ΟΧΛΟ-ΜΑΧΙΑ. OR THE PEOPLE'S WAR, EXAMINED According to the Principles of SCRIPTURE & REASON, IN Two of the most Plausible Pretences of it.  
IN ANSWER To a LETTER sent by a Person of Quality, who desired satisfaction.  
By JASPER maine D.D. one of the Students of Ch. Ch. Oxon.  Rom. 13.2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Printed in the Year, 1647.   

Honoured Sir,  
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 Queen, or his friends, or what ever Declarations he publish in the defence of his Rights and Cause, had the ill fortune to undergo the fate of such a Picture. To us who read them impartially, by their own true, genuine light, they appeared so many clear, transparent Copies of a sincere and Gallant Mind. Looked 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 deceitful medium, partakes of the cozenage of the conveyance, and way, and puts on a false Resemblance. As squara, bright, angular things through a mist show dark and round; and strait 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 King's Supremacy, and the Subject's Rights, is one of those who hath had the ill luck to be thus depeived. Which I do not wonder at, when I consider how much he is concerned in his fortunes that the Parliament should all this while be in the right. Besides, Sir, Having looked upon the Cause of that Side merely in that plausible dress with which some pens have attired it, And having entertained a strong prejudice against whatever shall be said to prove that a Parliament may err, it ought to be no marvel to you, if he be rather of M. Prinnes then judge Jenkins' Opinion; And persuade himself, 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 Arms against Him, for the defence of either. But then, Sir, finding by my reading of the public writings of both sides, that both sides challenged to themselves the Defence of one and the same Cause, I must confess to you, That for a while the many Battles, which so often coloured our fields with Blood, appeared to me like Battles fought in Dreams. Where the person combaring in his sleep, imagines he hath an Adversary, but awake perceives his error that he held conflict with himself. To speak a little more freely to you, Sir, the King's 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 Quarrel.  
But since your Friend is pleased to let me no longer remain a Sceptic, but clearly to state the Quarrel; by suffering the two great words of Charm, 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 equal Challengers; And since he is pleased to espouse the defence of them so wholly to the Parliament, as to call the War made by the King the Invasion of them; Both for his and your satisfaction, who have laid this task upon me, give me leave to propose this reasonable Dilemma to you. Either 'tis true what your Friend says, 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 War pass for a just, the first discovery of it, will be the fall, and ruin of it; And the People who have been misled with so much holy Imposture, will not only hate it for the Hypocrisy, but the Injustice too. If it be true, yet I cannot see how they are hereby advantaged, or how, either or both these joined can legitimate their Arms.  
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 governed as Servants by a hard Master, not as Subjects by a Prince. Nor do I find that the King was such a Pharaoh to them, that they were able to say, that he changed a Kingdom of Freemen into a House of Bondage. Some Acts of his Government, I confess, some have called Illegal; namely the exaction of Shipmoney. But this certainly, was a grievance which if it had not been redressed, deserved not to be reckoned among the Brick kills of Egypt, or to denominate his Government despotical too.  
Next then, doth your friend, by Liberty, mean a Releasement from Tyranny, as Tyranny allows 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 itself in nineteen years of Injustice, had he like Caligula, worn a Table-book in his pocket, with the names of the Nobility in it designed and Marks for slaughter; Had he without any Trials of Law made his pleasure pass for sentence, and lopped off Senators heads as Tarquin did Poppeys; Had he in his oppressions of the People made them feel Times like those which Tacitus describes; where no man durst be virtuous, lest he should be thought to upbraid his Prince; where to complain of hard usage was capital; and where men had not only their words, but their very looks and sighs proscribed; his Reign would bear that Name. But alas, Sir, you yourself know, that these are Acts of Tyranny, which were so far from being practised, that they have not yet been feigned among us. 'Tis true, indeed, certain dark Jealousies were cast among the people, as if some Evil Counsellors about the King had had it in their design 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 ruin 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 than we; every one secure under the shade of his own Vine, perhaps a grape or two extraordinary was gathered for the public. But if any did refuse to contribute, I do not find that like Naboth, they were stoned for their Vineyard. 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 Arms against their King, not because he was, but because he possibly might be a Tyrant. Which fear of theirs being in itself altogether unreasonable, and therefore not to be satisfied, could not but naturally endeavour (as we find by sad experience it hath done) to secure itself by removing out right the formidable Object which caused it. which being not to be done but by the Removal of Monarchical Government itself, could not but cast them at length upon a new form of State, or such a confusion or no Form of state, as, we see, hath almost drawn ruin upon themselves and their Country.  
Once more therefore, I must ask your Friend what he means by Liberty. I hope he doth not mean an Exemption from all Government; Nor is fallen upon their wild 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 Roundness 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 level with the Common people, who being once taught that Inequality is unlawful, 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 Gospel, but that this liberty consists in one not being greater than another. It being an Oracle in Nature, that we are all borne Equal; That these words of Higher, and Lower, Superior, and Inferior, are fit for Hills, and Vales, then for men of a Kind; That the names also of Prince and Subject, Magistrate and People, Governors and Governed, are but so many styles Usurp. Since in Nature for one Man to be borne Subject to another, is as much against Kind, as if men should come into the World with chains 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 sense I can. That by the Parliaments defence of the People's Liberty, he means the maintenance of some Eminent Rights belonging to the Subject, which being in manifest danger to be invaded, and taken from them, could not possibly be preserved but by Arms taken up against the invader. But then, granting this to be true, (as I shall in fit place show it to be false) yet the King being this invader (unless by such an Jnvasion He could cease to be their King, or they to be his subjects.) I cannot see how such Rights could make their Defence lawful.  
