Realm and that he is in all causes and over all persons supreame Repl. But some Lawyers will tell him That the Oath of Supremacy is either only against forraigne powers and namely the Pope having to doe here or against all particular persons having authority above the King within the Realme But that with all Law-books intimate a superiority in curia Comitum Baronum c. which is the two Houses of Parliament And secondly That he is supreame not to judge all persons and causes at his pleasure but as assisted according to Lawes with his Counsell and Judges and specially his great Councell and chiefe Judicature during their sitting the two Houses of Parliament His Supremacy then still appeares limited by and according to Law 3 But hee adds This is also acknowledgedged by the Petition of the two Houses addressed unto his Majesty wherein they stile themselves his Loyall Subjects Repl. True and right but still this is to be understood to be Subject according to Lawes and for the good of King and Kingdome neither of which is promoted or preserved by a restraint of a defensive Resistance of tyranny which restraint the Doctor so contends for Adde here what must elsewhere be further urged That the King himselfe in his answer to the 19 Propositions acknowledges that the two Houses have legall power more then sufficient to prevent or restraine Tyranny Which I would faine have any man shew me how it can bee done but by taking up Armes and then I will yeeld him the cause That all Armes taken up are unlawfull But till then the King hath granted the cause legall and just against the Doctors first maine Proposition and all his Arguments His next ground is That 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 every soule in the first verse and the resistance forbidden here concrnes all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not make these universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from subjection Repl. 1. He still runnes on in his errour to limit the higher power to the supreame But secondly I grant him that all other powers under the supreame are forbidden to resist in the Apostles sence A Constable Justice Major Sheriffe Judge of Assize nor the very Houses of Parliament may not resist the authority of the King commanding according to Lawes But yet it remaines to be prooved that they may not resist his violence when he is bent to subvert Lawes and Liberties and Religion and all Or the violence of his followers even though doing it by his warrant or in his presence Also because he doth so much insist upon the phrase of higher power let me put him a case A wicked Robber that hath committed twenty most bloudy murthers one after another in cold bloud is led away after legall condemnation by the Sheriffe to be put to death Suppose a King would come with armed souldiers and offer to take him violently and by force out of the hand of Justice Who resists damnably now that power which is the Ordinance of God and to whom the Sword is committed The Sheriffe and his men that resist the violence or the Kings followers or even himselfe that resist the due Execution of Justice Let him study on it and give an Answer at his leisure 3. He proceeds In those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell I thinke will or can But now the Emperour being supreame as S. Peter cals 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 Thus for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the cause Rep. 1. Doubtlesse Saint Paul wrote not to the Roman Senate nor Saint Peter neither And if the Doctor will proove it unlawfull for them to resist he must proove it from the Law of nature or at least from some ancient Law of the old Testament given to the Ancestours of the Roman Senate Or else shew how this could concerne them who never heard any thing of it For any thing then â—e saith it was lawfull for the Roman Senate and the Heathen Subjects to resist though not for Christians 2. If he or any for him shall say that it suffices for his cause that it was forbidden to Christians and accordingly is now Rep. 2. If you reply that supposing it not forbidden to Heathens No more was it to Christians before S. Paul and S. Peter wrote And if so then belike as was formerly toucht the Apostles laid a yoake upon the necks of Christians worse then all the Jewish ceremonies which the Gentiles were ever freed from For whereas before the Romans might resist their tyrannous Emperours now by becoming Christians their hands must be tyed to have all their throats cut even though the whole Senate were Christians at one Neroes pleasure He that wisht that all Rome had but one neck that he might strike it off at a blow had done wisely to have endeavoured to have made them all Christians and then he and his Guard with him or his Army might by this Doctrine have struck off all their heads or runne them all through one after another as fast as they could deale blowes and so he should have his will in their destruction though there must have beene a little more paines taken about it Surely Christ who came to purchase liberty to his people never meant to enslave them to tyrants above all others of Man-kind The Doctor must goe prove resistance unlawfull from some other grounds of natures law or the ancient lawes of Scripture or else this Text of S. Paul will appeare to have another interpretation even that which hath beene given before in the explication of the Text and inference from it Thirdly I will not therefore trouble my selfe to compare the Authority of the Roman Senate with our Parliament much lesse argue for that power which they had lost about a 100 Yeares before S. Paul writ It suffices he hath not disproved at all their present power of resisting tyranny when S. Paul wrote and that by the same argument I have disproved that S. Paul forbids Christians to take any such power to themselves 4. But he adds was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not only conceived to be enclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and liberties Rep. If it had been before demonstratively proved that resisting the power or higher power did properly signifie taking Armes against the Supreame when he plays the tyrant This fourth step were a just illustration and confirmation of it But now he only beggs the
