A REPLY UNTO SEVERALL TREATISES PLEADING FOR THE Armes now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of RELIGION AND LIBERTY By name unto The Reverend and Learned Divines which pleaded Scripture and Reason for defensive Arms. The Author of the Treaâ—ise of Monarchy The Author of the Fuller Answer his Reply By H. Fern D. D. c. OXFORD Printed by Leonard Lichfield Printer to the â—niversity 1643. The Contents of the severall SECTIONS SECT I. The Preface In which the contradictory Assertions of the Adversaries pag. 2 3. The Generall Resolution of the Cause pag. 4. Doctrine of Sedition pag. 5. 6. SECT II. Cases of Resistance in regard of times of peace or War and in regard of Persons Private or publique pag. 7. c. SECT III. A defence of Subjects Armes in vaine sought by the distinction of Monarchy pag. 11. 12. The Governing Power is so derived from God upon Him who is Supream that the People cannot lessen or limit it but onely in the exercise pag. 13 14. Of an Absolute and Limited Monarch pag. 15. Limitation and Mixture may be by after condescent of the Monarch and onely reach the Exercise of the power pag. 15. 16 17. Mixture differs from Derivation of Power to substitute Officers pag. 17. 18. Of Monarchy by Conquest pag. 18. Providence may so farre discover it selfe by Conquest that the People Conquered shall be bound to consent and yeeld obedience to the Conqueror as to a Prince set over them by God pag. 19. 20 SECT IIII. The Constitution of this Monarchy The Entrance of the Saxon and Norman Conquerours urged not to prove our Kings absolute but to disprove such an Originall Limitation and Mixture as the Adversary phansyeth in this Monarchy pag. 21. to 28. Reasons for such Originall Limitation and Mixture answered pag. 28. 29. Proofes for it from His Majesties Grants answered pag. 30. 31. 32. SECT V. Of Resistance in relation to an Absolute Monarchy pag. 33. 34. 35. in relation to a Limited Monarchy pa. 36. 37. 38. Limitation and Mixture in Monarchy doth not infer a power of Resistance in Subjects pag. 39. 40. c. SECT VI. A Refutation of the most considerable passages of His Reply that first styled himselfe Author of the Fuller Answer pag. 43. to 56. SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament The Institution of the Israelitish Kingdome in which the Jus Regis implyed a security from Resistance pag. 56 57 58 59. The Rescue of Jonathan pag. 60. Davids demeanour towards Saul infers not a power of resistance in Subjects pag. 61 62. His enquiry about the intent of the Kâ—ilites pag. 63. Something extraordinary in the example of David pag. 64 65. The Prophets never called upon the Elders of the People for this pretended duty of Resistance pag. 66. SECT VIII Of Resistance forbidden in the 13. to the Romans The place is considerable as it speakes of Government in Gener all and as it relates to those Times and Governours pag. 67 That it is Powers in the plurall and in the Abstract vainly observed and applyed by the Reverend Divines pag. 67 68 69. That Subjection is not here restrained to Legall Commands in Civill matters only as they would have it pag 69. to 77. That Christians might not resist because Religion then was not established by Law and because the Emperours then were Absolute as the Author of the Treat of Monarchy would have it is not the reason of the Apostles prohibition pag. 77. 78. Of the absolutenesse of those Emperours before Vespasians time and of the Power of the Senate and of the Lex Regia pag. 79 c. SECT IX Nine Reasons against Power of Resistance in Subjects drawn from the Consideration of the wisdome of God who put his people under Kings without power of Resisting them in the Old and New Testament pag. 84. Of the Ordinance of God that places the Power of the Sword in Him that is supreme which cannot be eluded by saying they resist not the Monarch but misimployed fellow Subjects about Him pag. 85. 86. 87. Of the mischiefes and inconveniences that would follow upon such a power of Resistance in Subjects c. pag. 90. 91. Their reasons to the contrary answered pag. 93. c. A brief consideration of the Case That they are far from what they pret nd the defence of Religion Laws and Liberties by these Armes and the Resistance now made pag. 96. 97. A REPLY TO SEVERALL TREAtises pleading for the Arms now taken up by Subjects in the pretended defence of Religion and and Liberties SECT I. THE PREFACE IF it be enquired why any Reply at all or why so late I may say I had determined not to be any more troublesome and that there was no just cause why I should be were it well weighed what was said on both sides but I must once again beg leave to say something the Importunity of Adversaries or the expectation of Friends enforcing it by way of Answer to some Books not long since issued forth There are two especially which have drawn the eyes of many upon them the one bears this title Scripture and Reason pleaded for defensive Armes by Divers Reverend and Learned Divines Who by laying their heads together have not found out any more forceable Arguments or satisfying Answers then they which went before them but only