A MODERATE, AND MOST PROPER REPLY TO A DECLARATION, PRINTED, AND published, under His majesty's Name, December, 8.  
Intended against an Ordinance of Parliament for Assessing.  
But indeed animating and encourageing the Malignants, and Delinquents, in their violent courses, for the maintenance of themselves, and their Malignant Army.  
LONDON, Printed, 1642.   

A moderate and most proper Reply to a DECLARATION,  
THE Pen that drops this Declaration, lately set forth under His majesty's Name, is a fellow to that tongue which cuts like a sharp razor, the razor is sharp but it plainly appears that malignancy is the whetstone, and gives it the edge; for so it cut, it cares not though it mangles truth and goodness; and so it cut those whom it hates, it cares not though it cut also those whom it professeth to love. For the main work of this Declaration is to condemn that in War, which the favourites, if not the framers of this Declaration have practised in peace, yea to condemn that which in War the Parliament hath done for the preservation of the kingdom, being far less than that which themselves have done in this War for the ruin and destruction of it.  
The great outcry of this Declaration seems to be for the property of the Subject. But doth not this cry come from the same shop, from whence heretofore issued enforced loans, Knighting Money, benevolences, and Ship-money? And from whence more lately issue plunderings, ransoms for not plundering, monthly taxes of an high value and rate, So that this cry seems to be like that of the highway man, who having taken money from a passenger, to put away the suspicion of it, raised an hue and cry against himself, For is it in earnest to be thought, that the destroyers of property, are now suddenly become the Patrons of property? or rather that by this assessment they are likely to be put from their old trade and therefore are offended? For indeed, this which they call taking away of property, is the means of preserving property for ever. Besides, they have put upon the Parliament a necessity of assessments, and that is their fault, and yet this fault of theirs they cast on the Parliament. Again they know that the Houses have power to tax the whole kingdom; and the tax of the Commons of England ariseth only from the House of Commons; Against this they object only the want of the King's assent; which assent being withheld by themselves; they again cast their own fault upon the Parliament. The 
* And the Earl of Newcastle too.  King without the two Houses lays taxes and gives warrants for plundering, and this with their advice and assistance, even to destroy the Parliament, but the two Houses cannot have their leave to lay an assessment without the King for their own preservation, and the preservation of the kingdom. Yet is it well known that there are sundry laws which exclude the King from laying taxes without consent of Parliament: but no Law that the Parliament, or two Houses should not lay taxes, when the King not only deserteth them, but makes War against them. In the King's Infancy what assent of the King have the two Houses for the laying of taxes? and it were to be wished that desertion of Parliament, and War against the Parliament, did not give greater cause and necessity of taxing without that assent, than the former. Briefly, the Parliament is enforced to a War for its own defence. This defence cannot be maintained without money, and this is the anger that there is money gotten to maintain it.  
For if Justice in the way of raising it, were their quarrel; the same Justice would make them to quarrel with themselves; when they rob whole towns, not of the twentieth part, but of twenty parts of twenty. Where is this quarrel of Justice when they lay monthly Takes in Oxfordshire, and other taxes in the West? where was their Justice when they robbed in old Branford, as well their friends, as their opposers? Had they the King's consent or had they it not? I think they will be ashamed to acknowledge either. Howsoever certainly they had not the consent of the two Houses of Parliament, and so it was without Law, and wholly without this Justice which they now exact of the Parliament. Shall we attribute this to an excessive charity, that they love others above themselves, and so would have others more just and honest than themselves? or rather do they desire that other men may be just that they by injustice may destroy them? They would not have men just, but naked and undefended that so by armed injustice and violence they might subdue them into an everlasting bondage, and misery.  
But these men are still troubled with altering the property of Hull, and will needs awake not a sleeping but a slain and dead objection. If they will be ever speaking of it, they must ever hear, That he that takes away a sword from one that would kill him, and takes it only that he may not kill him, takes not away the property, but the mischief. He doth not mean to profit himself by the value of it, but to save himself from the cutting of it. And if nothing else will convert the Penman of this Declaration, this perchance would serve the turn, if he had no other means of livelihood and maintenance, but the revenues and profits which the Parliament receiveth from Hull.  
