buriall posterity will write Better these Men had never been born If therefore the Ambition Envy or Avarice of any particular men have engaged you under the specious pretences of Religion and Liberty look upon your selves at length and how you are used but as their sword and buckler to make way for their ends and to defend them from the stroke of justice And should they by your aid attain those ends which God for bid will they for your conspiring with them give every one of you fields and vineyards and make you Captaines of thousands and Captaines of hundreds hath not His Majestie offered enough for the restoring of your peace and happinesse if they would let you understand it can you see to the end of these troubles but by returning to your forsaken Loyaltie shall you not be divided again and cal'd to Faction and siding upon the disposing of the offices and revenues of the Kingdom amongst your Leaders Or if that businesse could be setled and the world provided for shall you not be divided again when you come to think of a form of Religion or shall you every man be recompensed with a freedom of his own way for lending his help to unsettle that One Religion which the Laws have established However your vain hopes doe at length succeed or your Conscience in the mean time be satisfied I am sure God cannot be well pleased and will not though he hath hitherto suffered it for the just punishment of this sinfull Land be long mocked after this fashion for do but hearken to the Cry of Blood to the Cry of the Fatherlesse and Widdowes of this Land of Ireland to the complaints of the poore every where for want of that reliefe which they had from thousands of families now dissolved by the causlesse imprisonment of the Masters if your Eares be not open to them His are or if you think you are not chargeable with this heavy account look to the wayes your Leaders drive you through how they lye through blood and oppression through the breach of your Faith your Allegiance your Protestation of which it is strange to consider what advantage has bin made to the seeming performance of one clause in it the Priviledge of Parliaments by the breach of all the rest which concerne the Kings Rights the Religion established the Subjects Liberty and Property and in all this consider how your way is forced through the breach of many of Gods Commandements I need not tell you them your very children if ever you instructed them in their Catechisme can say your practice agrees not with what you taught them but this I must tel you if this be Conscience it is a Conscience that is condemned of it selfe and grown desperate if this be Religion it is a Religion that saith there is no God If therefore there be yet any sense left of Conscience and Religion any fear of God retâ—â—â— from these perverse wayes or else heare what he threatens to such wilfulnesse Lev. 26.23 If you will walk contrary to me then will I also walk contrary to you Esa 30.12 Because you despise this word and trust in oppression and perversnesse and stay thereon therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall swelling out in a high wall whose breaking commeth suddainly at an instant A great forbearance of God hath it been that Houses have not broken down where the Consultations have been so oft held for the direction of these wayes or that Churches have not faln where so many blasphemous Prayers and Preachings have been made in order to the advancement of them I suppose you are not prime Leaders in this way yet the longer your Directors spin out the time you hold on to countenance the Action ye doe but increase the Cryes of the distressed throughout this Kingdome against you and cause that judgement on high to break down the sooner Do not dally any longer with Him that can doe it suddenly in an instant but look what hangs over our heads and read what is written and the Lord give you understanding CONSCIENCE SATISFIED That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by the Subjects By way of Reply to severall Answers made to a former Treatise especially to that which is called the FVLLER ANSVVER SECT 1. The case and the Question upon it stated IT is necessary I begin with the Author of that Fuller Answer for he begins with a discourse of his owne and the better to set it off will needs doe mee the favour to rectify the Case and state the Question for mee Blowing aside sayes he the Pindust of the stile which guilds but intercepts the letter of his Treatise I finde the Substance of it to be a groundlesse supposition of the Parliaments taking Armes upon a bare supposition of the Kings meere intention to subvert Lawes and Liberties for who ever maintained they might take Armes upon such a bare supposition Pag. 1. also I am inforced to answer what he would have said for he resolves upon a Question that never came in question pag. 2. First I must deprecate what here and every where this Answerer imputes unto mee as if I charged the Parliament i.e. the two Houses with this Warre it was no where said they did take up these Armes but often insinuated and proved that if that were the Case they might not doe it the more forceably to convince them that have now done it under the name and pretence of Parliament Then I must tell him it is an easie but commonly deceitfull way of Answering to say the Question is mistaken and make the Reader beleeve all that was written is nothing to the purpose when as the mistake is in him that complaines