some newcases of Resistance to amuse the Reader and new instances to inforce former Reasons and some popular amplifications to set off the old Answers thereby making the book swell to that bignesse it appears in The other book bears this Title A Treatise of Monarchie by whom I know not but surely the Author however he looks not with a single eye upon what I had written misconstruing it many times doth with much ingenuity disclaime and with no lesse reason confute severall Assertions of those Learned Divines and other Writers of the Party assertions that have very much help't forward this Rebellion such as these That the King is Universis minor That the People which make the King are above Him by the Rule Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale That the finall judgement of this State is in the two Houses That the Christians in the Primitive times might have resisted had they had force These and the like he ingenuously disclaimes but being engaged he sets up his Rest upon a groundlesse fancy of such a mixture and constitution of this Monarchie as mustinable the Houses to restrain the exorbitancies of the Monarch by the Arms of the Kingdom and to induce a beliefe of this he has prefixed a discourse of Absolute Limited and Mixed Monarchies so framed as is most applyable to his purpose He that wrote the Fuller Answer to my first Treatise had this conceit of Mixture whereby he placed the Houses in the very Supremacy of power and did thence as one falshood being granted doth necessarily inferre another conclude that the Members of the Houses were the Kings Subjects divisâ—m
a King be distracted or bewitched or forced by such as have him Prisoner or otherwise a command upon him are Subjects bound from resisting His illegall commands pag. 2. Answ If it be cleare that a King is so I suppose it is cleare in Law what course is to be taken but being doubted onely as the case is put and that perhaps upon as little ground as some have endeavoured to make the People believe their King is now held Prisoner by his Cavaleires and forced to doe what he doth then the Safer way is to be taken which is to doe no more by way of resistance then is Lawfull to doe when it is cleare He is not Forced or distracted and that will better appeare by the Case following suppose it be certain a King is not forced or distracted yet doing as bad as any distracted person can doe by commanding Tyrannicall Acts why should His Subjects hands be bound frō resisting his followers offering to act His Tyranny more then if he were forced or distracted Pag. 2. Answ This is needlesse and odious and cannot concerne the Case in Question but by reflecting upon His Majesty but put this case of any King so doing I Answer 1. There is much difference twixt habituate distraction and actuall extravagances or Tyrannicall attempts for by that a Prince is not master of his Will and is made unfit to bear the Power i. the administration of it but by these he is not so 2. Because this falls in with the Case as it is propounded in better termes by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy whether the forceable resistance of inferiour Persons misimployed to serve the illegall destructive Commands of the Prince be unlawfull pa. 51. I answer if by those misimployed persons be understood the Commanders and Souldiers of the Kings Armyes I cannot see nor any man else I think but the resisting of them by a contrary Militia or Armes raised by Subjects is a resisting of the King and unlawfull and unto this Resistance the Case as I propounded it did relate and accordingly the first Resolution was That were the King what they supposed him to be there was no warrant for such resistance But if by those misimployed persons be understood other instruments of oppression in times of Peace before it come to Armes such as the pleaders for defensive Armes doe suppose in their last Case pag. 2. to have counterfeited the Kings Seal or Warrant and by it to Spoyle and Murther all the Kings faithfull Subjects if they be not resisted or such as the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth in his instances pag. 57. suppose indeed to have the Kings Seale or Warrant wherewith they might range through the Kingdome wasting and spoyling taxing and distraining yea might destroy the Members of Parliament as they sit in their Houses if they might not be resisted Ans For that of the counterfeited Seale it is not to the purpose if there be cause to doubt or suspect such a Seale there are undoubted Ministers of Power and justice to makestay of it till it be made known above as we see those dealt with that bring counterfeit Briefes and as some years agoe he that counterfeited a Commission for taking up Children for Virginia was staid by authority and brought to Iustice But suppose such instruments of oppression have indeed the Kings Seale and Warrant to Taxe Distreine c May not private men resist such in their murthering assaults and the Ministers of Power and Authority suppresse them in each County by Force I answer This is an enlarging of the Case which concernes the present resistance