being there especially he being desired beseeched by any meanes not to be there but to withdraw himselfe doth the child contract guilt in such a case Hâ—s next Argument from Scripture is That the Prophet reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance First There is much difference betweene Kings now and those Kings The people then did neither give them their power nor limit their power They doe both now when first they are set up Secondly if this be a good argument that because when Kings oppressed the prophet did not cal upon people for resistance therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful then if when people have resisted cast off the Government of their King the Prophets have not reproved them for it then it is lawfull for people in some case to resist He that will harken to his own reason must acknowledge there is par ratio If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance then there may be no resistance sayes the Doctor Then if when there is resistance the Prophets rebuke not that resistance then there may with as good reason be resistance say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression and hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him rather then to his ancient grave counsel the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did but rather seemed to take their parts 1 Kings 12.24 Return every man to his house for this thing is from mee Now the D. comes to his great place again Rom. 13. which he sayes be will free from all exceptions Nay bate me an Ace of that The truth is he vever so much as mentions nor thinks of the great exception which duly considered will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose First he supposes that the King is the supreme as Peter calls him or the higher power as here 1. It is true Peter cals the King Supreame but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man and therefore to be limited by man He may be the chiefe man in authority and yet limited in that authority he is supreame but not absolute We grant that the Houses of Parliament and we all are his Subjects but not Subjects to his will but to that power of his that Law gives him 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power Here observe his mistake Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract Well The King hath the highest power and we must be subject to this power of his and not resist it Who denies all this When all this is granted the D. hath got nothing at all for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him we do not resist the higher power although we do not do nor suffer what hee would have us to do or suffer Then he reasons from the person whosoever every soule There was then sayes he the Senate c. But what power the Senate had for the present upon agreement or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperour by agreement he shews not and if he shews not this he sayes nothing Then he tels us of the cause Christians had to resist because their Emperours were enemies to Religion and had overthrown Laws and liberties To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Laws of the Land be against it we must either suffer or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost parts of the earth rather then resist For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties he must prove that the people Senate had not given absolute power to them for the present for the preventing further evils they feared or else it reacheth not our case for we know our people and Senate have not given any such absolute power We must not be put to prove they had for it is his argument therefore if he wil make it good he must prove they had not And yet suppose they had not if we should gratifie the D. in that thing yet the Argument would be but weak for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hee doth not charge them not to resist their tyrannie Certainly they could have no power but that which was given them by some agreement if they challenged further it was no authority at all such kind of tyrannie as they would assume to themselves the Apostle forbids not the resistance of in that place As for that he sayes that some affirm that prohibition was temporary let them maintain it that affirm it I am ful of the D. mind in that this prohibition is a standing rule As for that distinction which he sayes some make that they resist not the power but the abuse of the power We answer it is not resisting abused power for it is resisting no power at all Abused power is the ill use of what is given to men but the ill use of what was never given to them more then to any other is abuse of their wils but not abuse of their power By Power I do not mean Strength but Authority Further he sayes These Emperours ruled absolutely therefore upon that ground men might resist is for any thing 1. Although the Emperors might use some force to bring themselves to an absolute power yet whether the people were not brought to consent to prevent farther danger that must be disproved when our case ever fals so as we shall be brought to consent to an absolute power although it be out of feare which God forbid then this argument will concerne us but not before 2. What they got and held meerly by force without any consent and agreement was no power no authority at all but might be resisted notwithstanding that prohibition The last thing in that Sect. is whereas we say that our Religion is established by Law theirs was not He answers 2. things 1. Shall the prohibition be good against Christians under Emperors persecuting Religion not against Subjects enjoying their Religion If those who have power to make Laws should prove so wicked as to make wicked Laws against Religion yet I am rather bound to passive obedience in that case then if men never so good should command according to their own will and not according to Law for there is an authority in the one though abused but none at all in the other His second answer is This prohibition did not concern Christians only but all people under the Emperour As before 1. we know not but these people had given up their right 2. If they had not that prohibition doth not reach them in those things wherein they had not Thus his
