I Have in my time seen certain Pictures with two faces. Beheld one way, they have presented the shape and fi­gure of a Man. Beheld another, they have presented the shape and figure of a Serpent. Me thinks, Sir, for some years, whatever Letters the King wrote either to the Queene, or his friends, or what ever Declarations he publish in the defence of his Rights and Cause, had the ill for­tune to undergoe the fate of such a Picture. To us who read them impartially, by their own true, genuine light, they ap­peared so many cleare, transparent Copies of a sincere and Gal­lant Mind. Look't upon by the People, (of whom you know who said populus iste [...] decipi, decipiatur) through the An­swers and Observations, and venomous Comments, which some men made upon them, a fallacy in judgement followed very like the fallacy of the sight; where an Object beheld through a false deceitfull medium, partakes of the cosenage of the convey­ance, and way, and puts on a false Resemblance. As squara, bright, angular things through a mist show darke and round; and straight things seen through water show broken and di­storted.

It seems, Sir, by your Letter to me, that your Friend, with whom you say, you have lately had a dispute about the Kings Su­premacy, and the Subjects Rights, is one of those who hath had the ill luck to be thus depeived. Which I doe not wonder at, when I consider how much he is concern'd in his fortunes that the Parliament should all this while be in the right. Be­sides, [Page 2]Sir, Having lookt upon the Cause of that Side meerly in that plausible dresse with which some pens have attired it, And having entertain'd a strong prejudice against whatever shall be said to prove that a Parliament may erre, it ought to be no mar­vaile to you, if he be rather of M. Prinnes then Iudge Jenkins's Opinion; And perswade himselfe, that the Parliament having, if not a superior, yet a coordinate power with the King, in which the People is interessed, where ever their Religion or Liberty is invaded, may take up Armes against Him, for the defence of either. But then, Sir, finding by my reading of the publick writings of both sides, that both sides challenged to themselves the Defence of one and the same Cause, I must confesse to you, That for a while the many Battailes, which so often coloured our fields with Bloud, appeared to me like Battails fought in Dreams. Where the person combaring in his sleepe, imagines he hath an Adversary, but awake perceives his error that he held conflict with himselfe. To speak a little more freely to you, Sir, the Kings Declarations, and the Parliaments Remonstran­ces equally pretending to the maintenance of the same Prote­stant Religion, and the same Liberty of the Subject. I wonde­red a while how they could make two opposite sides, or could so frequently come into the field without a Quarrell.

But since your Friend is pleased to let me no longer remain a Sceptick, but clearly to state the Quarrell; by suffering the two great words of Charme, Liberty, and Religion, (from whence both sides have so often made their Recruits) to stand no longer as a Salamis, or controverted Hand between two e­quall Challengers; And since he is pleased to espouse the de­fence of them so wholly to the Parliament, as to call the Warre made by the King the Invasion of them; Both for his and your satisfaction, who have layed this taske upon me, give me leave to propose this reasonable Dilemma to you. Either 'tis true what your Friend saies, that the Parliament hath all this while fought for the defence of their Liberty, and Religion, or 'tis on­ly a pretence, and hath hid some darker secret under it. If it have been only a pretence, there being not a third word in all the [Page 3]World which can afford so good Colour to make an un­just Warre passe for a just, the first discovery of it, will be the fall, and ruine of it; And the People who have been misled with so much holy Imposture, will not only hate it for the Hypocrisie, but the Injustice too. If it be true, yet I cannot see how they are hereby advantaged, or how, ei­ther or both these joyned can legitimate their Armes.

For first, Sir, I would fain know of your friend, what he means by the Liberty of the Subject. I presume he doth not mean a Releasement from servitude. Since amongst all their other complaints, delivered in Petitions to the Parlia­ment, they never yet adventured to say that they were go­vern'd as Servants by a hard Master, not as Subjects by a Prince. Nor doe I find that the King was such a Pharaoh to them, that they were able to say, that he changed a King­dome of Freemen into a House of Bondage. Some Acts of his Government, I confesse, some have call'd Illegal; namely the exaction of Ship-mony. But this certainly, was a grievance which if it had not been redrest, deserved not to be reckon­ed among the Brick kills of Aegypt, or to denominate his Government despoticall too.

Next then, doth your friend, by Liberty, meane a Re­leasement from Tyranny, as Tyranny allowes men to be Subjects, but not much removed from slaves? Had the King indeed, made his Will the Rule of his Government, and had his Will revealed it selfe in nineteen years of Injustice, had he like Caligula, worne a Table-book in his pocket, with the names of the Nobility in it design'd and Marks for slaughter; Had he without any Trialls of Law made his pleasure passe for sentence, and lopt off Senators heads as Tarquin did Poppeys; Had he in his oppressions of the Peo­ple made them feele Times like those which Tacitus de­scribes; where no man durst be virtuous, least he should be thought to upbrayd his Prince; where to complaine of hard usage was capitall; and where men had not only their words, but their very looks and sighs proscribed; his Raigne would [Page 4]beare that Name. But alas, Sir, you your selfe know, that these are Acts of Tyranny, which were so sarre from being practised, that they have not yet been faigned among us. 'Tis true, indeed, certain dark Jealousies were cast among the people, as if some Evill Counsellors about the King had had it in their designe to introduce an Arbitrary Govern­ment. But these were but Jealousies, blown by those, whose plot 'twas to make the popular hatred their engine to re­move those Counsellors, that by their ruine they might raise a Ladder to their own Ambitions. For if the Calamity of these times have not quite blotted out the memory of for­mer, people cannot but remember, that no Nation under Heaven, more freely enjoyed the Blessing of the Scripture then we; every one secure under the shade of his own Ʋine, perhaps a grape or two extraordinary was gathered for the publique. But if any did refuse to contribute, I doe not find that like Naboth, they were stoned for their Ʋineyard. If therefore, the Gentleman your friend understand Liberty in this sense, the most he can say for the Parliament, is, that they have taken up Armes against their King, not because he was, but because he possibly might be a Tyrant. Which feare of theirs being in it selfe altogether unreasonable, and therefore not to be satisfied, could not but naturally endea­vour (as we find by sad experience it hath done) to secure it selfe by removing out right the formidable Object which caused it. which being not to be done but by the Removall of Monarchicall Government it selfe, could not but cast them at length upon a new forme of State, or such a confusi­on or no Forme of state, as, we see, hath almost drawn ru­ine upon themselves and their Countrey.

Once more therefore, I must aske your Friend what he meanes by Liberty. I hope he doth not mean an Exempti­on from all Government; Nor is fallen upon their wilde O­pinion, who held that there ought to be no Magistrate, or superior among Christians. But that in a freedom of condi­tion we are to live together like men standing in a Ring, or [Page 5] Circle, where Roundnesse takes away Distinction, and Or­der; And where every one beginning and ending the Cir­cle, as none is before, so none is after another. This Opini­on, as 'twould quickly reduce the House of Lords to the House of Commons; so 'twould in time reduce the House of Commons to the same levell with the Common people, who being once taught that Inequality is unlawfull, would quickly be made Docile in the entertainment of the other Arguments, upon which the Anabaptists did heretofore set all Germany in a flame. Namely, that Christ hath not only bequeathed to Men, the liberty of his Gospell, but that this liberty consists in one not being greater then an­other. It being an Oracle in Nature, that we are all borne Equall; That these words of Higher, and Lower, Superiour, and Inferiour, are fitter for Hills, and Vales, then for men of a Kind; That the names also of Prince and Subject, Magistrate and People, Governours and Govern­ed, are but so many stiles Vsurpe. Since in Nature for one Man to be borne Subiect to another, is as much against Kinde, as if men should come into the World with chaines about them; or as if Women should bring forth Children with Gyves, and shakles on. Which Doctrine as 'twould naturally tend to a Parity, so that Parity would as naturally end in a Confusion.

Lastly, therefore, I will understand your Friend in the most favourable sence I can. That by the Parliaments de­fence of the Peoples Liberty, he meanes the maintenance of some Eminent Rights belonging to the Subiect, which be­ing in manifest danger to be invaded, and taken from them, could not possibly be preserved but by Armes taken up a­gainst the invader. But then, granting this to be true, (as I shall in fit place shew it to be false) yet the King being this invader (unlesse by such an Jnvasion He could cease to be their King, or they to be his subiects.) I cannot see how such Rights could make their Defence lawfull.