as now it is undertaken by Subjects with Armyes in the field Yet for farther satisfaction and without prejudice to that which clearly convinceth the present resistance as unlawfull I conceive it reasonable to say First if private men be suddainly assaulted in their Persons by such instruments without any foregoing pretence or reason as of Taxing Distraining Arresting so that their life is imminently indangered and no meanes of avoiding by slight then is personall defence Lawfull for such sudden assault carries no pretence of authority with it but if such misimployed instruments come first to Taxe Distraine Arrest as it is supposed private men ought not to resist and so draw on the endangering of life but to seek redresse above from Authority and if it may not be had yet not to resist Secondly If the Ministers of Power in each County doe at first stay restrain and commit such mis-imployed instruments and so represent the matter again to the King if the two Houses of Parliament also deale in like manner with those that by virtue of any such Warrant should notoriously trespasse upon them this is not to resist for here is only a desire of informing the King aright not a will of contending with him if he will not be of another mind Now as the pleaders for defensive Armes say pag. 2. The Law supposing the King can doe no wrong supposeth wrong may be done in His name and therefore teacheth the Ministers of Power and Iustice under him to presume such illegall Warrants and surreptitiously or by fraud procured and so at first to make stay of such mis-imployed instruments and to bring the matter again to the knowledge of the King Secondly Should a King be so obstinate as to perfist in the maintenance of those illegall courses and to that end imployed the Militia or power of Armes wherewith he is invested it is neither Legall nor Reasonable that the Ministers of power under him should pursue the opposition to the setting up of a Militia or contrary power to the introducing of a Civill Warre For though such Ministers of Power ought to use all faire and Lawfull means for the restraining of such mis-imployed instruments and it is not for me to set bounds how farre they may proceed in preserying the Kings Peace by using that Power against mis-imployed Persons yet surely they cannot proceed so farre as to a contestation of Power with Him whose Ministers they are much lesse to a Levying of Warre as at this day and an apposing of Armies against Armies This is the Resistance supposed in the Case and in this Case to resist the Kings Forces is to resist Him SECT III. Severall kinds of Monarchy IN the next place we are called to a consideration of the severall kinds of Monarchicall government that it may appeare whether in any of them this Resistance by force of Armes may find allowance or otherwise The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy observing there was but little pretence from Scripture either by precept or Example for Resistance confesseth that the Kings under which the People of God were in the Old and New Testament might not be resisted and therefore layes all the defence of Resistance upon reason drawn from the severall condition of an Absolute and of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy For which purpose he spends the first part of his book in
in his first Treatise that he wonalted we cannot see the King is Vniversis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse then all three Upon this I call'd him again to his reckoning telling him that if the King and Lords concurre and the Commons refuse it is easy to reckon that of three one is lesse then two repeating his words so not for any advantage but meerly to make him speake sense he because he cannot answer the retortion complaines of wilfull and grosse mistake of his words which were saith he that of three one is lesse then all three i. e. a part then the whole But is that your meaning of Rex est Vniversis minor i. e. the King alone is lesse then the King Lords and Commons together who cannot see that the Comparison is between the King and the other two and that in your rule of three Coordinates if one refuse there remaines but two to make the supply and that thereupon you should have said if you would speake sence that of three one is lesse then two I have heard Children when their disorderly Babies have beene taken from them and presently returned them again in frame and order complaining because they received them not as they parted with them so doth this Answerer of the putting his words into sense Let us now see how in the same Section he answers for the Kings danger at Keinton Battell Aâ— in the making of Lawes saith he the King presence or absence alters not the case so in the executing of the Lawes against Delinquents the Kings presence can no more hinder then his command Answ His presence or absence does not indeed in the making Lawes but his Consent is all which he may give either present or absent but will you for the Executing of the Lawes take armes without his consent and use them too against him personally present or wil you say that