Answeare, the committee have been mistaken in most of their objections.

1: The Title shewes that the Author intended not any Definition but a description onely and to make it the more full and cleare, he layes it downe both Affirmatively and negatively: yet a logitian may frame it into a Definition, thus Arb. Gov. is a Gov. exercised without a Rule, but the description is fals by the Causes and by the effects.

2: There is no suche distinction as is observed, betweene the bodye Politike and the members therof, for that were to distinguish betweene the wholl and the parts: but the distinction betweene the members of that bodye givinge Authoritye to the one and power of libertye to the other, is warranted by the Patent (as in other places so) particularly in that clause, which sayth that the Gouernor etc: shall call the Freemen to consult and Advice etc. which is an Acte of Libertye, and not of Authoritye and for the other part of their power which is matter of Election, the late Order Libertyes blank sayth it is their constant Libertye, not Authoritye.

In the 2 parte

1: We finde not any suche position that Generall Rules are sufficient to cleare a state from Arbitrary Gouerment but we finde that the worde of God and the Lawes heer established beinge appointed by order of Court as a Rule for the present, are suche a Rule as may be required of the Judges in all their Administrations, because a Rule may from thence be had (if God give wisdome to discerne it) in any particular case, which may fall out: otherwise the Lawe of God were not perfect, and from what better grounds shall the Lawe makers drawe all future Lawes and prescribed penaltyes:

But if the Author had expressed himselfe in the verye words of the position, yet it will admitt a safe construction, for all Lawes (not limited to particular parties or occasions) are generall Rules, and may be so called thoughe they have a certaine penaltye annexed.

2: Nor will the booke owne the 2 position in the words expressed: but this he gathers, bothe from their office, (being Gods vicegerents) and from diverse examples in scripture, which seeme to hold forthe so muche, that some libertye ought to be left to Judges, in some cases, vpon speciall occasions, to hold 485forth the mercye of God, as well as his Justice: nor doe we conceive, that either in the Common Wealth of Israell, or in any other, the Judges haue been wholly restrayned of such Libertye.

In the followinge Arguments

If the Committee had founde suche dangerous passages, as they intimate, they should have doone well to haue imparted their particular observations therein vnto vs, that we might have considered of them, for want whereof it cannot be expected, we should deliuer any opinion about them.

The like we may saye for suche bitter censuring as they mention: onely it is vsuall for men to call suche thinges bitter, which themselues disrelishe thoughe they may be harmelesse and whollsome not withstandinge.

For the 5 particulars mentioned, they are deliuered as Arguments or the Consectaryes thereof so as the Arguments must first be avoyded, before any Judgment can be given about them.1

The examples which the Author alledgethe out of Scripture, are onely to shew how God hathe sometymes (in his wisdome and mercye) dispensed with the rigor of his owne Lawe: and that Princes haue sometymes doone the like, vpon publick or other prevalent considerations, which cannot be denyed to be a truethe: and for the warrant they had for it, being (at the most) disputable, it was as free for him to deliuer them in his owne and some other learned and godly mens apprehensions, as it is for others who differ therein: and there canbe no more danger in this, then in other bookes and Sermons, where the same or other passages of Scripture are truely reported, thoughe not applyed to the sence of every godly man, as if one should reason thus: Dauid putt the Amorites to torture, therefore, in some Cases it is lawfull so to doe: this will not be iudged a pernitious doctrine thoughe some godly men doe question the warrantablenesse of the example the like may be said of all suche examples in scripture, as are controverted amonge godly and learned men: but it is otherwise in such places, as are not questionable, as if a man should reason thus: David sentensed Mephibosheth before he heard him: therefore it is lawfull for a Judge so to doe, this might truly be sayd to be a pernitious doctrine; or if one should argue thus: Saul made a law with a prescript penaltye of deathe to him that should transgresse it, therefore it had been iust, that Jonathan should have bene putt to deathe for transgressinge that Lawe: or therefore it is lawfull for Princes etc: to prescribe penaltyes at their own pleasures, these might be iudged to be pernitious doctrines: because the example is vnquestionable, etc.