For the clearer Demonstration of this, I shall desire you; [Page 6]Sir, not to think it a digression in me, if I deduce things some what higher then I at first intended, or then your Let­ter requires me; Or, if to cure the streame, I take the Pro­phets course, and cast salt into the spring; And examine first, How farre the Power of a King, (who is truly a King, and not one only in Name) extends it selfe over Subjects. Next, whether any such Power doe belong to our King; Thirdly if there doe, How farre 'tis to be obeyed, and not resisted.

As for the first, you shall in the Scripture, Sir, find two Originalls of Kings, One immediatly springing from the Election and choice of God himselfe. The other from the choice and election of the People; But so, as that it resolves it selfe into a Divine Institution. The History of Regall pow­er, as it took Originall from God himselfe, is set downe at large in the eight Chapter of the first Book of Samuel, where, when the Israelites, weary of the Government by Judges (who had the same power that the Dictators had at Rome, and differ'd nothing from the most absolute Mo­narchs but only in their Name, and the temporary use of their power) required of Samuel to set a King over them, God bid him hearken to their voyce. But withallv. 9. Solemnly to protest and shew them the manner (or as one translates it more to the mind of the Originall, J [...] Regis, the Right, or power) of the King that should raigne over them. That he would take their sonnes, & appoint them for his Charets; And their Daughters, to be Confectionaries, and Cookes for his Kitchin. That he would also take their fields, their Ʋine-yards, and their Olive-yards, even the best of them and give them to his Officers; Lastly, That he would take the Tenth of their seed, and sheepe, And yee, saies the Prophet (which is a very characteristicall marke of subjection)v. 17. shall be his servants.

All which particulars, with many others there specifi­ed, (which I forbeare to repeat to you, because they rise but to the same height) may in other termes be briefly sum­med up into these [...] Generalls. That the Jews by requir­ing [Page 7]a King to be set over them, (such a King as was to Raigne over them, like the Kings of other V. 5. Nations) divest­ed themselves of two of the greatest Immunities which can belong to Freemen, Liberty of person, and propriety of Estates. And both these in such an unlimited measure, as left them not power, if their Prince pleased, to call either themselves, or Children, or any thing else their owne.

To this if either you, or your friend shall reply, that this was but a Propheticall Character of Saul, and a meere pre­diction to the people what He made King would doe, noe true Draught of his Commission, what He in Iustice might, (since a Prince who shall assume to Himselfe the exercise of such a boundlesse power, doth but verify the Fable, a Stork set over a Commonwealth of Froggs, They to be his prey, not He to be their King) To the first I answer negatively. That what is said in the fore-mentioned Chapter by Sa­muel, cannot be meant only of Saul, since nothing is there said to confine the description to this Raigne. Nor doth any part of his History charge him with such a Government. Next, I shall grant you, that no Prince ruling by the strict Lawes of naturall-equity, or Justice, can exercise all the Acts of power there mentioned. Nor can his being a King so legitimate all his Actions, or so outright exempt him from the common condition of men, that what ever he shall doe shall be right. Most of the Acts there recorded are not only repugnant to the Lawes of socrable Nature, or just Rule (which forbids One to have All; and binds Prin­tes themselves in chains of Reason) but to theDeuter. 17. v. 16, 17, 18, 19. Law of God in another place; which allowes not the King of his own chovce, to Raigne as he list, but assignes him the Law of Moses for his Rule. From which as often as he broke loose, he sinned like one of the People. yet so, as that upon any such breach of the Law 'twas not left in the power of the People to correct him, or to force him by a Warre, like ours, to returne back again to his duly. His commission towards them (if you marke it well) [...] in such an uncontroleable stile, [Page 8]that his best Actions and his worst, towards them, wore the same warrant of Authority. However therefore, Re­gall power, in the forementioned place of Samuel, be called the manner of what a King would doe, yet that Manner, (as I told you before) carryed a Jus or power with it unque­stionable by the Subject, to doe if he pleased things unlaw­full. And hence 'tis that the Prophet tells the Iews at the 18. verse of that Chapter; That in the Day they found them. selves opprest by their King, they should cry out for redresse to the Lord; As the only Arbiter, and Iudge, of the Deeds, and Actions of Princes.

The Originall of Regall power as it took beginning from the People, you have most lively exprest to you by S. Peter in the 13. v. of the 2. Chapter of his 1. Epist. Where ex­horting those to whom he wrote to order their Obedience according to the severall Orbes, and Regions of power of the States wherein they lived, he bids them submit themselves to every Ordinance of Man; whether it be to the King as su­preme, or unto Governors, as unto them who are sent by him &c.

In which words I shall desire you to observe. First, that Monarchy as well as other Formes of Government, is there called [...], a Human Creature, or thing of Hu­mane Creation. From whence some, such as your Friend, (who, I perceive by his Arguments against Monarchy in your Letter hath read Iunius Brutus, and Buchanan) have inferred, That as to avoid Disorder and Confusion, people did at first paste over the Rule and Government of themselves to a Prince, so the Prince being but an [...], or Derivative from them, doth still retain a Dependance on his first Creators. And as in Nature 'tis observed that waters naturally cannot rise higher then their Spring-head; so Prin­ces, they say, have their Spring head too. Above which as often as they exalt themselves, 'tis in the power of the Fountain to recall it's streame, and to bring it to a plaine, and level with it selfe. For though, say they, it be to be granted, [Page 9]that a King thus chosen is Major singulis, superiour to any One, yet he is Minor vneversis, Inferior to the whole. Since all the Dignity and power which makes him shine be­fore the People, being but their Rayes contracted into his Body, they cannot reasonably be presumed so to give them away from themselves, as that in no case it shall be lawfull to call for them back againe.

For answer to which Opinion (taken in by your Friend from his misunderstanding of that Text) I will goe no far­ther then the place of Scripture on which 'tis built, where (without any criticall strife about the signification of the Words) I will grant that not only Monarchy, (which is the Government of a People by a Prince) But Aristocracy, (which is the Government of a People by States) & Demo­cracy (which is the Government of the people by the people) hath next, and immediatly in all States but the Iewish been [...] of Humane Creation. But then that 'tis not so purely humane, as not to be of Gods Creation, and In­stitution too, is evident by the words next in Contexture, where the Apostle bids them, to whom he wrote, to submit themselves to every such Ordinance of man, [...], For the Lords sake, who by putting his Se [...] of Approbati­on foment [...] and chay [...], hath not only authorised a Humane [...] passe into a Divine Ordinance; But towards it hath imprinted even in Nature it selfe such a Necessity of Government, and of Superiority of one man over another, that men without any other Teacher, but their owne inbredde [...], [...] which have alwayes whisper'd to them that Anarchy is the Mother of Confusion) have naturally fallen into Kingdoms, and Commonwealths. And however such a state, or condition of life under a Prince or Magistate be some thing [...] free then not to be subject at all, (since mens Actions have hereby [...] the Wills of Superiours, whose Lawes have been certaine chained and shackles clapt upon them,) yet a subjection with [...] hath alwayes, by wise men, been preferr'd before Liberty [Page 10]with danger, & men have bin compelled to enter into those Ronds, as the only way, & meanes to avoyd a greater Thral­dome. Since without such a subordination of one man to ano­ther, to hold them together in just society, the Times of the Nomades would return, where, [...], the weaker served only to be made a prey to the stronger.

The next thing which I shall desire you to observe from that Text, is, that the Kings though chosen, and created by the People, is there stiled [...] Supreame. Now Sir, you know that to be Supream, is so to be over others, as to have no Superiour above him. That is, to be so Jude­pendently the Lord of his owne Actions, of what sort soever, whether uniust or just, as not to be accountable to any but God. If he were, that other, to whom he is accounta­ble, would be Supream, not He. Since in all things where­in he is Questionable. He is no longer the King, or [...] there described, [...] but a more spacious Subject. Where­upon will either follow this contradiction in Power, That the same Person at the same Time may be a King, and no King; or we must admit of an Absurdity as great; which is, That a Supream may have a Supream; which to grant were to cast our selves upon an Infinite progresse.