As for the Army of the Earl of Essex raised to destroy the King (for so the Declaration will have it) it is such another truth, as if, when the Earl of Essex his soldiers fought at Branford to defend themselves and some of their own friends and fellows formerly taken by the malignant Army were set in the forefront, it were said, That the Earl of Essex his soldiers did fight against their own fellows to destroy them. These be the men that go about to destroy the King, that by Armies of their own enforcing the Parliament to raise an Army to defend itself, bring the King between two Armies and so into the danger of that destruction, which themselves both cause and object. They are the men that seek His destruction, that cause his presence there, where destruction is; and cause his absence there where His safety is. But certainly the Parliament wisheth His absence from the Army, wherelies the danger, and his presence in Parliament, where is His assured safety.  
But here follows another wonder that those men who plunder without giving any warning, should find fault with Sir Edward Bayntons warrant which, as themselves say, gave warning to men, that they might escape plundering. 
* Though it is constantly affirmed that the word plundeting is not in the warrant.  But if he had plundered them without warning, they had nothing to object against him but their own fault.  
A Declaration succeeds in praise of property which being indeed so precious, gives a strong exhortation to the Parliament to raise so much Money as may safely defend it. In the Parliament lies the root of property, and to pull up Parliaments, is to pull up property by the roots. Therefore to defend property, the Parliament must be defended: and to defend the Parliament money must be raised.  
So to take part of men's goods to defend the Parliament is to defend property, even in the root of it; if the branches be cropped to preserve the root, the branches may again he supplied and renewed by the root, but if the root be pulled up, which these men endeavour, the branches perish for ever. And this is their grief, that this root of property is preserved. And can they take a care of the branches of property who would pull up property by the root? which being pulled up, not only the twentieth part (which is their complaint) but the other nineteen are utterly lost. But neither doth this Ordinance enjoin the taking of the twentieth part, that number being named, to set a bound to the tax, which the Assessors may not pass. They may take the fourtieth part if they think fit; And it had been a deed of charity, if these men that find fault with the taking of the twentieth, had left the twentieth at Branford, and the places which they have ransacked and spoiled?  
And now comes the Committee of examinations itself to be examined. The Questions are, why so called? and how such power? Surely it should not seem strange to any that knows Parliaments to call a Committee by the name of the work of it, no more than to call a man that makes shoes, a shoemaker. And except there were a resolution to be angry at all that the Parliament does, is it impossible to deny a power in the two Houses to imprison? And, not to dispute the power of the House of Commons alone, or a Committee of that House which those men unseasonably at this time do question) the power of imprisoning is from the Ordinances of both Houses; and by the same the Committee is to name the place and time. So the naming of the time and place, is not by the power of a Committee, but of the Ordinance of Parliament. And it cannot be unknown, that there is in Parliament a power not only of liberty and imprisonment, but of life and death.  
And if it must be called a slavery to be subject to this power, upon this occasion: surely it is first, thus far a voluntary slavery; that they may free their persons if they will by a voluntary contribution. Secondly, the end of this imprisonment, thus termed slavery, is to fright them from a perpetual slavery.  
But that any Members of the House of Commons should be excluded from being present at the counsels of the Committee of eximinations, is an untruth so notorious and corpulent, that it is to be wondered how the Scribe of this Declaration, should have an ignorance or malice big enough to conceive and bring it forth. Especially since so many malignant's from which he might have had better intelligence, have past through that Committee, who waiting at the door, while counsels were taking of their Causes, might well know and observe, that the Members of the House, were not excluded from being present at those counsels. And yet upon this feigned accusation, is grounded a tragical, and doleful exclamation. As if all Parliaments were utterly destroyed, because a Committee doth exclude the members of the House of Commons, which indeed are not excluded.  