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 than I at first intended, or then your Letter requires me; Or, if to cure the stream, I take the Prophet's course, and cast salt into the spring; And examine first, How fare the Power of a King, (who is truly a King, and not one only in Name) extends itself over Subjects. Next, whether any such Power do belong to our King; Thirdly if there do, How fare 'tis to be obeyed, and not resisted.  
As for the first, you shall in the Scripture, Sir, find two Originals of Kings, One immediately springing from the Election and choice of God himself. The other from the choice and election of the People; But so, as that it resolves itself into a Divine Institution. The History of Regal power, as it took Original from God himself, is set down 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 Dictator's had at Rome, and differed nothing from the most absolute Monarches 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 voice. But withal 
* v. 9  Solemnly to protest and show them the manner (or as one translates it more to the mind of the Original, J●● Regis, the Right, or power) of the King that should reign over them. That he would take their sons, & appoint them for his Charets; And their Daughters, to be Confectionaries, and Cooks for his Kitchin. That he would also take their fields, their Vine-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 sheep, And ye, says the Prophet (which is a very characteristical mark of subjection) 
* v. 17.  shall be his servants.  
All which particulars, with many others there specified, (which I forbear to repeat to you, because they rise but to the same height) may in other terms be briefly summed up into these 〈◊〉 Generals. That the Jews by requiring a King to be set over them, (such a King as was to Reign 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 own.  
To this if either you, or your friend shall reply, that this was but a Prophetical Character of Saul, and a mere prediction to the people what He made King would do, no true Draught of his Commission, what He in justice might, (since a Prince who shall assume to Himself the exercise of such a boundless power, doth but verify the Fable, a Stork set over a Commonwealth of Frogs, They to be his prey, not He to be their King) To the first I answer negatively. That what is said in the  Chapter by Samuel, cannot be meant only of Saul, since nothing is there said to confine the description to this Reign. 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 Laws 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 do shall be right. Most of the Acts there recorded are not only repugnant to the Laws of socrable Nature, or just Rule (which forbids One to have All; and binds Prints themselves in chains of Reason) but to the 
* Deuter. 17. v. 16, 17, 18, 19  Law of God in another place; which allows not the King of his own chouce, to Reign as he list, but assigns him the Law of Moses for his Rule. From which as often as he broke lose, 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 War, like ours, to return back again to his duly. His commission towards them (if you mark it well) 〈◊〉 in such an uncontroleable stile, that his best Actions and his worst, towards them, wore the same warrant of Authority. However therefore, Regal power, in the forementioned place of Samuel, be called the manner of what a King would do, yet that Manner, (as I told you before) carried a Jus or power with it unquestionable by the Subject, to do if he pleased things unlawful. And hence 'tis that the Prophet tells the jews at the 18. verse of that Chapter; That in the Day they found them. selves oppressed by their King, they should cry out for redress to the Lord; As the only Arbiter, and judge, of the Deeds, and Actions of Princes.  
The Original of Regal power as it took beginning from the People, you have most lively expressed 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 several Orbs, 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 etc.  
In which words I shall desire you to observe. First, that Monarchy as well as other Forms of Government, is there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Human Creature, or thing of Humane Creation. From whence some, such as your Friend, (who, I perceive by his Arguments against Monarchy in your Letter hath read junius Brutus, and Buchanan) have inferred, That as to avoid Disorder and Confusion, people did at first paste over the Rule and Government of themselves to a Prince, so the Prince being but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Derivative from them, doth still retain a Dependence on his first Creators. And as in Nature 'tis observed that waters naturally cannot rise higher than their Springhead; 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 its stream, and to bring it to a plain, and levelly with itself. For though, say they, it be to be granted, that a King thus chosen is Major singulis, superior to any One, yet he is Minor uneversis, Inferior to the whole. Since all the Dignity and power which makes him shine before the People, being but their Rays contracted into his Body, they cannot reasonably be presumed so to give them away from themselves, as that in no case it shall be lawful to call for them back again.  
For answer to which Opinion (taken in by your Friend from his misunderstanding of that Text) I will go no farther than the place of Scripture on which 'tis built, where (without any critical 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 immediately in all States but the jewish been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Humane Creation. But then that 'tis not so purely humane, as not to be of God's Creation, and Institution too, is evident by the words next in Contexture, where the Apostle bids them, to whom he wrote, to submit themselves to every such Ordinance of man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For the Lords sake, who by putting his Se●●● of Approbation foment 〈…〉 and chay●●, hath not only authorised a Humane 〈…〉 pass into a Divine Ordinance; But towards it hath imprinted even in Nature itself such a Necessity of Government, and of Superiority of one man over another, that men without any other Teacher, but their own inbredde 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 which have always whispered 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 Magistrate be some thing 〈◊〉 free than not to be subject at all, (since men's Actions have hereby 〈…〉 the Wills of Superiors, whose Laws have been certain chained and shackles clapped upon them,) yet a subjection with 〈◊〉 hath always, by wise men, been preferred before Liberty with danger, & men have been compelled to enter into those Ronds, as the only way, & means to avoid a greater Thraldom. Since without such a subordination of one man to another, to hold them together in just society, the Times of the Nomads would return, where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the weaker served only to be made a prey to the stronger.  