For that there must be a Non-ultra, or Resolution of pow­er either into one, (as in a perfect Monareby) or into some Few, (as in the Government by a Senate) or into the Maior part of the People joyning suffrages, (as in a pure Democracy; All three Formes agreeing in this, That some body must be Supream and unquestionable in their Actions,) the nature of Rule, and Businesse, and Government it selfe demonstrates to us. Which would not else be able to obtaine it's ends, or decide controversies otherwise undeter­minable. And however this power may sometimes be ab­used, and strained beyond it's Just limits, yet this not being the fault of the power, but of the Persons whose power 'tis, it makes much more for the Peace of the publique, that one, or Few, should in some things be allowed to be unjust, then that they should be liable to be Questioned by an Ill. Judge­ing-Multitude in All.

[Page 11] The third thing which you may please to observe from that peece of Scripture, is, The Creation of Magistrates, or Governours, who are there said to be sent [...] By Him. Where a Moderne Writer applyes the [...] or By Him, to God. As if all other Governours were sent by Him, not by the King. Which Interpretation of the place I would admit for currant, if by the [...] or Governours, so sent, he did understand the Rulers in an Aristocracie, or Free-state, which being a Species of Government, Contradi­stinct to Monarchy, cannot be denyed to have God, as well as the other for it a Founder. But then the word [...] the peculiar Epithet of Monarchy, will beare another sence then I have hitherto given it; And will not only signifie the King to be Supream, (for so the Rulers of a Free State are within their owne Territories) but compared with other Formes of Supremacy to be the most excellent. Monarchy being in it selfe least subject to Disunion, or civill Disturb­ance. And for that Reason pronounced by the wisest State­ists to be that Forme of Government, into which all o­ther incline naturally to resolve themselves for their per­fection. But by Governours, in that place, understanding as he doth, not the Senate in a Free-state, but the Subordi­nate Magistrates, under a Prince, the [...] most cer­tainly belongs to the King. To whom the Apostle there as­signes the Mission of Governours as one of the Essentiall Markes, and Notes, that He is, in His owne Realm Su­pream.

And thus Sir, having drawne the portraiture of Regall Power to you, by the best Light in the world, but with the meanest Pencill; I know you expect that in the next place I should shew you what Rayes, or Beames, of this pow­er are Jnherent in our King. Which being a taske fitter for one of our greatest Sages of the Law, then for me, (who, being One who doe not pretend to any exact knowledg in the Fundamentall Lawes, or Customes, of this Kingdome, which are to stand the Land-marks and markes of partition between the Kings Prerogative, and the Liberty of the Sub­ject, [Page 12]may perhaps be thought by drawing a line or eircle a­bout either, to limne Figures in the Dust, whose fate hangs on the Mercy of the next Winde that blowes) the steps by which I will proceed, (leaving you to the late writings of that most learned and honest Judge Ienkins for your fuller satisfaction in this point) shall be breifly these two. First I will shew you what are the Genuine markes, and proper­ties of Supream power; Next, how many of them have been challenged by the King, and have not hitherto been denyed Him by any Publique Declaration of the Parliament.

Sir if you have read Aristotles Politicks (as I presume you have) you may please to remember that he * there di­vides the Supream Powere of a State, Lib. 4. c. 4. into three generall parts. The Ordering of Things for the publique, the Crea­tion of Magistrates, and the Finall resolution of Judgment upon Appeales; To which he afterwards addes the power of Levying Warre, or concluding of Peace, of making or breaking Leagues with forraigne Nations, of enacting or abrogating Lawes, of Pardoning, or Punishing Offenders, with Banishment, Confiscation, Imprisonment or Death. To which Dyonisius Halicarnassensis addes, the power to call or dissolve Comitia, or publique Assemblies; As well Synods and Councells in Deliberations concerning Religion; as Parliaments, or Senates, in Deliberations secular con­cerning the State. To all which markes of Supreame power, a * Moderne Lawyer (who only wants their Age to be of as great Authority as either) addes the power to exact Tri­bute, Gret. lib. 1. c. 3. de Jure Belli & pa­cis. and to presse Souldiers. It the exercise of which two Acts consists that Dominium Eminens, or Dominion Rara mount, which the State, (when ever it stands in need, And that too, to be the Judge of its owne Necessity) hath not only over the Fortunes, but the Persons of the Subject; In a measure so much greater then they have over themselves, as the publique poole is to be preferr'd before the private Cisterne.

Now Sir, if you please to apply this to the King, though good Lawyers will tell you that the power of making or [Page 31]repealing Laws be not solely in Him, but that the two Houses have a concurrent right in their production, and Abolish­ment: yet they will tell you too, that His power extends thus farre, that no Law can be made or repealed without Him. Since for either, or both Houses to produce a Stat­ute Law by themselves, hath alwaies, in this State, been thought a Birth as Monstrous as if a Child should be begot­ten by a Mother upon her selfe. They usually are the Matrice and Womb, where Lawes receive their first Im­pregnation, and are shap't and formed for the publique; But (besides the opinion of all present Lawyers of this King­dome, who, like that greatJudg Ien­kins. example of Loyalty, dare speak their knowledge) it hath alwaies been acknowledg­ed by the Law made 2. H. 5. By the sentence of Refusall, Le Roy S' Avisera and indeed by all Parliaments of former Ages, That the King is thus farre Pater Patria: that these Lawes are but abortive unlesse his Consent passe upon them. A Negative power He hath then, though not an out right Legislative. And if it be here objected, by your Friend, that the two Houses severally have so too, I shall perhaps grant it, if in this particular, they will be modest, and con­tent to go sharers in this Power, And no longer challenge to their Ordinances the legality & force of Acts of Parliament.

As for the other parts of Royalty, which I reckoned up to you; As the Creation of Officers, and Counsellours of State, of Iudges for Law, and Commanders for Warre, the Or­dering of the Militia by Sea and Land, The Benefit of Confiscations, and Escheats where Families want an Heyre; The power to absolve and pardon, where the Law hath Condemned; The power to call and disolve Parliaments, As also the Receipt of Custome and Tribute, with ma­ny other particulars, which you are able to suggest to your selfe. They have alwaies been held to be such undoubted Flowers of this Crowne, that every one of them like his Coyne (which you know Sir, is by the Law of this Land Treason to counterfeit, which is an other mark of Royalty) hath in all Ages but Ours, worne the Kings I­mage, [Page 14]and superscription upon it. Not to be invaded by any, without the crime of Rebellion.

And though (as your Friend saies,) this be but a regu­lated power, and rise no higher in the just exercise of these Acts, then a Trust committed by the Lawes of this King­dome, for the Governement of it, to the King, (for I never yet perceived by any of His Declarations, That His Majesty claimed these as due to Him by Right of Conquest, or any other of those Absolute, and Vnlimited waies, which might tender His Crowne Patrimoniall to Him, or such an out-right Allodium that He mi ht Alienate it, or chuse His Successour, or Rule as He pleased Himselfe) yet as in the making of these Lawes He holds the first place, so none of these Rights which he derives from them, can without His own Consent, be taken from Him.

For proofe hereof, I will only instance in three particu­lars to you, (for I must remember that I am now writing a Letter to you, not penning a Treatise,) which will carry the greater force of perswasion, because confest by this Parliament. The first was an Act presented to the King for the setling of the Militia, for a limited time in such Hands as they might confide in. A clear Argument, that without such an Act past by the King, the two Houses had nothing to do with the Ordering of it. Another was one of the Nineteen Propofitions, where twas desired that the Nomination of all Officers, and Counsellours of State, might, for the future go by the Maior part of Voyces of both Houses. Another Argument, That the King hath hi­therto in all such Nominations, been the only Fountaine of Honour. The third was, the passing of the Act for the Continuation of this Parliament; Another Argument, that nothing but the Kings consent could ever have made it thus Perpetuall as it is. Many other Instances might be giv­en, but foundoubtedly acknowledged by Bracton, By Him that wrote the Book call'd The Prerogative of Parliaments, (who is thought to be Sir Walter Raleigh) By Sir Edward [Page 15]Cooke, by the stiles and Formes of all the Acts of Parlia­ment, which have been made in this Kingdom, and by that learnedSir Iohn Banks. Iudge who wrote the Examination of such parti­culars in the Solemne League and Covenant as concerne the Law; And who in a continued Line of Quotation, and Proofe, derives along these and the other parts of Supreme power in the King, from Edward the Confessour, to our present Soveraigne King Charles, that to prove them to you, were to adde beames to the Sunne.

