〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least in some cases But the second Question What is ment by higher Powers will cleare in what cases either of these is required By the higher powers then is meant all civill legall Authority which in St. Peters phrase is of the King as Supreame or governour for these are higher then the people though lower then the King but it is to be observed that the word is in the abstract powers which notes the authority wherwith the person in authority is legally invested and not the person in the concrete least that might be understood of his personall commands without or beyond or even against his Authority Which conceit the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using the word Power which he doth also all the while he treats of this matter except only that once he names Rulers v. 3. 2. It is to be observed that the things about which the authority and so the subjection in this place is conversant are civill matters belonging to the second Table between man and man Not that I deny Magistrates to have Authority to command things belonging to the first Table and that subjection is due to them in such commands concerning Religion so that it be according to the will of God But I say that this is to be fetcht from other Texts rather then this My reason is because the Roman Magistrates of whom properly the Apostle speakes were so farre now from commanding things for Religion that they commanded things against Religion and the first Table and therfore certainly the active subjection at least here required is limited to civill matters 3. And now that so much as I have said is required active Obedience to legall civill Authority to all Magistrates in their legall commands in civill matters or at least passive yeelding to the penalty of the Laws in case of not obeying actively and neither further then to legall commands of legall Authority appeares by the Apostles reason in this 1. verse For there is no power but of God which he redoubles in a second phrase The powers that be are ordained of God or under God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every soule must be under their order which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they all are ordered by God under him his deputies and vicegerents in their order and degree higher and highest This is true of all powers and therefore to all must subjection be performed And to none hath God ordered or ordained any Authority but legall Which as none will deny no not the Doctor himselfe of other Governours besides the supreme So can none with reason affirme that any hath more authority then the Laws whether speciall or generall written or unwritten have allotted them Which Lawes God ratifies being not against his and so the Authority according to them And this our Doctor also confesses in sence in mâ—re places then one of his Booke for active Obedience that no more is due but according to the Lawes of God and the establisht laws of the Land Only he argues for passive obedience beyond this every where 1. Because he argues against resistance even of Tyranny But in a word to refute this from the Apostles reason in the first verse If I be bound to be subject to tyranny or to suffer violence of a tyrant by vertue of the commandement here Then tyranny is the Ordinance of God or Magistrates have power ordained of God to use tyrannous violence for thus the Apostle argues for subjection from Gods ordaining the power But this is false Ergo so is that that I should be bound to suffer tyrannous violence And now if this be the true and whole meaning of the precept in the first verse It will not be hard to cleare the meaning of the prohibition and threatning in the second verse which runnes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever therefore resists or carries himselfe disorderly against the power or opposes the power resists or sets himselfe against the Ordinance or order appointed of God and they that resist or so set themselves against man and God both shall receive to themselves Damnation Now here we are to resolve two Questions 1. What resistance is 2. Who or what may not be resisted 1. Resistance is contrary to subjection as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this also the word Therfore notes For it shews that the sin of Resistance is a transgression of the duty of subjection It is then two-fold either in not obeying commands or in not suffering penalties He that is wilfully and obstinately disobedient to some commands is by the Apostles scope and by the consent of all interpretours that handle it fully a Resister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he never offer to take up Armes but yeelds to suffer any penalty A man that refuses to answer at the Law he shall be outlawed he that refuses to yeeld possession shall have a Writ of Rebellion out against him he that refuses to put himselfe upon a legall tryall at his arraignement shall be pressed to death as a most obstinate resister of authority and so in many other cases Or secondly Resisting is in not suffering penalties resisting by force and even by Armes This is one kind of resisting and the worst kind against a lawfull power but what it is our second Question is to determine which againe breakes it selfe into two What is the power that may not be resisted and who In both the former verse may and must guide us as the word power repeated and the conjunction therefore and the mention of Gods Ordinance the third time assures us 1. Then what is the power that may not be resisted The legall authority of the Magistrate or the Magistrate legally commanding according to his authority For as the subjection reaches to this and no further So the sinfull resistance extends to this and is by it limited because Gods Ordinance hath confirmed all this and no more Only upon the change of the phrâ—se and not saying he that is not subject but he that resists the Spirit of God seemes to favour in some cases a simple not obeying and will not charge that with resisting Gods Ordinance Namely in such Laws as being of an inferiour nature may be generally good to be made and kept Yet to some persons in some cases so extremely inconvenient as the penalty according to man is much rather to be châ—sen then the practise of that Law in that case Now in such a case as our Divines generally use to say that obedience may be forborne to many civill Laws Extra casum scâ—ndali the Holy Ghost seemes to favour I say the not obeying and only charges guilt upon a not submitting to the penalty which is undeniable resisting But I say againe that by all the foregoing context and the reason from Gods Ordinance in the second verse The prohibition of blaming of resistance go's no further then of legall commands of legall authority The Doctor
doe all they doe that so they may prevent and restraine the designed tyranny Fiftly Yet I have one thing more to alleadge supposing the power of calling and dissolving wholly in the King ordinarily yet there may be such power in them so long as they doe sit to command Armes to bee rais'd for the suppressing of any Delinquents maintaining themselves with Armes even under the colour of the Kings Authority which I thus make good If there be any such kind of Power in the very Judges in their Courts at Westminster for the whole Kingdome and in their severall Circuits for the Shires they sit in although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will meerly and put out ordinarily at his pleasure and they can neither keepe Assizes at any time nor keep any Terme any where but when and so long as the King pleases to give Commission if I say there be such a power in the Judges and even in one of them then much more in the whole Parliament which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest Judicature in the Kingdome and hath most power during their sitting Now that such a kinde of power is in the Judges I appeale to experience in the case following A private man hath a suite with the King about Land or House and the like The King hath possession and some Officer or Tenant of his holds it for the King The Judges having heard the Cause give Sentence for the Subject adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the Kings Tenant or Officer he refuses and armes himselfe to keep possession still Upon this after due summons and processe of law a Writ of Rebelliâ—n shall goe out against the Officer of the Kings even though he should pretend to keepe possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriffe shall be commanded to raise Armes even the whole posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment from resisting the Kings auâ—hority in his Lawes Here now is raising Armes by the Kings legall Authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer haâ—h a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall bee punisht by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence Aâ—ke the Lawyers whether in sense â—his be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King doth not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not The Parliament then may in the case of necessity raise Armes against the Kings personall Command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all And this by the Kings legall Authority and the resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the Instruments so imployed Legally though with Armes by the Parliament If the Doctor now or any for him will retort upon me as he thinks what I said before that if this be granted a King intending Tyranny will not call a Parliament or if he have called it he will straight dissolve it as soone as they attempt any thing against his mind REPL. I reply he will doe so indeed if hee can perswade the people by the Doctors Divinity or Law to endure him and his followers to take away their Goods and doe what else he list and they for want of a Parliament called or sitting dare not defend themselves at all But if hee find that they believe no such Doctrine but without dispute of Law or Consciences resolve rustically not to be robbed of their goods at pleasure or used like meere slaves but that they will defend themselves and somwhat they begin to doe and beat away or kill some that come to take their goods away in such illâ—gall manner he may then be glad to call a Parliament to quiet the People who perhaps also may begin to mutiny by troopes and be willing to sacrifice perhaps some of his Followers unto them as â—mpâ—oâ— and Dudley were in the beginning of H. the 8. though they proceeded with colour of the penall Lawes and even to provide for his owne Maintenance as 〈◊〉 â— In such a case some against his will cal'd a Parliament Anno of his Reigne And that it may be he will not he dares not hearken to those that would perswade him to dissolve it because then hee should bring all confusion besides want upon himselfe againe which was Hen. the Thirds Case Anno. Therefore I conclude that the Parliament as I said before may have this power and upon advantage of the Kings necessities and Peoples not enduring oppression be able to exercise it even though they meet not but at the Kings will and are dissoluble at his pleasure And so I have said enough of this Section except onely that I must note that in the close of it he either thinks those he hath to doe with Parliament and all grosse fooles or else he shewes himselfe extreamly simple in reckoning up the remedies of Tyrranny though he love not to use so harsh a word but we must when hee hath stated the Case for us of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The denying of subsidies and ayd c. If hee meane in Parliament such a Prince never meanes to call any If out of Parliament this is the grievance that he takes it against Law by Ship-moneys and Monopolies and Imposts and any way and if they deny it themselves are fetcht up by the Pursevants and put in prison and for not executing such illegall commands Fined at pleasure halfe or all their Estates and perhaps starved in prison or little better Kept so close that they fall sicke and dye Nay if the Prince proceed to command his Souldiers or Officers to kill without delay any â—hat shall deny Subsidie or Ayd though never so illegall Hath not then the Doctor propounded a goodly remedy of Tyranny to deny him Subsidy and Ayd As if to quench a house a fire hee should send for a paire of Bellowes to blow a coole breath Let him now consider whether hee uttered those words in scorne or in policie and with what science or skill in common Reason not to say in Politicks and so with how truely an informed conscience he deales justly between the King and the People We have yet some further strength of his reason to examine in the next Section Of which now SECT V. IN this Section hee propounds this Reason as alleadged for the peoples Power that else the State should not have meanes for its owne safety when c. REPLY This Reason we acknowledge ours and considering what a State is a Body composed of many thousands who by themselves or their Ancecestors set up a King over them for their safety and good this Reason is as much Reason as any thing can be betweene Man
Question whether deceitfully or being himselfe deceived by his own strength of fancy against resistance and builds without a foundation For will it prove that S. Paul forbids resisting by Armes a tyrant Because Nero was then a tyrant Unlesse there were nothing else that could be cold resisting the higher power but resisting by Armes He that should have wilfully and obstinately refused the just Laws of the Roman State had resisted the higher powers in S. Pauls meaning as the whole context and all interpreters shew What is this then to inferre a prohibition of resisting tyranny by Armes It inferres indeed or includes principally resistance of lawfull commands by Armes But how comes tyranny in because forsooth Nero was a tyrant Rep. But his authority according to the Laws of which alone the Apostle speakes was not tyrannous The Argument therefore is wholy inconsequent and fallacious from legall commands to tyrannous violence And that the Apostles context proves abundantly notwithstanding his pretended answers of Objections But heare him 1. Therefore If any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against resistance in the 3 4 and 5 verses For Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evill and he is the Minister of God to thee for good REPLY That Rulers so long as they are not a terror to the good but minister for our good are not to be resisted The consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good just c. REPLY This still labours of the fallacie that Rulers and Powers signifie the personall commands of the supreame onely once here ere he is aware he names powers in the plurall which the Apostle forbids to resist But I say as often It onely signifies the legall commands of Authority whether supreame or subordinate Secondly though Nero was a Tyrant yet were not all his Magistrates and Officers so nor hee himselfe in all matters perhaps not at all when S. Paul writ this he had his Quinquiennius and it may possibly fall within the Quare unto those which were legall which were the greater part that concern'd Christians It was forbidden to make resistance and the Dr. hath said no word to prove yet that the prohibition extends further 2. Hee makes a Second Objection that some say that prohibition was temporay and fit for those times To which he makes 2 Answers 1. That this is a new excâ—ption never heard of I thinke but these times REPLY I have not in my Reading observ'd any to make such an exception and doe readily yeeld to him that so to put of the Apostles