The next thing which I shall desire you to observe from that Text, is, that the Kings though chosen, and created by the People, is there styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Supreme. Now Sir, you know that to be Supreme, is so to be over others, as to have no Superior above him. That is, to be so Judependently the Lord of his own Actions, of what sort soever, whether unjust or just, as not to be accountable to any but God. If he were, that other, to whom he is accountable, would be Supreme, not Herald Since in all things wherein he is Questionable. He is no longer the King, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there described, 〈◊〉 but a more spacious Subject. Whereupon will either follow this contradiction in Power, That the same Person at the same Time may be a King, and no King; or we must admit of an Absurdity as great; which is, That a Supreme may have a Supreme; which to grant were to cast ourselves upon an Infinite progress.  
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 Mayor part of the People joining suffrages, (as in a pure Democracy; All three Forms agreeing in this, That some body must be Supreme and unquestionable in their Actions,) the nature of Rule, and Business, and Government itself demonstrates to us. Which would not else be able to obtain its ends, or decide controversies otherwise undeterminable. And however this power may sometimes be abused, and strained beyond its 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 public, that one, or Few, should in some things be allowed to be unjust, then that they should be liable to be Questioned by an iii. Judgeing-Multitude in All.  
The third thing which you may please to observe from that piece of Scripture, is, The Creation of Magistrates, or Governors, who are there said to be sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Him. Where a Modern Writer applies the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or By Him, to God. As if all other Governors were sent by Him, not by the King. Which Interpretation of the place I would admit for currant, if by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Governors, so sent, he did understand the Rulers in an Aristocracy, or Free-state, which being a Species of Government, Contradistinct to Monarchy, cannot be denied to have God, as well as the other for it a Founder. But then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the peculiar Epithet of Monarchy, will bear another sense than I have hitherto given it; And will not only signify the King to be Supreme, (for so the Rulers of a Free State are within their own Territories) but compared with other Forms of Supremacy to be the most excellent. Monarchy being in itself least subject to Disunion, or civil Disturbance. And for that Reason pronounced by the wisest Stateists to be that Form of Government, into which all other incline naturally to resolve themselves for their perfection. But by Governors, in that place, understanding as he doth, not the Senate in a Free-state, but the Subordinate Magistrates, under a Prince, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most certainly belongs to the King. To whom the Apostle there assigns the Mission of Governors as one of the Essential Marks, and Notes, that He is, in His own Realm Supreme.  
And thus Sir, having drawn the portraiture of Regal Power to you, by the best Light in the world, but with the meanest Pencil; I know you expect that in the next place I should show you what Rays, or Beams, of this power are Jnherent in our King. Which being a task fit for one of our greatest Sages of the Law, then for me, (who, being One who do not pretend to any exact knowledge in the Fundamental Laws, or Customs, of this Kingdom, which are to stand the Landmarks and marks of partition between the King's 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 Wind that blows) the steps by which I will proceed, (leaving you to the late writings of that most learned and honest Judge jenkin's for your fuller satisfaction in this point) shall be briefly these two. First I will show you what are the Genuine marks, and properties of Supreme power; Next, how many of them have been challenged by the King, and have not hitherto been denied Him by any Public Declaration of the Parliament.  
Sir if you have read Aristotle's Politics (as I presume you have) you may please to remember that he * there divides the Supreme power of a State, 
Lib. 4. c. 4.  into three general parts. The Ordering of Things for the public, the Creation of Magistrates, and the Final resolution of Judgement upon Appeals; To which he afterwards adds the power of Levying War, or concluding of Peace, of making or breaking Leagues with foreign Nations, of enacting or abrogating Laws, of Pardoning, or Punishing Offenders, with Banishment, Confiscation, Imprisonment or Death. To which Dyonisius Halicarnassensis adds, the power to call or dissolve Comitia, or public Assemblies; As well Synods and Counsels in Deliberations concerning Religion; as Parliaments, or Senates, in Deliberations secular concerning the State. To all which marks of Supreme power, a * Modern Lawyer (who only wants their Age to be of as great Authority as either) adds the power to exact Tribute, 
Great. lib. 1. c. 3. de Jure Belli & pacis.  and to press Soldiers. 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 own Necessity) hath not only over the Fortunes, but the Persons of the Subject; In a measure so much greater than they have over themselves, as the public pool is to be preferred before the private Cistern.  
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 fare, that no Law can be made or repealed without Him. Since for either, or both Houses to produce a Statute Law by themselves, hath always, in this State, been thought a Birth as Monstrous as if a Child should be begotten by a Mother upon herself. They usually are the Matrice and Womb, where Laws receive their first Impregnation, and are shaped and form for the public; But (besides the opinion of all present Lawyers of this Kingdom, who, like that great 
* Judge jenkin's.  example of Loyalty, dare speak their knowledge) it hath always been acknowledged by the Law made 2. H. 5. By the sentence of Refusal, Le Roy SH' Avisera and indeed by all Parliaments of former Ages, That the King is thus fare Pater Patria: that these Laws are but abortive unless his Consent pass 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 Counselors of State, of judges for Law, and Commanders for War, the Ordering of the Militia by Sea and Land, The Benefit of Confiscations, and Escheats where Families want an Heir; The power to absolve and pardon, where the Law hath Condemned; The power to call and dissolve Parliaments, As also the Receipt of Custom and Tribute, with many other particulars, which you are able to suggest to yourself. They have always been held to be such undoubted Flowers of this Crown, that every one of them like his Coin (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, worn the King's Image, and superscription upon it. Not to be invaded by any, without the crime of Rebellion.  
