that plead for it and therefore Conscience cannot admit such a resistance as is made now adayes III. If Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull in such a case to resist and that this rising in arms is such a resistance as they say may in such a case be pretended to yet can it never if it be willing to know any thing be truly perswaded that such a case is now come that i◠That the King refuse to discharge his trust is bent to overthrow Religion c and therefore Conscience cannot but resolve this opposition and Resistance to be unlawful unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable and that people running into arm without sufficient warrant commit murder if they shed blood in the pursuit of this Resistance and perish in their own sinne if die in the cause SECT. II. FIrst then that the Principle is untrue upon which they go that resist and that Conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance for it heares the Apostle expressely say Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation and it cannot find any limitation in Scripture that will excuse the Resistance of these dayes The exception or limitation that is made is taken from the Persons resisting and the Causes of resistance thus They that are Private persons and do resist upon any cause receive damnation but the States or representative body of the whole people may resist upon such or such causes But how will this satisfie Conscience when every distinction or limitation made upon any place of Sripture must have its ground in Scrpture this has onely some examples in Scripture that come not home to the cause and some appearances of Reason which are easily refuted by clearer Scripture and Reason The examples alledged are I. The peoples rescuing of Jonathan out of the hands of Saul Answ. Here the people drew not into arms of themselves but being their at Sauls command did by a loving violence and importunitie hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawfull command II. Davids resisting of Saul Answ 1. Davids guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life 2. It was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul therefore he still gave place as Saul pursued and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power 1. Sam. 26. But thirdly because they gather out of the 1. Sam. 23. 12. that David would have defended Keilah against Saul if the inhabitants would have been faithfull to him We say that 's onely an uncertain supposition not fit to ground Conscience in this great point of resistance also to this and all other Davids demeanours in his standing out against Saul we say his example was extraordinary for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safeguarding his Person These are the cheif examples They make use also of the high Preists resisting the King in the temple and Elisha's shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger that came to take away his head and the like which speake not so much as the two former having no appearance of such resistance as is implyed in the question 〈◊〉 we answer 1. That of the high Preist is more pertinently applyed to the Popes power of excommunicating and deposing Kings then to this power of resisting now used but truly to neither For he did no more then what every Minister may and ought to do if a King should attempt the administration of the Sacrament that is to reprove him to keepe the Elements from him Ambrose Bishop of Milan withstood the Emperour at the entrance of Gods house not by Excommunication much lesse by force of Arms but by letting him understand he was not fit for that place there to be made partaker of the holy things till he had repented of that outrage and bloudshed at Thessalonica Upon which the Emperour withdrew The Preists here are said to thrust him out of the Temple but we must note Gods hand was first upon him smiting him with leprosie and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also It is added in the Text yea himselfe also hasted to go out But enough of this 2. Elisha's example speakes very little But let us thence take occasion to say That Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden and illegall assaults of such Messengers yea of the Prince himselfe thus far towards his blow to hold his hands and the like nor to endanger his person not to return blows no for though it be naturall to defend a mans selfe yet the whole Commonwealth is concerned in his person as wee see in the Commonwealth of the creatures one particular nature will defend it selfe against another but yeild to the universall If this be drawn from Personall defence to the Publick the Argument thus If the body naturall then the body politick may defend it selfe if a private person much more the whole State may and they do but shut the way up against the King that comes to destroy his Parliament and take away their heads We answ As the naturall body defends it self against an outward force but strives not by a schisme or contention within it selfe so may the body politick against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the Head and another part of the same body for that tends to the dissolution of the whole Again Personall defence may be without all offence and does not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall resistance by Arms doth which cannot be without many unjust violences and does immediately strike at that order which is the life of a Commonwealth And this makes a large difference twixt Elisha's shutting the doore against this Messenger and their shutting up the way against the King by armed men nor can they conclude upon such an intention in the Kings heart without the spirit of Elisha He professeth he intends no violence to his Parliament nor has be taken away the head of any of theirs that have fallen into his power nor does desire any other punishment inflicted upon any that do oppose him then what a Legall triall shall adjudge them to which no good Subject ought to decline Now let us see how Scripture excludes this and all other exceptions giving no allowance to resistance in regard of Persons or Causes or other pretenses and this not onely by Examples but by Precept Conclusions Resolutions which are more safe First we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Numb. 16. 3. and perishing in their sinne If it be replyed the Persons indeed were publicke but there was no cause for it Moses and Aaron did not deserve it I answer but the other supposed they did and that is