of it For if this Answerer in blowing aside the Pindust of the Letter as he speakes had not received much of it into his eyes he might have seen the Consciencious Reader will that the Question for the Rationall part of it was put to the gâ—eâ—â—est advantage of them that plead for Resistance not as he renders it whether they may take Armes upon a bare supposition of a meer intention in the King to subvert Lawes and Liberties as if he knew not what the word subpose meant in putting of a Case but to this sense suppose or grant the King will not discharge the trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Lawes and Liberties whether then may Subjects take Armes this implies in the case as much or more then he himselfe pretends here to bee the cause of your Armes viz. The actuall invasion of Liberties the invitation and detention of Delinquents from tryall by Law to be a party in Armes against the Parliament to dissolve or remove it the importation of forraigne Armes and Souldiers illegall Commissions to imploy them c. so he pag 1. To take no notice for the present of the falshood of these imputations wherewith His Majesty is here charged we must
look upon them as the supposed causes of their Armes And first I cannot but wonder why among these particulars here 's no mention of Religion when as the people are made to beleeve that 's it they fight for happily he included it in the c. as indeed in the consultations of these unhappy daies the care of it though timely moved by worthy Members of both Houses has been cast off to the fagge end of other more necessary occasions that I may not say Designes a likely way to make all prosper When the people are dealt with by such men as these Answerers then Religion is the main Engine to draw them into Armes and indeed were they not abused with that plausible pretence they could never have been so farre engaged against their Soveraigne but when these men enter the lists with an Adversary about the cause of this warre Religion is not insisted on not once touched in this expresly declined in the other Answers but Nature is rather sought unto by them for a ground of selfe preservation for upon strict examination these men know it will appear what actuall invasions have been made upon Religion against the known Lawes of this land and who are to answer for them they know also what offence it would give to severall Sects which are and will be alwaies serviceable to new designes should Religion be either countenanced as it is by Law established or any one way declared for But secondly I would fain know whether they can in Conscience be perswaded that some actuall invasions of Lawes and Liberties can be a sufficient cause for Subjects to Arme and Resist when it evidently appeares their Soveraigne is not bent to continue in that destructive way will it not suffice if he restore those Liberties and withdraw the encroachments made upon them If he promise security and passe severall Acts of Grace for further assurance of them If he be content that All Armes laid aside the Law shall judge who are Delinquents and accordingly censure them They that have formerly written for Resistance in some Cases have thought it unreasonable that Subjects should pretend to Armes till they find their Prince in such a Condition as was insinuated in the case proposed viz. Bent or seduced to subvert Lawes Liberties Religion or to make havock of the Common-wealth or Church as D. Willet ha's it in Rom. 13. q. 17 and as we see by the limitations testimonies examples in Paraeus upon Rom. 13. and in Phil. Par. his answer to Mr Owen But our Pleaders for Resistance at this day because they cannot find His Majesty in such a condition or hope to make men that know any thing of His Personall Vertucs or His Acts of Grace passed this Parliament believe he is so bent doe now pretend they have cause enough for taking Armes what ever the Kings mind be and although there be no such horrible things intended by him as the Doctor speakes of so Mr Buâ—r pag. 140.141 and to the same puâ—pose this Fuller Answer insists upon actuall invasions of Liborvies Lawes as the cause of their Armes Yet that they may seem to have better pretence of Reason for what they doe and more win upon the people that least know the gratious disposition of their Soveraigne towards them they doe endeavour to charge His Majesty with the like destructive intentions as were to be supposed in the case To this purpose we find this Answerer every where rendring the reason of their taking Arms to be bâ—â—â—use the King refuses to performe His trust and in the first page because His Majesty has drawn in Delinquents to be a party in Armes thereby to dissolve or remove the arliament where he puts the Cause upon His Majesties intention And we well remember upon His Majesties first Guard at Yorke it was I will not say voted above given out among the people He intended to make Warre against His Parliament and still we have it urged as a Cause of these Arms that His Majesty is seduced by wicked Councell and the like Therefore the Case being so laid upon his supposed intentions to continue in a subversive way of Lawes Liberties the question upon it was put to the full for the rationall part whether such a case being supposed or granted it were Lawfull for Subjects to take Armes and resist Then for the other part of the question which concerned matter of Fact Whether that case were now i.e. whether it were true of His Majesty