And though (as your Friend says,) this be but a regulated power, and rise no higher in the just exercise of these Acts, than a Trust committed by the Laws of this Kingdom, for the Government 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 Unlimited ways, which might tender His Crown Patrimonial to Him, or such an outright Allodium that He might Alienate it, or choose His Successor, or Rule as He pleased Himself) yet as in the making of these Laws 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 proof 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 persuasion, because confessed by this Parliament. The first was an Act presented to the King for the settling of the Militia, for a limited time in such Hands as they might confide in. A clear Argument, that without such an Act passed 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 Counselors of State, might, for the future go by the Mayor part of Voices of both Houses. Another Argument, That the King hath hitherto in all such Nominations, been the only Fountain of Honour. The third was, the passing of the Act for the Continuation of this Parliament; Another Argument, that nothing but the King's consent could ever have made it thus Perpetual as it is. Many other Instances might be given, but foundoubtedly acknowledged by Bracton, By Him that wrote the Book called The Prerogative of Parliaments, (who is thought to be Sir Walter Raleigh) By Sir Edward Cook, by the styles and Forms of all the Acts of Parliament, which have been made in this Kingdom, and by that learned 
* Sir john Banks.  judge who wrote the Examination of such particulars in the Solemn League and Covenant as concern the Law; And who in a continued Line of Quotation, and Proof, derives along these and the other parts of Supreme power in the King, from Edward the Confessor, to our present Sovereign King Charles, that to prove them to you, were to add beams to the Sun.  
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 Kingdom, (at least so fare as I have described him) how fare He is to be Obeyed, and not resisted) Two things will fall under Inquiry. First, supposing the King not to have kept Himself to that Circle of power which the Laws have drawn about Him, but desirous to walk in a more Absolute compass, That He hath in somethings invaded the Liberty of his People, whither such an Jncroachment can justify their Arms. Next, If it be proved that He hath kept within his Life, and only made the Law the Rule of His Government, whether a bare Fear or jealousy, 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 War.  
The Decision of the first of these Inquiries will depend wholly upon the Tenure by which he holds His Crown. If it were poorly 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 fare the King shall be Supreme, thus fare the people shall be Free; If there had been certain Express conditions assigned Him, with his Sceptre, that if he transgressed not his limits He should be Obeyed, if He did, it should be lawful for the people to resist Him; Lastly, if to hinder such Exorbitances, there had been certain Ephori, or Inspectours, or a  Senate, placed, as Mounds, and Cliffs about Him, with warrant from the Electours, that when ever he should attempt to overflow his Banks, it should be their part to reinforce Him back into his Channel; I must confess to you being no better than a Duke of Venice, or a King of Sparta; In truth no King, but a more splendid Subject, I think such a Resistance might be Lawful. Since, such a Conveyance of Empire being but a conditional contract, as in all other Elections, the choosers 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 Crown is not Elective, but hath so Hereditarily descended in an ancient line of succession from King to King, that to find out the Original of it, would be a task as difficult, as to find out the Head of Nilus; where the Tenure is not conditional, nor hangs upon any contract made at first with the people, nor is such a reciprocal Creature of their Breath, as to be blown from them, and recalled, like the fleeting Air they draw, as often as they shall say it returns to them, worse than as first they sent it forth; In short, Sir, Where the only Obligation, or Tie upon the Prince is the Oath which He takes at his Ceronation, to rule according to the known Laws 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 pass for more than perjury in the Prince; No Warrant for Subjects to take up Arms 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 says) by Evil Counselors, did actually trample upon the Laws of the Kingdom, and the Liberty of his Subjects, derived to them by those Laws; yet unless some Original compact can be produced where 'tis agreed, That upon every such Encroachment it shall be lawful for them to stand upon their Defence; unless some Fundamental Contract can be shown where 'tis clearly said, that where the King ceaseth to govern according to Law, He shall for such misgovernment cease to be King; To urge (as your Friend doth) such unfortunate precedents as a Deposed Richard, or a Dethroned Edward, (Two disproportioned examples of popular Fury; The one forced to part with his Crown by Resignation, the other as never having had legal Title to it,) may show the Injustice of former Parliaments grown strong, never justify 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 (Than which there cannot be a greater, I confess, and where 'tis violated never, without Repentance escapes unpunished) yet 'tis a trespass of which Subjects can only complain, but as long as they are Subjects can never innocently revenge.  
But this, all this while, Sir, is but only supposition; And you now, Sir, what the Logician says, suppositie nihil p●nit in esse, what ever may be supposed is not presently true. If Calumny herself would turn Informer, let her leave out Ship-money (a grievance which being fairly laid a fleepe by an Act of Parliament, deserved not to be awakened to bear a part in the present Tragedy of this almost ruined Kingdom) she must confess that the King through the whole course of His Reign was so fare from the Invasion of His Subjects Rights, that no King of England before Him, (unless it were Henry the first, and King john, whom, being Usurpers it concerned to comply with the People, the one having supplanted his Eldest Brother Robers Duke of Normandy, the other his Nephew, Arthur Prince of Britain) ever imparted to them so many Rights of his own. To that Degree of Enfranchisement that I may almost say He exchanged Liberties with them. Witness the Petition of Right. An Act of such Royal Grace, that when He passed 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 Vine, I confess, cast over the People, but this Act enabled them to call the shade of it their own, An Act which (if your friend will please to forget Ship money) being in no one particular violated, so fare as to be instanced in by those, whose present Engagements would never suffer such Breaches of Privilege to pass unclamoured, will oblige posterity to be grateful, 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 Fundamental Laws, could be a just cause for such a preventive War as this. To which I answer, that such a Fair, though built upon strong presumptions cannot possibly be a just cause for one Nation to make War upon another; much less for Subjects to make War against their Prince. The Reason is, because nothing can legitimate such a War, but either an Injury already offered, or so visibly imminent, that it may pass for the first Dart or Spear hurled. Where the Injury or Invasion, is only contingent and conjectural, and wrapped up in the womb of dark Counsels, 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 jealousy for its foundation, will add new justice to the enemy's Cause. who, as He cannot in reason be pronounced guilty of another's Fears so he will come into the Field with this great advantage on his side, That his real wrong will join Battle with the others weak suspicion.  