Here then, For the better stating of the Third thing I pro osed to you, (which was, That granting the King to be Supreme in this Kingdome, (at least so farre as I have de­scribed him) how farre He is to be Obeyed, and not resist­ed) Two things will fall under Inquiry. First, supposing the King not to have kept Himselfe to that Circle of power which the Lawes have drawn about Him, but desirous to walke in a more Absolute compasse, That He hath in some­things invaded the Liberty of his People, whither such an Jncroachment can justifie their Armes. Next, If it be proved that He hath kept within his Life, and only made the Law the Rule of His Governement, whether a bare Fear or Iealousie, That when ever he should be able, He would change this Rule, (which is the most that can be pretend­ed) could be a Just cause for an Anticipating Warre.

The Decision of the first of these Inquiries will depend wholly upon the Tenure by which he holds His Crowne. If it were puerly Elective, or were at first set upon His Head by the Suffrages of the people; And if in that Electi­on, His power had been limited; Or if by way of paction, it had been said, Thus farre the King shall be Supreme, thus farre the people shall be Free; If there had been certaine Expresse conditions assigned Him, with his Scepter, that if he transgrest not his limites He should be Obeyed, if He did, it should be lawfull for the people to resist Him; Lastly, if to hinder such Exorbitances, there had been certaine Epho­ri, or Inspectours, or a Co-ordinate Senate, placed, as [Page 16] Mounds, and Cliffes about Him, with warrant from the Electours, that when ever he should attempt to overflow his Bankes, it should be their part to reinforce Him back into his Channell; I must confesse to you being no better then a Duke of Ʋenice, or a King of Sparta; In truth no King, but a more splendid Subject, I think such a Resistance might be Lawfull. Since, such a Conveyance of Empire being but a conditionall contract, as in all other Elections, the chusers may reserve to themselves, or give away so much of their Liberty as they please. And where the part reserved is in­vaded, 'Tis no Rebellion to defend. But where the Crowne is not Elective, but hath so Hereditarily descended in an an­cient line of succession from King to King, that to finde out the Originall of it, would be a taske as difficult, as to find out the Head of Nilus; where the Tenure is not conditionall, nor hangs upon any contract made at first with the people, nor is such a reciprocall Creature of their Breath, as to be blowne from them, and recalled, like the fleeting Ayre they draw, as often as they shall say it returnes to them, worse then as first they sent it forth; In short, Sir, Where the only Obligation, or Tye upon the Prince is the Oath which He takes at his Ceronation, to rule according to the knowne Lawes of the place; Though every Breach of such an Oath be an Offence against God, (to whom alone a Prince thus independent is accountable for his Actions) yet 'twill never passe for more then perjury in the Prince; No War­rant for Subiects to take up Armes against Him.

Here then, Sir, should I suppose the worst that can be supposed, that there was a time when the King, misled (as your Friend sayes) by Evill Counsellours, did actually trample upon the Lawes of the Kingdome, and the Liberty of his Subiects, derived to them by those Lawes; yet un­lesse some Originall compact can be produced where 'tis a­greed, That upon every such Incroachment it shall be lawfull for them to stand upon their Defence; unlesse some Funda­mentall Contract can be shewen where 'tis clearely said, [Page 17]that where the King ceaseth to governe according to Law, He shall for such misgovernment cease to be King; To urge (as your Friend doth) such vnfortunate precedents as a De­posed Richard, or a Dethroned Edward, (Two dispropor­tion'd examples of popular Fury; The one forced to part with his Crowne by Resignation, the other as never having had legall Title to it,) may shew the Iniustice of former Parliaments growne strong, never justifie the Pitcht-feilds which have been fought by this. Since, (If this supposition were true) the King being bound to make the Law His Rule by no other Obligation but His Oath at His Corona­tion (Then which there cannot be a greater, I confesse, and where 'tis violated never, without Repentance scapes vnpu­nish't) yet 'tis a trespasse of which Subiects can only com­plaine, but as long as they are Subiects can never innocent­ly revenge.

But this, all this while, Sir, is but only supposition; And you now, Sir, what the Logician saies, suppositie nihil p [...]nit in esse, what ever may be supposed is not presently true. If Calumny her selfe would turne Informer, let her leave out Ship-money (a greivance which being fairely laid a fleepe by an Act of Parliament, deserved not to be awakened to beare a part in the present Tragedy of this almost ruined Kingdome) she must confesse that the King through the whole course of His Raigne was so farre from the Invasion of His Subjects Rights, that no King of England before Him, (unlesse it were Henry the first, and King Iohn, whom, being Vsurpers it concern'd to comply with the People, the one having supplanted his Eldest Brother Robers Duke of Normandy, the other his Nephew, Arthur Prince of Britaine) ever imparted to them so many Rights of his owne. To that Degree of Infranchisment that I may almost say He exchanged Liberties with them. Witnesse the Peti­tion of Right. An Act of such Royall Grace, that when He past that Bill, He almost dealt with His people, as Traian did with the Pratorian praefect, put his sword into their Hands, [Page 18]and bid them use it for Him if he ruled well, if not, against Him. In short, Sir, Magna Charta was a Ʋine, I confesse, cast over the People, but this Act enabled them to call the shade of it their owne, An Act which (if your friend will please to forget Ship mony) being in no one particular vio­lated, so farre as to be instanced in by those, whose present Ingagements would never suffer such Breaches of Priviledge to passe unclamour'd, will oblige posterity to be gratefull, as often as they remember themselves to be Freemen.

This then being so, the next inquiry will be, whether a bare Jealousy that the King would in time have recalled this Grace, and would have invaded the Liberty of his Subjects, by the change of the Fundamentall Lawes, could be a just cause for such a preventive Warre as this. To which I an­swere, that such a Faire, though built upon strong presum­ptions cannot possibly be a just cause for one Nation to make Warre upon another; much lesse for Subjects to make Warre against their Prince. The Reason is, because nothing can legitimate such a Warre, but either an Injury already of­fered, or so visibly imminent, that it may passe for the first Dart or Speare hurled. Where the Injury or Invasion, is only contingent and conjecturall, and wrapt up in the wombe of darke Counsells, no way discoverable but by their own revelation of themselves in some outward Acts of Ho­stility, or usurpation, to anticipate is to be first injurious; and every Act of prevention, which hath only Iealousie for its foundation, will adde new justice to the enemies Cause. who, as He cannot in reason be pronounced guilty of ano­thers Feares so he will come into the Field with this great advantage on his side, That his reall wrong will joyne Battle with the others weake suspition.

But alas, Sir, Time, (the best interpreter of Mens Intenti­ons) hath at length unsee'ld our eyes, and taught us that this hath been a Warre of a quite opposite Nature. The Gen­tleman who wrote the Defence of M. Chaloners Speech, and M. Chaloner himselfe, if you marke his Speech well, will [Page 19]tell you, that the quarrell hath not been whether the subject of England shall be Free, but whether this Freedome shall not consist in being no longer Subject to the King. If you marke, Sir, How the face of things hath alter'd with suc­cesse, How the scene of things is shifted; And in what a New stile they, who called themselves the Invaded, have spoken, ever since their Victories have secured them against the power of any that shall invade; If you consider what a poli­tick use hath been made of those words of Inchantment, Law, Liberty, and Propriety of the Subject, by which the People have been musically enticed into their Thraldome; If you yet farther consider the more then Decemvirall pow­er which this Parliament hath assumed to it selfe, by repeal­ing old Lawes, and making Ordinances passe for new; If you yet farther will please to consider How much Heavyer that which some call Priviledge of Parliament, hath been to the Subject, then that which they so much complained of. The Kings Prerogative, so much heavyer, that if one deserved to be called a Little finger, the other hath swolne it selfe into a Loyne, Lastly, if you compare Ship, mony with the Excise, and the many other Taxes laid upon the Kingdome, you will not onely find that a whippe then, hath been heightned into a Scorpion now; but you will perceive, that as these are not the first Subjects who, under pretence of Liberty, have invaded their Princes Crowne, (so farre as the Cleaving of Him asunder by a State Distinction, which separates the Power of the King from his Person) so ours, as long as he was able to lead an Army into the Field, hath been the first King that ever took up Armes for the Liberty of his Sub­jects. Vpon all which premises, Sir, I hope you will not think it false Logicke if I build this Conclusion so agreeable to the Lawes of the Kingdome, as well as the Lawes of God; That supoosing the Parliament all this while to have fought, (as was at first pretended) for the Defence of their assayled Liberty; yet fighting against the King whose Sub­jects they are, it can never before a Christian Judge, make [Page 20]their Armies passe for just. But being no way necessitated to make such a Defence (their Liberty having in no one particular been assaulted, which hath not been redrest) if S. Paul were now on earth againe, and were the Iudge of this Controversy between them and their Lawfull Sove­raigne, I feare he would call their Defence by a Name, which we in our Moderne Cases of Conscience doe call Re­bellion.