which they supposed and took for granted and endevoured to make the people believe of Him it was of a second consideration and examined after by it selfe Every mean understanding might easily conceave this to be the sense of the Question the briefe of the Cause and of my Treatise But this Answerer it seems had a discourse of the power of Parliamâ—nâ—s lying by him for no man will think it occasioned by my book but applyed to it and therefore thought fit to quarrell at the Question as proposed by mee and in stead of my three Resolves to give the Reader three Propositions of his own he should have made them moe but for observing number And then he boasts How many weekes soever the Doctor has been about the Treatise it is well known to many the Answer cost not many houres the doing pag. 3. he means the applying of what was done before but any one may perceive by his confused jumbling of things and his frequent mistakes when ever he repeats and answers what I had written that he was ambitious of doing the businesse hastily rather then surely Wee 'l follow him as we may first examining how he makes good his Propositions or grounds he goes on then how he applyes them to what I had written where we shall tak in the other Answers as occasion requires SECT II. The frame of this Government as it is fancied in the Fuller Answer HIs whole resolution of the Cause is laid down in his first Proposition which is this The Parliament may with good Conscience in defence of the King Lawes and Government established when imminently endangered take up Armes without or against the Kings Personall commands if He refuse His other two Propositions are subservient to this tending to the proofe of it That the finall result of this States judgment what those Lawes Dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament Prop. 2. That in this finall resolution the People are to rest and in obedience thereto may with good Conscience bear and use Armes Prop. 3. To make this good he first endeavours to shew this Monarchy is mixt by a Coordination of the two Houses with the King in the very supremacy of power it selfe so he pag. 3. Whereupon if the King refuse to provide for the safety of the Kingdome according to their advice then His coordinates the two Houses must according to their trusts supply so he tells us p. 3.8.10 And that this power was reserved by
but not to the deniall of His Supremacy for He is still by Law acknowledged the onely supream Governour and the supream Head which being urged in my former Treatise this Answerer should have shewn us how the King can be so and yet this co-ordination of his stand good to all purposes as he would have it If he restrain that only supream Governour and supream Head to supremacy of power in Execution or Administration it would be plain that none can use power in this government but derivatively from His Majesty which were enough for the purpose I urged Supremacy in the former Treatise viz. to shew His Majesty cannot be resisted for resistance is a taking of the sword or power without him and from him and also a using of it against that power of administration which is setled in him and therefore against him as he is the only supream Governour This would be enough to checke any mans conscience that will dare to resist yet must not the supremacy be so restrained for albeit for the greater security of the people Kings have bound themselves from imposing Laws upon them without their consent yet may wee also see the beams of His Supremacy shining in the power of enacting exercised with their consent For he has the power of calling them to that purpose and the constitution that has given them power of consenting has left in him power of dissolving them Also anciently as I have heard knowing men say the Law enacted began thus Rex statuit the King ordains and before the Laws and Statutes in each Kings Raign we find the title or introduction thus usually expressed The King by the advice and assent of the Prelates Earls and Barons and at the instance and request of the Commonalty has ordained c. And still for the procuring of his assent we see them Petitioning under the stile of Loyall Subjects and while they sit in that co-ordination there is still that other relation of Head Body between them and accordingly He was declared in Parliament to be Supream Head of the body politique He being instituted and furnished by the goodnesse and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole entire power preheminency authority praerogative and Iurisdiction to render and yeeld Iustice and finall determination to all manner of Subiects within this Realm in all causes Also that sundry Laws and Ordinances had been made in former Parliaments for sure and entire conserving the Prerogative and preheminency of this Crown 24. H. 8. c. 12. From all this so plainly declared in Law confessed can we conclude with this man that the two Houses are Co-ordinate with his Majesty in the very Supremacy or that the highest Supream head is a mixt one No! but that the Legislative power is Supreamly in the King only this power is excited by the instance and request of the Commons representing to him the grievances of his people abroad and cannot be exercised or come to the act of Ordaining but with consent of them the House of Lords This may easily be conceived if we consider that Kings at first ruled arbitrarily and then the Legislative power was solely in them afterward the people obtained such limitations and qualifications of that power as might make for their security as for example That they should not have Laws imposed on them without their consent this does not make them co-ordinate with their King in the very Supremacy of power it self as this man has conceived it but still leaves the power of Ordaining supreamly in him as in the fountain though the efflux or exercise of that power be not solely in his will but expects the consent of the People Now let us gather up his scattered proofes as we can find them Such a co-ordination there must be or els saith he the Monarchy is not mixt pag. 3. 