that Subjects may not resist a Prince who is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The Apostles Reasons against Resisters are 1. For Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill Now is this a reason why I may not resist such a Tyrant Who can be more a terrour to good workes and not to evill then he that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Ergo of such a Resistance of a tyrant the Apostle speakes not But of Resistance of that Ruler who go's altogether according to Lawes and Liberties which is justly punishable with Damnation without Gainsaying 2. A second Reason or enforcement of the Apostles argument against Resistance is Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power Doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now doth this argue a Tyrant is not to be resisted Is there no cause of feare of him while a man do's that which is good that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Or shall a man have praise in doing good of such a Tyrant Therefore is not a Tyrant that power which may not be resisted But he that stands to the Lawes and Rules according to them Damnation is just against those that resist him without question 3. Thirdly The Apostle proceeds vers 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good and so not to be resisted without resisting the Ordinance of God and so incurring damnation But is this true of a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Is he the Minister of God to thee for good Or the Minister of his owne lusts rather for evill Resistance of such an one then is not the Resistance the Apostle forbids but of one who is the conservatour of Religion for he and he only is the Minister of God to thee for good and worthy is he of Damnation that resists such an one 4. The Apostle adds If thou doe that which is evill feare for he beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Is this man a Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties or most directly opposite to Tyranny A Tyrant secures those that do evil so they will joyn with him and serve him in his Tyranny from feare And he beares the Sword not only in vaine in reference to any good end intended by Gods ordinance but altogether contrary to it and is so farr from being the Minister of God that he is as before a Minister of his owne lusts to shelter those that doe evill and to pursue with all wrath and revenge him that doth good and will not be a slave to his lawles designes and desires Still then of such a Tyrant S. Paul argues not that he may not be resisted but him that he describes which is a just Governour and so upon no terms to be resisted 5. Upon all this the Apostle resumes Wherefore you must of necessity be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake What rules of conscience before laid inferr'd now by the word wherefore urge such an Asinine or stupid suâ—ject as to be subject even passively and not to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties when all that went before speake expresly of another power and Rulers of another temper A man then for feare of wrath not being able to make good his Resistance may yeeld such passive subjection but sure conscience at least not in this place urges him not to it 6. Yet the Apostle goes-on For this cause also pay you Tribute for they are Gods Ministers continually attending on this very thing For what cause Because they may attempt to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Doe we pay Tribute for this cause that they plunder and change Lawes c. Or that they may defend them Also upon what thing are they thus Gods Ministers to attend continually Is it to subvert Lawes c. Or to preserve them The Apostle then speakes not of a Tyrant but a just ruling Prince and pitty but he should be damn'd that resists him 7. Finally he concludes this matter with saying Render to all their due By what Law of God or man may a Tyrant subvert Religion Laws and Liberties or even be let alone in so doing I am sure the Apostle hath not exprest any such thing hitherto It is Ergo but the Doctours mistake though I confesse it hath beene many wise and good mens before him that the Apostle forbids resisting such a Tyrant which as I said above all his Reasons go rather quite contrary unto as describing the Power and Ruler that is to be subjected to and not resisted altogether crosse to Tyranny and his Interpretation and Assertion is altogether crosse to the Apostles Having set the understanding of the maine Text right I come now to those examples that are alleadged to proove That it is lawfull to resist in some cases 1. The example of the peoples resisting Sauls illegall and tyrannicall attempt to have put Jonathan to death without cause If this were lawfull in them in a particular mans case against whom also there was some seemig cause How much more to resist one that is bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties and so to take away the life of many at