The Juſtification of a ſafe and wel-grounded Anſwer to the Scotch Papers, Printed under the name of M^r. Chaloners Speech; Which, (whatſoever the Animadvertor affirmes) doth maintaine the Honour of the Parliament, and Intereſt of the Kingdome of England.

I Need not aske much who this Animadvertor is; for by his Text he ſeemes to be a malig­nant Divine, by his ſcraps of Greeke and Latine ſome Peda­gogue, by his ſtile no Eng­liſhman, and by the whole ſcope of his diſcourſe an In­cendiary. His Text is Prov. 28.2. For the tranſgreſ­ſions of a Land many are the Princes thereof. By Prin­ces, it is commonly thought, that he meanes the Members of Parliament; but therein certainly he is much miſtaken in the ſence of the Text: For if they be Princes, it was never the tranſgreſſion of the Land, but the tranſgreſſion of the Prince of the Land, which made them Princes. And if they be2 Princes, they are very poore ones, and by his orde­ring but of a very ſhort continuance; for he hath no ſooner begun his Sermon, but he forgets his Text, and ſpeakes of the Parliaments former low con­dition; whereas never any made it ſolow as him­ſelfe: for if a Member of Parliament could not be anſwered within doores, there was never any one ſo bold untill this preſent, that durſt anſwer him without; and the Parliament is low indeed, when a Member thereof cannot aſſert the Votes of both Houſes, but he muſt be called to an account by every unknowne perſon. But let him conſi­der; if hereby hee have not opened a doore for every Pamphleter to come in at, whereby ſome late printed Speeches will hardly goe Scotfree; for if a Principall cannot eſcape, what then will become of a Deputy?

For the Gentleman that made this Speech (though he neither ownes the printing nor Title page, yet) the matter of it hee muſt juſtifie, unleſſe hee will deeline the intereſt of this Kingdome; But he be­ing of that great Councell the Parliament, can ſpend his time better there, both for his credit, and ſervice of his Countrey, then by anſwering of every mans impertinencies. And therefore give me leave, as unknowne a perſon as this Animadver­tor is, yet a better Engliſh man, to tell him how inconſiderately he contradicts himſelfe in the very beginning of his diſcourſe, when he aſſures you he wil not preſume to intermeddle with any thing ſpo­ken within the wals; and yet he preſently tels you of3 ſomething ſpoken there, (as hee ſaith) different from the Originall; whereby at the firſt daſh hee proves himſelfe a notable Incendiary, and would ſet jealouſies and deviſions betwixt the Members of the houſe of Commons, as if there were Spies amongſt them, and ſuch who to maintaine the In­tereſt of another Kingdome, were ſo vile and baſe as to be content to betray their owne.

But I haſten to his Animadverſions, where Go­liah like he preſents himſelfe a Champion to con­found (if he could) not the Army, but the aſſer­tions of both houſes of Parliament. And firſt hee ſaith, that the Argument which the Gentleman makes is miſtaken, becauſe hee joyneth not the Covenant, Treaty, and the Law of Nations with the intereſt which the Kingdome of Scotland pretends unto the King; whereas theſe particulars are ſeverally han­dled in the Scottiſh Papers, and therefore muſt be anſwered ſeverally; and the Gentleman hath ſo ſufficienly by many Arguments cleared in the firſt place, that by the Law of Nations the King­dome of Scotland hath nothing at all to doe to diſ­poſe of the Perſon of the King, he being now in England, as I am confident he will never be able to diſprove any part thereof whilſt he lives.

The next exception which this Animadvertor takes, is againſt the diſtinction of a King in abſtracto, and concreto, and that Perſona is not Concretum. Hereby you may ſee how he is contented to paſſe4 over ſuch things of moſt ſubſtance, which he cannot anſwer, and to ſet up men of ſtraw (to uſe his owne words) for himſelfe to buffet.

This diſtinction of Abſtractum & Concretum is as ancient as Logicke it ſelfe; but if hee will be­lieve no Logicke but his owne, let him looke upon an elaborate Booke written by one very neere and deere to ſome of the Scottiſh Commiſſioners, cal­led Lex & Rex, in the 29 queſtion, page 265. and there he ſhall finde theſe very words, This is an evident and ſencible diſtinction, the King in Con­creto, the man who is King; and the King in ab­ſtracto, the Royall office of the King. And whereas it is affirmed that the honourable Houſes doe ſtate the queſtion not upon the Authority of the King, but upon his Perſon, ſo doth the Gentleman like­wiſe; and he concludes againſt any thing which hath been yet ſaid to the contrary, that neither by Law nor Covenant the Scots have any Inte­reſt to diſpoſe of the Kings Perſon, he being now in England.