But alas, Sir, Time, (the best interpreter of men's Intentions) hath at length unsee'ld our eyes, and taught us that this hath been a War of a quite opposite Nature. The Gentleman who wrote the Defence of M. Chaloners' Speech, and M. Chaloner himself, if you mark his Speech well, will tell you, that the quarrel hath not been whether the subject of England shall be Free, but whether this Freedom shall not consist in being no longer Subject to the King. If you mark, Sir, How the face of things hath altered with success, 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 politic use hath been made of those words of Enchantment, Law, Liberty, and Propriety of the Subject, by which the People have been musically enticed into their Thraldom; If you yet farther consider the more than Decemvirall power which this Parliament hath assumed to itself, by repealing old Laws, and making Ordinances pass for new; If you yet farther will please to consider How much Heavyer that which some call Privilege of Parliament, hath been to the Subject, then that which they so much complained of. The King's Prerogative, so much heavyer, that if one deserved to be called a Little finger, the other hath swollen itself into a Loin, Lastly, if you compare Ship, money with the Excise, and the many other Taxes laid upon the Kingdom, you will not only find that a whip then, hath been heightened into a Scorpion now; but you will perceive, that as these are not the first Subjects who, under pretence of Liberty, have invaded their Prince's Crown, (so fare 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 Arms for the Liberty of his Subjects. Upon all which premises, Sir, I hope you will not think it false Logic if I build this Conclusion so agreeable to the Laws of the Kingdom, as well as the Laws of God; That supoosing the Parliament all this while to have fought, (as was at first pretended) for the Defence of their assailed Liberty; yet fight against the King whose Subjects they are, it can never before a Christian Judge, make their Armies pass 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 redressed) if S. Paul were now on earth again, and were the judge of this Controversy between them and their Lawful Sovereign, I fear he would call their Defence by a Name, which we in our Modern Cases of Conscience do call Rebellion.  
And thus, Sir, having as compendiously as the Laws 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 Legal power, in Defence of their Liberty, to take up Arms 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 War. The Terms of which Question being very general, and not restrained to any kind of Religion, or any kind of War, 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, lest I be thought to wander, and not to prove, It will first be necessary, that I define to you what Religion in general is; And next, that I examine, whether every Religion which falls within the Truth of that Definition may for the propagation of itself be a just cause of a War; 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 proofs taken from the Scripture;  
Religion then, (to define it in the nearest Terms) is says 
* 1. 2●. q. 60. ●. 3.  Aquinas, Virtus 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 four 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, than any Thing we see. Thirdly, that he hath a providence going in the World, and takes care of Humane affairs. Lastly, that he made and created the World. To every one of which four, answers a Commandment in the First. Table of the Decalogue. Where the first describes His Unity, 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 knows the Thoughts of men's Hearts; and his Justice, by which he inflicts punishments on those whose Thoughts are disproportioned to their Oaths and Words. The Fourth declares his Omnipotence, by which he created the World, and appointed the Sabbath to be the Feast and Memorial of that great Worke. From which speculative apprehensions of him do spring these practical, That being such a God thus known, He is to be Honoured, Loved, Feared, Worshipped, and Obeyed.  
Now since men's Religion, or Worship of God, cannot in reason be required to reach higher than 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 sin to be an Atheist) so if God had never made any second Revelation of Himself by the Scripture, but had left Mankind to their own Natural seareh of Him, and to those Discourses of their Minds, by which they inferred that such an orderly frame and systeme of thing, where every one works to the good and End of another, is too rationally contrived to arise from a concourse of Atoms, or to be the Creature of Chance, and therefore must have some Efficient Cause higher, and nobler than itself, (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 Book 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 very 
* Grot. l. 2. de Jure Belli ac pacis c. 20.  Learned Modern Writer, That if there should be found a Country 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 Emptiness 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, careless, 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 Natural 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 men's actions, and first or last sides with afflicted Innocence against successful Oppression, so they would be just Causes for a reforming War, Not only because they are contumelious & reproachful to God himself, 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 Commonwealths, will produce the same irregular effects) that he regards not men's Actions, nor troubles himself with the Dispensation of Rewards and Punishments, and the Doctrine of Carneades will presently pass for reasonable; That Utility is the measure of Right; And that he is most in the wrong who is least able to defend himself. That Justice in the virtue of Fools; and serves only to betray the simple and phlegmatic, to the more active and daring. In short, Take away providence, especially the two great parts of it, which reign in the Hearts of men, hope of Reward, and fear of Punishment, and men's worst Actions, and their best will presently be thought equal. Whereupon Laws, the Bonds of Humane Society, wanting their just Principle, which upholds them in their Reverence, will inevitably lose their force, and fall asunder; and Men will be Men to each other in nothing but their mutual injustice & Oppressions of one another. 'Twas therefore the politic observation of an Atheist in 