his own pleasure To this is answered not that it was unlawfull in the people to make this resistance which yet if he deny not he plainly yeelds his cause in his first Proposition and Rom. 13.2 forbids not all Resistance but only that the people drew not into Armes themselves but being there at Sauls command did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawfull command To this I reply 1. If it were lawfull now what hinders but they might have come together to prevent such a mischiefe as Jonathans unjust Death Sure Saul called them not together to resist himselfe in any thing Neither did his calling them together to fight against the Philistines authorize them to fight against him if it were not lawfull of it selfe Our King call'd the Parliament together yet he allowes not them to resist upon that pretence though they are undeniably not the great Councell only but the great Court of Judicature in the Kingdome This peece then of his Answer is nothing but words and pretence 2. As for his loving violence and importunity wherewith he would blanch their Resistance Grant they shewed a love to Saul because Jonathan was Sauls sonne But had Saul counted him his Enemy as he did David afterward It would have sounded harsh violence and out-ragious enough and it was plainly a great deale beyond a loving violence For Saul swore his death and they swore his life that not a haire of him should c. This was Resistance then with an Oath as it were to make Saul forsworne After this Example then our people may sweare an Association that
Vniverse To apply this in a word the safetie of the whole is the undoubted generaâ— Fundamentall of all States and so of the particular Lawes toward this and among them of the Kings being intrusted with the Militia But it is not limited by this particulaâ— Lâ—w which in case of necessitie when the Prince cannot or will not discharge â—is Tâ—ust for the safety of the whole must in Reason needs give way to the Fundamentall the safetie of the Whole and so quo ad hoc for so much and so long till this necessiâ—y ceases falls into other hand those that are next entrusted or rather then faile to the whole communitie it selfe But to câ—me to the fundamentall by him instanced in power originally in and from the People and this to be reassumed when the King intrusted will not discharge his Trust Concerning which let it be remembâ—ed that there seemes to lie a caâ—umniating Fallacy in two of these phâ—ases First in thaâ— of not discharging the Trust which here sounds as if it might be but some ordinary Omissiâ—n of Câ—re whereas the State of the Qâ—estâ— by himselfe layde is such a not discharging the Trust as proceeds from his being bent of himsâ—lfe or seduced by others which is all one for the danger and so necessity of using what power may be for resistance to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties In this case only Power of resistance is here pleaded for not in others And indeed the very phrase of Power of Resistance observed can beare no other Construction For it Imports a violence offered a danger presented which needs to be resisted not a sleight or ordinary failing to discharge a Trust But his phrase of re-assuming the power seemes more to sound a taking away all Power henceforth from the Prince which the Parliament nor those that have rationally pleaded their Cause never mention but with Protestation to detest the thought And I for my part wholy disclaime the pleading for any such reassuming of Power by the People or Parliament I onely maintaine a Right to use so much of it and so long as is of necessitie of the safety of the whole Of which now let us argue wheâ—her this Government of ours cannot as rhe Doctor sayes be built upon this fundamentall but confusion and Anarchy be raised He makes his discourse upon two particulars as it must be first of the Originall of power Secondly of the Power of reassuming it In the first I will not tye my selfe to the phrases of the Observatour or any else but examine the Drâ— Assertion and proofes by what Scripture and religious Reason declares aboue it To cleare which I will propound a briefe Schema of the maine things considerarable in Government which in the prosecution of the discourse I shall make use of more then once I say that in Government foure things are considerable 1. The Nature Authority of Commanding to doe â—orbeare by making Lawes calling for obedience to them Constraint to obedience by punishment Verball Reall 2. The end Chief GODS Glory Good of the Whole Society Secondary speciall Comfort of the Governours 3. The Efficient Supreame GOD. Subordinate Man 1. By Nature Parents 2. By Accident in which is considerable 1. The moving Cause the will or consent of the Parties be Governed which is either Altogether free and by Châ—ise partly forced by Occasion oâ— Violence 2. The persons Governing 1. In a Family Husband Mr. Mrs. 2. In a State one Monarch Many in Aristocracy of Chiefe Men. Democracy of people Soveraignty Subordinately Officers 4. The Extent Absolute Limited For Commands Constraints the Kind Degree He that hath not all these in his Eye I meane not in this Forme or Phrase but in sense shal never discern cleerly nor discourse rationally of this subiect of government our Dr. though he once occasionally mention the Peoples good as an End upon which Rulers ought to attend Yet he speakes so little oâ— it as it had need be a little more rememembred then it is and Gods glorie also which is the chiefest End of all But indeede the thought and mention of those Ends much would be too crosse to his purpose and therefore hee is wise in his Generation as I may say