A briefe Answer to Doctor Fernes Booke tending to resolve Conscience about the Subjects taking up of Arms By JER BURROUGHES THere came to my hand a Book of D. Fern tending to resolve Conscience in the case of the Subjects taking up Armes I find it carryed on without giving any ill termes but in farr expressions sutable to a Treatise that concernes Conscience and the more likely to prevail with it Onely now and then some bitternes breakes forth I shall very briefly yet faithfully give you the strength of it Where he speakes right I will acknowledge it and where he mistakes I will fairly discusse and shew you whence the mistakes arise I confesse he hath great advantage in the subject because it is for the King 1. Because it is safer to plead for the King though a man mistakes but if there be a mistake in lessening the Kings right a man endangers his utter undoing 2. Truth about this argument hath alwayes been tenderly handled those who have pleaded for the King have with courage vented themselves to the utmost but others have been forced to be silent or else but even to whisper and speak halfe out lest they presently meet with not arguments but things of another nature to answer them In which regard the power of Kings hath been raised to the height and men have drunk in such opinions of absolute power in them as they have heard confidently affirmed practised and seen in Books and feeled by many taxations and censures but whatsoever might informe them hath layne in the darke not daring to appeare Therefore well might the D. call what now people begin to heare and enquire after a new doctrine it is an old truth but newly discovering it self The name of King hath taken such impression in the hearts of people that for a while they will be prejudiced against whatsoever may but sound of limiting his power or maintaining our right against it What there is in the Epistle that may prejudice any mans conscience will be answered in what follows Preamble to SECT. I. SO many good people that are come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse are miserably carryed away by a strange implicite saith to beleeve whatsoever is said or done in the name of the Parliament c. to be infallibly true and just It seems those who have not a sense of Religion do not so easily beleeve the truth and justice of what is done in the name of the Parliament This is most certaine who are hardest to beleeve what the Parliament sayes but Papists and notorious blasphemers and prophane livers I condemne not all but compare the generality of the one side and of the other you shall finde an apparent difference in the lives of the one from the lives of the other Yea so it is now that if a man as heretofore were not prophane or loose at least or zealous for ceremonies he was accounted a Puritan so now a Round-head that is in their ordinary interpretation one for the Parliament If it be said This is because Religion is pretended on the Parliaments side So it is on the other with as loud a cry as the Parliaments In such things where I must have regard to humane testimony to what part I see the most that have the sense of Religion to adhere that side I will be on except I see better grounds then yet the D. brings to draw me from it Prov. 2.20 That thou mayst walk in the way of good men and keepe the paths of the righteous SECT. I. IN this Sect. these special things are considerable 1. What he grants 2. what we grant 3. What he sayes we grant He grants we may deny obedience to the King nor onely in things unlawfull by the Law of God but by the established Laws of the Land It is well this is granted Heretofore we know this was the generall Tenet whatsoever was commanded by the King yea by any men in authority if but by a Prelate except it were against Gods Law we were bound to obey it any thing that was not sinne must be yeelded to and that for conscience sake The D. in this is ingenuous he confesseth that not onely Gods Law but mans Law limits Kings power This is a great ease to many mens consciences to know so much And further if this be true that all those Scriptures that urge obedience to Kings and men in authority must be understood with this limitation that is if they command according to the Laws of God and according to the Laws of the countrey over which they are 1. He sayes In point of resistance we grant it must be in such a case where there are Omnes ordines regni consentientes an unanimous consent of the two Houses There is no determination that the greater part present of either House agrees upon but is as truly valid and legal as if there were an unanimous consent of them both It is so in all bodies where things are carried by vote 2. He sayes We yeeld it must be a meere defensive resistance If the King should send any to mischiefe us to say we must onely defend our selves so as not to offend them is a contradiction as for the Kings person is it not the profession of the Parl. to defend it therefore we neede not dispute now about defending our selves against it 3. He sayes this likewise is granted that the Prince must first be bent to overthrow Religion Liberties and Laws and will not discharge his trust before there must be resistance By this he would insinuate that our Arms taken up are unlawfull because the King hath not declared himselfe thus What need we be put to meddle with any thing but this in the case in hand That a Kingdom seeing it self in imminent danger of enemies to infringe the liberties of it may stand up to defend it selfe yea although they come forth against it in the name of the King This is our case and if the D. disputes against any thing but this he fights with his own shadow If this be case as certainly it is then a great part of the Doctors book is impertinent to the businesse of the Parliaments raising forces For forces may bee raised upon other grounds then the Kings being bent to overthrow Religion SECT. II. THe strength of this Section and almost all the book is in that place of Rom. 13. and in this place I beleeve the D. will see or if he doth not others will that he is utterly mistaken in the sense of that place The Apostle sayes expresly Whosoever resists shall receive damnation But he doth not say expresly whosoever resists the highest men shall receive damnation but whosoever shall resist the power Let every one be subject not to the wills of the highest men but to the higher power there is a great deale of difference betweene these two The higher power that is that authority that God man hath put