Thirdly he objects, that if the Kings Perſon be to be diſpoſed of by the power of that Countrey where hee happens to abide, then if hee were in Scotland hee muſt be diſpoſed of by the power of that Countrey. This is confeſſed to be true. And if hee were now in Scotland, as hee is an England, they had then the ſole power of diſpoſing him. And I doubt not but they would diſpoſe of him for the equall good of both Kingdoms; wherein I ſhould be ſo farre5 from envying of their felicity, as I ſhould wiſh much good might he doe them. But notwithſtan­ding all this the aſſertion ſtands good, that they have no authority to diſpoſe of him, (as they now doe) in England.

In the fourth Animadvertion hee makes the Gentleman ſpeake what he doth not; for the Gentleman doth ſay, that England is as diſtinct a Kingdome from Scotland, as Spaine; but he ſaith not it is as diſtinct in Intereſt, as the Animadvertor affirmes. Yet, by his favour, the Intereſts are ſo diſtinct, that neither the unity of one Religion, one Covenant, one King, one Cauſe, or one Warre, can confound them. It is no longer then Philip and Maries daies, that England and Spaine had all the ſaid Inte­reſts, (the Covenant excepted;) but yet no Engliſh man upon paine of death, for all that, could ſaile into the Indies, neither enjoy other priviledges of Spaine, no more then a Spa­niard could doe in England. And for Scot­lands entring into confederacy with For­raigne Nations without the approbation of Eng­land, the Treaty betwixt the Kingdomes muſt judge of that; but neither any Treaty or Co­venant yet made doth give them intereſt either in governing of our Militia, making of our Lawes, or ſetling of our Church-government, as it was once aymed at. In all which they have liberty to adviſe, as alſo how the Kings6 Perſon may be diſpoſed of for the equall good of both Kingdomes; but the Engliſh onely are to be ſole Judges thereof, and to act thereupon as they themſelves ſhall thinke fitting. And ſo I thinke the Gentleman hath well provided for the Inte­reſt of England.

But now this Animadvertor begins to be ſo full of contradiction, that he ſeemes to be the very abſtract of it; and thereupon cannot en­dure the word concrete, and brings it in here once againe, and would have an Ambaſſadour onely protected by the Law of Nations, and is angry with the Gentleman becauſe he affirmes that the Lawes of England doe protect him: What the Law of Nations is, other then cer­taine generall principles of Juſtice which nature hath infuſed into all men, I ſee not; for I am ſure, that all Nations did never yet meet toge­ther to make theſe Lawes, neither doe they ever meet to puniſh them when they are bro­ken; but give mee leave to tell this Animad­vertor, that if the Law of England did not concur with the Law of Nations in puniſhing ſuch as might violate the Priviledge of an Am­baſſadour, I know not to what Tribunall that Ambaſſadour could appeale; for the Gentle­man faith truely in the fourteenth page, That the Engliſh Nation being not ſubordinate to any power on Earth, there is no power under heaven can judge them.

7Neither hath an Ambaſſador any priviledge by the law of Nations, farther then the particular or muni­ficall law of that Nation unto whom hee is adreſſed will allow of.

For if an Ambaſſador will adventure to enter into a Country or State, with whom his Maſter or Prince is either in actuall Warre, or hath not contracted withal any confedracy, that Ambaſſador, is ſo far from being alowed any priviledge of an Embaſſador as he may juſtly be impriſoned and adjudged as a Spie, at leaſt an enemy, and therefore no Ambaſſador of one Prince not in unity or confedracy with another, can with ſafety enter into the other Princes Dominions, without leave being firſt demanded and obtained, from whence it followeth that what priviledge ſoever an Ambaſſador may pretend unto, it is not the law of Nations, but only the particular contract, confedracy and agreement, betwixt his Maſter and that Prince or State, unto whom he is ſent that can protect and defend him.

And whereas from the Gentlemans affirmation that no King can command any Subject of his being out of his Kingdome, this Animadvertor will con­clude, that by the ſame reaſon the Parliament here cannot Command their Commiſſioners which they may ſend into Scotland; but they muſt ſolely be diſpoſed of by the ſupream power of that Kingdom.