prohibition is a sencelesse and presumptuous shift But I must encounter his second Answer Which is That the Reasons of the Prohibition in his sense of resisting Tyranny by armes are perpetuall verse 3.4 5.6 REPLY I have formerly shewed the contrary and that all the reasons fight against his sence But he will prove it From that order that good for which the powers are ordained of God which will be of force as long as there is Government and will be alwayes reasons against resistance because resistance though it be made against abused powers as then they were doth tend to the dissolution of that Order for which the power it selfe is set up by God by which also the other distinction of theirs is made void when as they reply they think acutely That they resist not the power but the abuse of the power REPL It is granted by him that the state of the Quest is when a Prince is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties I would then faine know what order or good will then be in force when these are subverted And whether this Tyrant that attempts to subvert these intends not to dissolve that Order for which his power and himselfe were set up of God And how then the Apostles reasons can possibly reach to forbid resistance to such attempts or practises I will instance in foure Commandements of the second Table which the Roman Lawes in those times were conservators of as much as any Nations in the world except Gods people of Israel the 5 6 7 8. Com Suppose Nero gathers together a Company of dissolute young men and with this guard or band enters into severall houses encourages those children that were willing to be so wicked to abuse Father and mother from thence they goe to the Market-place and kill any they meet and have quarrell with then they catch mens Wives and ravish them before their Husbands faces and after that rob the rich mens houses at their pleasure I demand now what greater or equall dissolution of that Order for which the power is set up of God can be imagined Or how the not resisting such a Tyrant can with common sense be inferred from those sentences Rulers are not a terror to good workes but to evill and he is the minister of God to thee for good What is this but to call good evill and evill good Which the woe against which our Doctor would scarre men from resisting tyrranny in his title Page resistance of such an one then is so farre from dissolving of order as there is no meanes under heaven to keep order from being dissolved in such case but resistance Secondly whereby it will appeare also how void his confidence is that by his former words he hath made void the distinction betweene the power and the abuse of the power himselfe hath granted and cannot in conscience deny that though the Prince is to be actively obeyed when he commands lawfull things yet not when hee commands against the Lawes of GOD or even the establisht Lawes of the Land hee then distinguishes acutely hee thinks betweene the power and the abuse of the power Why is it not as lawfull for us in the second verse so to distinguish upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as for him in the first verse upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or if it be not he must give us a better reason then he hath yet And till then I againe make bold to tell him that all the Apostles Argument v. 3 4 5 6 7. justifies our distinction and refuse his interpretation Another Objection he makes against hmselfe is That some say the Emperours then were absolute Monarks and therfore not to be resisted he answers They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily which should have according to the principles of those dayes beene a stronger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarks was it not by force and change of Government And was not the right of the Senate and people good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crowne descending by three Conquests REPL. 1. This Objection is needlesse and so shall be none of mine Also it is a nicety
better keeping all in due Subjâ—ction and Order This Major makes Lawes directly against the Kings against the King himselfe offers to sweare the people to another King Are not those Lawes then Null and his Authority Nuâ—l so farre forth or can it be thought that because the King commands subjection to the Maior and forbids to resist him as long as he rules by the Kings Lawes or by such as his Charter enables him to make being not against the Kings that therefore they may not resist him if he would massacre them or under colour of his new made Lawes condemne them because they will not be Traitors to their King and submit to an usurper will the Dr. say it or any else and is not this the very case if men will thinke of it if a King should make or hath made Lawes that men should worship the Sun worship an Idoll an Image Are not these traiterous Lawes against the King the GOD of Heaven can any then King they or the Authority commanding them iâ— quo ad hoc GODS Authority GODS Ordinance or deny them to be resisters of him The Lawes that are in themselves Null the Authoritie Null so farre forth no kind of Subjection then is due to them in this from this Text. Nor is any Ordinance of GOD at all resisted in resisting them Rather is it not a Duty But the Christians did not resist though Tertullian say they had number and Force sufficient REPLY Mr. Goodwin in his Anticavalierisme hath very rationally shewed first that in all probability Tertullian was mistaken in his Computation if he mean it throughout the Empire They might have some considerable number and so force in one place or City and not enough in generall Secondly that if they had so yet generally it was not knowne to Christians and that is all one in such a case he that knowes not his strength dares not resist no more then hee that hath no strength Thirdly that if they knew their strength yet they did not know it lawfull to resist generally Some might know it yet not preach it for feare and if it were not generally beleeved they would not resist Fourthly that there were speciall Reasons why GOD might conceale this from them this Liberty of resistance Of all this there are many considerable things in that treatise Vide I will only adde this One that if Resistance seeme so unfitting now it would have seemed much more then The Christian Religion came in upon the Roman Empire as a Novelty and neither they not their Ancestours for many Generations had any Principles but the remote ones of the Law of Naturâ— to perswade them to give it Entertainment So that to have resisted by Armes would have seemed a great obstinacy and perversenessâ— specially in Reference to the Doctrine of Christ a crucified GOD a Man risen from the dead and gone into Heaven which the Pagans counted foolishnes as well as it was a stumbling block to the Jewes Also Châ—ist himselfe founding his Church by his owne suffeâ—ings would have them specially like him in sufferings at the spreading of it in the World Whereby he also got farre more Glory in that not onely his Church was preserved like the burn in the midst of the Fire in the midst of sufferings without resistance But also iâ— propagated mainly and conquered by suffering meerly This I say was then greater glory then to have allowed them straightway to defend themselves and resist with Armes which also till a long time would have been in vaine and to their hurt besides Reproach without miracle But now the case is much otherwise in regard of Protestants persecuted by Popish Princes specially recalling Lawes of toleration or changing Lawes establishing the Religion For the Protestant Religion to shew it selfe no noveltie appeales to that which the Papâ—sts cannot denie the holy Scriptures and rejects nothing if even an unpartial Heathen were Judge and umpiâ—e between them which the Scripture calls to beleeve or practise Also â—t proâ—esses nothing which the Scriptures rejâ—ct Therefore their resistance may much more be justified to their Adversaries Consciences Who though they dare not deny the Scriptures plainely yet dare not trust to them alone to confute the Protestants by them but put them to death for things not onely besides the Scriptures but even against it as making and worshipping Images Crosses Crucifixes and the like Here the same King and Lawes being generally acknowledged yet will the Inferiour Governours make Lawes against the Kings and even Force the Kings Subiects to doe Homage and even sweare Allegeance to another besides Him Therfore they are not in this to be accounted GODâ— Lâ—eutenants or Deputies or their Lawes of any Validitie but they may be resiâ—ted as Rebells against the King of Heaven while they pretend to be his Servants The Roman Emperours then as meere strangers in point of Knowledge or Profession were rather but at lest for the time to be convinced by suffering then by resistance But pretended Christian Princes specially after a toleration and most of all after a Legall Establishment turning Persecuters of that truth whichas in the Bible he â—selves professe to hold may be resisted in a Defensive way And there is nothing in the Bible to gainesay it And whether now the Christians might also have resisted as soone as they had any strength â— ever they had any before Constantines Time I leave it to others to iudge For upon the Grounds fore noted it hurts not our Cause at all if they migâ—tâ—t The Dâ— proceedâ— so doe I â—f it bee replyed that things being so enacted by Law it was not lawfull to resist I answer saith he all that proceeded from those Emperours were meerely â—rbitrary and enforced upon the Senate who did not discharge their truth c. Reply First what is tyrannously done against humane Law may be resisted as we have sâ—id and so may by what we have lately proved tyrannous Lawes directly and clearely against GOD and his true Religion and therefore if ever wee should be so unhappy which I hope will never be unlesse the people beleiving this Drs. Position betray this Parliament that a Parliament should joyne with a King to cast out the true Religion and bring in Popery and so make Lawes against us which are now all for us yet might we resist and not suffer our selves to be massacred or condemned for not consenting to be Traitours to the King of Heaven LORD Jesus Christ whom yet they would pretend to rule by and for him If any man can shew me that it is Gods Ordinance wee should submit and suffer in such a case I shall not refuse to yield but I confesse I cannot see it though I know even those that defend the resistance now used Lawfull affirme it were not lawfull if the Law were against us as it is for us But how humane Lawes made without against GODS Authority can hinder me from the Liberty granted me by the Law
whether it be lawfull to resist the officers or souldiers of the King he being besides them and animating them with his commands to doe violence I will suppose for the present the Kings person is and shall be safe notwithstanding the resistance or that els the resistance must be forborne I onely aske whether his followers commanded by him standing by to doe murthers and rapes may be resisted with armes or not 4. If he will say that in all these cases resistance may be made so the Kings Person may be safe 1. The King may thanke him for the care of his Person but his Power and Authority is as much impugned by this as by many that plead for the defence now actually under-taken 2. The Cavaliers and Followers of the King will thanke him never a whit For they may all be knocked on the head or starved and yet the Kings Person be safe And they would soon desert the cause if this were beleeved or would be rooted-out if this were generally practised and that is all the Defendants desire who honour the Kings Person and authority as much as the Doctor or any of his fellows not to say more how ever they resist his Cavaliers 5. If he will deny resistance where the King is present because there his commands are certainly knowne to be his which may be doubted of in remote Countries Then 1. So should it have been exprest for cleare understanding and not coucht in uncertainty 2. Then all these Cavaliers are justly resisted where the King is not present which againe if it were believed and practised would soone end the businesse For even in the next Parish to the King they might be resisted though not where he appeares and speakes 3. What if it be doubted whether the King be not forced by threatnings and feare of his life to command so and so Kings have been prisoners and have commanded so and by wise and good Subjects Castles and Townes have bin kept by force of Armes against such as they bad to assault it if not yeelded Our Law supposes The King can doe no wrong yet supposes wrong may be done in his name by his followers If he then command a notoriously wicked thing The Law will suppose him forced or the like And then resistance shall be as well lawfull as if he were absent Or even necessary to rescue him out of such wicked hands 4. What if it be doubted whether a King be bewitched by sorceries There have bin such things of old and the Devills power doth not seeme to be lessned now 5. What if it be doubted whether the King be distracted A thing that hath befallen Kings as well as meane men Are subjects bound from resisting the commands of a bewitched or distracted Person to the ruine of Religion Lawes and liberties still preserving his person safe 6. Suppose it be certaine he is not forced nor bewitched nor distracted Yet doing as bad as any forced bewitched or distracted person can possibly doe by commanding such tyrannicall Acts what reason can be imagined why such a command should tie subjects hands from resisting his followers offering to act his tyranny more then if he were forced bewitched or distracted Is the liberty of his body and mind from those violences an enslaving of his people to his lawlesse lusts of crueltie and mischiefe 6. If he say further that even his officers or souldiers if they have his Seale or warrant may not be resisted in the remotest Country Then besides the former inconveniences these are to be added 1. Any that come among ignorant common people may abuse them at their pleasure if they will but pretend the Kings Seale or Warrant It hath bin counterfeited for Briefes How ordinary would it be if it might not be resisted How would malicious men murther with it Robbers spoyle with it and who could remedy it 2. By this meanes any that had a designe to depose the King and usurpe the Kingdome might by a counterfeit Seale and Warrant kill all the Kings faithfullest Subjects and strengthen so himselfe and his party as the King should after have no power to save himselfe Lawes observed will secure sufficiently from this And liberty to resist illegall violences will appeare to be necessary to the Kings safety as well as the Subjects Kings have seldome or never bin murthered or deposed where Lawes have bin preserved in their vigour But often where illegall violences have had place Let this also not be forgotten 7. Well but thus the case I suppose is understood if not by the Doctor yet by the generall of those that take the Kings part against the Parliament that neither the King in Person nor any of his officers or souldiers that have commission from him may be resisted because that were to resist the King which say they all the Apostle forbids and threatens Rom. 13.2 But here again I blame the Doctors negligent handling of that place upon divers considerations further 1. Without doubt the first verse is to be regarded as being the foundation of the second as appeares by the word Therefore Yet that he hath greatly neglected Perhaps for feare the scanning of it would