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

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

of

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

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

Ff4

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

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

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

COMMENCED

GRAMMAR,

Supplied with fufficient

RULES

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

TO THE READER.

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

Linaker, fetting down the various idioms of many verbs, was forced to do by alphabet; and therefore, though very learned, not thought fit to be read in fchools. But in fuch words, a dictionary stored with good authorities will be found the readieft guide. Of figurate conftruction, what is useful is digefted into several rules of Syntaxis and Profody, after this Grammar well learned, will not need to be Englished for him who hath a mind to read it. Account might be now given what addition or alteration from other Grammars hath been here made, and for what reafon. But he who would be fhort in teaching, muft not be long in prefacing: the book itself follows, and will declare fufficiently to them who can difcern.