your giving him battell at Keinton was an executing of the Lawes against Delinquents produce your Law that enables you to such a proceeding against your pretended delinquents Nor were the hands of the Parliaments Army lifted up against the King more then Davids whom the Doctor cites who resisted his and the kings enemies though about the kings person ibid. Ans It doth not appeare where David did make that resistance but it is the unhappinesse of these men to ground all their resistance upon false suppositions first they suppose David would have done it then they positively set downe that he did it thence they conclude they may doe it and acccordingly have done it and much more The rest of this Section he thought good neglecting what was rationall in mine to spend in naming Delinquents in Yorkeshire for whose apprehension and the bringing of them to Justice the Parliament tooke Armes Answ All those examples of Delinquents followed their putting of armed men into Hull their seizing the Magazine there their denying the King enterance their denying eo bring Sir Iohn Hotham to Justice and in these if any Delinquents were detained and protected from their justice as he complaines he may read the carse of it But these are matters of Fact we are now upon the point of Reason In his sixt Section he altogether neglects the cases which were put him upon his placing the finall resolution of this States judgement in the two Houses and onely fastens upon that which was spoken occasionally concerning Conquest First for his Answer touching the Ammonites subdued by David That Abrahams posterity was entituled to their Land by God Gen. 13.14 I would desire him to looke into Deut. 34.4 where the Lord gives Moses a sight of that promised Land saying This is the Land which I sware to Abraham c and to examine whether he can find the Land of the Ammonites in that prospect And surely if the Ammonites had been of the Inhabitants of that Land David would not have held league and frienship with them as we see he does 2 Sam. 10. Next for Davids subduing of Edom he answers The Doctor himselfe confesseth they revolted from Judah What then had they been before under Iudah and upon their Revolt subdued by David then indeed it had been not a Conquest but a Reduction but the Doctor confesses they revolted from Iehoram Ring of Judah 2 Chro. 21. therefore they were justly subdued or reduced that must be his inference by David 1 Chron. 18. doth he know what he saith But God had given Israel saith he a speciall promise for it too over Edom will I cast my shooe Psal 60.8 Answ This Psalme was made upon that very expedition in which Edom was subdued as appeares by the title of it and were those words spoken by the Spirit of Prophecy yet doe they not make a grant but only speak the successe of that enterprise which then was undertaken Nor had the Romans any right over Iudaea by Conquest saith he but by consent of the People Conquered without which consent all his Momenta temporum he speaks of to make a right or title are like those Moments of the Papists Antiquitie to make a Truth Ans We finde the Iewes confederate with the Romans 1. Mac. 8. and not long after their Subjects brought under by Pompey we cannot think they changed their condition willingly but that their consent was forced by the Conquerour Conquest then wil easily command that which will give it Title in these mens opinion And though no antiquity can make falshood Truth yet are there Momenta temporum when providence which translates Kingdomes and can give Title to the Conquerour doth discover it selfe and then the Conquered People ought to consent to and receive the Government which the Conquerour settles among them â—â—e above at the end of the third Sect. where the Title of Conquest is examined There is nothing in his seventh Sect. worthy of the Readers patience in hearing it refuted onely hee makes shew of some Statutes which truly I could not find nor was there cause why I should bestow much time in seeking them for a litle Logick will serve to discerne that the words he cites out of them will not inferre any conclusions prejudiciall to his adversary His last and eight Section concernes Scripture he mutters some thing in it concerning Davids fighting against Saul and the absolutenesse of the Iewish Kings which shall be distinctly and largely considered in my next Section And for the new Testament he turnes his Reader over to the interpretation which the Reverend and learned Divines having given on the 13th to the Romans and which he so farre magnifies that he beelieves the Doctor will not reply in haste so he concluds his booke and he shall see he had cause so to believe when we come to the consideration of that place SECT VII Places of Scripture out of the Old Testament NOw wee come to the examination of what is alleadged out of Scripture in this cause whereby it will appeare that