now enough it seems to make people not onely say to their Prince You take too much upon you but therfore to rise in arms also which I hope will appeare to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise Secondly see for the cause of Resistance 1. Sam. 8. 11. there the people are let to understand how they should be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord v. 18. Thirdly we have not onely Example but Resolution and Conclusion our of Scripture The people might not be gathered together either for Civill assemblies or for war but by his command that had the power of the Trumpet that is the supreme as Moses was Numb. 10. Also when David had Saul and his army in his power he resolves the matter thus Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords annointed and be guiltlesse 1. Sam. 26 9. If replyed now they intend not hurt to the Kings person yet might nor they as well have hurt his person in the day of battell as any of them that were swept away from about him by the furie of the Ordinance which puts no difference 'twixt Kings and common souldiers This also I must observe concerning this point of Resistance out of the Old Testament for from thence have they all their seeming instances That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatrie cruelty oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of Resistance But lastly that place of the Apostle Rom. 13. at first mentioned does above all give us a cleare resolution upon the point which now I shall free from all exceptions First I may suppose that the King is the Supreme as S. Peter calls him or the higher power as S. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it but I prove it S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authoritie The King as supreme and those that are sent by him 1. Pet. 2. 12 in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this Realm and that he is in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme Also acknowledged by the Petitions of the two Houses addressed unto his Majestie wherein they stile themselves His loyall Subjects But enough of this Secondly in the text of the Apostle All persons under the higher Power are expressely forbidden to resist For whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soul in the first and the resistance forbidden here concerns all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not mâ—ke these Universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from the subjection Thirdly in those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Romane State and might challenge more by the Fundamentalls of that State then our great Counsell I think will or can But now the Emperour being Supreme as S. Peter calls him or the higher power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle This for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the Cause Fourthly was there ever more cause of resistence then in those dayes were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties and therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against Resistence in the 3 4 5 verses For rulers are not a terrour to good works but evil and he is the minister of God to thee for good reply That Rulers so long as they are not a terrour 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 and just If it be replyed that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some I answer 1. This is a new exception never heard of I think but in these times 2. It is groundlesse and against the Text for the reasons of the prohibition in the 3 4 5 6 verses are perpetuall 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 alwayes be reasons against resistence because resistence 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 of God By which also that other distinction of theirs is made void when as they reply as they think acutely That they resist not the power but the abuse of the power It is also answered by some that the Emperours then were absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted I answer They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily which should have according to the principles of these dayes been a stronger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the government and was not the right of the people and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crown descending by three Conquests And this I speak not to win an Arbitrary power or such as Conquerours use unto this Crown but onely to shew that resistence can be no more made against the Kings of England then it could against those Emperours Nay with lesse reason against them then these Lastly it is replyed That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law but the Religion contended for is established by Law I answer But is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it Shall the Apostles prohibition be good against Christians in the behalfe of actuall Tyrants persecuting that Religion and not against Subjects freely enjoying the Religion established Or may Protestants upon a jealousie resist a Protestant King professing the same Religion and promising to conserve it entire to them 2. The prohibition does not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperours and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced upon them and they according to the principles of these dayes might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition and the Laws then forced
