
           ,
           and
           in
           affairs
           of
           generall
           and
           great
           concernment
           ,
           't
           is
           safer
           to
           observe
           Policy
           then
           Law
           .
           The
           same
           may
           be
           said
           of
           not
           pardoning
           ,
           for
           doubtlesse
           the
           King
           has
           as
           much
           latitude
           to
           refuse
           ,
           as
           to
           grant
           pardon
           ,
           yet
           when
           his
           power
           in
           either
           may
           be
           mischievous
           ,
           his
           power
           in
           both
           must
           submit
           to
           reason
           of
           State
           ,
           and
           Law
           is
           not
           violated
           ,
           but
           better
           improved
           when
           true
           reason
           of
           State
           takes
           place
           above
           it
           .
        
         
           6.
           
           I
           am
           now
           to
           proceed
           to
           the
           sixth
           particular
           ,
           where
           Mr.
           
           
             Ienkins
          
           will
           not
           indure
           that
           the
           King
           shall
           be
           said
           to
           retain
           the
           right
           or
           habit
           of
           governing
           ,
           at
           the
           same
           time
           when
           he
           is
           said
           not
           to
           be
           actually
           in
           a
           condition
           to
           govern
           ;
           he
           intimates
           that
           the
           Law
           makes
           no
           such
           distinction
           ,
           &
           infers
           
             ubi
             lex
             non
             distinguit
             ,
             
             non
             est
             distinguendum
             :
          
           by
           this
           it
           should
           seem
           it
           is
           not
           allowable
           that
           a
           Lawyer
           should
           make
           use
           of
           any
           distinctions
           ,
           for
           which
           he
           has
           not
           some
           book
           authority
           ,
           though
           the
           difference
           of
           things
           be
           never
           so
           pregnant
           .
           A
           miserable
           confinement
           to
           Lawyers
           ,
           and
           sure
           4
           or
           500
           years
           past
           if
           Lawyers
           had
           been
           so
           confined
           ,
           wee
           had
           now
           left
           us
           no
           prints
           of
           any
           distinctions
           at
           all
           .
           All
           other
           Schollars
           besides
           Lawyers
           ,
           nay
           all
           Lawyers
           that
           are
           not
           meer
           Lawyers
           ,
           (
           I
           meane
           by
           meer
           Lawyers
           ,
           such
           as
           have
           made
           no
           improvement
           of
           their
           reason
           by
           Logick
           ,
           Policie
           ,
           and
           other
           humane
           literature
           )
           are
           of
           a
           contrary
           opinion
           ,
           and
           hold
           it
           more
           true
           ,
           
             qui
             bene
             distinguit
             ,
             bene
             docet
             .
          
           But
           what
           a
           ridiculous
           thing
           is
           this
           ,
           because
           
             Hen.
          
           6.
           lying
           in
           his
           cradle
           not
           able
           to
           speak
           ,
           write
           ,
           read
           ,
           or
           do
           any
           act
           of
           power
           ,
           has
           a
           right
           to
           governe
           ,
           therefore
           I
           must
           grant
           hee
           is
           in
           a
           condition
           to
           govern
           ,
           for
           feare
           of
           distinguishing
           when
           the
           Law
           does
           not
           distinguish
           ?
           so
           of
           
             Edw.
          
           2.
           and
           
             Ri.
          
           2.
           because
           they
           had
           a
           right
           to
           the
           Crown
           ,
           in
           that
           moment
           of
           time
           when
           they
           abdicated
           the
           same
           ,
           and
           pronounced
           themselves
           unfit
           to
           governe
           ,
           therefore
           I
           am
           obliged
           to
           believe
           that
           they
           were
           not
           abdicated
           nor
           made
           unfit
           for
           government
           .
           Next
           Mr.
           
             Ienkins
          
           likes
           not
           this
           distinction
           that
           the
           King
           is
           not
           barred
           simply
           from
           returning
           to
           his
           Parliament
           though
           he
           be
           barred
           
             secundum
             quid
             ,
          
           that
           is
           from
           returning
           unreconciled
           or
           armed
           against
           his
           Parliament
           ,
           hee
           professes
           that
           he
           and
           the
           whole
           City
           knowes
           the
           contrary
           ;
           how
           the
           City
           should
           know
           the
           Parliaments
           intentions
           so
           exquisitly
           ,
           or
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           be
           assur'd
           of
           the
           Cities
           knowledge
           so
           infallably
           I
           cannot
           imagine
           ;
           but
           I
           wish
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           which
           takes
           upon
           him
           to
           be
           a
           Priest
           as
           well
           as
           a
           Lawyer
           by
           vertue
           of
           
             Iustinians
          
           Commission
           ,
           were
           such
           a
           Priest
           indeed
           ,
           as
           that
           we
           might
           expect
           nothing
           but
           knowledge
           and
           truth
           from
           his
           lips
           .
        