if without offence to forbeare it Therefore on the other side I must make bold to tell him that though the physicall end of things may be silenced or sleighted in a Discourse or Definition Yeâ— in moâ—all things such as Governmâ—nâ— the End at least the chief End is a necessary ingredient of both Dâ—finition and discourse and an Essentiall part of it if a man will consider it as he ought practically Let me therefore adde iâ— to his Definition oâ— Description of Power or Government and then it will râ—â— tâ—â—s It is a sufficiency of authority for Command and Coerciâ—n in the Governing of a People for Gods glory and the good of the Society And all the lawfull Power hath this Effect in part even Hâ—athen Authority redouâ—â—s to Gods Glory as the conservatour oâ— Mankind and effects also the Civill good of the Common-wealth Now the Dr. saith this power it selfe not naming the end is to be distinguisht from the designing of the person to beare that Power and the qualification of that power this I grant him and accepting his grant of the two latter being from men and after their consent ratified by Gods permissive Approbation I defiâ—â— a little to examine how farre that may be granted him which he earnestly contends for that the Power it selfe is from God and what may be inferred from thence for him or us His meaning is that All Men are as he saith bound to set up and live under Government This being the Ordiâ—ance and Appointment of God unto men as they are Reasonable Creatures If he meane this of Parentall Government That is set up to their hands by God in Nature as long as the Parents and Children live together and bind the Children to live with their Parents and under them till either necessity drive them away or their Parents dismisse them But â—f he meane this of Politicall Government of a People of many Families as it is pâ—aâ—â—e he doth and must if he will speake ad rem then I cannot absolutely grant it him neither will his text or Reasons prove it My Reasons of Denyall are first that all Mankind whose Parents are dead and were not by them while they lived Subjected to a Government are naturally free so not bound to part with that free some as even a Monarch doth part with much freedome when he takes the Rule unlâ—sse they see a necessitie or at least a great advantage for Gods Honour and their owne and others Good which is not alwayes to be found in setting up a politick Government 2. Wherein I am confirmed by the consideration of the three great Patriarkes Abraham Isaac and Iacob who while they lived in Canaan were not within any government but onely Domesticall and neither did
and Man Nor shall the Dr. bee ever able to speake Reason in Opposition to it himselfe grants straight way that salus Populi in a good Sence is suprema Lex And when a People neither seekes nor desires any thing of hurt to their Prince but onely safety to themselves It is good in no sence if not in this to allow I say more command a State that hath any considerable strength to doe it to defend it selfe and so procure its owne safety even by resisting if need be by force of Armes And though he jâ—ere at the Plea of necessity when as he saith Right and just will not defend a thing Yet if himselfe were assaulted on the high way by one that offered to kill him and in his house in the Night by Robbers would he say that either out of the case of Necessity he a private mâ—n or any Sâ—rvants of his might in right or justice kill another man or that Necessity would not be a sufficient Plea if in that Case any did kill such a Theef or Robber not onely before men but God also The Law among us allowes the Plea of se defendendo in such Cases And Gods Law expressely Against one that breaks a house in the night though not in the day as not admitting them a necessitie to kill the thiefe as the Text there plainely implies As for his saying Every thing must be honest which is Sparâ—ae utile imagined to conduce to the proposed End REPLY This is but a second calumny of which his Treatise is full every where neither profit nor Imagination is admitted or urged in this case but necessity apparent or judged imminent by Rules of prudence which commands endeavour of prevention of extreme evills such as the ruine of a States safety even by care and Power before hand as well as when it lies gasping under the pressure Counsell in prevention is indeed better then help out of trouble For by that lesse trouble is suffered and lesse offence acted in the defence But these are but the Drs flourishes for he will now stabbe this reason to the heart with diverse contrary Reasons against all the plea of Necessity of safety The first is that this among others is one of the many Weapons sharpned for Resistance at the Philistims Forge the Romish Schooles Reply First himselfe will not allow this to be reproach to him or his fellowes in any of their positions nor thinke it sufficient to make an Argument be rejected because the Romonists have either used it or abused it Secondly but he is deceived in paralelling the Cases They pleade for the Popes Power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresie because else the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance oâ— the Catholicke Faith and its owne safety Reply The Argument is not good his Church is not a Civill State but the good of it is mainly spirituall and to be preserved by such spirituall meanes as GOD hath appointed who both instituted and constituted it himselfe and left not to it the ordering of its owne safety or good But our case is of a Civill State whose good is Civill and naturall and is to be preserved by civill and