not so much as they themselves pretend to who plead for it either for the generall and unanimous consent of the Kingdome for it was not so agreed upon or for the defensive way of it because the King is upon the defensive For He was not first in Arms and the Contentiom must needs appeare to be for something the King hath right to hold or is bound by oath to maintain Also because to any Mans Conscience it will appeare to he an oppugnation rather then a resistance or meere defence Sect. VII The case is not in being No Conscience can conclude the King to be what they would have him supposed because the jealousies are groundlesse The King hath done sufficient to clear them by Promises Protestations acts of Grace And Conscience if it hold the rule of Charity will not against all those conclude contrary intentions in him upon them to ground resistance but will if it will not not be partiall judge the King hath offered such reasonable meanes of securitie to this State as ought to have been apprehended rather then this Kingdom embroyled in a Civil war and Ireland neglected Lastly a Conscience that concludes for resistance wants the perswasion of faith and the judgement of charity in an high measure and cannot appeare safely at Gods tribunall The Resolving of Conscience Touching the unlawfulnesse of the War and Resistance now made against the KING LAmentable are the distractions of this Kingdome and the more because they gather strength from the name and authority of that which as it is of high esteeme with all so should it be a remedy to all these our distempers a Parliament and from the pretended defence of those things that are most dear unto us Religion Liberties Laws Whereupon so many good people that have come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse are miserably carried away by a strange implicit faith to beleive that whatsoever is said or done in the name of a Parliament and in the pretended defence of Religion Liberties Laws to be infallibly true and altogether just But he that will consider men are men and would seek a surer rule for his Conscience then the Traditions or Ordinances of men taken hand over head shall upon reasonable examinations find upon what plausible but groundlesse principles upon what fair but deceiving pretences upon what greivous but causelesse imputations laid upon Majestie it self poore people are drawn into Arms against the duty and allegiance they owe to their Prince by the Laws of God and man For directing the Conscience in such an examination this ensuing Discourse is framed as briefly and plainely as the matter will permit SECT. I COnscience in resolving upon a question first layes down the Proposition or Principle or Ground on which it goes then it assumes or applyes to the present case then it concludes and resolves as in this question affirmatively for Resistance thus Subjects in such a case may arm and resist But that case is now come Therefore now they may and doe justly resist Or negatively against Resistance either by denying the Principle Subjects may not in such a Case arm and resist therfore now they do not justly resist Or by admitting the Principle and denying the Case Subjects in such a case may arm and resist But that case is not now Therefore now they do not justly arm and resist What it is that Conscience is here to admit or deny and how it ought to conclude and resolve this ensuing Treatise will discover which that it may more clearly appeare we will premise First That in the Proposition or Principle by the word Resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command but a rising in arms a forcible resistance this though clear enough in the question yet I thought fit to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdome and upon all those that appeare for the King in this cause that they endeavor to defend an absolute power in him and to raise him to an Arbitrary way of government This we are as much against on his part as against Resistance on the subjects part For we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Laws of the Land For in these we have his will and consent given upon good advice and to obey him against the Laws were to obey him against himselfe his sudden will against his deliberate will but a far other matter it is to resist by power of arms as is in the question implyed and as we see at this day to our astonishment first the power of arms taken from the Prince by setting up the Militia then that power used against him by an army in the field Secondly we must consider that they which pleade for Resistance in such a case as is supposed do grant it must be concluded upon Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus that is with the generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses the representative body of the whole Kingdome also they yeild it must be onely Legitima desensio a meer defensive resistance and this also Conscience must take notice of Thirdly it is considerable that in the supposition or case it is likewise granted by them that the Prince must first be so and so disposed and bent to overthrow Religion Liberties Laws and will not discharge his trust for the maintaining of them before such a Resistance can be pretented to And although the question is and must be so put now as that it seems to straiten the Case and make it depend upon the supposall of the people yet it so much the more enlarges the falshod of the Principle for it plainly speaks thus If subjects beleive or verily suppose their Prince will change Religion they may rise in arms whereas all that have pleaded for Resistance in case of Religion did suppose another Religion enjoyned upon the subject first We will therefore endeavour to cleare all for the resolving of Conscience in these three generalls I. That no Conscience upon such a case as is supposed can find clear ground to rest upon for such resistance as is pretended to but according to the rules of Conscience What is not of faith is sinne and In doubtfull things the safer way is to be chosen Conscience it will find cause to forbeare and to suffer rather then resist doubtfull I say not that a Conscience truly informed will not clearly see the unlawfulnesse of this Resistance but because no conscience can be truly perswaded of the lawfulnesse of it and so that Conscience that resolves for it must needs run doubtingly or blindly upon the work II. That the resistance now used and made against the Prince is not such as they pretend to either for that generall and unanimous consent that should precede it or that defensive way that should accompany it according to their own grants