In anſwere whereunto, It is not to be doubted, but that the ſupreame power in Scotland hath the Ge­nerall power in diſpoſing of all perſons whatſoever and their eſtates there according to the Lawes and8 cuſtomes of that Country, yet not ſo neither, but that particularly every man by leave of thoſe Lawes and cuſtomes may command his owne Servant in his pri­vate affaires, and diſpoſe of his Eſtate as he ſhall think convenient, provided that ſuch command and diſpo­ſall be not contrary to the ſaid Lawes and cuſtomes, ſo the Parliament of England ſending Commiſsoners into Scotland have power to command them in their affaires, as well as any Maſter there can command his ſervant; and further as any treaty or contract made, or to be made betwixt both the Kingdomes, hath or may hereafter ad or deminiſh from the ſaid power.

Then he objects that if a King of Scotland comming into England before the union ſhould bee a Subject of England. By the ſame reaſon the Prince of Wales is now a Subject of France, and then his perſon is ſolely to be diſpoſed of by the power of France, and neither King nor Parliament have power to recal him. To this I Anſwer as before that the Prince is now lo­cally and pro tempore a Subiect of France and if he will not come home or the ſtate of France will not ſuffer him ſo to doe, we have no Authority to compell him.

Now he argueth from Analogie, that if no man can be Rex but in Regno, then cannot the Parliament of England be acknowledged a Parliament but in Eng­land. This is ſuch a wild Argument that I can hardly catch it, For if all the Members and Speakers of both Houſes ſhould go out of England, nay if they went but from Weſtminſter to Lambeth without a Legall ad­journment thither, certainly their meeting there maks it no Parliament. But as long as they meet at Weſtmin­ſter9 without diſolution or adiournment to any other place, their Commiſsioners in any other Kingdome or ſtate, are capable and may bee admitted to pro­pound, declare, Treat, or conclude in the name of both Houſes. But as if the Parl•ament ſhould go into Spaine it is no Parliament there nor can give no lawes to them, no more then it can give them Lawes whilſt it reſides here in England, ſo a King of England being in Spaine, though he reteine his dignity, yet he hath no authority either to eſtabliſh their lawes, or ſtampe their Coyne, no more then if he were in England: And as other Nations may acknowledge the Parliament of England to be a Parliament, though none of their Parliament, ſo they may acknowledge a King of England to be a King (live where he liſt) but none of their King, and as to them in way of protection and ſubiection (which only makes a King) no King at all.

In the 9 Animadverſion he would faine incorpo­rate our Brerhren of Scotland into our Parliament of England by making them our Fellowes. But there be divers kinds of Fellowes beſides fellowes at Football, I acknowledge the Scotts to be our Fellowes and e­qualls, but not in making of Lawes in England, nor of Iudging or executing of thoſe Lawes after they are made, and ſo they can no more dipoſe of the King in England then come to our Parliaments in England.

Now for the ſtory of King Iohn, it will appeare that the argument which the Gentl. holds forth from the ſummons of King Iohn to anſwer in France is very materiall and proves apparently, that a King hath no10 power to recall any of His Subjects, they being out of his Kingdom: for King Iohn not being ſummoned as King of England, but as Duke of Normandy, a Subject of France, ſo was his ſummons adjudged voyd, not becauſe he was King of England, but becauſe hee was in England, and not in France at the time of his ſum­mons. Neither can any man ſee how this narration doth ſtrengthen the Scotiſh Papers, becauſe the King of Engl. who is the perſon here ſummoned, is at this time at Newcaſtle in Engl. which place (though ſome of the Army there date their Letters from Newcaſtle in Scotland) yet it was ingeniouſly confeſſed by the Scottiſh Commiſſioners as I am informed at the con­ference, that it was as much Engliſh ground as Iſling­ton. And therefore he being at this time Infra juriſ­dictionem Regni Angliae, and extra juriſdictionem Regni Scotiae, the aſſertion is ſtill made good, and the ſtate of Scotland, nothing at all to doe with diſpoſall of the Kings perſon.

And whereas the Animadvertor ſaith, that the caſe is not alike, King Iohn being King of one King­dome and Subject of another, and the perſon now in queſtion, being King of two Kingdomes: under fa­vour though hee have two Kingdomes, yet hee is not here as King of Scotland, but as King of England: For if he were here in the Capacity of a King of Scotland he were a Subject, and then you might know well enough what ſhould become of the King of Scotland, as you have formerly done of ſome of them, who yet have plotted leſſe then others have acted.