doe him an ill turne as I shall by and by endeavour to shew by comparing the subjection commanded with the resistance forbidden 2. In the first verse he doth very ill to reade alwayes except once by chance as I thinke higher power for higher powers and so never to tell us whether the other powers who are higher in relation to the common-people though inferiour in relation to the supreme S. Peters governours may be resisted or not even with Arms. Perhaps this fraudulently also 3. In the second verse he is very carelesse to tell us whether resistance which is three times in English but there are two Greeke words the first being different from the second and third signifie all kind of opposition though without Armes to the higher and supreme power at least but then much more with Arms Or whether it only signifie resisting with Armes and no other there forbidden and made damnable Yet this a needfull Question for a conscience to be resolved in and more ordinarily then about resisting And so would well have become the Doctors learning and pretended care of Conscience and even regard of Authority to have discoursed upon But since he hath not vouchsafed to doe any of these I shall take the paines to doe it for him and for the conscientious Readers as well as I can 1. The first verse begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers Here are two questions 1. What is meant by being subject 2. What by higher Powers By being subject is meant yeelding obedience either active or at least passive that is doing or forbearing acccording to command or submitting to suffering when one do's otherwise It cannot be denied but both these are parts of subjection and that so much is commanded by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of Israel and Judah for their Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Rep. To this marvell there may be a ready satisfaction if we remember That even in the reigne of the best Kings not only the peoples hearts were usually unprepared and in their greatest seemings hypocriticall and treacherous as appeares by the Story and the Prophets But also the Princes Elders and Nobles were exceedingly corrupt In Joash his time as soone as Jehojada was dead the Princes came and corrupted the King and in the beginning of Esay's Prophesie in Vzziah's time who was among the better Kings he calls them Princes of Sodom and so even in Hezekiah's time how doth Micah complaine of them Ch 3. Jer. 26. and Jeremy in Josiahs time after the Reformation begun Now if they were so bad in good times who can marvell if they were starke nought where the King was rought and helpers forward of his Idolatries cruelties and oppressions And why should it then be expected that the Prophets should call upon them to resist the King being on their side and they on his Sixthly At last the Doctor comes to his maine strength of all namely Roman 13.2 In the improvement of which Text to his purpose he layes downe four Positions and then makes a five-fold Objection and shapes Answers to them all which must come under examination 1. He sayes St. Peter St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the Question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it Rep. But by his leave hee runnes away too fast with his supposition in a double respect 1. That St. Paul here Rom. 13.2 speakes only of resisting the supreame power the King or Emperour or Monarch whereas the word in this second verse is indefinite the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which extends to all in authority in either ranke or degree as well as the supreame as was noted before If he or any for him say that the power v. 2. must signifie no more then the higher power v. 1. which he interprets only of the supreame Repl. Here againe I must tell him he abuses his Readers carelesly at least I will not say wittingly let his conscience looke to that for he alwayes reades higher power in the singular whereas it is Powers in the plurall and the next words There is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God shews the Apostle speakes of all sorts and rankes of Powers Therefore he must take in the other Powers as well as the supreame in both verses and that will be nothing for his benefit as will appeare by this briefe reason If the Powers that are under the Supreame may not be resisted by this Rom. 13.2 Then either the resistance forbidden extends not to resisting though with Armes out-ragious and tyrannicall assaults of illegall violence offered by those officers as suppose a Major Justice or even a Constable or else even one of those officers even a petty Constable is as absolutely over those that are under his office as any Monarch and they slaves to his lusts as well as to an Emperours because the one ought not to tyrannize by the Doctors Confession § 1. no more then the other and the one ought not to be resisted no more then the other by this argument and Text. Now which part of distinction will the Doctor chuse if the former he deserts his cause plainly If the latter then besides the apparant absurdity of it I urge that all men will grant That a Constable and such like officers betweene the people and the supreame are lyable to be themselves punished by Lawes if they offer any out-ragious and illegall violence which cannot possibly be unlesse they may be resisted even with Armes in case any arme themselves to practise violence Also else a few of them as the Major or Aldermen of a Towne joyning together might goe through all the City and robbe and kill as many as they would by force of Armes and no man might offer to resist them by taking Armes against them It remaines therefore that all Magistrates except the supreame to begin with may be resisted even with Armes if offering violence and tyranny And yet St. Paul forbids to resist the Powers without distinction of supreame or other Therefore St. Paul mâ—anes not to forbid resisting Tyranny with Armes But resisting legall and lawfull commands even other wayes as well as with Armes though this be the worst kind of resistance where obedience is due But secondly It must not be granted him for all his bigg words of Absurdity imputed to those that deny it That the King of England is in all considerations the supreame or the highest Power if St. Pauls words were in the superlative This belongs to Politicks and the Doctors Divinity will not reach it himselfe cannot deny it That the King is not supreame in the legislative power Though hee have a negative voyce in Lawes so have either of the Houses distinct Hee can then neither make new Lawes alone nor abrogate old ones Nor violate without injustice the goods much lesse the lives or chastities of any of his meanest Subjects and least of all authorize any of his followers by his warrant or presence to doe so His Supremacy then is bounded by Lawes and is given him be it more or lesse ad salutem non ad destructionem Which yet were not if no Tyranny of his might be resisted But of that more anon But the Doctor will prove the King supreame 3 wayes 1. St. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority The King as supreame and those that are sent by him In which latter ranke are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Repl. 1. Why did the Doctor leave out the word Governours Is he afraid to grant the Houses of Parliament any power of Government 2. What if sent by him referrs not to the King but to the Lord for whose sake all both King and Governours are to be obeyed and by whom both are sent but of this also more anon 3. But grant him his way I aske how it shall appeare that the name of King extends as farre every where as S. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spartans had two Kings and yet neither of them so supreame but under the controll of the Ephori There are also Monarches as supreame as any that have the Title of King The Great Duke of Florence The Great Duke of Muscovy and others Also the Romans in S. Peters time cal'd not their Emperours King Rex Which yet is the ordinary Latine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word he only is supreame whom the Law cals supreame and no further then the Law makes him 2. He saith also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this
rule nor were ruled by the Inhabitants of Canaan nor joyned with them in a Common gouernment Though Abrahams Family was very numerous for a Family yet it would be hard to call him a Monarch much lesse Isaac and Iacob lesse who when he went downe into Aegypt doth not seeme to have had any Servants but onely Sonnes and his and their Wives and Children 3. And to this may be added that by all Authors it seemes to be late before any setled government beyond parentall any of diverse Families in continuation came to be in the World 4. When the World was more emptie as in Abrahams time a godly man as he having a Competent Family might subsist without others joyning in a government with him and he could not doe them any remarkable good or gayne glory to GOD by it they being Pagans So that it is not I say absolutely true that men are bound universally as by an Ordinance from GOD to set up live under government in the Drs. sense Marriage is GODS Institution and Ordinance and more originally then the Government politicall and necessary for encrease yet are not all of mankinde bound to marry but for their owne good and comfort and so of others and advancing Gods Glory in both So it is with Power or Government Politicall though new when the world is peopled As there is lesse Necessity of Marriage then when the World was thinner though still a Necessity to many even to most So is there more Necessitie of being within Government to secure ones selfe and others from wrong and doe one selfe and others good and glorifie GOD in all And so farre I grant it Gods ordinance to all But one thing more I must remember him and the readers of Namely that this Power will not be proved absolutely to extend to the making of any Humane Lawes but onely to see to the Observation of the Lawes of Nature and of God by His word and speciall Revelation both of the first and second Table and to no other power of coercion then what the Light of Nature will Argue Necessarie for the Observation of those Lawes of Nature And that all further power belongs to the third particular which he calls the qualification of the Power depends upon mans Consent so it be not against Gods Law and Word which I call the extent of the Power Which if it be true it shall be seene anon what Consequence may bee drawne from it to the disadvantage of the Doctours purpose And now let us view the Doctors proofs that Power it selfe is an Ordinance of God binding all Mankind to set up and live under government Rom. 13.1 The Powers are of God and the Ordinance of God v. 2. REPL. The Doctor seemes to have an excellent faculty to take so much only of a Text as seemes to serve his turne and leave out the rest which at least might seeme to be against him the words v. 1. are There is no Powers but of GOD The powers that be are ordained of God This may be true when Powers are and not that there must be powers every where as in the similitude before there is no Marriage but of GOD the Marriages that be are ordained of GOD. As for Saint Peters Ordinance of Man or it is in the Originall Humane Creation which is more Emphaticall granting as the Dr. doth that the qualification and Person is from Mans Creation I will not urge more from â—he Text against him 2. He urges ver 4 He is the Minister of God this yet proves not a necessitie in all of setting up Government But onely when it is set up to acknowledge the Governour Gods Vice-gerent So as before the Husband is GODS Vicegerent Yet a Woman not absolutely bound to be under a Husband The truth is Government and Power is from GOD originally in these respects no further First he hath laid a generall charge upon Mankinde to advance his Glory their owne and others good whom thus are bound to love as themselves by all meanes not by him forbidden Secondly in the parentall Authours or proparentall if the Parents dye in their Childrens Infancy he hath shewed them how much Government may conduce to this Thirdly he declares by instinct in Nature that as Parentall Authority is deputed by him so that he affords a deputation to other Governments when once set up Fourthly shewing all men now a dayes and long since in fully inhabited places of the world not only a profit but even a necessity of being within Government at least for his glory in the Civill good of societies Upon these grounds we may say he ordaines and commands all to be within one Government or other but not absolutely nor without relation to this end But thirdly he alleadges By me Kings reigne and I have said ye are Gods and the word of God came to them Joh. 10. That word saith he is the issuing out of the Commission for the setting up a Government over and among the People REPL. But none of all this will amount to his Conclusion 1. Kings reigne by God that is they are his Deputies Men could not give them any Authority over themselves unlesse God owned it and by his instinct had prompted them to it Secondly he saith Yee are Gods but this an owning the designation of the Person as well as the Power This place either proves more then the Doctor urges it for or lesse Thirdly as for his Dixi the Doctor mistakes most of all For it relates plainly to his owning the Persons whom yet he tels They shall are like Men but the Power dies not and is rather a granting a particular Patent or Commission to the Person chosen or succeeding then a Commission or Originall Writ to set up a Government His Reason is no more Universally True then his Texts pertinent God he saith Governs all Creatures Reasonable as well as Unreasonable the lower world by the Heaven and the Reasonable Creatures Men by others too set up in his stead c. Repl. But what if the Edge of this Reason be Turned against himselfe For by whom according to the Dr. are Kings and Monarks Govern'd In an Aristocracy each of the Governors is Governed by all the rest of his fellowes and so in a Democracy but in a Monarchy one Governs all and hee himself is Governed by none Either then al mankind are not bound to be under Government and then all his Texts and this Reason are alleadged in vain or else Kings and Monarks are also under some Government at least of the Representative Body of thei people according to what was before alledged from our Lawyers Rex non habet Superiorem praeter Legem Curiam Comitum Baroâ—um c. Let him take his choice Nor can hee evade this with saying the Text Speaks of Monarks and they are called GODS and so none above them But 1. I appeale to all Interpreters whether the Psalmist intend it not and so Christ after