And thus, Sir, having as compendiously as the Lawes of a Letter will permit, given you, I hope, some satisfaction concerning the first part of your zealous Friends dispute with you; which was, whether the Two Houses (which he calls the Parliament) have not a Legall power, in Defence of their Liberty, to take up Armes against the King, I will with the like brevity, proceed as well as I can, to give you satisfaction in the second part of his Dispute also; which was, whether Religion may not be a just Cause for a Warre. The Termes of which Question being very generall, and not re­strained to any kind of Religion, or any kind of Warre, whe­ther offensive or defensive, or whether of one Nation against another, or of a Prince against his Subjects, or of the Subjects back again against their Prince, allow me a very large space to walk in. In which, least I be thought to wander, and not to prove, It will first be necessary, that I define to you what Religion in generall is; And next, that I examine, whether every Religion which falls within the Truth of that Defini­tion may for the propagation of it selfe be a just cause of a Warre; and so whether all they who either are of no Reli­gion, or a false, may not be forced to be of the true. Lastly, what the Duty of Subjects is towards their Prince, in case he should endeavour by force to impose a Religion upon them which they think to be false; and can probably make it appear to be so by proofes taken from the Scripture;

Religion then, (to define it in the nearest Termes) is saies 1. 2 [...]. q. 60. [...].3. Aquinas, Ʋirtus reddens debitum Honorem Deo, A vir­tue which renders to God his just Honour. This payment of [Page 21] Honour to God as 'tis built and founded upon his Creation of us, by which he hath a Right to our Service and Worship of him, so in the contemplative part of it, it consists in these foure Notions or Apprehensions of him. First, that there is a God, and that there is but One. Next, that he is not any part of this Visible World, but something Higher and more excellent, then any Thing we see. Thirdly, that he hath a providence going in the World, and takes care of Humane affaires. Lastly, that he made and created the World. To every one of which foure, answers a Commandement in the First. Table of the Decalogue. Where the first describes His Ʋnity, by forbidding the Worship of other Gods. The next his Invisibility, by forbidding any Image, or Resemblance to be made of Him. The third his providonce, described there by two eminent parts of it. His Omniscience, by which he knowes the Thoughts of mens Hearts; and his Justice, by which he inflicts punishments on those whose Thoughts are disproportion'd to their Oathes and Words. The Fourth de­clares his Omnipotence, by which he created the World, and appointed the Sabbath to be the Feast and Memoriall of that great Worke. From which speculative apprehensi­ons of him doe spring these practicall, That being such a God thus known, He is to be Honour'd, Lov'd, Fear'd, Wor­shipt, and Obey'd.

Now since mens Religion, or Worship of God, cannot in reason be required to reach higher then their Knowledge of Him, (for Manifestation is so necessary to Obligation and Duty, that if 'twere impossible to know that there is a God, 'twould be no sinne to be an Atheist) so if God had never made any second Revelation of Himselfe by the Scripture, but had left Mankind to their own Naturall seareh of Him, and to those Discourses of their Mindes, by which they in­ferred that such an orderly frame and systeme of thinge, where every one works to the good and End of another, is too rationally contrived to arise from a concourse of A­tomes, or to be the Creature of Chance, and therefore must [Page 22]have some Efficient Cause higher, and nobler then it selfe, (since it implies a Contradiction, that any thing should be it's own producer) yet his bare Creation of the World re­presents so much of him, that without any other Booke or Teacher, all Ages have believed that there is a God who made the World; and that He hath a Rule, and providence going in it.

This then being so, 'Tis the Opinion of a veryGrot. l. 2. de Jure Bel li ac pacis c. 20. Learned Moderne Writer, That if there should be found a Countrey of Atheists, or a People of Diagoras Melius s Opinion, or of the opinion of Theodorus the Cyrenian, whose Doctrine 'twas, Nullos esse Dees, inane coelum, That there is no God nor a habitable Heaven, But that such Names of Emptinesse have been the Creatures of superstitious fancies, whose fears first prompted them to make Gods, and then to worship them; or if there should be a People found of Epicurus his opinion, who held that there were Gods, but that they were Idle, carelesse, vacant Gods, who troubled not themselves with the Government of the World, but past their time away in an undisturbed Tranquillity and exemption from such in­ferior businesses as the Actions of Men such opinions (sup­posing them to be Nationall) as they are contradictory not only to the Dictates of Naturall Reason,) upon which God hath built the forementioned precepts of the Decalogue) but to that universally received Tradition, That there is a Di­vine power; whose providence holds the scales to mens acti­ons, and first or last sides with afflicted Innocence against suc­cesfull Oppression, so they would be just Causes for a reform­ing Warre, Not only because they are contumelious & re­proachfull to God himselfe, but because being directly de­structive to all Religion, They are by necessary consequence destructive to Humane society too. For let it once be gran­ted that there is no God, or (which, with reference to States, and Common-wealths, will produce the same irre­gular effects) that he regards not mens Actions, nor trou­bles himselfe with the Dispensation of Rewards and Pu­nishments, [Page 23]and the Doctrine of Carneades will presently passe for reasonable; That Ʋtility is the measure of Right; And that he is most in the wrong who is least able to defend himselfe. That Justice in the virtue of Fooles; and serves only to betray the simple and phlegmaticke, to the more a­ctive and daring. In short, Take away providence, especial­ly the two great parts of it, which raigne in the Hearts of men, hope of Reward, and feare of Punishment, and mens worst Actions, and their best will presently be thought e­quall. Whereupon Lawes, the Bonds of Humane Society, wanting their just Principle, which upholds them in their Reverence, will inevitably loose their force, and fall asun­der; and Men will be Men to each other in nothing but their mutuall injustice & Oppressions of one another. 'Twas there­fore the politick observation of an Atheist inAdv. Mathemat. p. 3.8. Sextus Em­piricus, That, to keep men orderly, and regular in a Com­mon-wealth, wise men at first invented Lawes, But per­ceiving that these, reaching only to their outward Actions, would never be well kept, unlesse they could find a way to a we their Minds within too, as a meanes conducing to that end, [...], one more wise, and subtle then the rest, invented Gods too. Well knowing that Religion, though but fained, is a conservative of States. upon consideration of which harmefull conse­quences, which naturally follow Atheisme, and the deniall of Gods providence, 'tis the opinion of that Author, that as 'twas no Injustice in those Grecian Citties, which banisht Philosophers, who were of this Opinion, out of their Com­monwealth, so if there should be found a Nation of such im­plous perswasions, 'twould be no Injustice in any other People, who are not Atheists, by way of punishment, to ba­nish them out of the World.