taken severally not conjunctim as they are gathered together in their Houses for indeed how could they be His Subjects and He their supreame Head if they be fundamentally mixed or joyned with Him in the supremacie of power The Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see that this was repugnant to Law and Reason and therefore doth acknowledge them to be subjects conjunctim under the King as their Supreame Head yet being engaged he holds the ground upon which that absurd assertion is raised affirming and endeavouring to prove that the Mixture is in the supremacie of power pag. 40. How then will he make the King supream and they His Subjects for this he gives the King Apicem potestatis the top or Excellency of Power that is the King is the Crown or top of the head but the two Houses must be our head too and our Soveraignes if they be joyned with the King in the very Supremacy of power and so the matter will be well mended Again The Full Answer did from the same false supposed mixture inferre that the finall Resolution of this States judgement resided in the two Houses when the King refuseth to discharge His trust for the safety of the Kingdom the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy did see and confesse that it plainly overthrowes the Monarchy to place such judgement in the Houses Yet being ingaged He gives them power to take the Armes of the Kingdom but least they should seem Authoritatively to Iudge or command in that case they must declare and make the appeale to the Community as if there were no government and as men are in Conscience convinced they are bound to give aid and assistance so he pag. 8. 29. and elsewhere A ready way to confusion but of these and such like contradictory conceits of the Assertors of Resistance more below Of this Mixture there was not a little spoken in my Reply to the Full Answer but this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy and Reverend Divin's take notice only of my first Treatise Having therefore made some short Animadversions upon their Bookes as they came to my hand I still wayted to meet with something directly against the Reply but as yet have seen nothing besides two trifling Answers the one a wild discourse by whom written I know not but by such a flirting phansy I am sure that he who reads one part will not cast away his time upon the rest the other by him that stiled himselfe Author of the Fuller answer still like himselfe if he can be but witty or fasten a seeming contradiction upon his Adversary it is enough what he has materiall about the Mixture of Government which is the whole businesse of his book is more accurately delivered and urged by this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy yet because he is extreamly confident I shall bestow a Section upon him below and that is more then he deserves Therefore what the Reverend Divines or the Author of this Tract of Monarchy have drawn from Scripture or Reason to justify their grounds of Resistance I shall briefly examine after that I have declared my intent at first and my purpose now of proceeding in this Argument It was the intent of that first Treatise of mine to resolve the Consciences of misled People Touching the unlawfulnesse of Armes now taken up against the King and because Conscience if it resolve for them must conclude upon these premises Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for defence of Religion and Liberties apparently in danger of Subversion But such is the case now and must be certain of the truth of both of them for if either of the premises be false or doubtfull Conscience is misguided in the conclusion therefore the whole Resolution of the case was to this purpose as here it lyes ope to the sight in these two assertions First Were the case so as they suppose that is Were the King as they would have people believe seduced to proceed in a way tending to the subversion of Religion and Liberties it were not safe to bear part in the Resistance of Armes now used against him there being no warrant for taking Armes upon such a case but evidence against it both from Scripture and Reason So that at the best the case can be even to them that plead for resistance no better indeed then doubtfull and then Conscience according to its two Rules what is not of Faith is Sin and in doubtfull cases the SAFER WAY is to be chosen will tell them they should forbeare and suffer rather then resist for they may be sure that is a SAFE WAY were the King indeed what they suppose him to be Secondly Seeing the case is not so as they suppose nor is it so with the King as they would have the People believe but most apparent that He is constrained to take Armes for the defence of His just Rights and the Protection of His Subjects Every man may be clearly perswaded in Conscience that the Resistance now made is unlawfull and damnable and that he is bound not only to forbear from resisting but also to assist His Majesty in so just a cause The contrary Resolution which concludes That it is Lawfull upon such a case supposed to take Armes that the Case is now I doubt not to call a Blaspheaming of God and the King Of God in charging such an imputation upon his Word as if it taught Subjects to take Armes for the defence of Religion and Liberties against their naturall Soveraigne Of the King in casting such aspersions upon His Majesty as if He were seduced to the subversion of Religion and Liberties Now although His Majesties Cause be justified not so much by the falshood of this their Principle and ground of Resistance it is lawfull in such a Case to take Armes as by the clearnesse of His innocency He being farre from what they suppose or proclaime of him to be Yet because the very seeds of Rebellion are sowne upon that ground and there cannot want either made pretences to bring them forth or Fears and Jealousies to cherish and ripen them it is needfull to shew that as Rebellion is not a plant of Gods sowing so neither is that ground a Truth of His Laying The Author of the Fuller Answer in his late Reply Pag 27. 