* Adu. Mathemat. p. 3.8.  Sextus Empiricus, That, to keep men orderly, and regular in a Commonwealth, wise men at first invented Laws, But perceiving that these, reaching only to their outward Actions, would never be well kept, unless they could find a way to a we their Minds within too, as a means conducing to that end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one more wise, and subtle than the rest, invented Gods too. Well knowing that Religion, though but feigned, is a conservative of States. upon consideration of which harmful consequences, which naturally follow Atheism, and the denial of God's providence, 'tis the opinion of that Author, that as 'twas no Injustice in those Grecian Cities, which banished Philosophers, who were of this Opinion, out of their Commonwealth, so if there should be found a Nation of such implous persuasions, '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 peaceableness of his Writings which decline all the ways of quarrel) that to err with him would be no disreputation to me, yet I must confess to you, that I am so fare from thinking any War made for the propagation of Religion, how true soever it be, is warrantable, that in this particular, I persuade myself I have some reason to descent from Him; and to think it a Problem very disputable, if his supposition were true, that there were such a Country 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 War upon them. For first, what should give them Authority to do so? Is't because men of this desperate persuasion do sin very grievously against God? Granting this to be true, to the utmost aggravation of their offence, that this speculative error in their Minds, draws a practical error 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 himself in another Paragraph, where he says, Deorum in●uria Dèis curae. That God is able to revenge the injuries committed against Himself. 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 Atheism, and the denial of providence do destroy) is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one, (nay one of the firmest) Bonds of Society, and supperters of Laws, yet I have not met with any demonstrative Argument, which hath proved to me, that there is such a necessary dependence 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 pass in the State, or Commonwealth, which is of this opinion among themselves; Not in a foreign State, or Commonwealth which is not. But since 'tis possible that a Country of Atheists may yet have so much Morality among them, seconded by Laws 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 fare, for mere utility and safeties sake, to observe the Law of Nations, as not to wrong or injure a People different from themselves, so where no civil wrong, or injury is offered by them to another People, but where the moral Bonds of Society, and commerce, though not the Religious, of Opinion, and Worship, are unbroken by them, for the People not injured to make War upon them, for a feared, imaginary consequence, or because, being Atheists, 'tis possible that their example may spread, is an Act of Hostility which I confess I am not able to defend.  
For thirdly, Sir, such a War must either have for its end, their punishment, or their Correction. Their punishment can be no true warrantable end, because towards those who shall thus make War upon them, they have not offended. Nor can their Correction Legitimate such a War. 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. unless we will allow, with that 
* Lib. 2. de jure belli & pacis c. 20.  Author, that because Natural reason doth dictate that Atheism 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 point, and others, as learned as he, have not thought fit to grant.  
It hath been a Question asked, 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 do answer negatively, that it is not. For though it be to be granted that among the several sorts and kinds of Idolatry, One is more Ignoble and irrational than Another; And so the offence towards God is greater or less 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 Dog or Crocodile, or Serpent, then to worship things of a Sublimer kind, namely the Sun, or heavenly bodies, or Souls 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 Himself, to be known or distinguished by, nor any plain Teacher but his Scripture to inform 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 gross material World which we see, wherever the Scripture hath not been heard of, if men (unable by the light of a Natural 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 War to correct it. First, because being only an Offence against God, and the Offenders being (as I said before) free, and no way subject to any People but themselves, Any foreign Nation (unless they can show the like Commission from God to punish them, as the Jews had to punish and root out the Canaanites) will want Jurisdiction, and Authority to their Arms. Next, because Idolatry, though it be a false Religion, is yet as conservant of Society (which distinguishes it very much from Atheism, and the denial of Providence) as if 'twere true. Nor can I see why He who worships many Gods, if he believe them to be Gods, should less fear punishment for his perjuries, or other Crimes, than He who only worships, and believes there is but one. Lastly, because though Idolatry be an Error in men, yet being an Error, without the light of Scripture to rectify it, hardly vincible in themselves, and no way criminal towards others of a more rectified Reason, 'Tis to be reform by Argument, and persuasion, not violence, or force. Since a War made upon the Errors of men's minds, is as unreasonable, as a War made upon the Freedom of their Wills.  