naturall meanes and so by Armes in case of danger even from its owne Prince bent or seduced to ruine it The Dr. himselfe straightwayes grants the State hath meanes of preservation such as the Law hath prescribed If he can shew us any true meanes in the case stated by him but this power of resistance I yield him the cause If not he doth but abuse his Readers Consciencâ—s to blind them with words which are of no validity But I have shewed him before and must againe remember him that in our Parliament State by the Kings owne acknowledgement hath such Power by Law to punish even the Kings followers and Favourites as is more then sufficient to prevent or restraine Tyranny We aske no more for our safety But when they will resist the Parliament by Armes It hath no way to punish them or defend the State but by Armes Which therefore it may lawfully take up Secondly the Dr. addes If every state hath such Meanes to provide for its safety what meanes of safety had the Christian Religion in and after the Apostles Times Or the People then enslaved what meanes had they for their Liberties Tertullian in his Apologie saith the Christians had number and Force sufficient to withstand but they had no Warrant And the Apostle forbids them and all other under the higher Power to resist Reply This example of the Christians not resisting is counted a Capitall Argument we shall see what strength it hath First it is brought in this place for the Christians were neither a civill State of which the present Reason proceeds nor neere to the greater number in the The State They had the Lawes which is in some Sence the State against them and so they ever had beene and the greater part of the body of the Estate by farre were opposite even in Tertullians Time Though therefore the Church being properly onely a spirituall State have not of necessity civill meanes to provide for the outward safety of Christians yet a Civill State whether of Heathens or Christians may have and hath which is by taking Armes in case of necessity as before But the Dr. saith the Apostle forbids them and all under the Higher power to resist Reply I suppose what I have formerly said on this place Rom. 13.2 may and will satisfie most Readers for that place But the Drs. importunity forces me to repeate part of it here and apply it to the case of Christians even then and much more now And so I make bold to tell the Dr. that he doth most miserably wrest the Apostles words in this case of all others which to demonstrate I say to demonstrate I appeale to the context after and before and let all Christians and Consciences or even reasonable Men Iudge whether the Drs. Interpretation be not most absurd Thus the Dr. interprets v. 2. Whosoever shall take up Armes to resist Nero persecuting the Christian Religion resists the Ordinance of GOD Rebells against GOD in resisting the higher Power ordained by GOD and if hee kill any man in such resistance he commits murther incurres damnation for so doing This is the Drs. Sence plainely and his words here and there are fully so much Now marke St. Pauls Reason v. 3. and make Sence of it or Religion much lesse of it if you can to this purpose First for Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to evill Nero is the Ruler here meant persecuting Nero Let the Dr. now tell me or any for him Is not persecution a Terrour to the Workes that are persecuted and then is Christianity a good worke or not Nero persecutes that and is a Terrour to that but so he is not to good Workes Then belike Christianity is not a good Workâ— Will St. Paul speak thus or doth
that will follow if he have it not Heare his saying Such power of resistance would be no fit meanes of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the disease Reply If he can shew this de doth wonders What worse then subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties For that is the disease Surely all these are of little worth with the Dr. if he will maintaine any thing in a State to be worse then these Sinne indeed in the practicers is worse then the suffering of the worst Tyranny But that is not properly in question in this Section but the Civill Inconveniences of resistance though I grant they may prove sinnes too as things may be managed but otherwise it is evident no Civill Inconvenience to remedy such a Tyranny as is in dispute can be so bad as the disease The Dr. once more urges Rom. 13. and by ver 3 4 5 6. would faine prove that the Apostle shewes the evill and inconvenience of resisting Tyranny Reply But I have shewed more then once that the Apostles Reasons are quite against him and he saith nothing to prove that hee abuses not the Apostle not vouchsafing I doubt not daring to quote the words as they lie lest every eye should see how hee perverts them much lesse offering to Analize them or shew the strength of the Reasons which I have done against him Onely he repeats what hee hath before told us in generall that although the powers were then altogether unjust c. Nothing answerable to the end for which governing power is ordained Yet doth the Apostle draw his Reasons against resisting them from that good Justice Order for which God hath set up the higher Powers Reply This is as good a Reason as to say God hath ordained Ministers Pastours to preach and administer his word and Sacrament and pray that his people may be saved Therefore though the Ministers Pastours be carelesse and neither afford the People any Word or Sacraments or prayers or false Teachers and pervert Word and Prayer and Sacraments Yet the People may not seeke their Soules safety from some other that will bee more faithfull even though