him of all sorts of Judges and so Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not Curse the GODS nor speake evill of the Ruler of the People Yet this S. Paul acknowledges extended even to the High Priest the Ecclesiasticall Goververnour 2. Is not the Text at least meant of all the Governours in a Democracy and in Aristocracy that they are call'd GODS yet each hath the rest above him 3. However still his Reason is voyde for all Reasonable Creatures are not governed by others in GODS stead for by his saying Monarks are not and yet they oft times need to be governed so far as not to be suffered to undo all by their Governing or else this Question had never bin in the world which our hearts bleed to be forced to dispute concerning the power of resisting Monarks If now the Dr. will say that we afford GOD a poore part in setting up of power for the governing of Men he had need seek better proofe or else he will hardly perswade any more to a considerate Reader But perhaps hee will say I have yeelded him enough and more then others have done that will be seene by the use he can make of his assertion But in the meane time I have 2 or 3 Considerations to propound from his Texts and Reason and my own grants and assertions 1. Each one of his Texts speaks of more then the Supreame Powers Rom. 13.9 Plainly Plurall more then once and takes in all Ranks as hath been proved Saint Peter names Governours to be submitted to for the LORDS sake aswell as the Supreame and I should thinke Sent by him is by the LORD rather then by the Supreme as I shall shew by the Reason by and by and St. Paul hath said the powers that he even the Governors are ordained of GOD. And Prov. 8. after the words By me Kings Raigne follows And Princes Decree justice By me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the Earth This is plaine aswell for other Governors as Supreme being the Ordinance of God And as for Psal 82. and Ioh. 10. I have spoken before I wonder then that the Dr. in a Treatise of Conscience and having that word so often in his Discourse makes no conscience of confining these places as in effect he doth continually meerely to Supreme power It was for his turne indeed as will appeare more anon But that will hardly satisfie a Conscience let him think on it But I must not forget his reason now serving me once more against him God governes all men by others in his stead now that is done by subordinate Governours as well as supreame and so the inferiour and unreasonable creatures by divers subordinations and the subordinate doe sometimes even ten more then then the supreame let him be never so good if they be bad the government and order will be disturbed and perverted in a large Dominion because his eye and hand can not be but in one place at once and all may be and will be naught if those under Governours be naught whiles he his absent But if they be good they keepe things for the generall tolerably well how bad soever he is For his badnesse then as his goodnesse before will not reach to all places and scarcely though badnesse in a corrupted world will reach further then goodnesse much further then where hee is present Kingdomes then are governed under God by other Powers as well as by the preame and they no lesse sent by him then the supreame I shall make an inference or two from this afterward Secondly meane time I add my second consideration That in all the forementioned Texts the spirit of God with the mention of Governours authorized and ordained by him inculcates their duty to him and their obligation to Justice c. and that not onely when hee speakes to them Psal 82. and of them at large Prov. 8. But even when he speakes to inferiours to be subject to them and especially when he forbids resistance Rom. 13. And for this cause they are all to be prayd for 1. Tim. 2 2. That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty Which words if they may not be taken as intending why God hath set any in Authority yet the thing is undoubtedly true hee never by way of ordinance gave any Authority for any other End Those Governours then whether supreame or other that under pretence of their Authority from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet and peaceable life which the inferiours should lead in all godlinesse and honesty as to bee sure they doe that are bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties are farre from being Gods Ordinance in so doing and therfore however their power it selfe a sufficiency of Authority for command and coercion in governing the People be from God yet their Tyranny is not at all from him by way of Ordinance or Approbation and so they that resist it even with Armes Resist not the Ordinance of God but resist the violation of his Ordinance and so doe nothing unlawfull though it be a resisting of the supreame person Thirdly let it be remembred that St. Peter in the place fore-mentioned speaking of Governours suppose if meant as the Doctor would sent by the supreame adds for the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well If then the supream send Governours to erect or practise a Tyranny to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties whether under the name of Iustices of Oyeâ— and Terminer Sheriffes Commissioners of Array or the like which is to the Punishment rather of those that doe well and the praise of Evill doers St. Peter saith not a word to bid be subject to them either actively or so much as passively Nor any where else in Scripture I dare be bold to say it doth the Spirit of God bid be subject to Princes or politick Governours though tyrannous or perverters of Religion and Justice I meane not when it speaks of them as such And till then though they have power from God which is not to be rejected yet their Tyranny being not from him but against him may and the Doctor hath not been able nor will never be to prove to the contrary SECT IV. IN this Section the Doctor undertakes to treat of the Forfeiture of the Power and so of the Re-assuming of it by the Parliament or People for the Kings not discharging his trust And denies this Forfeiture and this power of Reassuming that Power But this he saith they that plead for it offer to prove by two or three things laid together First that the power is derived from the People by way of Election Secondly that there is a Covenant betweene the King and the People Thirdly that it is necessary for a State have a meanes within it selfe to preserve it selfe Against all those the Dr. argues and I follow him Onely remembring him that by Forfeiture is not understood Forfeiture of all Kingly Authority nor
by Reassuming as I said before a taking of the whole power from him to themselves but onely for the particular Case in hazard and for the present necessity And now to begin with what he first mentions the Derivation of power I must tell him that he forges what he before complained of in others that they confounded the power it selfe with the person and the Qualification I am sure he doth so here if ever man did Hee before granted the Person and Qualification from men and then they approved of God and more then that no man pleads to be derived nor more to be forfeited plead not for so much nor he Paâ—liament neither But only the Qualification for he particular Case of danger and till that danger may be sufficiâ—ntly secured Yet here now at first to oppose the Forfeiture but of this particular which is only in question now before us he denies the power to be from the People and appeales to what he hath cleared which is onely by his owne saying but not altogether as hath beene shewed that the Power it selfe is from God But for all that if no more can be said against the persons forfeiting his reigning Power and specially in the Qualifications of it even for ever it may undoubtedly be forfeited and so re-assumed all of it which is more then I say Secondly but he will prove that though the People have this Power absolutely which himselfe hath more then once granted of the Designation of the Person and Qualification yet could they not have right to take it away REPL. The King will have no cause to thank him for his undertaking as well because he doth it not with any great strength as also because hee hath hereby provoked men to dispute even this Case which no way needed since the Parliament never pretended to this Right in generall but rather disclaimed it First he saith Many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them are not afterward in our power to recall REPL. True but some things are and that both if conditions be not observed and even at our owne pleasure A King makes some Officers for terme of life others quamdin se bene gesserint others aâ—â— ante bene placite To the latter hee may send a Writ of Ease at his pleasure and every day it s in his power to recall their Authority To the second their offices are sure without power of recalling till they are legally convicted of misbehaviour To the third as long as they live their Authority is firme and no power of recalling it wholly Yet even such may bee hindred from some Administrations by Accusations by and apparency of Crimes making it unfit for them to be trusted in the particular We imagine not the People to have power to recall that Regall Authority at their pleasure we argue not that they have power to recall it wholly upon any Case of Mal-administration All that we plead for is power to administer a part of it upon necessity which he will not administer for good but rather for evill And there are not many things that were altogether ours and in our disposing before we part with them but are still so farre ours as to use them againe in our necessity for that turne at least though there are some Secondly But he will prove this to be one of those that are not after in our power to recall especially saith he such in which there redounds to God an interest by the Donation as in things devoted though after they come to be abused REPL. 1. Grant this true in referrence to the Power of recalling them wholly which yet is not universally true as will appeare straight yet may there be power enough to administer so much as is of necessity A Wife is tyed to her Husband by the Covenant of God so called Prov. 2. by the Ordinance of God more ancient and no lesse strong then that of Politick Government She cannot recall wholly her Husbands Authority over her though shee was once altogether at her disposing to choose or another or none to be her head All the goods of the Family are his in Law and not here but by his leave and order Yet for her necessity she may by the Law of God and conscience administer so much of the goods as is fit and secure her Person from his violence by absence though that ordinarily be against the Law of Marriage and the end of it or any other meanes of nccessary defence But secondly it is not altogether true that there is no power or recalling any thing devoted to God Hezekiah took off the gold from the Doores of the Temple and the Pillars which he had overlaid and all the silver in the house of the Lord to pay the King of Assyria his demanded Ransome 2. Kings 18.14 15 16. If the Doctor will not owne this Act of Hezekiah I am sure he will that of David taking the hallowed Bread which was not for any by Gods Law to eate but onely the Priests This was devoted to God and not so much as abused and by him assigned to a speciall use yet from that diverted and lawfully without question And now I appeale to all Consciences Whether the necessity of saving a Kingdome from the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties be not greater then Davids necessitie was And if I will have mercy and not sacrifice did justifie Davids act will it not theirs who in a necessity use or administer the power of the Militia or Armes which ordinarily is only to be admieistred by the King Neither will Abimelech the Priests consenting to David alter the Case for it was devoted to God and but in necessity he might not have consented nor David accepted Necessity then recalled that particular Bread through devoted So necessity may recall this parcell of power in question Thus the Doctors ground failes him for our Case yet 3. see what he adds so although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves himselfe oft hath said and cannot deny but they give the Person his power and if they take it from his person yet they may leave it to his Heire but wee argue not for so much yet because the Lords hand and his oyle also is upon the Person elected to the Crowne and then he is the Lords Annointed and the Minister of God those hands of the People which were used in lifting him up to the Crowne may not againe be lift up against him either to take the Crowne from his head or the Sword out of his hand this true inform'd Conscience will not dare to doe REPL. 1. Is not Gods hand upon a Judge Is not hee the Minister of God Is not a King bound to God and to his People to appoint Judges who may lesse be spared in their Power then the Monarch himselfe for what is his Power when an Infant Is not the Kingdome then administred
Aristocratically But there must alwayes be Judges and inferiour officers in a large Dominion or all government is lost Will the Doctor say that the hands that have lift up the Judge or Officer to his seat that is the Kings hands may not bee lift up against him to pull him downe and pull off his Robes or take the Sword out of his hand The interest that God hath in him shall it preserve him in his Office in case especially of Mal-Administration But shall it or hath it done even so long as no offence is proved against him The Parliament hath indeed desired it for Judges and great Officers but hath it been granted Or what meanes the putting out of so many old Justices of Peace lately without any Crime alleadged against them at all of which more Countreys then one have at the Assises complained as a great grievance What will the Doctor say to this Yet they were Gods Ministers and had the Sword committed to them If hee say the King was their Superiour and so might take their Authoritie away but the people is not Superiour to the King REPLY This satisfies not because notwithstanding here is a Person in whom GOD hath an interest and who is his Minister deprived of his Authoritie not only when he abuses it but meerely at pleasure The Drs. Reason then hath no strength in it thus faare or this done to inferiour Magistrates is not lawfull 2. But secondly what strength is in his Argument lies in the Kings being GODS anointed and therefore the Crowne may not be taken from his Head by Men this I have granted him before and am so farre from recalling or disputing against that I will adde this word of confirmation to it Supposing wee speake of such a Prince or Monarch call him King or Emperour or Duke or what you will that is not deposeable by the expresse Lawes of that Common-Wealth as the Duke of Brabant was and the Duke of Venice is for such as those Dukes were not properly supreame nor GODS immediate Vicegerents as Saul and David and the like I say then that though in case of Mal-Administration an inferiour Magistrate may be Lawfull and most justly and necessarily deposed by the Kings Authoritie I will not say the like so long as they carry themselves well and are not meerely Annuall Officers who also are glad usually when their yeare is out because their Office is a burthen and charge yet a Supreame may not by the people because hee is GODS immediate Vicegerent and so specially owned by Him and have none upon Earth unto whom GOD by any expression in his Word hath given Authoritie over them to take their Crownes from their Heads I say againe as a Wife cannot take away her Husbands Authority because she is in no sence above him So unlesse the Law of that State name a Superiour to him that is in Tittle the Prince to take his Crowne from him in such a case he cannot be deposed by the Law of GOD which appoints no persons to do such a thing to illustrate which Let me adde that in those times when GOD allowed by the Judiciall Law a Man to put away his Wife It did not allow a Woman to put away or forsake her Husband though I know about our Saviours Time Iosephus relates of Women having gotten that among the Iewes at least some of them as hee instances in Salome sister to Herod the Great who put away her Husband But GOD allowed it not And so that may bee lawfull for a Prince who is Superiour to doe to an Inferiour Magistrate which is not lawfull for the people to doe to the Prince who is Supreme no not in a like case of Mal-Administration I could instance in sundry other Prerogatives in GODS Word to Superiours which hold