And for this last reason, I conceive that the propagation of Christian Religion, cannot be a just cause for a War upon those who will refuse to embrace it. First, because such a Refusal may possibly spring from an Error in the understanding, which even in a Preaching, and persuasive way would scarce be in the power of S. Paul himself, if he were on earth again (unless he would join Miracles to his Sermons) to dislodge. For though some parts of the New Law do carry such a Music 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 do not contradict it. are yet so unillustrable from the principles of Reason, that they cannot in a nature all way of Argumentation force assent. And you know, Sir, 'twould be unreasonable to make War upon men's persons for the reception of a Doctrine, which cannot convince their Minds. I must needs confess to you, should Christ now live in our days, and Preach much harder Doctrines than those in the Gospel, and should confirm every doctrine with a Miracle, as he did then, 'twould be an inexcusable piece of Infidelity in all those who should so his Miracles not presently to consent, and yield belief 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 proof, than the Faith, and general Report of Tradition and story; If any shall think they have reason not to believe such a report, they may also think they have no reason to believe such Miracles, and by consequence the Doctrine said to be confirmed by them. In short, Sir, the Gospel, at that very time when the Preaching of it was accompanied with Mivacles, obtained not always that success which the saving Doctrine of it deserved. The Jews says S. Paul 1. Cor. 1.22. Require a sign; that is, they would believe it no farther than they saw Miracle for it; And the Greeks' (That is, the learned Gentiles) seek after wisdom; 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 tells us at the 23. verse of that Chapter, that the vileness of Christ's death did so diminish the Authority of his Doctrine, though confirmed by Miracles, that the Preaching of Him crucified, was a stumbling block to the Jews, and Foolishness to the Greeks'. Next, Sir, As Christ hath no where commanded that men should be compelled to receive the Gospel by any Terrors or Inflictions of Temporal punishments, so I find that all such endeavours are very unsuitable to his practice. 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 son of man is not come to destroy men's 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 Gospel to several Cities. which extended no farther than 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 practice of Christ is that Canon which passed in the Council of 
* C. de judiciis dist. 45.  Toledo, which says, pracipit sancta Synodus Nemini deinceps ad credendum vim infer, 'Tis ordered by this holy Syned, that no man be henceforth compelled to believe the Gospel. A Canon, which I wish the men of the Country where 'twas made had worn in their Ensigns when they made War upon the Indians. And agreeable to this Canon, is the saying of Tertullian, Lex nova non se 〈◊〉 ultore gladio; The new Law allows not its Apostles to revenge the contempt of it by the Sword. And agreeable to this saying of Tertullian is that passage in 
* In Arcanâ Historiâ.  Procopius; where one tells Justinian the Emperor, that in striving to force the Samaritans to be Christians by the Sword, he made himself successor to the two over zealous Apostles, who, because they would not receive their Master, would have destroyed them by fire. This then being so, to deal 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 Infidels who are not of their Opinions, And whose usual language 'tis towards all those who differ from them in Points, though in themselves indifferent, and no way necessary to Salvation, 
* Luke 14.28.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Covenants, raise Armies, strip them of their Estates, and compel them to come in, me thinks a piece of the Alcoran is before me; and the Preachers of such unchristian Doctrines, though they walk our English streets in the shape of Assembly, Protestant Divines, seem to me to be a Constantinople College of Mahomet's Priests. To speak yet more plainly to you, Sir, I am so fare from thinking it a piece of Christian Doctrine, to Preach that 'tis lawful (if it may not be done by persuasion) 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 Englishmen by their Birth, will seem to me an Army of Mussellmen: and to come into the field with Scymitars by their sides, and Tulipants, and Turbans on their Heads.  
How fare Defensive Arms may be taken up for Religion, cannot well be resolved without a Distinction. I conceive Sir, that if such a war fall out between Two Independent Nations, That which makes the Assailants 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 rightful 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 believe 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 Authority, and Opinion built upon Authority, having so much of the Liberty of men's wills in it, that they may choose how fare they will, or will not believe that Authority, No man hath Right to take the Liberty of another man's will from him, or to prescribe to him what he shall, or shall not believe, 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 Subject to the Other, Religion itself, though for the propagation of itself, cannot warrant the One to invade the Others Freedom. But 'tis permitted to the Invaded, by both the Laws of God, that of Nature, and Scripture too, (unless they be guilty of some precedent Injury, which is to be repaired by Satisfaction, not seconded by Resistance) to repel Force with Force. And if the Army now in Conduct under Sir Thomas Fairefax be of this persuasion 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 War upon his Subjects for the propagation of Religion, the Nature of the Defence is much altered. For though sucha War (whether made for the Imposition of a false Religion or a true) be as unjust as if 'twere made upon a foreign Nation, yet this injustice in the Prince cannot warrant the taking up of Arms against Him, in the Subject. Because being the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Supreme within his own Kingdom, As all power concerning the public, secular Government of it resolveait self 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 Mahometan, or Papist, 'twould be disobedience in them not to be so too. But let his Religion be what it will; let him be a jeroboam, 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 duel with the Ordinance of God; which ceaseth not to be sacred as often as 'tis wickedly employed. Irresistibility being a Ray and Beam 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 Near, yet in his Office still remain God's 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 Doctrines as 'tis agreeable to the Scripture, and the practice of the purest, and most primitive times of the Church, so I find it illustrated by the famous example of a Christian Soldier, and the censure of a Father upon the passaage. This Soldier being bid to burn Inconse to an Idol, rcfused; But yielded himself to be cast into the fire. Had he, when his Emperor bid him worship an Idol, mutinied, or turned his spear upon him (says that Father) he bade broken the fift Commandment 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 himself a Sacrifice. I could, Sir, second this with many other Examples, but they would all tend to this one pious, Christian Result, that Martyrdom 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 Prelatical Court Faction, when he first Marched 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 its stead, yet unless he can prove to me, that from that time he actually ceased to be King, or the two Houses to be his Subjects, or (notwithstanding their two Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance) that in so doing he forfeited his Crown, and was no longer over all persons, and in all Causes as well Civil as Ecclesiastical within the circuit of his three Kingdoms supreme Head and Governor, I know no Arms which could lawfully be used against Him; but those which S. Ambrose used against an Arian Emperor, Lachrymas & Suspiri●, Sighs & Tears, and Prayers to God to turn his heart. And therefore, Sir, when your Friond doth next ask you, How it could stand with the safe conscience of any English Protestant, to stand an idle spectator, whilst Queen Marus days were so ready to break in upon him, that He was almost reduced to this hard choice, 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 die a Martyr, Nor am so much a Circumcelleo, as to court, or woo, 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 Heretic, as I should not have quarreled with the Power that condemned me, so I should have kissed my funeral pile; And should have thought it a high piece of God's favour to me, to call me to Heaven by a way so like that of his Angel in the Book of 
* c. 13.20.  Judges, who ascended thither in the Flame, and air, and presume of a Sacrifies.  