         
           7.
           
           The
           seventh
           particular
           comes
           now
           in
           order
           ,
           where
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           puts
           us
           in
           minde
           of
           the
           oath
           of
           Supremacy
           ,
           taken
           by
           all
           members
           of
           the
           House
           at
           their
           first
           sitting
           ,
           and
           askes
           
             H.
             P.
          
           why
           he
           stiles
           the
           King
           Supreme
           governour
           in
           all
           all
           causes
           and
           
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           &c.
           and
           leaves
           out
           onely
           Supreme
           ?
           surely
           not
           to
           detract
           any
           thing
           from
           the
           Kings
           celsitude
           ,
           but
           because
           the
           word
           seemed
           superfluous
           ;
           for
           he
           that
           swears
           the
           King
           to
           be
           Supreme
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           sweares
           him
           to
           bee
           only
           Supreme
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           inasmuch
           as
           there
           cannot
           be
           more
           Supreme
           persons
           over
           all
           then
           one
           ;
           but
           away
           with
           these
           frivolous
           logomachies
           .
           The
           argument
           runs
           thus
           ,
           If
           the
           King
           be
           only
           Supreme
           governour
           in
           all
           causes
           ,
           then
           in
           Parliament
           causes
           ,
           if
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           then
           over
           both
           Houses
           ,
           and
           if
           so
           ,
           then
           how
           is
           he
           become
           a
           prisoner
           ,
           and
           how
           doe
           the
           Houses
           Act
           by
           vertue
           of
           their
           prisoners
           writ
           ?
           It
           was
           answered
           before
           that
           the
           King
           is
           granted
           to
           be
           Supreme
           or
           only
           Supreme
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           but
           yet
           still
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           and
           not
           beyond
           the
           Law
           ,
           nor
           beyond
           that
           community
           for
           which
           and
           by
           which
           the
           Laws
           themselves
           were
           made
           .
           The
           Duke
           of
           
             Venice
          
           (
           the
           like
           may
           be
           said
           also
           of
           all
           elective
           conditionate
           Kings
           and
           Potentates
           )
           has
           no
           person
           in
           any
           cause
           whatsoever
           superior
           ,
           or
           equall
           to
           him
           :
           yet
           he
           has
           his
           bounds
           set
           him
           by
           the
           Law
           ;
           and
           as
           the
           Law
           is
           above
           him
           whom
           it
           bounds
           ,
           so
           that
           power
           which
           can
           make
           ,
           and
           alter
           Law
           in
           
             Venice
             ,
          
           is
           above
           the
           Law
           it selfe
           .
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           himselfe
           confesses
           that
           the
           King
           is
           not
           above
           the
           Law
           ,
           nor
           above
           the
           safety
           of
           the
           people
           ;
           but
           in
           regard
           that
           the
           King
           is
           Supreme
           in
           all
           causes
           ,
           aswell
           Parliamentary
           as
           other
           ,
           and
           over
           all
           persons
           ,
           aswell
           the
           Lords
           and
           Commons
           in
           Parliament
           as
           others
           ,
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           supposes
           there
           is
           no
           other
           Judge
           of
           the
           Law
           ,
           &
           safety
           of
           the
           people
           but
           the
           K.
           but
           this
           is
           not
           to
           be
           admitted
           by
           us
           ,
           because
           we
           know
           wel
           that
           whosoever
           is
           the
           Supreme
           judge
           of
           the
           Law
           ,
           if
           not
           directly
           ,
           yet
           he
           is
           consequentially
           above
           all
           Laws
           ,
           and
           whosoever
           is
           above
           all
           Law
           cannot
           bee
           restrained
           by
           the
           safety
           of
           the
           people
           ,
           though
           the
           most
           sublime
           of
           all
           Laws
           .
           Wherfore
           if
           this
           be
           admitted
           true
           of
           our
           King
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           Supreme
           Judge
           of
           Law
           ,
           then
           it
           must
           follow
           that
           the
           Subject
           of
           