Though this, Sir, were the opinion of one, whose works have deservedly made him so Famous to the whole Christi­on World (besides the peaceablenesse of his Writings which decline all the wayes of quarrell) that to erre with him [Page 24]would be no disreputation to me, yet I must confesse to you, that I am so farre from thinking any Warre made for the propagation of Religion, how true soever it be, is warrant­able, that in this particular, I perswade my selfe I have some reason to dissent from Him; and to think it a Probleme very disputable, if his supposition were true, that there were such a Countrey of Atheists, or Epicureans, who should deny that there is a God, or that he hath a providence going in the World; whether for that reason only another Nation might justifiably make Warre upon them. For first, what should give them Authority to doe so? Is't because men of this desperate perswasion doe sinne very grievously against God? Granting this to be true, to the utmost aggra­vation of their offence, that this speculative error in their Mindes, drawes a practicall errour after it in their lives, which is, not to pay Worship to a God, which either they think not to be, or not at all to regard them, yet this being but a crime against God, the same Author hath answered himselfe in another Paragraph, where he saies, Deorum in­ [...]uria Dèis curae. That God is able to revenge the injuries committed against Himselfe. Next then, is't because such an Opinion is destructive of Humane Society? Truly, Sir, though I shall grant that saying of Plutarch to be true, that Religion (which Atheisme, and the denyall of providence doe destroy) is, [...], one, (nay one of the firmest) Bonds of Society, and supperters of Lawes, yet I have not met with any demon­strative Argument, which hath proved to me, that there is such a necessary dependance of Humane society upon Religi­on, that the Absence of the One must inevitably be the De­struction of the other. If it be, this is most likely to come to passe in the State, or Commonwealth, which is of this o­pinion among themselves; Not in a forraigne State, or Common-wealth which is not. But since 'tis possible that a Countrey of Atheists may yet have so much Morality a­mong them, seconded by Lawes made by common agree­ment [Page 25]among themselves, as to be a People, and to hold the society of Citizens among themselves. And as 'tis possible for them, without Religion, so farre, for meere utility and safeties sake, to observe the Law of Nations, as not to wrong or injure a People different from themselves, so where no civill wrong, or enjury is offered by them to ano­ther People, but where the morall Bonds of Society, and commerce, though not the Religious, of Opinion, and Worship, are unbroken by them, for the People not injured to make Warre upon them, for a feard, imaginary consequence, or because, being Atheists, 'tis possible that their example may spread, is an Act of Hostility which I confesse I am not able to defend.

For thirdly, Sir, such a Warre must either have for it's end, their punishment, or their Correction. Their punish­ment can be no true warrantable end, because towards those who shall thus make Warre upon them, they have not of­fended. Nor can their Correction Legitimate such a Warre. Because all Correction, as well as Punishment, requires Ju­risdiction in the Correctors, and Inflictors of the punish­ment. Which one People cannot reasonably be presumed to have over another People independent, and no way subject to them. unlesse we will allow, with thatLib. 2. de jure belli & pacis c. 20. Author, that because Naturall reason doth dictate that Atheisme is pu­nishable, therefore they, who are not Atheists have a right to punish those that are; which Coverruvias the Spaniard, who hath learnedly disputed this poynt, and others, as learned as he, have not thought fit to grant.

It hath been a Question ask't, whether Idolatry be not a Crime of this punishable nature in one People by another, who are not guilty of that Crime. To which the best Di­vines, which I have yet read upon that Subject doe answer negatively, that it is not. For though it be to be granted that among the severall sorts and kinds of Idolatry, One is more Ignoble and irrationall then Another; And so the offence towards God is greater or lesse as the Objects, to which men [Page 26]terminate their Idolatry, are more vile, or honourable; As in those old Heathens, 'twas a more faulty Idolatry to wor­ship a Dogge or Crocodile, or Serpent, then to worship things of a Sublimer kinde, namely the Sunne, or heavenly bodies, or Soules of famous men departed; And though all such Idolatries have deservedly been thought to be so ma­ny Affronts, and Robberies of the true God, whose worship is thereby misplaced, and spent upon false, yet having left behind him in his whole Globe of Creation no exact figure or Character of Himselfe, to be known or distinguisht by, nor any plaine Teacher but his Scripture to informe men of vulgar understandings, that there is but one God, and that that one God is only an Intelligible spirit, and no part of this grosse materiall World which we see, wherever the Scrip­ture hath not been heard of, if men (unable by the light of a Naturall discourse to apprehend him as He is) have fan­cied to themselves a plurality of False Gods, or made to themselves false representations of the true, S. Paul tells us thatAct. 17.30. God connived at it, as a piece of unaffected ignorance. which can never be a cause meritorious of a Warre to cor­rect it. First, because being only an Offence against God, and the Offendors being (as I said before) free, and no way sub­ject to any People but themselves, Any forraigne Nation (unlesse they can show the like Commission from God to punish them, as the Jewes had to punish and root out the Canaanites) will want Jurisdiction, and Authority to their Armes. Next, because Idolatry, though it be a false Religi­on, is yet as conservant of Society (which distinguishes it very much from Atheisme, and the deniall of Providence) as if 'twere true. Nor can I see why He who worships ma­ny Gods, if he believe them to be Gods, should lesse feare punishment for his perjuries, or other Crimes, then He who only worships, and believes there is but one. Lastly, because though Idolatry be an Errour in men, yet being an Errour, without the light of Scripture to rectify it, hardly vincible in themselves, and no way criminall towards others of a [Page 27]more rectified Reason, 'Tis to be reformed by Argument, and perswasion, not violence, or force. Since a Warre made upon the Errours of mens mindes, is as unreasonable, as a Warre made upon the Freedome of their Wills.

And for this last reason, I conceive that the propagation of Christian Religion, cannot be a just cause for a Warre upon those who will refuse to imbrace it. First, because such a Refusall may possibly spring from an Errour in the under­standing, which even in a Preaching, and perswasive way would scarce be in the power of S. Paul himselfe, if he were on earth againe (unless he would joyne Miracles to his Sermons) to dislodge. For though some parts of the New Law doe carry such a Musick and consent to the Law of Nature, that they answer one another like two strings wound up to the same tune; yet there be other parts, which though they doe not contradict it. are yet so unillustrable from the principles of Reason, that they cannot in a natur all way of Argumentation force assent. And you know, Sir, 'twould be unreasonable to make Warre upon mens persons for the reception of a Doctrine, which cannot convince their Minds. I must needs confesse to you, should Christ now live in our daies, and Preach much harder Doctrines then those in the Gospell, and should confirme every De­ctrine with a Miracle, as he did then, 'twould be an inex­cusable peece of Infidelity in all those who should soe his Miracles not presently to consent, and yeeld beliefe to his Sermons. But somethings in his Doctrine appearing new and strange to the World, and depending for the probabili­ty of their Truth upon the Authority of his Miracles, And those Miracles being Matters of Fact, wrought so many Ages since, and therefore not possibly able to represent themselves to our times upon greater Authority and proofe, then the Faith, and generall Report of Tradition and story; If any shall think they have reason not to believe such a re­port, they may also thinke they have no reason to believe such Miracles, and by consequence the Doctrine said to be [Page 28]confirmed by them. In short, Sir, the Gospell, at that very time when the Preaching of it was accompanied with Mi­vacles, obtained not alwaies that successe which the saving Doctrine of it deserved. The Jewes saies S. Paul 1. Cor. 1.22. Require a signe; that is, they would believe it no far­ther then they saw Miracle for it; And the Greekes (That is, the learned Gentiles) seek after wisdome; that is, They would believe no more of it then could be proved to them by Demonstration. Nay, notwithstanding all those great Miracles which were wrought by Christ, and his Apostles after him, S. Paul tels us at the 23. verse of that Chapter, that the vilenesse of Christs death did so diminish the Antho­rity of his Doctrine, though confirmed by Miracles, that the Preaching of Him crucified, was a stumbling block to the Jewes, and Foolishnesse to the Greekes. Next, Sir, As Christ hath no where commanded that men should be compelled to receive the Gospell by any Terrors or Inflictions of Tem­porall punishments, so I finde that all such endeavours are ve­ry unsutable to his practise. You know what his answer was to his two zealous Disciples, who would have called forLuke 9.54. fire from heaven, to consume those Samaritans who would not receive him.v. 55, 56. ye know not, saith he, of what spi­rit ye are of. The sonne of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them. Which Answer of his was like the Commission which he gave to his Apostles, when he sent them forth to Preach the Gospell to severall Citties. which extended no farther then this.Luke 9.5. If they will not receive you, shake off the dust of your feet against them, for a Testimony that you have been there. Agreeable to this practise of Christ is that Canon which past in the Councell ofC. de Iu­diciis dist. 45. Toledo, which saies, pracipit sancta Synodus Nemini deinceps ad cre­dendum vim inferre, 'Tis ordered by this holy Syned, that no man be henceforth compelled to believe the Gospell. A Canon, which I wish the men of the Countrey where 'twas made had worne in their Ensignes when they made Warre upon the Indians. And agreeable to this Canon, is the saying of [Page 29] Tertullian, Lex nova non se [...] ultore gladio; The new Law allowes not it's Apostles to revenge the contempt of it by the Sword. And agreeable to this saying of Tertullian is that passage inIn Arca­nâ Historiâ. Procopius; where one tells Justinian the Emperour, that in striving to force the Samaritans to be Christians by the Sword, he made himselfe successor to the two over zealous Apostles, who, because they would not receive their Master, would have destroy'd them by fire. This then being so, to deale freely, Sir, both with you and your Friend, as often as I read the writings of some of our hot Reformers, who think all others Infidells who are not of their Opinions, And whose usuall language 'tis towards all those who differ from them in Poynts, though in them­selves indifferent, and no way necessary to Salvation,Luke 14.28. [...], make Covenants, raise Armies, strip them of their Estates, and compell them to come in, me thinks a peece of the Alcoran is before mee; and the Preachers of such unchristian Doctrines, though they walke our Eng­lish streets in the shape of Assembly, Protestant Divines, seem to me to be a Constantinople Colledge of Mahomets Priests. To speak yet more plainly to you, Sir, I am so farre from thinking it a peece of Christian Doctrine, to Preach that 'tis lawfull (if it may not be done by perswasion) to take from men the Liberty, even of their erring Conscience, that the new Army which shall be raised (which I hope never to see) for the prosecution and advancement of such an End, however they may be Scots or English-men by their Birth, will seem to me an Army of Mussell-men: and to come into the field with Scymitars by their sides, and Tuli­pants, and Turbants on their Heads.