11And whereas the Gentleman ſaith, That theſe Kingdoms ſeeme to contend not ſo much who ſhould have the Kings Perſon, as who ſhould not have it. It muſt needs be a great griefe to both Kingdomes, that the Kings heart is yet ſo farre from being reconciled to either people, that they neither can have any joy or ſafety in his preſence. But whereas both Houſes of Parliament have Voted the diſpoſall of the Kings perſon to be onely belonging unto them, they did wiſly and uprightly in it: for as they did therein uprightly becauſe of right and Iuſtice it doth belong unto them, for they did noe leſſe wiſly, becauſe they now ſee by deere experience that his being where hee is hath beene ſo litle for there Intreſt, as ſince his be­ing there he hath made peace with the Iriſh Rebells, ſent his Sonne the prince into France, maintained ſtrong Intelligence with other Countries a­gainſt them, and is dayly flocked unto by Delinquents and Incendiaries, inſomuch as they receive litle ieſſe damage thereby, then if he were at the head of an Ar­my of Cavaliers.

In the laſt place this Animadvertor when he can­not anſwer the Gentleman, then he will ſlander him, and ſaith he doth this out of ſome Ancient diſcontent of his againſt the King, certainly if he had not beene diſcontented with the Kings Actions long agoe, hee could hardly have beene an honeſt man now: for with out doubt all theſe warrs, troubles and turmoyles which the Parliament and kingdome have felt theſe five yeares laſt paſt have beene occaſioned from the12 many and Juſt diſcontents at the Kings evill Govern­ment: And if this man be alone contented, when all the kingdome hath ſuch cauſe of diſcontent, it is more then probable that he is and hath beene one of the procurers thereof. It is a hard caſe that a Member of Parliament cannot vindicate the Intreſt which the people of this kingdome have in the perſon of their King, or deſire that great Counſell to have a care of the ſafety of the Common wealth, but it muſt bee attributed to former diſcontents, and whereas he Re­cons up ſo many Oathes, Proteſtations, Declarations and Covenants, made by the Parliament for the ſafety of the Kings perſon, but never any mention at all of the ſafety of the Common-wealth, it ſeems too much to ſavour of Malignity, and of ſome late diiperſed papers.

But as I could wiſh that this Animadvertor would remember how Kings are made by, & for the people, but not the people either by or for the Kings, ſo hee would conſider that the end of Government, is for the weale and ſafety of the people and not of the King, further then his ſafety may be conducible to the other. And if the Scots Commiſſioners did plainely affirme to the Committees of both Houſes at the Conference that they could not admit of the Kings preſence in Scotland becauſe of the diviſions and trou­bles of that Kingdome which hee might make ſuch uſe of as to raiſe forces both againſt them and us, what could this imply but that notwithſtanding his perſon might be in ſafety in Scotland, yet Scotland could13 not be in ſafety whileſt his perſon was there. And if they poſitively affirme it on their part, may not we make a queſtion of it on ours? And now I have an­ſwered all that this Animadverter can ſay, to the main of his Animadverſions, I will not give him over, until I ſee an end of what he can ſay beſides. And firſt how the Scotts may like the Gent. Speach for the matter of it, it being as he ſaith ſo malliable, I wonder no better a Hammer was put to it: And if the Intelli­gent reader (as hee ſaith) be of the opinion that this ſpeech (which was delivered but upon once hearing of the Scottiſh papers read) doth notwithſtanding very much fortifie the ſaid papers, how much more will the Houſe of Commons fortifie them when they deliver in their Anſwer thereunto, after due conſide­ration had of every word and ſillable. And whereas he doubts whether it will have a favourable aſpect from the Parliament, either for the matter or expreſ­ſion. For the matter ſince the Gent. doth but Aſ­ſert their Votes they would be very forgetfull of their owne intereſt if they ſhould be offended thereat, For the Acrimonious expreſſions I know of none, but could have wiſhed, that in divers late printed papers ſome expreſſions and prejudgements, how that diſpo­ſing may be depoſing or worſe, might have beene al­together omitted, ſince the conſtant indulgence of the Engliſh Nation to their Kings, farre above ſome of their Neighbours never merited to be diſhonou­red, by ſuch an unworthy conceit, and as the very ſtirring of this Queſtion tends to debates and diffe­rences,14 ſo will ſuch provoking language but increaſe and foment it.

Now to take my leave of this Animadvertor if he be a Divine, I ſhall deſire him to follow his preaching and give over States matters, ill becomming•hat pro­feſſion: If he be a Paedagogue that hee will Laſh his Boyes and not Parliaments If he be an Alien, hee will go home to his Country ſince we have Incendi­aries enough of our owne, from whom, and from all treacherous and underm ineing deſigners. I will con­clude with his owne Letany,

Good Lord deliver us.