             England
          
           has
           no
           more
           assurance
           of
           Law
           or
           safety
           then
           what
           is
           founded
           onely
           in
           the
           Kings
           breast
           ,
           and
           discretion
           .
           For
           the
           Kings
           
           being
           a
           prisoner
           that
           has
           been
           already
           answered
           ,
           and
           indeed
           it
           is
           is
           more
           truly
           said
           that
           his
           hands
           are
           held
           and
           disweapond
           ,
           then
           that
           his
           feet
           are
           fetterd
           ,
           or
           his
           head
           undiademnd
           .
           Then
           for
           the
           Parliaments
           acting
           by
           the
           Kings
           writ
           ,
           there
           ought
           to
           bee
           some
           mistakes
           cleered
           therein
           also
           ;
           for
           we
           doe
           grant
           that
           the
           writ
           is
           the
           Kings
           ,
           the
           Great
           Seale
           is
           the
           Kings
           ,
           that
           Officer
           which
           has
           the
           Custodie
           thereof
           is
           the
           Kings
           ,
           the
           People
           are
           the
           Kings
           ;
           but
           we
           doe
           not
           grant
           that
           any
           of
           these
           are
           so
           the
           Kings
           ,
           as
           that
           they
           are
           not
           the
           Kingdomes
           also
           in
           a
           more
           eminent
           degree
           :
           for
           as
           the
           Husband
           is
           the
           Wifes
           truly
           ,
           but
           not
           〈◊〉
           eminently
           as
           the
           Wife
           is
           the
           Husbands
           ,
           so
           the
           Kingdome
           is
           the
           Kings
           ,
           and
           the
           King
           is
           the
           Kingdomes
           ,
           yet
           the
           Kingdomes
           interest
           and
           relation
           far
           is
           more
           valuable
           and
           sublime
           .
        
         
           8.
           
           The
           last
           particular
           now
           offers
           it selfe
           in
           the
           close
           of
           all
           ,
           and
           here
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           does
           not
           deny
           expresly
           that
           many
           things
           may
           be
           good
           in
           Law
           notwithstanding
           that
           some
           formalities
           ,
           or
           those
           things
           which
           we
           terme
           
             apices
             Iuris
          
           are
           wanting
           ;
           for
           doubtlesse
           where
           2
           Laws
           are
           and
           both
           cannot
           be
           fulfilled
           ,
           the
           lesse
           important
           Law
           though
           it
           be
           more
           particular
           must
           give
           way
           to
           the
           more
           important
           Law
           ,
           though
           more
           generall
           .
           
             ex
             .
             gr.
          
           when
           the
           King
           dies
           ,
           by
           the
           common
           Law
           in
           force
           ,
           Parl.
           cease
           ,
           all
           judges
           ,
           Sheriffs
           &
           Officers
           not
           absolutely
           necessary
           &c.
           return
           to
           a
           private
           condition
           ,
           and
           so
           remaine
           till
           new
           Commissions
           obtained
           :
           but
           if
           the
           new
           King
           happen
           to
           be
           beyond
           sea
           ,
           as
           at
           the
           death
           of
           
             Hen.
          
           3.
           so
           that
           new
           Commissions
           cannot
           be
           immediatly
           granted
           ,
           and
           thereupon
           the
           greater
           Law
           of
           publick
           safety
           is
           brought
           into
           competition
           with
           the
           Law
           of
           an
           inferiour
           nature
           ,
           a
           new
           seal
           may
           be
           made
           ,
           new
           Judges
           ,
           new
           Officers
           may
           be
           created
           ,
           and
           either
           a
           former
           Parl.
           may
           be
           continued
           ,
           or
           a
           new
           one
           sūmond
           ,
           and
           all
           necessary
           points
           of
           complete
           administration
           may
           bee
           expedited
           as
           in
           probality
           they
           were
           before
           the
           arrivall
           of
           
             Ed.
          
           1.
           