not no not in like cases to Inferiours but it needs not with the Parliament as hath been oft said 2. But whereas the Dr. addes Nor to take the Sword out of his hand This is inconsequent divers wayes First himselfe in the former SECTION in the case of Elisha granted a private man might resist the Kings Messenger and even hold the Kings owne hands sure he may he doth that while equivalently take the Sword out of his hand Secondly the people tooke it out of Sauls hand when he would have put Ionathan illegally to death Thirdly If hee would kill himselfe it may be taken out of his hand 4. Since out of all question GOD never put it into his hands to kill the Innocent nor much lesse to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties he being GODS anointed and GODS Minister for good c. hinders not the taking the Sword so long out of his hand till it hath beene sufficiently imployed to punish those Malefactors and delinquents which he should but will not strike with it or rather will defend and imploy S. Yet I say further to doe that which the Parliament hath done supposing the necessity of which hereafter is not to take the Sword out of his hand himselfe grants as was noted before in his Answer to the 19. Propositions that the two Houses have a legall power to punish even such as doe violence being his followers or Favourites though countenanced with some surrâ—ptiously gotten Command from the King and moreover that they have power more than sufficient to prevent and restraine Tyrannie Their setling the Mâ—litia in safe hands and the Navy and securing Hull is by them declared to be for no other end nor their raising an Army since If then those that they would punish bee Delinquents and if in them whom the King trusts there bee though not at all in the King an intention to bring in a Tyranny even with Armes and to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties which is the state of the present Question then by the Kings owne grants as aforesaid they may Legally and Lawfully take the Sword into their hands and doe not take it out of Kings but his wicked Followers 6. But because the Dr. closes his Assertion with saying This will not a a true informed Conscience dare to doe REPLY I will be bold to try whether Conscience many not say It dares doe no other then than this latter so farre to take the Sword into their hands whether even his Tower of Battery Rom. 13.21 not by what hath beene said formerly and even now so wonne from him as it is become ours to beat down his Principle in this first Question to the very dust Secondly I say the Parliament is a Power ordained of God it is the Minister of God It is to be a Terrour to evill Workes It is to be a Revenger to execute Wrath on them that doe evill It is to watch continually as GODS Minister in thâ—s very thing and so foâ— the prayse of them that doe well and so the secuâ—iâ—g of Religion Lawes and Liberties it is not to beare the Sword in vaine And a sword it hath by the Kings owne sentence to the
purposes aforesaâ—d And this Parliament what ever oâ—her mighâ— bee is not deposeable dissoluble but by themselves The Sword cannot be Legally taken from them till they give it up It remaines then that they are bound in Conscience to GOD and to the People and King too that have entrusted them with this Power to use it to these ends to punish Delinquents and tempters though under Colour of surreptiously gotten Commands from the King to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties and to prevent Tyranny and preserve themselves and Religion Lawes and Liberties They may not onely Lawfully doe this upon these Premises and suppositions but they are by all Obligations to GOD and Man necessitated to doe so and even to take away the wicked from before the King that so his Throne may bee establisht in Righteousnesse This is clearely theâ— the Parliaments not onely Power but duty Iâ— they mâ—stake in the present case of which anon yet the generall case stands good they may and ought to doe so to take Armes when such a case comes The Dr. hath somewhat more to say against the Peoples power applicable to our Kingdome Let us heare it also How shall Conscience be satisfied concerning the Peoples power derived from their Election when our Kings are such by Inheritance and claime not by Election and the Crowne hath been oft setled by Conquest REPLY Neither is Conquest any thing of it selfe to power or Lawfull Authority of which onely we argue but only as it obtaines consent by agreement which is all one in Sence and Effect with Election Only Election sounds more Freedome of will Conquest Imports a Force occasioning that will But it is evident in Reason that he that is free as all men are by Nature as was said before except their bond to Parents becomes not subject de jure till his Consent Agreement or Election makes him so and to no more then his Consent reaches explicitely or implicitely and so for many men they can no other way be subject to one to a Prince or Monarch but by their Agreement whether for feare of his Force or hopes of his vertue he is not their King or Lord till he be made so by their Consent I meane at first and Originally But what need I stand to provâ— this largely when our Dr. hath confest it in sence before in saying the designing the person and Qualification of the Power is from Men Mans invitation what is this put mans choyce Agreement Consent together And if there be 100. Conquests the Conqueror hath not the qualification of his power one whit enlarged by Right untill the People have consented and yielded up their former Rights and when they have then his Right is setled accordingly and to his sâ—ccessours if so consented to else not and to hâ—s â—eâ—res if consented to else not and to Heires male onely as in France or Femaâ—e also as in England according to the consent Or if the Conquerour to obtaine the Peoples 〈…〉 his posterity will offer to have leâ—t power then his Predecessour bed â—eâ— upon such consâ—â—t the qâ—alification of his power is lessened for ever after to hâ—m and his Conquest thâ—n first or last one or many are no more to right oâ— power then an occasion or Motive to consent consent Choise Agreement are all in all Secondly as for Inheritance it is nothing but a succession of consent Indeed posteritie are bound to the consent of their Parents for the Person Family qualification but to no more In all other Cases and respects they are as free as their Parents at first were A Prince then onely inherites what was given the first of the Nation or others since by consent of the people and by written Law or custome he must claime any power he will exercise or else he cannot plead any right title to it And his qualification of power admits of encrease or decrease as he and the People agree and consent His power is altogether derived by Election and consent first and last whence I will inferre no more but as before that therefore in case of necessity the people may use so much of it as may suffice to save themselves from Ruine and that may be inferred from it by what went before As for his Repetition of Rom. 13. and the Roman Emperours being Monarchs absolute I need say nothing to now I have said enough before After this he comes to the Covenant and Oath which the Prince takes to confirm what he promised which he denies to make the Kings Admitttance to the Kingdome altogether conditionall as is the meerely Elective Kingdomes of Polonia Swethland c. and that it is nothing to allow resistance unlesse in the Covenant could be shewed that in case he will not discharge the trust it shall be Lawfull for the States to resist REPLY The Oath is onely urged to shew that the Kings Conscience is bound more firmely then what he is sworne to and as a Testification of the Câ—venant The mattâ—r sworne to is the maine nor that urged for an absolute forfeiture but for the case of necessitie Secondly in more Elective Kingdomes the conditions of the Covenant are more largely perhaps and more solemnely explicite then in successive and the Power is morâ— Restrained then in some successive yet consent bâ—ing the foundation of succession as was said before a King that enters upon the succession doth by that verâ—ually before his Oath oâ— Coronation consent to the first Conditions or Covenant those that have been made consequently and in that sence his Admittance is altogether conditionall not that the people may refuse him at their will without new Conditions but that he may not refuse the former Covenant and Conditions by offering to take more power then those gave him or his Ancestors which is all one And if he doe the people are not bound to obey those Commands the Dr confesses before and I adde as before they may resist his illegal Violences 3. For now the case is all one as if the choyce or agreement Covenant oâ— consent were originally made but yesterday And then consider it We are a multitude of Free-men and whereas we might have agreed on an Aristocracy We agreed on a King on such and such Covenants or Conditions without mention that wee will resist if he break them But simply promise Obedience on those Conditions and he on those accepts the Crowne But next day breakes all and shewes hee is bent to subvert all Religion Lawes and Liberties How now in Reason for of Scripture we spake enough before can it be supposed that such a choyce or agreement hath turned us into such Slaves as we must onely suffer and not at all resist or rather is not all reason plaine that I have given away no more of my naturall freedome which is to resist all violence and wrong then I meant and exprest to give away I say then that unlesse a Nation have covenanted not to resist in such and
such cases they have power to resist because it is a naturall right each hath against all except Parents so farre is it from my being bound not to resist unlesse I have expressly covenanted that I may Though withall I doe not say that I may covenant at all to resist in no case as I shall have occasion to shew anon Fourthly in the meane time if the Doctor grant that in case the agreement be that if the Prince discharge not his trust the states may take Armes and resist as in effect he seemes to doe when he saith That were something for if he doe no such agreement Then is not all Resistance damnable nor Rom 13.2 Rightly interpreted by him For this and more the Brabancons had in their Agreement with their Duke even to choose another as the Doctor himselfe tells us afterward So ever now and then he must contradict his maine Proposition by the force of truth But he saith after that The slender Pleaâ— Election is thought to have a Covenant in it but usually the higher wee rise in all Empires the freer Kings were and still downward the People gained on them And by this he would imply that specially in successive Kingdomes as this what ever may be said of merely elective States there can be no forfeiture of power by breach of Covenant made in after Ages by succeeding Princes REPLY In the first times there was a great simplicity in all covenants in sale of Lands and letting of Lands and the like yet no man ever sold or gave away or lent more then hee meant though the force and fraud of ill men forced after Ages to more express Covenants In like sort Ex malis moribus bonâ— Leges as well between Prince and people as between common men the tyranny of Princes forced People to require them to sundry necessary expresse Lawes Yet these Lawes now for Phrase or expression will not in reason be thought more then was intended in the first simple Covenant how briefe soever it were for certainly free people and in their right wits never meant to enslave themselves to the wills and lusts of those they chose their Princes But to be subject to them for their generall good which when they found by experience to be violated or in danger to be so for want of expresse Lawes specifications of the Generall Law of Nature the generall good of the society they were forced by necessity to require them to make such Lawes for their generall safety and particularly also to prevent inferiour officers from tyranny under the name of the superiour and so to prevent all necessity of Armes within themselves And some good Princes for their peoples comfort have even been forward of themselves to make such Lawes which yet without our making they were bound for the most part to have done accordingly for the welfare of their Dominions The People then have gained nothing for the great part of Lawes for their Liberties but ability to claime them as undoubted more then before nor have Princes lost any thing almost but a power of impovershing ruining their Subjects so much as before they seemed to have for the satisfying of their owne Prodigalities and Lusts Still then it remaines that the People had a right to all fitting Liberties even after they submitted to a King unlesse they expressly gave them away as unto some Câ—nqâ—erours the conquered Party were sometimes forced to doe But yet N. B. even then the Conquerours followers who were part of his subjects at that time and by whoâ—e hands he conquered the rest whether more or fewer did consent and agree to the Peoples and so their owne Posterities having but such and such Liberties and yeelding to the new Conquerour and his Posterity such and such Power and Authority So still consent gave whatsoever a Prince could or can challenge I say then once more unlesse in the first foundation of a State Kingdome or Empire and this Kingdome particularly the People did make their King so absolute as to give away all power of resistance from themselves in any case which the Doctor I beleeve will never be able to prove of this or any other Civill State though they made no expresse conditions or Covenant much lesse any mention of reserving a power of resistance yet the Law of Nature allowed them still some Liberties what they were we shall have occasion to scan in the next Section and amongst them this for one to resist any violence against themselves in any thing that the Law of Nature did undoubtedly make them still Masters of and was not subjected to their Princes power But the Doctor concludes his reasoning against such power of resistance to be in our Parliament with that which indeed hath least shew of strength of any thing he hath said yet Thus he writes where the King as it is said never dies where he is King before Oath or Coronation where hee is not admitted upon any such Capitulation as gives any power to the People or the representative Body as is pretended to nay where the Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that therein such a State such a Powâ—r should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the Fundamentals of such a State can never appeare reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistance that is now made by such a pretended Power REPL. This is the most plausible Plea he hath or any can bring specially the latter part of it about the calling and dissolving the Parliament at the Kings will and pleasure But to this also as well as all the rest sufficient satisfaction I doubt not may be given before indifferent judgements and unpartiall Consciences in the manner following First as the King never dies so he never growes he never hath more authority unlesse by a new grant from the people then his first Predecessor had unlesse it can be proved that the people then gave away their liberty of defence from outragious violence which all are naturally invested with it is free for them now as well as it was the second day or houre after they chose or consented to their first King as was implyed before Secondly as he is King before Oath or Coronation So he gives away none of his Rights in his Oath nor doe the People when they crowne him But he there professes himselfe bound by his Kingly Office to rule so and so for the common good and they yeeld no more to him then they did to his first Predecessor as before Thirdly as he is not admitted upon any such capitulation in expresse terms as mention this power of resistance in the people or representative body in case of Tyranny So nor doe the people at his admittance expresse a yeelding to him such absolute power as they may not or will not in any case resist I say againe and