Neither doth it follow as a necessary truth that because men are to be imprisoned by the Committee, therefore they shall be separated from their Wives and Children. For though these are to be removed from London and Westminster, the suburbs and Counties adjacent, yet the husbands being sent to prisons remote from London and Westminster, the Suburbs and Counties adjacent, they may all very well meet. And certainly it may well be thought that the Parliament hath at least as great cause to remove far the malignants and there Families, (the disease of malignancy commonly in this case most affecting the Head, and thence flowing into the body of the Family. But be it for ever reserved by special privilege, to Arch prelatical tyranny, to banish men into remote lands, and by Parliament commands to tear their friends, Wives and children from them.  
And here again flows from this Writer, a huge tide of passion. But (as tides use to turn) may not this tide thus return upon him? Is there now any liberty left, but to those that would destroy the Parliament, and there with peace, liberty, property, and Religion? Is not a violence offered to men's Consciences, when they are terrified by Proclamations of Treason, extremities of war, for keeping their Protestation whereby they have vowed to defend the privileges of Parliament, and those that defend them? And is it any way contrary to the Oaths of Supremacy, Allegiance; or the Protestation, to defend the Parliament against those that would destroy it? or by force to bring Delinquents to Parliamentary Justice, and to lead captive those, that lead His Majesty captive, and strive to separate the Head from the body, to the ruin of both? How many persons of Honour, Quality, and Reputation of the several Counties of England have been turned out of their Offices, places, houses, goods, and lives? how many are now in prison only for their faithfulness to the parliament and kingdom? How many substantial Citizens of London have been seduced to set hands to petitions of dangerous consequence, and to withdraw their hands from assisting the defence of Parliament and kingdom? How 
See the last Declaration.  many papists, blasphemers, and men of dersperate fortunes, are met in the Armies that fight against the Parliament, yea: how many papists in these times of war, are authorized against Law by his majesty's Commission to buy, and take up arms, when as the Protestants in divers Counties have been totally disarmed, and their arms taken away, notwithstanding their property in them? How many godly, pious and painful Divines, are now robbed, and plundered, their books and writings spoiled and defaced, and themselves driven to London, as to a City of refuge? And withal how many of those Ministers that preach against the Parliament are found to be the same that were heretofore questioned by the Parliament, for scandalous, vicious, and abominable lives? And (not to put from London over hastily) is there not a cause to secure dangerous persons in London, and that those of London should be forced to defend London, when as near as London was to Branford, so near (in clear probabilities) was London to the state of Brainford? For is it to be thought that the Cavaliers would have changed their minds in the riding of eight miles; and that cruelty at Branford would have turned into mercy in London? would they have spared the substantial Citizens at London, who did not spare the very beggars at Branford? would they have asked the Rich men at London whether they were for the King, who made no such question to the beggars at Branford? Surely it is most likely that as now London may be seen in Brainford, so than Brainford would have been seen in London.  
Neither is it unworthy of the Name of public Faith, that is given by those that represent the public Body of the kingdom. And whatsoever leave will be given to the Word (Public) it is enough for the security, if the Faith be sound and sufficient for repayment. And (to speak only of the House of Commons.) It is certain that house is trusted with the whole estate of the Commons of England. And I hope the Commons of England will have enough to pay the debts contracted for the defence of the Commons. But in the mean time what Faith is given for the tasks and monthly payments imposed on Oxfordshire and the Western parts, under the Dominion of Sir Ralph Hopton? And even this Declaration hereafter acknowledgeth that the King has parted from his jewels and Plate, (which it is pity should have been turned into the price of the blood of his subjects) so that evil councillors have reduced him to that lowness, that whensoever he returns to a state, lustre, of Majesty and Glory, by a right (that is a Parliamentary) way, it must be by their faithfulness and supply, whose Faith is now thus slighted and despised. And it is easily believed that our Brethren of Scotland will not be displeased with the Word of public Faith, and I wish it were as fit to be believed, that they have not cause to be displeased with those that by a War raised against the Parliament, endeavour to make the reality of that Word, less, if not wholly ineffectual.  