not attempting to put those evill Ministers Pastours quite out of office but leaving them in their places still to see if GOD will give them better minds Only not trusting them so long as they shew themselves notoriously unfaithfull If to deny the people this bee reasonable because God ordained them ministers Pastours for their good though they that are such by Office doe nothing toward it then the Dr may pretend hee discourses with some reason Which yet will not satisfie the Apostles phrases as I have abundantly shewed before But he saith the Apostle would insinuate that the resisting of the Higher Powers even when they are Tyrannicall tends to the overthrow of the Order which is the life of a Common wealth not onely because there is still Order under Tyranny but chiefly because if it were good and lawfull to resist the power when abused it would open a way to the people to resist and overthrow Powers duly administred for the executing of wrath on them that doe evill Reply All this is altogether contrary for 1. The Apostles words will bear no such Insinuations as I have proved 2. If Religion Laws and Liberties be subverted what Order is left under such Tyranny Sure whether Civill order be or not no Religious order is which yet is more worth then the life of a Common-wealth God hath often overthrown Common-wealths for subverting this Religion But never in his Word preferred the ordinary Order of a Common-wealth or the Common-wealth it selfe before 〈◊〉 Religion so as to bid his servants suffer that to bee subverted even whâ—n 〈◊〉 by the laws of a Common-wealth rather then the order of the Common-wealth should be endangered by it 3. It is a Signe the Tyranny was deepely and desperately resolved if it cannot be resisted by a meer defence but that must tend to the overthrow of the life of the Common-wealth 4. The tyranny breaks the Order stabs at the life of the Common-wealth and yet the Dr. is so zealous an advocate for it however he deny it that he cryes whore first he cries out of the danger to Order 5. To tend to the overthrow of that Order which is the life of the Common-wealth may be a fallacious phrase Doth it tend so necessarily or in the intention of the Resisters Or rather contrary Or doth it so tend to overthrow it as the Tyranny to be resisted doth All remedies of violent and desperate diseases doe in some Sort tend to the overthrow of the Life of the Body Yet none saies the remedy is worse then the disease which that is knowne to bee mortall the other may prevent death 6. This opens no such gap to the people to resist and overthrow power duly administred as the Doctors doth open a gappe to Tyranny If a man a Prince feare not GOD and know his people principl'd not to resist him in any case what can hinder him from all Kind of Tyranny And I would it were not evident that the presumption of this had made way for what we feele I am sure the Jesuite Contzen whose principles have been followed step by step among us see Mr. Newcomens Sermon â—n Neh. 4. Preached last Nov. 5. to the Parliament encourages a Prince to attempt the subverting the Protestant Religion though establish't by Law because the Protestants will not Rebell for the cause nor ever did The Dr. seconds him well But now a people if voyd of conscience yet will find it hard and thinke it so if they have any wit for them to hope to overthrow powers duly adminstred It is not so easie a thing multitudes will stand as their duty and their comfort experienced commands them for such powers And the Order that is setled will much help to represse such unruly disorders And though there be examples in Storyes of people that have prevayled against Tyrants Yet I remember not one that ruling according to Laws was overthrown by the people namely in setled times for the souldiers mutynies against the Roman Emperours Pertinax and others will not reach this case Finally Wee are farre from saying that pretences suffice or even that every act of Tyranny allowes of a Nationall resistance But such as in the case by the Dr. stated shews or gives just grounds to believe a designe to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties or any of them But the Dr. will illustrate or prove his inconveniences 3. wayes 1. This power of resistance if admitted and pursued may proceed to a change of Government The principles that are gone upon and have carried it on so farre as we see at this day may also lead it on to the greatest of evills Repl. Is not the King much beholden to the Dr. that will needs urge the Parliament to those consequences they have professed to have no thought of and in their late Declaration
tell shewed the Kings hand for to have had Hull and the Magazine delivered up to him And all this before the setling of the Militia by an Ordinance or Sir Iohn Hothams taking in Forces to keep Hull safe Let Conscience now judge whether all this gave not just occasion for a preparation for Defence and of a long time after this nothing more was done the Militia setled in very â—ew Countries till the Kings proceedings hath further warned them â—o stand upon their guard in other places besides London It is true the King for a time had nothing but Proclamations and Declarations to oppose them But after he was once gone Northward and the Qu. beyond Sea what did hee ever doe or say but in opposition to them and while his Declarations renounced all thoughts of Warre notes were sent over into Holland for Armes and a beginning of an Army raised at Yorke under the name of a Guard When first the Houses having petitioned the Removing the Magazine at Hull to London Upon a counter-Petition of a very few Gentlemen