How farre Defensive Armes may be taken up for Religi­on, cannot well be resolved without a Distinction. I con­ceive Sir, that if such a warre fall out between Two Inde­pendent Nations, That which makes the Assaylants to be in the wrong will necessarily make the Defendants to be in the Right, which is (as I have proved to you) a want of [Page 30] rightfull power to plant Religion by the Sword. For in all such Resistances, not only They who fight to preserve a true, but They who fight because they would not be compelled to part with a false Religion, which they beleeve to be a true, are innocent alike. The Reason is, (which I have inti­mated to you before) because All Religion, being built up. on Faith, and Faith being only Opinion built upon Autori­ty, and Opinion built upon Autority, having so much of the Liberty of mens wills in it, that they may chuse how farre they will, or will not beleeve that Autority, No man hath Right to take the Liberty of another mans will from him, or to prescribe to him what he shall, or shall not be­leeve, though in all outward things that other have sold his Liberty to him, and made his Will his Subject. where both parties, therefore, are Independent, and One no way Subiect to the Other, Religion it selfe, though for the propagation of it selfe, cannot warrant the One to invade the Others Freedome. But 'tis permitted to the Invaded, by both the Lawes of God, that of Nature, and Scripture too, (unlesse they be guilty of some preceedent Injury, which is to be repayred by Satisfaction, not seconded by Resistance) to repell Force with Force. And if the Army now in Conduct under Sir Thomas Fairefax be of this perswasion thus stated, I shall not think it any slander from the Mouth of a Presbi­terian, who thinks otherwise, to be called an Judependent.

If a Prince who is confessedly a Prince, and hath Su­preme power, make Warre upon his Subjects for the propa­gation of Religion, the Nature of the Defence is much alter'd. For though sucha Warre (whether made for the Impositi­on of a false Religion or a true) be as uniust as if 'twere made upon a forreigne Nation, yet this injustice in the Prince cannot warrant the taking up of Armes against Him, in the Subject. Because being the Apostles [...] or Su­preme within his own Kingdome, As all power concerning the publick, secular Government of it resolveait selfe into Him, so doth the ordering of the Outward exercise of Re­ligion [Page 31]too. In both Cases he is the Judge of Controversies. Not so unerring or Infallible, as that all his Determinations must be received for Oracles, or that his Subjects are so obliged to be of his Religion, that if the Prince be an Idola­ter, a Mahumetan, or Papist, 'twould be disobedience in them not to be so too. But let his Religion be what it will; let him be a Ieroboam, or one of such an unreasonable Idola­try, as to command his people to worship Calves, and Burn Incense to Gods scarce fit to be made the Sacrifice, Though he be not to be obeyed, yet he is not to be resisted. Since such a Resistance, would not only change the Relation of inequality, and Distance between the Prince, and People, and so destroy the Supremacy here given him by S. Peter, but 'twould actually enter duell with the Ordinance of God; which ceaseth not to be sacred as often as 'tis wickedly imployed. Irresistibility being a Ray and Beame of the Divine Image, which resides in the Function, not in the Religion of the Prince. Who may for his Person, perhaps, be a Caligula, or Nere, yet in his Office still remaine Gods Deputy and Vicegerent. And therefore to be obeyed, even in his unjust commands, though not actively by our compli­ance, yet passively by our sufferings. This Doctrins as 'tis a­greeable to the Scripture, and the practice of the purest, and most primitive times of the Church, so I finde it illustra­ted by the famous example of a Christian Souldier, and the censure of a Father upon the paslage. This Souldier being bid to burne Inconse to an Idoll, rcfused; But yeelded him­selfe to be cast into the fire. Had he, when his Emperour bid him worship an Idoll, mutinied, or turn'd his speare up­on him (saies that Father) he bad broken the fift Comman­dement in defence of the second. But submitting his Body to be burnt, (the only thing in him, which could be com­pelled) in stead of committing Idolatry he became himselfe a Sacrifice. I could, Sir, second this with many other Ex­amples, but they would all tend to this one pious, Christian Result, that Martyrdome is to be presetred before Rebellion.

[Page 32] Here then, if I should suppose your Presbyterian Friends charge to be true, (a very heavy one I confesle) that the King miscounselled by a Prelaticall Court Faction, when he first Marcht into the field against the Armies raised by the two Houses of Parliament had an intent to subvert the Protestant Religion, and to plant the Religion of the Church of Rome in it's stead, yet unlesse he can prove to me, that from that time he actually ceast to be King, or the two Houses to be his Subjects, or (notwithstanding their two Oathes of Supremacy and Alleageance) that in so doing he forfeited his Crowne, and was no longer over all persons, and in all Causes as well Civill as Ecclesiasticall within the circuit of his three Kingdomes supreame Head and Gover­nour, I know no Armes which could lawfully be used a­gainst Him; but those which S. Ambrose used against an Arian Emperour, Lachrymas & Suspiri [...], Sighes & Tears, and Prayers to God to turne his heart. And therefore, Sir, when your Friond doth next aske you, How it could stand with the safe conscience of any English Protestant, to stand an idle spectator, whilst Queen Marus daies were so rea­dy to break in upon him, that He was almost reduced to this hard choyce, either to follow the Times in the new [...] ­rected fashion of Religion, or live in danger of the stake, and Faggot, if he persisted in the old, you may please to let him know from me, That as I have no unruly Thirst, or ir­regular Ambition in me to dye a Martyr, Nor am so much a Circumcelleo, as to court, or wooe, or (in case it fled from me) enthusiastically to call upon me my own Death and Execution; So, if it had been my Let to live in the fiery times He speaks of, when a Protestant was put to death for an Heretick, as I should not have quarreld with the Pawer that condemned me, so I should have kist my funerall pile; And should have thought it a high peece of Gods favour to me, to call me to Heaven by a way so like that of his An­gell in the Book ofc. 13.20. Judges, who ascended thither in the Flame, and aire, and persume of a Sacrifies.