Neither is it for want of speaking but of hearing that these men hear nothing of fundamental laws. If hath been said that it is most fundamental to a state to preserve itself, And that the Lords and Commons in Parliament may defend themselves, and their privileges against Delinquents, Malignants, and their adherents, that seek to destroy them: That the Commons are entrusted with the estates of the Commons; and the Lords, of the Lords, and both joining togethether in disposing them, if the King withhold His assent, which should be given for the preservation of the kingdom, shall the kingdom perish for want of this assent? much less should it be turned into an objection against the Lords and Commons as a fault of theirs, That the King will not assent. But if this be neither spoken nor heard, are these men fit to demand fundamental laws for the Parliaments disposing of a twentieth part, who can allege themselves no shadow of any Law for exacting two and twenty parts out of twenty? For such a monster both of Arithm●tick and oppression have these men lately engendered: Not to speak of breaking the fundamental laws in taking his goods, in whom the House of Commons is in some sort contracted and represented, what fundamental Law have they for laying a tax of four pound a week on ninescore pounds yearly rent of the Speaker of the House of Commons? What have these men to do to talk of fundamental laws, that by a lawless, and senseless oppression, undermine and dig up estates even below their foundations; and like Egyptian Taskemasters will enforce the Brick to be made beyond the straw?  
And if extraordinary means of maintaining an undertaking prove it unlawful, what an extremity of unlawfulness is there in their undertakings, who by these super-extremities of exaction maintain their undertakings? As for Master Pi●s speech which they call excellent, it would make them excellent too, if they would follow it. For it is too manifest, that following the laws of Lust, Ambition, and the like vices have brought us to this present confusion. Neither is it so strange that in a time of war against the Parliament dangerous persons should be more safely secured from maintaning this war, nor that Members of either House giving cause of suspicion by viewing works of defence or otherwise should be committed with the consent or approbation of either house; not so strange by much, As that five Members of a house, should be drawn forth from the house (to prison and death as it seems by the charge) by force and violence. And for Hull, the present good use of Newcastle, to admit arms and soldiers for the maintenance of this unnatural war, speaks aloud to justify Sir John Hotham's keeping of Hull by order of Parliament; Neither is Tonnage or Poundage imposed by Parliament; and is not Tonnage and Poundage paid to the complainants at Newcastle?  
But the Parliament is the great eyesore, and therefore when they could not destroy it by pulling away five first (and how many fives after no man knows) nor by an Army at Branford now it must be overthrown by paper-Bullets and by untruetelling of Twenties. But certainly their Act of numbering fails, as well as their virtue of truth, and sincerity. For even in this month of December, when the Lord Major was in the House of Commons at prayer (whereof a part, is a part of Common Prayer, by which token he may be known not to be a Brownist, nor a reviler of Common Prayer) it is certainly reported there were eight score in the House; and not many less the same week when the house considered the propositions for peace; And these men cannot but know that forty do make a House of Commons; so that their own number acknowledgeth it to be more, than an house of necessity requires. Yet there are also computed about an hundred absent in the Army son defence of the Parliament; or in the defence of their own Counties; in Ireland, or for some special occasions of their own. And those that are present, and such others as are thus absent, complaining of no fear it is a work of supererogatory charity, that these Enditers should make, or fain a fearful complaint for them. True it is, that there are about three score cast out of the House of Commons for fighting against the House, or some other great offences, neither needs any one to be afraid of coming to the house, but those whom their own guilt makes afraid of censure and punishment. Neither are those that are present awed with an Army or Tumults, but defended and secured by an Army and the goods of the City and Suburbs; and it might pass for a special piece of craft if these men could make the Parliament so foolishly credulous as to be afraid of their own security. It were to be wished, That his Majesty, were as free from cause of fear from his Army and Cavaliers, who are much wronged by reports, if they have not put threats upon him, and upon his going from them to his Parliament.  
And next to the Parliament, they are angry with the City of London, for being a wall of defence to the Parliament. And whereas this paper is so often spotted with the scandal of Anabaptists and Brownists for their power in the Government or actions of that City, if they believe themselves, it were good they did make others to believe them also, by naming some particular Anabaptists and Brownists that exercise this power, as the Parliament hath named the papists which command in the King's Army.  