upon such a man it is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that must be subjected to not resisted We professe against resisting power authority though abused If those who have power to make Laws shall make sinfull Laws and so give authority to any to force obedience we say here there must either be flying or passive obedience but if one that is in authority command out of his own will and not by Law I resist no power no authority at all if I neither actively nor passively obey no I do not so much as resist abused authority This may seeme strange at the first but if you thinke of it you will beleeve it The D. thinkes the answer to this place is onely from the limitation of the person or the cause of resisting as if we held that no particular men upon any cause but States may resist upon such and such causes whereas we doe not answer so but we distinguish betweene the man that hath the power and the power of that man and say although the power must not be resisted according to the letter and the sense of the Text yet the illegall will and wayes of the man may be resisted without the least offending against the Text But we shall meete with this Scripture again and again and shall follow it with answers accordingly He comes to examples as first the peoples rescuing of Jonathan from Saul He sayes the people were in Arms already and did but use a loving violence This example is onely brought to prove that Subjects may withstand illegal commands of Kings and no further and that it plainly proves onely he sayes it is a loving violence Well then it is a violence they resolve that the Kings command shall not be fulfilled yea though hee adds an oath to it It was indeede a loving violence to Jonathan so is all the violence that the Parliament offers a loving violence to the Kingdome yea and there is true love to the King too in it The King hath not yet sworn that he will have such things as the Parl. will not suffer so as to come to our cognisance but Saul swore that he would have such a thing done and yet the people would not suffer it to be done and yet you dare not blame them for this nay you commend them for it The second example is David resisting Saul the D. sayes It was to save his person from Cut-throats And is not our Army to save Parl. people from Cut-throats 2. He sayes David did no act of hostility but only defended himselfe David had no authority over any that followed Saul for he was then a private man but our Parl. hath authority over Delinquents that follow the King 2. David was loath indeede to venture upon a pitcht battail or to exasperate Saul or his Subjects because his strength was weake 600. to a King therefore he flies up and downe and takes not every advantage that if it were possible he might gaine favour in the eyes of Saul and his Subjects but if they had falne upon him and his power had beene equall to theirs who knowes what he would have done but we are sure as it is it is defensive and that is all it is to prove that Subjects may take up Arms to defend themselves against the injustice of their Kings For that example of David at Keilah all the answer to that is that it is an uncertain supposition But examine the place you shall finde it as certain as a supposition can be It appeares plainly that David had some expectation that the men of Keilah would have stood to him and kept off Saul comming against him and if they would it is apparent by the Text that David would have stood to it though Saul had come against him In the Text it is as plain as this Suppose the King were neere Hull going against against Sir J. Hotham and Sir J. Hotham should seek to make sure of the men of Hul and enquire whether they would deliver him or not if the King came and he should come to know that certainly they would and upon that very ground slies away is this now an uncertaine supposition that Sir John Hotham would willingly have the Town stand to him and if they would stand to him he would stay there and defend himselfe against the Kings forces His last answer to Davids example is that his example was extraordinary because he was anointed to be King after Saul But yet for the present he was a private man although God had bestowed somthing extraordinary upon him more then upon other men but it follows not therefore that in this case he had an extraordinary power to resist the Prince Prince Charls hath no more power to resist his Father then the Parliament hath For the example of Elisha using the Kings messenger roughly that came to take away his head he sayes it sayes little to the question in hand Yet he grants as much as it is brought for that defence is lawful against sudden and illegall assaults of Messengers sent by the King if against sudden why not against deliberate and plotted for they are worse This is one end of the raising of the Army to prevent such assaults If it be lawful to be done by violence by 2. or 3. when the messenger is but one then it may be done by 2. or 3000. when the messengers are 1000. For the example of the Priests thrusting out the leprous King That which this is brought to prove is thus much That there may be such uncleannesse in a King that may cause Subjects lawfully to resist him when he would doe a wicked act The Doctor sayes First Gods hand was upon him So when God shall leave a King to some horrible way of evil certainly Gods hand is upon him then He answers But he hasted to goe out himselfe But the Scripture tels us the Priests likewise thrust him out they would not suffer him to be in the Temple The next thing in the Sect. is a similitude from the naturall body Though a member may defend it selfe against outward violence yet no member must be set against the head for that tends to the dissolution of the whole If the similitude may be followed we say that some members are as necessary to the life of the head as the head is necessary to the life of those members 2. A Kingdome may sometimes have one head sometimes another but so cannot a naturall body Further he grants Personall defence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us but generall resistance by Arms he saith doth No it may maintain and regulate order and there may be as little injustice on the one side as the other But the case is not as Elishaes for the King professeth he will use no violence and we cannot know his