of Yorkshire pretending the name of the whole County that it might be kept cleare still the King goes instantly to Hull and demands entrance intending as he declares to the Parliament after that he meant so to doe to take possession of the Towne and Magazine and dispose of it and being denyed proclaimes Sir Iohn Hotham Traitor without any processe of Law or sending first to the House to know if they would owne it and after demands justice so peremptorily as to deny before hand all other businesses but that of Ireland and how well that was done we must remember anon and then was the Army raised under Colour of a Guard the Yorkshire men not comming in readily enough to make it appeare a great Army And all this before ever it was declared by the Houses that the King seduced by wicked Councell intended to make war against his Parliament and so before ever they set out the Propositions for Money Plate Horses and therefore certainly before any one man was listed In all which the event hath shewed that they were rather in wisdome too slow then in conscience too quick in their Preparations for defence Remembring also that as soone as the Ship Providence was come to them a provdence indeed to discover what was before intended the Siege was straight â—aid to Huâ— and the Declarations then spoke another Language then common men understood them to speake before For after all the Lords present with the King had subscribâ—d about Iune 16. that they saw in the pretented Guard c. no intention of Warre against the Parliament within few dayes the King tels them that if to seeke to recover Hull and the Magazine then at London and suppresse the Militia in all which the Parliament was engaged as much as could be were to make Warre against the Parliament he ever meant to doe these things and had ever declared so though I beleeve none that beleeved him did or could so understand Let Conscience now judge who began first As touching the cause of these Armes the Doctor would perswade us that it is for somthing which the King hath right to Deny To evince which he first affirmes that it cannot be for Religion or Priviledges and ancient Rights and Liberties for these the King doth not deny REPL. But now sufficient verball promises with such actions done as were noted even now are to secure Religion or the State Conscience must judge and it may a little the better when we come to consider them againe in the proper place for them for here they outrunne their season like Abortives in the next Section Secondly he saith it must then be for denying the Militia the disposing offices of State and such like also the government of the Church and the revenue of it and for not denying his power of denying in Parliament REPL. 1. For the Militia I referre to what hath beene said how just reason the Parliament had to petition the securing it and after to settle it as in case of necessity by Ordinance Of which their Declarations have given more full account 2. For disposing Offices of State it was never desired till the difference was very farre advanced and Hull attempted and Sir Iohn Hotham proclaimed Traitour and the Army raised at Yorke called a Guard And so onely desired as a Security after such a breach and no way a cause of the breach Thirdly For the Kings power of denying it was never in question betweene him and them till the Militia was absolutely and peremptorily denyed And in all their Declarations they never take it away but contrarily in the defence of that May 26. they grant that though the King be bound by Oath and care of his people not to deny any Bill for generall safety and good for in ordinary matters they yeeld he may deny Yet if he doe deny it is no Law without him Onely in case of the common safety they say the two Houses may doe what is necessary and it binds the Subjects for that necessity though he doe deny The denyall then of the Militia only in the case of necessity with other things noted before forced them to doe what they did toward Armes and not any difference about a power of deniall in generall 4. For the government and Revenue of the Church I beleeve indeed it was a part of the cause of taking Armes but not on the Parliaments part the major part of whom in either House never till very lately declared nor shewed any purpose of taking either away quite but only reforming which the Doctor saith his Majesty is alway ready to agree as may appeare even by the great agitations for so long in the House of Commons of the Bill against Episcopacy root and branch and at last it was wholly laid aside which shewes the major part never owned it as their delight Else they would first have absolutely concluded the destructive part and then consulted what to have in the roome Bâ—t to consult first for Successours was Pacuvius his Policy to preserve the Senatours of Capua though he made shew to condemne them all And had the Commons past the Bill against them yet did the Lords never shew any such intendment who were not easily wonne to take away their Votes till their Protestation against both Houses in their absence helped to perswade them to it It can then no way appeare to Conscience that ever the Parliament had thoughts of Armes to obtaine their taking away But I am verily perswaded by all I could ever heare from the Episcopall Party that their feare of this made them who had still enough of the Kings eare and heart urge the King to many Actions which have helped the Warre forward Among the rest I cannot but note one not a weeke passed betweene the 12. Bishops for their Protestation before the King first accused of high Treason the L. Kimbolâ—on and the other five