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, 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 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 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 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; 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 withall v. 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 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 the Deuter. 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 By Him. Where a Moderne Writer applyes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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 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, 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 Cooke, by the ſtiles and Formes of all the Acts of Parliament, which have been made in this Kingdom, and by that learned Sir 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 that Act. 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 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 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 for Luke 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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.

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 of c. 13.20. Judges, who aſcended thither in the Flame, and aire, and perſume of a Sacrifies.

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 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 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 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 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 being Rom. 13.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gods Ordinance muſt needs be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 St V. 2. Paul tels us is the inevitable Cataſtrophe of Diſobedience, which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, then my Abilities are to deſerve the ſtile of being thought worthy to be