28. imputes the beginning of this controversie whether Subjects upon such a Case may take Armes to my first unhappy and unchallenged Treatise as he calls it which has exposed the other party to a necessity of a Reply and caused so much to be said especially by Divines in this sad and unwelcome subject So he These men are loath to bee called to account for what they say or doe as if they were the very rule of Justice and Truth They have Preached and Printed this seditious doctrine over and over welneere a twelve month before that unhappy Treatise was published thereby perswading the People into Armes under pretence of defending their
people see above towards the end of the fifth Section that Limitation of the Monarchs power inferres not a power of Resistance in Subjects He addes to the same Reason If a Prince be taught that hee may take what he pleaseath from His Subjects without being resisted cases and reasons will soone be brought to perswade him c. pag. 53. Answ He is not taught he may Lawfully doe so but if Subjects be taught that they may lawfully take Armes upon such or such cases and take from their fellow Subjects what they please to maintaine those Armes pretences and cases will not be wanting as at this day In a word some must bee finally trusted when all is done and who may better challenge it then the Supreame Governour that stands next to God above the People as was said above in the fourth Reaâ—on and it were fit we should for the redresse of Evills in Government trust God and depend upon his providence more then these men would have us Hâ—s third Reason Eccause such power is due to a publicke State for its preservation as is due to a particular person pag. 55. Answ The Proposition is not universally true but is thus farre granted such power is due to a State for its preservation as is allowed by the just Lawes thereof for as the body Naturall defends it selfe from outward force by its Law so the body Politique by its Law Now though a particular person by the Law of nature has power of selfe preservaâ—ion against the force of another private person yet is this power yeelded up in regard of the Civill power by the benefit of which particular persons have protection from the injuries of all other and not to be used against persons indued with such power against such persons illegally and suddainly assuiting a man where tâ—e danger is imminent and unavoydable by flight there was no more allowed in my first Treatise then a meere personall dâ—fence by warding of blowes without returning any yet doth this Author complaine The Doctor is so heavie a friend to the State that he thinkes it not sit to allow it that Liberty he gives every private man pag. 55. As the Liberty which this Author allowes a State for its preservation tends rather to its suoversion so are there many differences between it and the Liberty or power allowed to private men For first That power of preservation which is allowed to a private man against a private man is against an our ward force but this which is challenged for the State is by a Civill contention of the body against the Head or of other part of thâ— body against the Head and another part of the body 2. That defence which was allowed against Ministers of Power in their unavoydable assaults was without all offâ—nee but this defence by Armies which is challenged for the State cannot be so 3. That power of defence is such as nature hath endued every particular man with and the law of the Society hath not forbidden so farre forth as was said to be used but this is such a power as no Law enables Subjects to a taking and using of the Sword without warrant as hath bin often shewn 4. Such neere personall defence is not destructive of Order but this by the civill contention of the Head and body is as at this day The Pleaders for Defensive Armes make a long reply to that which in my first Treaâ— was spoken concerning this personall defence the substance of it is First though the body naturall can doe nothing against or without the guidance of the Head yet the Body Politique can being a company of Reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their Head Pag. 14.15 Answ They are Reasonable men but as they make up the body politique the Law is their Reason and they cannot move or act further then it directs them nor can they divide themselves from the Head to which the Law joynes them nor of