heart But that example of Elisha is brought to prove the lawfulnes of using force against Kings in using violence and what violence hath been already used the world knows Page 10. He comes to Scriptures denying resistance let us see what full Scriptures these are The first is Num. 16.1 c. The conspiracie of Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron It is strange that this example must be paralleld with our Parl. taking up Arms Was it not a most unjust and vile conspiracie meerly out of the pride of malicious spirits Can the D. or any man think that in justifying Arms in some case we justifie all villanous conspiracies and out-rages Besides this place condemns rising up against the Priest as well as the King Yea certainly if they had risen against the meanest officer that God had appointed in Church or Common-wealth as here they did against Moses Aaron it would have bin a very hainous offence Yea if Moses himself should have thus risen against any Officer appointed by God it had bin a vile sin in him therefore this proves no more against subjects resisting Princes then Princes resisting subjects or one subject resisting another Further we do not rise against His Majesty as they rose up against Moses Aaron we desire not that he should have lesse power then God the Laws have given him but we would preserve this in him and keep off the stroke of any further power so that we need not for this thing so much as examine the cause upon which they rose whether it were supposed or not for the case is far differing in the end of the rising But Corah and his company supposed the cause sufficient Supposed causes for any thing is not enough now we are not examining the truth of the cause of taking up Arms but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject against the mind of the King for any cause Wel our consciences need not be much scrupled from this Scripture Let us examine the rest he brings The second is 1 Sam. 8.11 18. where the oppression of the King is mentioned and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord Is the bare relation of the oppression of a King without mention in that place of any means of help but crying to God a sufficient proof that though Kings oppresse never so much yet there is no help Suppose I bring a place o Scripture where there is a relation of Subjects rising up in a wicked way against their Prince in that place there is no other help mentioned but only the Prince committed this to God God revenged it can there be drawn from thence an argument that when Subjects rise against Princes that they have no other help against them but committing the cause to God We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind the very place the D. brought before wil do it Num. 15. when Corah and his company rose against Moses we there read of no other help that Moses used but he committed the thing to God God revenged it But you wil say yet there are other places that shew that Princes may make use of other help So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered Further besides this we answer that the power of all Kings is not alike it is no argument because one King hath such and such power therefore all must needs have The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the severall Laws of severall Countries Let us see what the third Scripture sayes for yet our consciences are not scrupled it is Numb. 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them Doth it follow that this must be so every where you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets and that the Priests should blow them as well as the former The consequence would be full as good No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests for it is commanded there as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets because it is so ordered there we know the Law is judiciall and for those judiciall Laws the equity binds no further then according to rules of prudence and justice every countrey shall see behoofefull for their conditions Besides if this did binde then it were a sinne for an Act to passe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands for certainly it might not then be done no not with Moses and Aarons consent The next Scripture is 1 Sam. 26.9 Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed who endeavours it doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Person 2. Doctor Willet upon this place gives you this Answer That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands no not upon a tyrant for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe or a murderer much lesse a Magistrate a Prince But secondly he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King and yet have been guiltlesse as Ebud upon Eglon King of Moab therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King Yea Doctor Willet answers in the third place that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State He indeed limits this and sayes it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election as in Polonia and gives this reason From whom Kings receive their authority by them may they be constrained in keep within bounds This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes This distinction he used to deliver the opinion from opposition in England but if the distinction be examined there will appeare little strength in it We doe not find that D. Willet was ever reproved or his writings censured for this thing Concerning that restriction of his to Kingdomes by election we shall when wee come to shew from whence all Kings have their power see that if it proves true of them it will prove true of others for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others will be found either from election or covenant which will come to all one D. Ferne proceeds thus If the King had come into the battel his person might have been hurt as well as any This had been but accidentally If a father should voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy against whom the childe is in service and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father