of Nature to defend my self from outragious Violence being altogether an Innocent I cannot see specially in a case concerning GODS immediate Honour as well as my safety 2. If Lawes cannot tie my hands in all Cases in the forenamed from resistance much lesse an Arbitrary Power but of that it will be convenient to discourse a little further and apply it also to Civill Matters as well as to Religion wherein we shall also see whether all Civill Lawes doe so tie us as none of them neither may be resisted and if any which and which not I say then an Absolute Arbitrary Power or absolute Monarchy as some call it is not at all the Ordinance of GOD and so no lawfull Power secured from resistance by Rom. 13.2 First GOD allowes no man to rule as hee list to make what Lawes he list to punish how and whom hee list But his Word speaks the Contrary every where Secondly GOD not allowing Men cannot give it to a Conquerour or any other They can give but what GOD allowes for they have no more their owne in that sence Now no man can give any thing but what is his owne Thirdly particularly no man is allowed by GOD or can be made by Man an absolute Monarch a meere Arbitrary Prince in point or Religâ—on I am farre from denying Authority about Circumstantialls in Religion But I meane he hath no Authority to bid what GOD forbids or to forbid what GOD bids or punish them that obey GOD rather than him GOD never gave this Power nor can men give it Fourthly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to violate the Chastity of any A Law of Platoes Community is null because against GODS expresse 7th Commandement and may and ought to be resisted yet now we are among civill matters Fiftly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to take away the life of his Subjects any one at his meere pleasure or without a Law broken whether Civill or Martiall and knowne to the Transgressour or which he ought to have knowne and might which Ionathan could not hee had no meanes to know of his Fathers Oath being then made and in his absence Lycurgus his Law to destroy all Children that were deformed or weakelings and Pharaohs Arbitrary Command to destroy all the Israelitish Males were both alike tyrannous and null and might have been resisted In all these cases there is I say no absolute Monarchy no meere arbitrary Power Lawfull none that is GODS Ordinance And whosoever challenges such Power is in that not GODS Deputy but an Vsurper whether King or Caesar Roman or Turkish Emperour or any other Sixtly but the only Cases wherein a Monarch may be absolute in Matter of Liberty of mens persons of Goods anâ— manner of Judaciall proceedings and making or taking away Officers and Honours and such like in those I grant that as GOD denies not but a Monarch may have absolute Authority onely he must use it to Good so men may give away their Liberty by Feare or otherwise and become much enslaved to their Princes Will in comparison of what others are And if any bee so which I beleeve not of the Roman State though much was done arbitrarily by the Emperours I yield they may not resist though they be sorely pincht They may thanke themselves who bound their owne if therefore our Parliament in after Ages or this by being forsaken by the People seduced by the Dr. should so enslave us we must beare it and not resist because it is our owne Act who choose them and put all such things into their hands but in other things we should not could not be bound as I said before The Doctor hath a third Reason We cannot expect absolute meanes of safety and security in a State but such as are reasonable REPL. If by absolute meanes of safety and security hee meane such as God cannot defeat we grant what he saith or such as God hath forbidden But if he take it of rationall means he saith nothing at all that allotts any means which are not absolutely sufficient according to humane proceedings to procure sâ—ch a safety as a State shall nâ—ed A State is a most considerable body and may challenge all possible meanes which God hath not denyed them and so even a private man may being altogether innocent except where a greater good then his Particular life calls him to venture it or yeeld it up But there is no greater good on earth in civill respects then the safety of a state Therefore all meanes not forbidden from Heaven are reasonable and to bee expected and used though not expressly provided for that is mentioned in the Fundamentalls of this Government which the Doctor would require Then he falls a commending the excellent temper of the three Estates King Lords Commons having each a power of denying REPL. They have so in making particular Lawes But the Quest now is of exercising the generall and maine fundamentall Law of all States to save the whole from ruine and subversion Here though all three agreeing and none denying makes the safety more secure and more comfortable and honourable Yet no reason but in a Co-ordinate Power as here it is plainly so see the Fuller Answer to the Doctors Booke any two or of three or even any one of them rather then all should faile and be dissolved should have Power to endeavour the common safety which the others neglect or intend to subvert or betray And I verily beleeve the Doctor himselfe or any other of his partie if hee forbeare not to say so much least it should be retorted on himselfe will confesse that the King and the Lords may save the Kingdome from ruine without or against the House of Commons and the King and the House of Commons without or against the Lords and which is yet more the King alone without or against both Lords and Commons For indeed this is the very thing now pretended by the King for his taking Armes to save the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and his owne Rights c. which he saith the Lords and Comâ—ons whom he termes the Major part of both Houses present intend and goe about to subvert And if they did so certainely all true Subjects and Paâ—riots ought not onely not to joyne with them in their Armes but to joyne with the King in his against them And if it could be possible that all the three Estates should agree to ruine Religion and the State even the Body of the People should by vertue of the power which each State hath for its necessary safety have Authority sufficient to defend themselves and resist all outragious Attempts of mischiefe as hath been proved before though then for want of many conveniences and perhaps of wisedome to manage it the defence and resistance must needs be much more hazardous and dfficult The power therefore of denying and so all other power in each of the 3.
Estates and in any two of them or all the 3. together is given and is to be used ad Edificationem ad Salutem non ad destructionem for the common good and safety not ruine For in that it is Null and voyd in all reason and equity But the Doctor saith Must the King only trust and not be trusted Must he not alwayes have his security against the other which cannot be but by power of denying REâ—L 1. But he forgets that the Question by himselfe stated is when the Prince will not discharge his trust and more then soâ— is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Then it is sencelesse to trust him till 〈◊〉 shewâ—s another a better mind and it is most ridiculous to allow him in this case a pâ—wer of denying safety for that is to allow him a power of subverting all 2. But when the â—u is as now it â—s made in Hypothesi whether the Prince or the two Houses do mean wâ—ll or ill and who doth or doth not discharge their trust and who doth or doth not intend the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties who can be Judge betweene them or who can amongst men decide the difference but the Body of the People Exercising their understanding and consciences to judge who is in the right by all that hath been said and done on both sides formerly and of late and so their power and strength too to defend the right side and resist the wrong-doers And these whether the Doctor or any under Heaven will or no must have and will have the Power of denying or granting meanes for their owne and others safety and securiâ—y The Doctors reproaches against the Parliament I passe Only where he sayes Conscience might demand for its satisfaction Why should 100. in the House of Commons see more then 300 or 20. in the House of Lords more then 60. that are of a different judgement and withdrawne REPL. Satisfaction may well be given First by saying it is evident the major part of the House of Commons when they were most full were all that way that 100. are now though that be a slander for but a while since there were 300. there The King a yeare agoe in â—anu last commanded all that were in the Countrey to come up which certainly most of them did Yet no Votes but this way they goe now onely things were not then at the â—eighth they now are 2. If yet the Major part were of another judgement they would certainly come and vote and end the businesse The House hath often called the absent and punisht some for it certainly they knew then there were not enough against them of their Members to over-vote them 3. They that are wilfully absent are offenders against the Law and the common good and so are not to be trusted or thought to have wisedome to see things right how many soever they may pretend to be For also 40 being the legall number for the House of Commons to vote any thing It is against all Rules of Politick Bodies that the absence of others there being thâ— Legall Number present should hinder or discredit any Vote or Act of the Legall Body One judge of Assize two Commissioners or Arbitrators and the like suffice for any Businesse and though still the greater number the more honour and comfort yet a legall number must and will ever suffice 5 As for the Lords who pretend their absence forced by reason of Tumults First this by an Almanack as the Doctor speaks elsewhere may be confuted the greatest part of those that came and after withdrew stayed a considerable time after the Tumults till the King was gotten to Yorke and begun to call them away And if his calling them away or their withdrawing themselves shall have power to make the votes or judgement of a part that are yet resident there as the Dâ— hath learned to call them Null or not to be regarded then have the King or such a number of Lords and Commons even out of the Parliament-House power to disanull a Law even the Law for the not dissolving of this Parliament without an Act for it which must passe all the 3. Estates both Houses and the King and in which each have their power of Denying And this alone what ever might be pretended against other Parliaments makes the legall Votes of the two Houses the full judgement and Authority of the whole representative Body of the Kingdome how few soever be present or how many so ever be absent and upon what pretence soever 2. But withall if I were Confessour or Chaplaine to any of those Lords that have withdrawne themselves and upon pretetence of the Tumult deny to returne I would make bold to aske them this Qu. in their eares for their consciences satisfactoin as well as mine owne which City and Countrey rung of them and which produced such and so many Petitions for the setling of the Militia and helping Ireland and outing the Bishops and Popish Lords out of the House of Peeres whether their refusing to concurre in the reliefe of Ireland and in securing the Kingdome even in petitioning the King for the settling of the Militia which yet the King after acknowledged necessary to be setled were not the true and only cause of those tumults that were And if so where was their judgement to see the means of safety or their conscience to provide for it And then whether their owne guilt did not more send or drive them away then any violence of the Tumults Which tumults yet I approve not nor ever did But if God so punished those that would not discharge the trust it is easier to answer that question why so many remaining should see more that is better then thrice so many if so many dissenting and withdrawne As for the Doctors preferring Monarchy before Aristocracy hee shall not have me for his Adversary who thank God I am borne and live and hope to dye under a Monarchy though not absolute as the Doctors Position would make him when he listed though the Doctor wisely disclaimes any such intention But for his reasons why a King should seâ—e better then the Major part of both the Houses because he sees even with their eyes though dissenting from them and hath other Councel besides and that he hath many reasons to perswade him to consent to their free and unanimous Votes All this is most unreasonable as the Question is now stated of a Prince bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties for we are still upon that generall supposition in this Section for whatever they see he will be sure as farre as he sees his owne strength to consent to nothing that shall hinder his designe And therefore to plead his power of denying or his wisdome in this case is to yeeld him all power to bee a Tyrant Which after all the Dr. will yet prove he hath so farre as he may not be resisted in it by the inconveniences