But what if this be only a Jealousy and suspicion in your Friend? Nay what if it have been the Disguise, and paint to some Ambitious men's designs, who, to walk the more securely to their dark and politic ends, have styled 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 sin, and die it in a deep scarlet, through all the progress of it. But because I rather desire to cast a mantle over their strange proceed, then to add to their Nakedness, which hath at length discovered itself to all the World, all that I shall say, to deliver so much Goodness from so much misrepresentation is this. That the report, (which at first poisoned the minds of so many Thousand well minded people) That the King had an intent, by this war, to destroy the Protestant Religion, could at most have no other parent but some men's either crafty Malice, or needless Fear, appears clearly in this, that after all their great Discoveries, they have not yet instanced in one considerable Ground fit to build more than a vulgar Jealousy upon. The King's affection to the Queen, His Alliance and confederacy with Popish Princes abroad, and the Gentleness of his Reign towards his Popish Subjects at home, being premises as unfit to build this Inference and conclusion upon, that, Therefore He took up Arms that he might introduce their Religion, as his in Aristotle were; who because it lightued when Socrates took the Air, thought that his walking caused that commotion in the skies. For that the Root and Spring of such a report, could be nothing but their own deluded fancy, they must at length confess, unless with their Faith they have cast off their Charity too. Let your Friend, Sir, read over any one of His Majesty's Declarations, and what sacred Thing is there by which he hath not freely and uncompelled, obliged and bound Himself to live, and die a Protestant? By what one Act have these many Vows 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 forbear 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 himself to be seduced by the malicious writings of those, who, for so many years, and from so many Pulpits have breathed Rebellion, and Slander with such an uncontrolled Boldness and Sting, that I cannot compare them to any thing so fitly as to the Locusts in the 
* Revel, 9  Revelation, which crept forth of the Bottomless pit; every one of which wore the Crown of a King, and had the Tail of a Scorpion. In short, Sir, If he have not so deeply drunk of the Enchanted cup, as to forget himself to be a Subject, let him no longer endanger himself to taste of their Ruin too, who, for so many years, have dealt with the best King that this Nation ever had, as Witches are said to deal with those whom they would by piece meal destroy, first shaped to themselves his Image in wax, then pricks, and stabbed 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 whither away in the Hatred, and Disaffection of his People.  
But, perhaps Sir, your Friend, and I, are not well agreed upon our Terms: If therefore he do once more strive to persuade 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 distinguished us from the Church of Rome? Doth he mean that Religion which so many Holy Martyrs sealed with their Blood, that for which Queen Mary is so odious and Queen Elizabeth so precious to our memories? Lastly. Doth he mean that Religion which is comprised in the 39 Articles, and confessed to be Protestant by an Act of Parliament? If these be the Marks, these the Characters of it, let him tell me whether this be not the Religion which the King in one of his 
* Cabinet Opened.  Letters to the Queen 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 Dross, from whence 'twas extracted, Any thing either essentially, or accidentally evil, 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 pass the fiery Trial 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 hid themselves under their old Tortoise-shell, and cry out, Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, They must not take it ill if I ask 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 Kingdom, ever since the time it was deprived of the Sanctuary it had taken under the King's 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 than a hundred years' superstition? Let them in Charity (as they are bound not to let us perish in our Ignorance) show us their Model. If it be more agreeable to the Scripture than Ours, have more of the white Robe, and not of the new invention; we may, perhaps, be their Converts; And their Righteousness meeting with out Peace may mutually Kiss 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 Book. These we, (not yet convinced to the contrary) do hold to be good Conservatives, but not Essentials, of that which we call the Pretostant Religion of our Side; Their Negation then, can be no true Essential 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 mean any Thing, or if this have not been the Disguise to a more dangerous secret) They mean the Defence of their New Directory, and their at length concluded Government of the Church by Presbyters. If this be their Meaning, (And truly if I should rack my Invention, I cannot make it find another) The Second part of that most Holy, and Glorious Cause, which hath drawn the eyes of Europe upon it, and rendered the Name of a Protestant, a Proverb to express Disloyalty by, That Pure, , Virgin, without spot 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 compelled to pass through the Fire, resolves itself into this  Bloody conclusion, That an Assembly of professed Protestant Divines, have advised the Two Parliaments of England and Scotland, confessed Subjects, to take up Arms against the King, their Lawful Sovereign, Have thereby set Three Kingdoms in a Flame, been the Authors of more Protestants slain in a Civil, then would have served to recover the Palatinate by a Foreign War, for nothing but this unnecessary novel, accidental Consideration, That the King (unless compelled by Forces) would never consent (〈◊〉 indeed without Perjury could) to the Change of an Ancient, Primitive, Apostolic, universally received Government of this Church by Bishops, for a new, upstart, Mushroom, calvinistical Government, by a Motley Presbytery, of Spiritual & 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.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Ordinance must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or a War made against God Himself. And the Authors of it (unless they repent, and betake themselves to a timely return to their Obedience) in danger to draw upon themselves this other, sad, tragical irresistible Conclusion, which St 
* V 2.  Paul tells us is the inevitable Catastrophe of Disobedience, which is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you may English it, swift Destruction.  
And thus, Sir (Though all weak 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 returned you a large Answer 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 think that I, in this 〈◊〉, have said more than Others. Only being so fairly invited by you to say something, to have remained silent, had been to have confessed myself 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 myself fortunate, if Any Thing which I have said in this Letter might make him a Proselyte. But this being rather my wish then my Hope, all the Success 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, than my Abilities are to deserve the stile of being thought worthy to be  
From my Chamber June 7. 1647. Your affectionate servant JASPER maine.