Scriptures are answered and I professe I have not answered from a humour of seeking to overcome in a dispute to put glosses upon the one side or to seek evasions from the strength of the other but as in the presence of God to find out truth and to satisfie Conscience that hath to doe with God in a speciall manner SECT. III. THe first Sect. is spent about the original of the power of Kings He first contends that the power is from God and that he needs not contend for we grant that the power not only of Kings but of all lawfull authority is Gods Ordinance but that such and such men should have this power and how much of this power should be put upon this man and how much upon that that is from man Hence it is very observable when the Apostle speaks of the power Rom. 13. he sayes it is of God but when Peter speaks of the men upon whom that power is put whether Kings or those sent by him he sayes that is a humane ordinance 1 Pet. 2.13 yea a humane creation so the words are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Yea the D. grants this that though the power be from God yet the designing the person to bear that power yea and the qualification and limitation is from men by the Laws made with consent The supreme Magistrate is called the Minister of God Rom. 13. We acknowledg him so he is also said in the same place to minister for thy good I have said Ye are Gods This is true of inferiour Magistrates as well as superiour and yet none will say but inferiors may be resisted His conclusion is in this Sect. that though the power be of God yet the person designed and the qualification of power in several forms of government limitation of this is by the laws of men This is as much as we desire Many go no further then the designation of the person to be from man but the D. is more fair he sayes the qualification is from man also If so mark what follows then no man can have any of this ruling power but according as he is designed to it qualified for it limited in it by men whatsoever the name be by which you call him Emperor King Prince Duke Lord c. SECT. IV. THis Sect. is about the power of people to re-assume what power they have conferred upon Magistrates although Gods power yet conferred by them He argues thus If the power be Gods then people cannot re-assume If the King gives power to an inferior Magistrate the power that this Magistrate hath is likewise from God for so the Scripture sayes Rom. 13. All power is from God may not this power be re-assumed therefore Let none put this off with saying But people are not above Kings as Kings are above inferior Magistrates for that is nothing to the argument The argument that he makes is this If the power be of God it cannot be re-assumed Now the answer is That the power of inferiour Magistrates is of God and yet it may be re-assumed therefore his consequence is not good Further a servant by stipulation makes a man his Master who was not before Now the power of the Master is Gods may he therefore never be deprived of that power Servants must serve Christ in serving their Masters as truely as Subjects must obey God in obeying their Prince Pastors and Teachers have a ruling and a ministeriall power and this power is Gods may it therefore never be taken away from them His second Argument is We cannot recall what is once given as in things devoted 1. That can never be proved that a thing devoted to a religious use can never lawfully be imployed to no other This is a groundlesse conceit because he brings no proofs for it Eadem facilitate rejicitur qua asseritur But this that we speake of is a civill thing And for Kings that the power they have may not be taken away he gives that reason Because the Lords hand and his oyle is upon them So the Lords hand and oyle is upon Captains and other Magistrates Ioshua and Zecrubbabel are called The anointed ones Prophets Priests have Gods hand and oyle upon them and cannot the power for no cause be taken from these And yet how confidently doth the man conclude This will not a true informed conscience dare to doe Certainly notwithstanding all the information in this argument he may doe it But he proceeds How can conscience be satisfied that this their argument grounded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this Kingdome when as the Grown descends by inheritance and hath often been setled by Conquest 1. There is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that Law hath given him 2. Howsoever the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder For first none inherits but that which his Progenitors had his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance and Kings by election in this case is not much And for Conquest that onely settles former right or makes way to some farther agreement to adde to what was former The right comes not from power to conquer or act of conquering but from some agreement precedent or consequent He further argues It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here as elsewhere but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claime by it 1. Is it but a remote probabilitie that Kings were here first by election I demand what first invested such a Family with Regall power more then another It must be either God from heaven designing it as David or men appointing it or taken by force there is no quartum It was not the first and to say the third is the right is an extream wrong to the King â— meer force can give right then whosoever is most forcible hath right it must therefore be something else what can that be but the consent of people to such a family which is in effect all one with election You may give it what name you will it is not therefore a remote probabilitie but a neere certaintie that even here Kings were at first either by choice or by that which in effect is all one The Doctor sayes that Kings of England doe not claime their right by election It may be they use not that word but if the Doctor shall presume to dispute their claime for them and think to get a better and surer claime then the agreement of people that the Regall power shall be in such a family surely he will have no thanks for his labour Let him take heed of this Although he is pleased to call Election a slender plea yet I beleeve he cannot bring a stronger He is at his place