in maintaining that of May. 26. do professe to be unlawfull 2. If hee meane deposition of the King or which is more change of the Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy I deny that this may proceed necessarily or Rationally from a necessary defence unlesse the Dr. will undertake to prove that the state by no resistance or defence can bee safe without deposing their King or taking away Monarchs which hee neither will nor can as I durst undertake against him if that were now the Qu in hand which I hope shall never be Though sure there is no such temptation to it as to see Tyranny acted and all sober necessary defence cryed out upon as Rebellion all bloodshed in such defence murther and the end of it damnation And when Religion if ever it should bee is onely laid wast by the countenance of such doctrines improved as the Jesuite Advised then if a people should be greatly oppressed in their Civill liberty there might be some danger they would deny the Drs. grounds and all their allegiance and respect to Monarchy together And I dare be bold to say it Monarchy never received such a blow since States were as the Counsellors of Princes and Court-Chaplaines have provoked men to give it Because Kings must be absolute and People meer slaves formerly in doing and now in suffering 2 He saies This power of resistance when used and pursued is accompanied with the evills of a Civill Warr c. Reply 1. Whose fault is that Suppose the people that is a great many Papists would rebell unlesse the King and Parliament would subvert Religion and bring in popery and take away all the Lawes that displeased them must they doe this to avoid the evills of a Civill Warre and if not then neither must the Parliament or People sacrifice Religion Lawes and Libertie to the feare or danger of a Civill Warre No war so bad as the Parisian massacre or that of Ireland The King of France commanded the one the Irish people the Rebells acted the other In a Civill warre wee may save something and after recover all Under a Tyrannie not to be resisted we have nothing have lost Religion Laws and Liberties and have neither goods nor Lives Wives nor Children that we are sure of a day to an end He that rationally preferres such a Tyranny before a civill War surely hopes upon some speciall grounds that Tyranny will be none to him who pleads so well for it's indempnity but rather an advancement to him much good may it doe him 3 He saith the people may be discontented even with the Parliament and so it will come to â—ade and Tyler and overthrow all government Reply 1. I have satisfied this Objection for the maine of it already 1. That it is lawfull for the people to resist even the Tyranny of a Parliament when altogether outrageous as in our Questâ—on not else 2. That the principles of defence cannot be drawne to a necessary change of the Government Of which I adde 2. Reasons One that the defence will suffice without it if wisely managed to secure the safety of the State and Religion so morally For still men some or other must be trusted and those that discredit themselves a while may merit a trust againe afterward Enough for their honour and comfort and not too much for the Common-wealth and they need not be trusted as before till they do merit a trust againe And yet no opposition much lesse change of government 3. The next government suppose each shire as the Dr. talkes a Common-wealth and all governed by a Folkmoot is still liable in all reason to mischiefes as bad or worse then were in that goverment rejected And this they among the people that are not growne barbarous and bruitish by suffering Tyranny and losse of Religion and Liberties by the Drs principles may be made so sensible of that they will never offer to attempt such a madnesse 3. Make a people Religious as much as man can make them and let them enjoy the comfort of doing that which is good as St Paul speakes of Rulers praising such And then the Rulers need not feare the multitude of them though some will ever be wicked that they will Rebell and change the Government The People indeed by Absaloms flattery Rebelled against David a righteous and just Ruler But there was more then ordinary in that GOD threatened it to him for his adultery and murther They did not so to the great Reformers Asa Iehosaphat Hezekiah Iosiah specially yet questionlesse they 2. offended very many for the Princes and People as I noted before on a speciall occasion were very bad even in their times Some Papists as did rebell against King Edward the 6. and some against Queen Elizabeth But both soon and easily subdued GOD will not suffer a just Prince or State to be troden under foot David was humbred not overthrown and men will still be found to take theiâ— parts As then St. â—aul bids Christians doing that which is good not feare the powers he exhorts to submit to and not to resist that is legally ruling by Civill laws under God So I may say to Rulers Kings and Parliaments doing well Ruling according to GODS Ordinances they need not feare the power of Resisting Tyranny in the peoples hands which I say againe Though people have often used it and prevailed against Tyrannous Governors yet never did they prevaile against Just Rulers to Depose them or much lesse alter the Government Tyranny then helped forward now by the Doctors Principles will be onely that that in a despaire will drive People to Cantoning and Folkmoots if any thing will and not at all our Position of a sober necessary Defence The Reasons that the Dr. hath brought againh Resistance are so far from being the Apostles Insinuations that they are wholly unsufficient to discredit it with Reasonable and unpartiall Men to whom next under GOD we Appeale His conclusion Ergo repeating that because some must be trusted therfore Ergo the K is still I must tell him most unreasonable when his case supposes he will not discharge his trust but is bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties So perpeatually the Dr. doth or will forget the State of the Qu. The King ought ordinarily to be trusted and a just King a David is worth 10000. nay 100000. of us his Subjects but the will and Lust of such a Tyrant as the Qu. speakes of is not to be satisfied upon one Ionathan or Naboth the meanest of those thousands yet it must be if he must still be trusted when he is bent upon extreame Tyranny What the Dr alleadges further of the Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy and the late Protestation prejudices not defensive Resistance no more then Scripture and Reason hath done The Oathes of Allegeance and Supremacy are onely to the Kings Legall power and Authority which no man disputes against The Protestation is to defend as far as lawfully I may according
to the duty of my Allegiance His Majesties Royall Person Honour and Estate and a defensive Resistance intends no hurt but defence and maintenance of him in all these respects and so was never protested against It is therfore vaine that he addes The Kings power cannot be prevalent for the good of his people unlesse it be preserved to him intire unlesse he hath a power of denyall and of chiefe Command of Armes Repl. But we Argue not against a King intending the good of his people but bent to subvert all Good and this indeed hee cannot doe unlesse their hands be tyed by some such Positions as the Dr. would make them believe that they must not deny him his power of denyall of their safety when hee himselfe or others under him meanes to subvert all Religion Laws and Libertie And now after all these discourses the Dr. spends above a Page in the 1. Edition to summe up his strength and boasts of his Victory enough and enough But how justly the Consciences of his Readers and mine must and shall Judge now and God above all To whom I very willingly appeale as well as he or any other who for mine own part have even in this discourse shewed I am no Idolizer of the Parliaments nor carryed away with it as hee charges as the Papists with the name of the Church nor yet do I thinke Religion may be defended any way For it may not be with lying nor with doing any thing that God hath undoubtedly forbidden But he hath forbidden such defensive resistance as I have Argued for my Conscience finds not notwithstanding the Drs. bigge words continually misapplying the indeed terrible sentences of the Apostle against unlawfull Resisters of the Lawfull Power And so I have done with the maine of the Drs. Booke which concernes a Divine The 2. last Sections are matters of fact wherein it is more easily to satisfie a mans owne Conscience then discourse of it publiquely because it brings persons much on the Stage and some of it cannot but reflect on the King Of whose honour I am so tender that I would not willingly have an unworthy thought of him Neither will I yeeld to the Dr. or any other living Man in my zeale to His Royall Person Honour and Estate according to my protestation Yet somwhat must be said and the Drs calling for it will deserve little thankes nor yet his pleadings for all the actions done if they be well examined To that therefore though unwillingly I come SECT V. IN this Section he propounds the sum of his second and third generall which are much matters of fact Yet in this above the major part of Votes hee again slides into matter of right and most illegally and unjustly argues against the major part of Votes as against a prevailing Faction But if conscience may refuse or suspend to consent to such Votes under that pretence in vaine do all numerous Bodies meet For this principle of his dissolves and blowes up not only all Parliaments but all other meetings Civill or Ecclesiasticall For how seldome are any matters of great importance once controverted concluded by an unanimous Vote of all as one man And in remote places who can be assured in conscience it was so though said so And what a new doctrine of Politie is this to make every one in a great Assembly to have a meere Negative as this upon the matter doth The King hath it not in this case much lesse any other single Man But he will not say so if the Major part should Vote any thing that pleases his Doctorship If they would Vote the Re-establishment of Bishops Votes and Authority this were Good with him no doubt but if it be against his Positions then it 's but the prevailing of a faction So unjust and partiall are Men that dispute and Argue for their own Interests though with pretence of Conscience But he first repeates what he had told us in his first Section that it is agreed 1. That this Resistance must be Omnibus Ordinibus Regni Consentientibus 2. That it must be Legitima Defensiâ— a meere Defensive Resistance Repl. For the first of these if some agree to it yet all do not I cannot for the Reasons oft insinuated and inserted in what went before meaning it as he doth here of an Unanimous consent in Parliament for not onely a legall number Voting suffices to any Parliamentary Act being the Major part present But if no Parliament were called or could meet through the strength of a Tyranny already prevailing Nor the Nobility and Gentry and Commons so much as send one to another tâ— know one anothers mindes through the severall Shires of a Kingdome yet might any one Shire or part of a Shire begin to take up Armes to defend themselves by resisting Outragious Attempts of Tyranny against their Religion Laws and Liberties and that from the Naturall Liberty that all have to be no further Subject then God hath commanded or themselues consented with Gods consent and this originally belongs as an inseparable priviledge of a Reasonable Creature to each person single and from thence is derived to Parliamentary and Representative Bodies and so in Case of such necessity is not bound to waite their Assembling or Votes nor to be concluded by them if Assembled they should Vote the contrary by a Conspiracy with the Tyranny But each may defend himselfe and each by the Law of charity may and should also defend his Neighbour but especially when the danger is common as all may without any Votes or Commands runne together to quench a common fire stop a breach made by the Sea resist a Forraine Invading Enemy Without I say and even against any Votes or Commands if any should be to the contrary Though still I grant Omnibus Ordinibus Regni Consentientibus out of Parliament and much more in Parliament or the Major part consenting and much more few or none dissenting makes the defence more Honourable more Easie more Successefull Onely I cannot yeeld it as absolutely Necessary to the lawfulnesse of the defence But the Dr. proceeds and would insinuâ—e that the resistance begun in the point of the Militia not onely found opposition specially in the Lords house but also that the Votes were not free And that their proceedings are declared against by a greater number than doe remaine in either House such as have beene cast out or have withdrawne themselves in dislike of their proceedings Reply Now we are come to matter of Fact and here in many things which the Dr. hath in these two Sections never any people that desired to satisfie their Consciences had such advantage by all sorts of Declarations Diurnalls and Writings summing up and repeating actions and proceedings both since the businesse of the Militia specially and even sufficiently before that he that will goe by an implicite Faith as the Drs. phrase is or beleeve only one side is inexcusable if he be misled All then that that
and then came in that manner to the House of Commons to demand those five And whereas the Doctor saith the King is bound by Oath to maintaine the Government and Revenue as by Law they are establish't REPL. 1. He discovers a secret to us which we understood not before All men stood amazed at the late Oath to this effect for the government and among other Arguments against it not a few considerable men of the Ministry and Gentry before the Parliament lookt at it as an injury to the King and opposite to our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacie and so the Parliament did in effect vote it because it urged men to sweare never to consent to alter the Government which yet the King and State might possibly judge fit to be altered But we never thought that the King was supposed bound by his Oath to it already and much lesse that all Kings in succession would be bound as now the Doctor teaches us by their Oathes to maintaine it as it is by Law establisht This it seems they presumed upon and so thought to have made all sure by swearing all the Ministery and Universities and Masters of Arts and Schoolemasters and Physitians who would have had influence enough into the whole Kingdome within awhile But God laught at this Project turned it upon the Head of the Projectours and all the Party as appeares this Day And so I am perswaded He will doe all their Present endeavours of Warre to recover themselves 2. But in good earnest doth the Doctor or any else thinke the King bound by Oath to maintain Bishops still in England though he hath consented to take them away in Scotland to prevent War even though he hazard the ruine of the Kingdome by a Civill Warre and notwithstanding any inconveniences represented to him by the complaints of his People and the wisedome of his Parliament and his owne too Or doth his Oath bind him to any more then to maintaine them so long as they are establisht by Law as he sweares to maintaine all his other Subjects in their Rights and yet an Act of Parliament may alter many things in mens Rights Are not all Rights of Church and State which are not properly jure divino compromitted to the Parliament the three Estates King Lords Commons every time they meet And may they not alter and change this or that so farre as it is humane and establisht but by the Lawes of the Land The Kings Oath then binds not him and his Parliament from taking away Bishops if they judge them not jure divino and their continuance to be prejudiciall to the State and Church and so of Revenues the same may be said 3. And if the Dr. will not admit this Answere but still contend the King did sweare to maintaine them at his Coronation as they were then by Law established Is not the King beholding to him for charging him with Perjury as in effect hee doth since it is evident that by taking away the high Commission Court and their power in their Courts of imposing Oathes and Penalties and after that their Votes in Parl. hee hath not maintain'd them as they were by Law establisht when he tooke the Oath How the Doctor will answer this I know not sure I am if any Minister having taken the Oath never to consent to alter the Government as it now stands establisht had offered to petition such a taking away of their governing power he should quickly have beene accursed as a perjured person and accordingly so dealt with It remaines then that the King onely swore to maintaine them according to Law while they should stand by Law and not to bind himselfe from any Law-making though to take them away in case it should appeare to be for the good of Church and State And if this be not made good that their taking away will be so let us all fight for them But if it be woe to those men that hazard the King and two of his Kingdomes England and Ireland once more as before they would two yeares one after another have hazarded England and Scotland to maintaine Episcopall greatnesse and Authority 4. What degree of Reformation or any thing like to the Primitive Bishops did they ever offer to be reduced unto which might have contented Parliament and People both if ever propounded in earnest to have asked no more Or what cure for any effectuall Reformation have any of them or their Party ever shewed since the Parliament met to have