offices of State and such like Also the Government of the Church and the Revenue of it In the three former he challenges his right as his Predecessours had the other he is bound by Oath to maintaine as by Law they are established Well if these be attempted and his Majesty will not be forced from them cannot yeild them up but it comes to Arms then will Conscience easily be convinced the King is upon the defensive for the maintaining of what he justly holds his right or is bound by Oath to defend And if we hearken to the peoples voice for that commonly speaks the mind of their leaders we shall hear them usually call this Warre as they did that with the Scots The Bishops Warre His Majesty has indeed alwayes declared against the altering of the Government of the Church by Bishops being such as it alwayes had since the first receiving of the Christian Faith in this land and of all other Governments simply the best if reformed from abuses and corruptions that have grown upon it to the purging out of which His Majesty is alwayes ready to agree But be it the Bishops Warre though the abolishing of that Government be but one of the many inconveniences which this Power of resistence doth threaten this Land with and which the King has reason by Power of Arms to divert whether is it so just in Subjects by Arms to force a change of Government which was alwayes in the Church and by Law established as it is in the King to defend the same as he is bound by Oath it is clear which of the two are upon the defensive The second particular by which the defensive way of this resistance is to be examined was the managing of this Warre on their parts whether so void of acts of Hostility as that defensive way should be which they pretend to Davids resistence made against Saul is frequently alledged by them which example though it will not countenance their cause as was shewed before yet might it tell them their demeanor should be answerable He offered no act of violence to Saul but still gave place and withdrew from him the Spear indeed and the Cruse David tooke away from the Kings head but it was onely to shew Abners neglect who had the Command of Sauls Militia and to testifie his own integrity therefore he restored them before they were demanded 1 Sam 26. But now the Kings Spear and his Cruse his Ammunition and His necessary Provisions are taken away intercepted not restored though often demanded used against Him with all advantage nay he is stript of the very Power and Command of Arms His Officers and Ministers thrust out and other substituted and by them His People drawn into Arms against Him Also by these that are in resistence against the King His Loyall and Peaceable Subjects are assaulted despoiled of their Arms Goods Estates their Persons Imprisoned because they would according to their Allegiance assist Him in this extremity or would not contrary to their Conscience joyn with them against Him What Conscience that will not follow this way with a stupid implicit faith can be perswaded that this Warre is the defence of the Subjects Liberties and not rather an oppugnation of them or that it is a meer resistence or withstanding of a force first made against them and not rather a violent illation or bringing in of force upon those that were disposed to Peace Therefore no Conscience that ha's a sense of Religion or of that which is just and right between Man and Man can beare a part in this resistence for fear of that sentence of damnation which the Apostle ha's laid upon it SECT. VII BUt in the last place if Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull upon such a case as they make to take Arms and resist and that this rising in Arms is such a defensive resistence as in such a case they seem to pretend to yet how will it be perswaded that the Case is now that is That the King is such as the people must be made to believe he is unles it will as desperately offend against the rule of Charitie in so concluding upon the King as it does against the rule of Faith and Perswasion in admitting so uugrounded a principle as is now rested on for resistence so that such a Conscience shall have in its perswasion neither certainty of Rule for the principle it goes on is false nor certainty of the Case for it knows not the heart of the King to conclude for resistence upon supposals of his intentions and in its judgement it will be altogether void of Charitie Indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant Subverter of Religion and Laws a Person not to be trusted or at least as one seduced to such evil designes by wicked Counsel But what Hath this King forbid the exercise of the Religion established or left off to professe it himselfe hath he disclaimed his trust or not upon all occasions promised justice and libertie to his Subjects Yea but they have cause to fear Popery will prevail and that he will not stand to his promises It seems thy are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion they are so ready to fly to Arms to secure themselves But shall subjects rise in Arms against their Prince upon such remote fears and jealousies as these will appear to be When can such be wanting in turbulent minds When shall the Prince be assured of safety This was the way that David himself was shaken out of his Throne and driven from Jerusalem by Absolom This cunning Rebell steals away their hearts by raysing jealousies in them and an evill opinion of Davids government 2. Sam. 15. 3. Some ground it seems he had for his treacherous plea through the negligence of those that were under David but it was his villanie to make use of it to the alienating of the People from their King Accordingly let us now consider what slender grounds our People have for their fears and jealousies then what security they have and mightt have against them that it may appear how causelesse those jealousies are in themselves how unjust causes of this resistence If we examine the fears and jealousies that have possessed the People we shall find them to be raised upon these or the like grounds Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in The Queens Religion The resort of Papists to His Majesty His intercepting of means sent for the reliefe of Ireland from whence the People by their good teachers are made to believe that He means to enslave this People re-establish Popery and does comply with the Rebels In answer to all which I needed not to say more then what Michael the Arch-Angell to the Devill that arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee Jude 9. but in particular For such reports of invasion from