           God
           did
           not
           make
           any
           particular
           dispensation
           his
           shew-bread
           might
           be
           eaten
           by
           common
           persons
           if
           in
           distresse
           ,
           or
           the
           golden
           vessells
           of
           his
           Temple
           aliend
           when
           the
           City
           was
           
           to
           be
           redeemed
           from
           the
           insolence
           and
           rapines
           of
           a
           prevailing
           .
           Enemy
           ,
           the
           generall
           Law
           of
           necessity
           was
           sufficient
           to
           warrant
           both
           the
           one
           and
           the
           other
           ,
           but
           I
           will
           presse
           this
           no
           further
           since
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           alledges
           nothing
           to
           shew
           why
           a
           Parl.
           which
           cannot
           deliver
           it selfe
           by
           an
           Act
           ,
           may
           not
           use
           meanes
           to
           deliver
           it selfe
           by
           an
           Ordinance
           .
           I
           will
           not
           insist
           further
           hereupon
           .
           But
           instead
           of
           disputing
           ,
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           seems
           to
           jeere
           〈◊〉
           for
           setting
           up
           Excise
           ,
           raising
           Armes
           ,
           Taxing
           the
           people
           ,
           imprisoning
           the
           King
           ,
           abolishing
           the
           Common
           Prayer
           Book
           ,
           selling
           Church-Lands
           ,
           &c.
           and
           in
           an
           irony
           he
           concludes
           ,
           that
           all
           these
           are
           in
           order
           to
           publick
           justice
           and
           safetie
           .
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           here
           leaves
           us
           upon
           uncertainties
           ,
           whether
           he
           condemnes
           our
           Cause
           because
           it
           required
           such
           props
           ,
           or
           onely
           these
           props
           because
           they
           assisted
           us
           in
           promoting
           so
           bad
           a
           cause
           .
           If
           he
           allow
           of
           the
           ends
           ,
           but
           not
           of
           the
           meanes
           ,
           if
           he
           allow
           we
           may
           defend
           the
           Lawes
           and
           safetie
           of
           the
           State
           ,
           but
           not
           by
           Armes
           ,
           or
           if
           he
           allow
           of
           Armes
           but
           not
           of
           Taxes
           ,
           &c.
           
           He
           must
           renounce
           ▪
           rule
           naturall
           as
           well
           as
           logicall
           ,
           
             Qui
             dat
             finem
             ,
             dat
             media
             con●●
             centia
             ad
             finem
             ;
          
           If
           he
           allow
           of
           the
           meanes
           ,
           but
           not
           as
           conducting
           to
           such
           an
           end
           ,
           upon
           presumption
           that
           our
           Lawes
           ,
           and
           the
           Sc●●
           were
           not
           indanger'd
           ,
           or
           if
           he
           prove
           that
           they
           may
           not
           be
           defended
           ,
           he
           takes
           upon
           him
           more
           then
           is
           due
           ;
           for
           his
           part
           is
           to
           plead
           ,
           not
           to
           judge
           ,
           and
           answers
           might
           be
           given
           to
           his
           pleading
           ,
           but
           nothing
           can
           be
           said
           to
           his
           judging
           .
        
         
           I
           conclude
           therefore
           with
           the
           L.
           
             Cookes
          
           Sensure
           of
           Treason
           as
           M.
           
             Ienkins
          
           does
           ,
           and
           am
           of
           the
           same
           opinion
           ,
           that
           Treason
           ever
           produces
           fatall
           and
           finall
           destruction
           to
           the
           offendor
           ,
           and
           never
           attaines
           to
           its
           desired
           ends
           ;
           and
           wish
           that
           all
           men
           for
           this
           Cause
           would
           serve
           God
           ,
           honour
           the
           King
           ,
           and
           have
           no
           company
           with
           the
           Seditious
           .
           Yet
           let
           me
           adde
           this
           ,
           we
           have
           neighbours
           now
           in
           the
           
             Netherlands
             ,
          
           that
           lately
           have
           revolted
           from
           their
           Master
           ,
           and
           yet
           prosper
           and
           flourish
           beyond
           all
           in
           
             Europe
             ;
          
           the
           justice
           of
           their
           revolt
           may
           be
           questioned
           by
           some
           ▪
           but
           I
           for
           divers
           reasons
           do
           not
           question
           it
           ,
           &
           one
           amongst
           the
           rest
           is
           this
           of
           the
           L.
           
             Cookes
             ,
          
           because
           I
           think
           an
           act
           meerly
           treasonable
           cannot
           prosper
           .
        
         
           FINIS
           .
        
      
    
    