[Page 33] But what if this be only a Jealousie and suspition in your Friend? Nay what if it have been the Disguise, and paint to some Ambitious mens designes, who, to walke the more se­curely to their darke and politick ends, have stiled them­selves the Defendours, when they have all this while been the Invadors; And have called the King the subverter, who hath all this while (to his power) been the Defender of this Religion? This certainly if it be proved, will very much Inflame and aggravate their sinne, and dye it in a deep scarlet, through all the progresse of it. But because I rather desire to cast a mantle over their strange proceedings, then to adde to their Nakednesse, which hath at length discover'd it selfe to all the World, all that I shall say, to deliver so much Goodnesse from so much misrepresentation is this. That the report, (which at first poyson'd the mindes of so many Thousand well minded people) That the King had an intent, by this warre, to destroy the Protestant Religion, could at most have no other parent but some mens either crafty Ma­lice, or needlesse Feare, appears clearly in this, that after all their great Discoveries, they have not yet instanced in one considerable Ground fit to build more then a vulgar Jealou­sy upon. The Kings affection to the Queene, His Alliance and confederacy with Popish Princes abroad, and the Gentle­nesse of his Raigne towards his Popish Subjects at home, be­ing premises as unfit to build this Inference and conclusion upon, that, Therefore He took up Armes that he might in­troduce their Religion, as his in Aristotle were; who be­cause it lightued when Socrates took the Ayre, thought that his walking caused that commotion in the skyes. For that the Root and Spring of such a report, could be nothing but their own deluded fancy, they must at length confesse, un­lesse with their Faith they have cast off their Charity too. Let your Friend, Sir, read over any one of His Majesties Declarations, and what sacred Thing is there by which he hath not freely and uncompelled, obliged and bound Him­selfe to live, and dye a Protestant? By what one Act have [Page 34]these many Vowes been broken? Who made that Court Fa­ction, which would have miscounselled him to bring in Po­pery? Or let your Friend if he can, name, who those Miterd Prelates were, who lodged a Papist under their Rotchet. If he cannot, let him forbeare to hold an Opinion of his Prince and Clergy, which Time (the mother of Truth) hath so demonstratively confuted; And let him no longer suffer himselfe to be seduced by the malitious writings of those, who, for so many years, and from so many Pulpits have breathed Rebellion, and Slander with such an uncon­trouled Boldnesse and Sting, that I cannot compare them to any thing so fitly as to the Locusts in theRevel, 9. Revelation, which crept forth of the Bottomlesse pit; every one of which wore the Crowne of a King, and had the Tayle of a Scorpion. In short, Sir, If he have not so deeply drunke of the Inchanted cuppe, as to forget himselfe to be a Subject, let him no longer endanger himselfe to tast of their Ruine too, who, for so many years, have dealt with the best King that this Nation ever had, as Witches are said to deale with those whom they would by peece meale destroy, first shap't to themselves his Image in waxe, then pricks, and stab'd it with needles, striving by their many Reproaches of his Government, and Defamations of the Bishops, to reduce his Honour by degrees to a consumption, and to make it Lan­guish, and pine, and wither away in the Hatred, and Disaffe­ction of his People.

But, perhaps Sir, your Friend, and I, are not well agreed upon our Termes: If therefore he doe once more strive to perswade you, that (notwithstanding all this which I have said to the contrary) the King would, if he had not been hindered, have destroyed the Protestant Religion, pray de­sire him to let me know what he mean by the Religion which he calls Protestant. Doth he mean that Religion which succeeded Popery at the Reformation, and hath ever since distinguisht us from the Church of Rome? Doth he meane that Religion which so many Holy Martyrs seal'd [Page 35]with their Blood, that for which Queene Mary is so odious and Queene Elizabeth so pretious to our memories? Lastly. Doth he meane that Religion which is comprised in the 39. Articles, and confest to be Protestant by an Act of Par­liament? If these be the Markes, these the Characters of it, let him tell me whether this be not the Religion which the King in one of hisCabinet Opened. Letters to the Queene calls the only Thing of difference between Him and Her, that's dearest to Him. whether this also, be not the Religion, in which, if there be yet any of the old Ore, and Drosse, from whence 'twas extracted, Any thing either essentially, or accidental­ly evill, which requires yet more sifting, or a more through Reformation. Any thing of Doctrine to offend the strong, or of Discipline, or Ceremony, to offend the wenke, His Maje­sty have not long since offered to have it passe the fiery Try­all and Disputes of a Synod legally called. To all which que­stions, 'till He and his Com presbyters, give a satisfying An­swer, however they may think to hide themselves under their old Tortoise-shell, and cry out, Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, They must not take it ill if I aske them one question more, and desire them to tell me, whether this be not the Religion which they long since compelled to take flight with the King, and which hath scarce been to be found in this Kingdome, ever since the time it was depri­ved of the Sanctuary it had taken under the Kings Stand­ard

This then, being so, hath your Friend, or his fellow As­semblers, yet a purer, or more primitive Notion of the Pro­testant Religion, which compared with the Religion which we and our Fathers have been of, will prove it to be Ido­latrous, and no better then a hundred years superstition? Let them in Charity (as they are bound not to let us perish in our Ignorance) shew us their Modell. If it be more agreea­ble to the Scripture then Ours, have more of the white Robe, and not of the new invention; we may, perhaps, be their [Page 36] Converts; And their Righteousnesse meeting with out Peace may mutually Kisse each other. In the mean time, Sir, I hope they will not define the Protestant Religion so by Ne­gatives, as to make it consist wholly in No Bishops, No Li­turgy, or No Common-Prayer Booke. These we, (not yet convinced to the contrary) doe hold to be good Conserva­tives, but not Essentialls, of that which we call the Pre­tostant Religion of our Side; Their Negation then, can be no true Essentiall Constituent of the same Religion on theirs.

There is but One positive Notion more in all the world, under which I can possibly understand Them, when They say, They have all this while Fought for the Defence of the Protestant Religion; That is, that by the Defence of the Protestant Religion, (if they meane any Thing, or if this have not bin the Disguise to a more dangerous secret) They meane the Defence of their New Directory, and their at length concluded Government of the Church by Presbyters. If this be their Meaning, (And truely if I should rack my Invention, I cannot make it find another) The Second part of that most Holy, and Glorious Cause, which hath drawne the eyes of Europe upon it, and renderd the Name of a Pro­testant, a Proverbe to expresse Disloyalty by, That Pure, Chast, Ʋirgin, without spott or wrinkle-Cause, which like the Scythian Diana hath been fed with so many Humane Sacrifices, And to which, as to another Moloch, so many Men as well as Children, have been compell'd to passe through the Fire, resolves it selfe into this Vnchristian Bloudy conclu­sion, That an Assembly of profest Protestant Divines, have advised the Two Parliaments of England and Scotland, con­fest Subjects, to take up Armes against the King, their Law­full Soveraigne, Have thereby set Three Kingdoms in a Flame, been the Authors of more Protestants slaine in a Ci­vill, then would have served to recover the Palatinate by a Forraigne Warre, for nothing but this vnnecessary novell, accidentall Consideration, That the King (vnlesse compell'd [Page 37]by Forces) would never consent ( [...] indeed without Per­jury could) to the Change of an Ancient, Primitive, Apo­stolike, Vniversally received Government of this Church by Bishops, for a new, vpstart, Mushrome, Calvinisticall Govern­ment, by a Motley Presbytery, of Spirituall & Lay-Elders. Which being (As I have hither to by Principles taken both from Reason, and Scripture proved to you) in the most fa­vourable sense, a Resistance, if not an Jnvasion of the Higher Power, & that Higher Power beingRom. 13.2. [...], Gods Ordinance must needs be [...]. or a Warre made against God Himselfe. And the Authors of it (unlesle they repent, and betake themselves to a timely returne to their Obedi­ence) in danger to draw upon themselves this other, sad, tragicall irresistible Conclusion, which S^t V. 2. Paul tels us is the inevitable Catastrophe of Disobedience, which is, [...], you may English it, swift Destruction.

And thus, Sir (Though all weake Defences have some­thing of the Nature of prevarication in them, and he may in part be thought to betray a Cause, who feebly argues for it) I have return'd you a large Answere to the two Quere's in your sh [...] Letter, which if you shall you [...] to call Satis­faction you will very much assist my [...], which will not suffer me to thinke that I, in this [...], have said more then Others. Only being so fairely invited by you to say something, to have remain'd silent, had been to have con­fest my selfe convinced; And my Negligence, in a Time so seasonable to speak Truth in, might perhaps, in the Opinion of the Gentleman, your Friend, have seemed to take part with those of his side, against whose Cause, though not their Persons, I have thus freely armed my Pen. Sir I should think my selfe fortunate, if Any Thinge which I have said in this Letter might make him a Proselyte. But this being rather my wish then my Hope, all the Successe which this Paper a­spires to is this, that you will accept it as a Creature borne at your Command; And that you will place it among your other Records, as a Testimony how much greater my De­sires, [Page 38]then my Abilities are to deserve the stile of being thought worthy to be