Neither hath the Lord Major with a faction told the houses that that they will have no accommodation, or peace; but with the Sheriffs and Aldermen hath advanced and assisted a Petition to His Majesty for peace. True it is they desire a sound and durable peace, accompanied with Truth, and piety; neither can they be much blamed, if they fear pretences of peace that may cover such designs of mischief and massacry as lately appeared at Branford.  
But it seems the notes were taken in short hand which were sent to this Writer concerning Sir Sidney Montague, for if the story had been written in words at length and the whole matter declared, it might have been known, That Sir Sidney Montague besides refusing the Oath (if it must be so called) of Association, drew forth a Declaration, and vouched the authority of it, for calling them traitors that had taken the same. And let these men judge whether it were any part of the virtue of patience that the house which had entered entered that Association should endure the word traitor to be cast upon the face of it, or whether it were not a more commeudable virtue of courtesy, to dismiss and separate a person of that opinion from the dangerous and infectious society of traitors.  
And now follow some mistaken figures of rhetoric which should run on this manner. These are the men that have sent to the states, to treat with them, that they permit not soldiers and arms to come from their provinces, to make and maintain War against the Parliament of England. These are the men that have sent into Scotland, where Murrey is labouring to kindle a fire to consume this Nation, to cast water upon that fire; and withal to entice our Brethren of Scotland: now the papists are up in arms to seek the peace of this Kingdom, and the safety of Religion agreeable to the Act of pacification. And not only for that Act, but for their own security it being an unquestionable Truth, That if Ireland be the breakfast of the papists, and England their Dinner, Scotland is likely to be their supper. In a word, these are they that have made a preserving Ordinance, to save the Parliament, Religion, laws and Liberty, which were in danger to be devoured by illegal Commissions of Array, as illegal Sheriffs, Armies of papists, and other ill-affected, persons.  
But the words which follow, that an Army was first raised by the Parliament, are so manifestly untrue that it is strange, how they could leave of the lest remnant of Conscience to utter-them, and of loyalty to utter them under His majesty's Name. It is possible they may have heard of a Bible, and therein of one David, that like the Parliament was accused of rebelling against the King, and these were hunted like a Partridge; But that which I would say to them is according to the speech of that David to Abner: ye are worthy to die because ye have not kept the King neither his life nor honour. The life of the King hath been exposed to danger, by bringing him into the battle; and his honour, by making his Name a cover to notorious falsities. For were not the beginnings of an Army raised in York? 
* Did not Sir Francis Wortley draw his sword there and cry, for the King, for the King?  and did not a papist there come forth and say let the sword, try it, before the Parliament either made Votes, That the King seduced by evil counsel intended a War against the Parliament, which Votes were also before the beginning of the Army of the Earl of Essex? And yet if the Parliament had raised Forces, that may bear the name of an Army to bring Delinquents to Justice, who can lay any blame upon the Parliament, or who can thence gather a reason, why the King may justly raise an Army against the Parliament?  
Yet is the raising of this Army, for defence of the Parliament, or of the power and authority of it over delinquents, more than once in the last leaf termed a Rebellion. To this, I will fetch an answer, out of Bodin. Bodin having written much in favour of 
Bodin de Rep. lib. 3.  Kings though degenerated into Tyrants, and so much that he confesseth he was taxed for it, yet at last, lights on this story and thereupon gave his sentence. The Earl of Flanders besieged his subjects in Gant, with an Army of forty thousand men. The Army within the City was but five thousand. Upon this disadvantage, they humbly sued for pardon. The Earl answered them, they must come forth with halters about their necks, and then he would tell them his mind. Hereupon, not having any assuraude of mercy, they issued forth, and defeated his great Army, with a little one; and the Earl was forced for his own safety, to hide himself under the Bed of a poor woman, who sent him forth in a shape far below (his degree. But hereupon this Author infers; Then did it appear, That there is nothing morevaliant than a subject brought to despair, nor any war more just, then that which is necessary. I only add, if the Parliaments War be necessary, and a necessary War is just, certainly a just War, cannot justly be called a Rebellion.  
FINIS.