rendred it any way hopefull that they would bee good instruments hereafter 5. If therfore after all warnings they will needs put the King still on as it appeares even by the Doctors words to fight for their maintenance Let them remember Mr. Brightmans Propheticall Interpretation of the spewing out of the Laodicean Angell And though a vomiting somtimes makes a mans heart sick and ready to dye yet where he hath strength of Nature it comes up at last and proves happy cure Which in this case if it be Christs act as it much seemes to be will not faile to bee fulfilled to our comfort at last how weake soever it bring us first I conclude this then that as Physick is upon the defensive so much more the endeavour to cast up the humour which unprovoked or but a little stirred endangers the Bodies health by Inflamations the like So the late voting down the Bâ—s was meerly defensive and the War so much as it is to maintaine them themselves are and ever were upon the offensive and offenders in and the Parliament not at all Now for the managing of the resistance the Doctor offers to examine whether it hath beene so void of Hostility as that defensive way they pretend to should bee Let us examine it with him Here he contends 1. that the Defendant should be of answerable demeanour to David defending himselfe against Saul REP. But he may be pleased to consider that as all that handle the difference betweene an offensive War and a defensive do rationally maintain that he that is outragiously injuried as David in his Embassadors 2 Sam. â—0 Or dangerously threatned is but on the defensive though he be actually â—n Armes first through diligence and some advantages perhaps so a man keeps himselfe within the bounds of a defence though he actually offend him that does or that would assault him and even though he begin first So David did in the former case invading the Ammonites Country and yet he was properly defensive So a man on the high way if a Robber should assault him if he could prevent his blow and strike first it were but in his owne defence but much more to strike againe and kill if he cannot otherwise defend himselfe which yet is the highest degree of offence betweene party and party Ob. But David still withdrew and having taken the Kings speare and cruse he restored them without demand Rep. True but I have formerly given the reason why he ever
ready to doe all things for Ireland as if he had stayed at London 2. When he had been at Hull and demanded of the Parliament justice upon Sr. John Hotham he declared he would doe no businesse till he had satisfaction in that except only the businesse of Ireland 3. A few dayes after that he would in all haste goe over in Person to subdue the bloody Rebels and venture his Royall Person to recover that poore Kingdome Who now almost can beleeve his Eares or Eyes that any thing should be done to the prejudice of Ireland 4. If the dates be observed of some of those things mentioned in that Answer of the House of Commons they will be found done before the Parliament had done any thing more toward their own defence then when that profession was made after the Kings being at Hull when the King would have ventured himselfe to goe into Ireland 5. It is strange that the puniâ—hing of Sr. John Hotham and the suppressing the Militia the recovery of Hull and the Magazene which at last after many other Declarations perswading of no intention at all of a War against the Parliament the King declares he would loose his life but he would obtaine and this I think Quaere before there was any one man listed for the Parliaments defence should be thought a necessity allowing any retarding much lesse disappointing the crying necessities of Ireland after such Protestations of care for it 6. If the Parliament be not only not so good subjects as the now entertained Recusants but unlesse they be worse then those horrid Rebels of whom some of the Kings Declarations speake with destation enough while the Parliament protests before God and the Kingdome and the world that they have no Thoughts nor Intentions but loyall to the King and faithfull to the Religion and Kingdome and the Popish bloody Rebels who one while avouch they have the Kings authority for what they have done another while seeme to renounce him and to intend a new King But alwayes professe to intend the extirpation of the Brittish Nation and Protestant Religion in that Kingdome and then to come over into England to fight against the Parliament and Puritans and Protestants here If I say the Parliament be not worse then the Irish Traitours it is a prodegy that any necessity can be thought sufficient to doe such and so many acts as that Declaration of the House of Commons mentions or almost any one of them to the woefull prejudice of that bleeding Kingdome and great incouragement of the bloody Rebels It would be too long to insist on every particular which if a man would Rhetorically and but justly amplifie he might astonish all men how the former Protestations and those actions could agree and what necessity could be pretended for some of them as entertaining Irish Rebels c. vide 7. Unto all which adde but this as a corrollary that the whole is a most unhappy verification of that which at the first breaking out of the Rebellion was related as spoken from the Rebels that they had a considerable Party in England in the very Parliament and the Court and that they doubted not but to find us so much work at home as we should have no leisure to send succours to the Protestants there Nor can I forget what I heard a few dayes before the Irish Rebellion brake out that a Steward of a Popish great Lord disswading a Church-warden from obeying the Order of the House of Commons about taking away Idolatrous Pictures c. Bidds him not be too hasty for before a Moneth were at an end he should see great alteration and so it appeared though blessed be God not yet to the full of their hopes Lay now all these things together which the Dr. hath instanced in and forced this descant upon with those in the former Section and then let all consciences exercise their most unpartiall judgement and most ample charity and then suspect in whom the designe hath bin and is which hath necessitated the other party to take Armes to defend themselves and then let them say Amen to an Application of two Stories of Scriptures one of Jotham to the men of Shechem If you have done faithfully c. then rejoyce and â—et your party rejoyce but if not then fire come forth and devoure c. The other of Solomon concerning Abner and Amasa's bloud let it rest on the head of Joab c. but upon David and upon his house and upon his Throne let there be peace from the Lord for ever and let I say all that love God and the King and Justice and Truth say Amen But the Doctor will have us consider what the King hath done to exempt these scruples of feares and jealousies from the peoples minds Which in summe are the passing of Bils this Parliament and protestations for Religion Priviledges of Parliament Laws and Liberties For the first of these what are they worth in ill times and under ill Judges if once the Militia and the Navy be surrendred and this Parliament dissolved what did magna Charta the Petition of Right Articles of Religion serve to prevent all the illegalities and innovations upon Church and State before this Parliament or what did all the Laws and Priviledges of Scotland serve them for If suspected Councellours and followers be still about the King and favoured by him where shall be a security to take away these feares Also for the other What have Protestations prevailed to prevent former danger That unparallel'd danger to the House of COMMONS and the whole Kingdome by his comming into the House with such Followers waiting at the doors so weaponed so behaving themselvs and speaking then and since was it not the very day after his Message denying them the Guard they desired and protesting toward the close We do ingage unto you solemnly the word of a King that the security of all and every one of you from violence is and shall ever be as much Our care as the preservation of Vs and Our Children And how did all men judge that beleeved the Protestations set out at Yorke a while that no war was intended against the Parliament till some strength gotten as was noted before under the name of a Guard out of Yorke-shiere and more endeavoured by Agents in severall parts of the Kingdom and hoped for from beyond Sea altered the language and the face of things till it came to the present extremities Also whatever the Doctors Informations were at the time he was penning his clause of applauding the Kings excellent moderation amidst the pressures and extremities of warr shewing what respect he hath to the Property and Liberty of the Subject whosoever remembers what all but wilfully ignorant or altogether carelesse know of taking away armes from the Countries along to Chester and backe afterward the plundering of Banbury notwithstanding the Kings promise to the contrary and Abington Reading but most specially Brainford and Kingston
hee know what he saith when he saith Rulers are not a terrour to good Workes therefore they must not be resisted Christianity is a good worke and Nero is a terrour to it though by GODS Ordinance he should not be therefore he must not be resisted What can be more unreasonable then to bring a Reason which is quite against the thing it is brought for to interpret then as the Dâ— doth v. 2. is to make St. Paul argue against himselfe if you Reader are not should not be and â—f you Keepe the literall sâ—nce are not then either he speakes that which is falâ—e of Nero and hâ—s Officers and under Rulers for they were a terrour to good Workes if Christianity be a good worke or Christianity is no good Worke. Let the Dr. take his choyce of the three I have a fourth too take to formerly sayde downe which is that he speakes of Civill Legall Authoritie in civill Lawes as then in the Romane State and such like and to Rulers according to them were not terrours to good Workes as the Apostle saith Secondly but see the Apostles next words wilt thou then not be affraid of the Power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same that is thou needst not resist but onely looke to doe well and hâ—e will commend thee But is this true of persecuting Nero Might the Christians count this a safe course of which they need not be afraid to practice Christianity safe that iâ— for which the Power would not doe any thing against them buâ— rather prayse them did Nero so Or could the Apâ—stle thinke he would O â—d he deceive Christians in saâ—ing so or condemne Christianitie as not good 〈◊〉 a Reason against himsâ—lâ—e Some of these things must bee said or else the Dâ— Sence must bee renounced it must be said that he meddles with no matter of Christian Religion here but of civill Subjection to Civill Lawes which Rulers according â—o their Power would praise them for and they need not feare such powers doing well Thirdly adde further what the Apostle doth v. 4. For hee is the Minister of GOD to thee for gooD Is this true of persecuting Nero in the case of his persecuting Whereby the Apostle proves he will prayse thee doing that which is good Surely in an over-ruling Worke of GODS Grace the very Divell is GODS instrument for GOOD as to Iob and we may say Mâ—nister too And Nero not a whit more in the Act of persecuting Buâ— this farre from St. Pauls meaning For hee meanes a civill good praising and rewarding and protecting Nero did St. Paul knew quite contrary to this He cannot then meane him as a Persecuter and so never intends here to forbid resisting his Persecution Fourthly goe on one step further with the Apostle which will yet make it more plaine if more can be But if you doe that which is evill then feare for he beares not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of GOD a Revenger to exâ—cute wrath on them that doe evilâ— Evill contrary to Christianity is Idolatrie for one thing â—nd to make Chriâ—tians Idolaters did Nero and others persecute them if they would cast in a graine of Iâ—cense into the Fire by way of sacrifice to their Idolls they were freed Now is it St. Pauls meaning If you turne Idolater then feare for Nero beares not the Sword in vaine for he is GODS Minister a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that commit Idolatrie Or is Christianitie the evill they were to feare as that which he used the Sword against and that with great wrath and revenge There is then nothing like the Drs Interpretation In all these Arguments of the Apostle but the cleane contrary besides what followes v. 5 6 7. Of which see the exposition before But some will say was it then lawfull for the Christians then to have resisted the persecuting Emperours Tertullian and the Fathers thought otherwise I answer first whether it were or no of which by and by most certaine it was not forbidden in this Rom. 13.2 3 4. Yet this is the Capitall place If any other can be found forbidding it which the Dr. offers not to urge further then what we have examined already that is nothing to this Text. For no Logick or Rhetorick can extract that sence from hence who ever they be that have so interpreted it heretofore Secondly but because of the great Outcry made of the Christians not resisting then I will once more looke upon the Text Rom. 13.2 and compare it also with that before so v. 1. and see whether by a right view it will not plainly pronounce Christians even then free from passive subjection in case of persecution supposing they had Force to resist by their hands not tyed by Gods Ordinance from resistâ—nce or at least wise onely upon a speciall Reason applyable to that State of the Church and Roman Empire of which yet there is not the least intimation in that place but must â—e gathered elsewhere as we shall see and which is no impediment at all to Christians resisting the persecution now of Popish Tyranny I say then Subjection to the Higher power is commanded and resisting it forbidden there upon this ground because they are of GOD ordained under GOD GODS Ordinance Note how all the words accord in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whosoever resists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained under GOD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of GOD all from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order that iâ— GOD hath given to men Power and auâ—hoâ—ity to urge the execution of his Lawes and to make some Lawes under him and his and to punish according to the merit of the Offences the transgressions of the one or the other And so farre as this they are to be subjected unto by every soule either actively or at least passively and not to be resisted by wilfull froward disobedience and much lesse by taking up Armes against such Lawes or them that exercise authoritie to them But this is all the Authority GOD gives to any and not to make Lawes against his nor yet to punish those thaâ— obey his Lawes And if any such Lawes be made or any such punishment offered to be inflictâ—d even by reason of such Lawes made they are not the Ordinance of GOD He hath afforded them no such Authoritie no such Power Nay such Lawes and Rulers according to them are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opposers and Resisteâ—s of GODS Ordinance of the Law of Nature or Scripture or both The Lawes therefore are Null and the Authority Null quoad hoc as will be plaine by this instance A King grants a Charter to a Major of a Towne to governe that Towne with others or alone that is all one according to his Lawes and punish all Malefactors and moreover to make some particular Lawes or Orders in the Towne for the