themselves performe the supreame Acts of Power belonging to the Head 2. It is granted the body Politique may defend it selfe against an outward force then suppose the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Kingdome may we resist Pag. 15. Answ I determine nothing of their supposition which I hope will never come to passe but they should have considered when the Doctor said the Body politicke defends it selfe against an outward force liâ—â—e as the body naturall doth hee did not take the body politick divided from the Head as it is in the civill Contention 3. The Doctor supposeth the Prince bent to subvert Religion Liberties Lowes what greater destruction of Order can be feared by such antention or resistance Pag. 15.16 Answ What was meant by that supposition hath bin often explained the Prince bent or seduced to subvert i. e. doing many acts arbitrarily which of themselves tend to subversion but indeed the Frame of Government Laws cannot be subverted without the consent of the two Houses It may happen that actuall invasions may be made upon them and it is plain that such had better be borne with and other lawfull and reasonable remedies sought then to endeavour a forcible redresse by a Civill Contention for under such actuall invasions of the Subjects Rights nay under the greatest Tyranny there is more Order Law and Justice then under such civill discords and Warres as was fully evinced above by the 7. and 8. Reasons The fourth Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy is grounded upon that false supposall of the two Houses being joyned with the King in the very Soveraigne Power pag. 55. which was at large examined above His last reason is from the Power of inferiour Courts where the Judge it to proceed to the Censure and punishment of the Malefactor notwithstanding the Kings Warrant to the contrary much rather may the assaults of pâ—tvate men be resisted by the Parliament pag. 56. Answ The Aâ—gument from the processe of inferiour Courts to sentence and punishment or from the Parliaments power to resist and commit such private men assaulting them is altogether inconsequent to prove their power to raise Armies and by them to oppose the Forces of their Soveraigne which is the resistance supposed in the Question and condemned as unwarrantable by al that hath hitherto bin spoken from the Constitution of this Governement from Scripture and from Reason And all this that hath bin spoken hitherto belongs to the Resolution of the first Question That it is not lawfull for Subjects upon the supposed Caâ—e of the Princes subvâ—rsive Exorbitances to take Armes and resist as at this day The other should follow that the Case supposed is not now or That they have no those Causes for their Armes which they pretend But of this there hath bin so much said in so many Declarations and Bookes written to informe the world aright that I need not be any longer troublesome onely I would desire the Reader upon their pretending the defence of the established Religion and Lawes by these Armes to consider First that they cannot say another Religion is commanded or enforced upon them only they will say they fear a change I would to God that all offences which the liberty of these unsetled times has produced were taken out of the way but was there ever any before these Times so desperare as to maintaine Subjects might fight against their Soveraigne for a Religion they freely enjoy only because they fear a prevailing of the Contrary And if the Reader doe consider that this Army which pretends the defence of the Established Religion besides some Trâ—â—â—es of Forreiners and Papists and some Bands of unwilling Prest-men has its chiefe strength from the prevalency of such Sects as are condemned by Lawes of this Land he may well cry out in the words of the Homily above cited What Religion is it that such men would by such meanes maintaine A franticke Religion needes such furious Maintenances as is Rebellion II. They cannot but say that the continuance of the established Religion and of the Governement of Church and State together with a just Reformation of all abuses has bin offered promised protested for by their Soveraigne â— but this will not content them unlesse the established Liturgy may be abolished the Governement of the Church by Bishops which has alwayes bin may be no more and the Power which by Law is his Majesties put into their hands And because these are not granted their Armes are continued and for the mainteining of them the Liberty and Property of their fellow Subjects is invaded So that if the Question bee put who are those misimployed fellovv Subjects that these men pretend to fight against It is plaine they are such as defend their Soveraignes Povver and Rights the Established Religion and Governement of this Church and State their ovvne property and Liberty in a vvord such as vvill not change their Soveraigne or the Established Frame of Government The God of povver and Wisedome cast out all Councels and defeat all designes that are against the restoring of our peace and the continuance of the true Reformed Religion Amen FINIS