4. It doth not follow if there be a mixture in it therefore such an one of equall ingredients or if it be mixt secundùm quid in some respect therefore simply or as he would have it though we say not the Monarchy is mixt as he yet we grant the Government is mixt not as he by placing such power in the co-ordinate parts but mixt that is not absolute or arbitrary in his Majesty yet not without Subordination on their part and predominancy on his And to say the Monarchy it selfe is compounded of three Estates as hee doth is absurd But the Treatiser himselfe calls it that excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament confessing them to be the fundamentalls of this Government and if Fundamentalls what subordination can there be in them they admit not of higher lower all foundations are alike pag. 3. The Treatiser acknowledged it a Fundamentall of Government that provided this temper of the three estates in Parliament as the reasonable means of our safety therefore saith the Answerer the three estates are Fundamentalls a good argument A genere adgenus from the constitution that places this power in the two Houses to the persons that bear the power for when we speak of Fundamentalls we speak of Laws and constitutions which may provide such a temper and yet do it with subordination that it be not temperamentum ad pondus but ad justitiam not with Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion not with exact equality of all but with a predominancy of one otherwise it would sometime fall out that this body of the Commonwealth could not act or move any way like as the naturall body could not if all the elements were equally tempered in it And to shew he is for an Arithmeticall proportion in this temper of the three Estates he wonders we cannot see that the King is Universis minor when as we may easily reckon that of three one is lesse than two pag. 3. Very good we shall have enough of such arguments as these for the present we will make a note of this in the Margin and shall have occasion anon to call him to his reckoning upon it Then he keeps a trifling to shew how the two Houses are subjects divisim taken singly and not subjects conjunctim in the co-ordination pag. 4. In one word their consent is not subject to the Kings command yet they are subjects even collectively taken for so they represent subjects that chose them they are subject to his command still to remove or rise when He Prorogues or dissolves and so they acknowledge themselves Subjects in all their addresses to His Majestie which they make as a body collective He is the Head of them not taken severally for then He should be Head of many bodies but as joyntly making one body And left he should seeme to forget they are his Councell which would take off from that fellowship in the supremacie where he has placed them he grants they are his Councell but by the first constitution not to be elected by him but assigned to him not assumed as Moses his under Officers were
bound to the people that is they stand equally accomptable to each other for you immediately inferre Therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse His Subjects to take up Arms against them as for Subjects to take up Arms against him Both are unlawfull and unjust but not equally for doe not the mutuall duties of the fifth Commandement run betwixt superior and inferior and is it as heinous for the father to strike the sonne as the son to lift up his hand against the Father If a King oppresse His Subjects it is an abusing of that power which is in him if people take Armes it 's an usurping of power that belongs not to them which is of more dangerous consequence if the people doe what is unlawfull the Magistrate bears not the sword in vain God has appointed him to punish them if the Supream Magistrate doe unlawfully he is not to be punished by the people for that were to overthrow the order God has set but is reserved for a Divine judgement In the Covenant twixt King and People though it be not expressed that the state of the Kingdome may take Armes and provide for its safety in ease the King will not discharge yet must it in all reason be implyed that safety being the end of that trust and ratio Legis is Lex as in Marriage it is not verbally expressed that the party committing Adultery shall he divorced yet that Covenant carries the force of such a Condition pag. 31. That the King ought to discharge is Law and the end or reason of it is the safety of the state but that in case he does not or not according to the opinion of the people they by Armes should resist provide for it is neit her Law nor Reason of any Law but an unreasonable condition were any King admitted under it and no rea onable means of safety but the way of confusion and destruction as experience has alwayes shewn That Adultery is the breach of the Mariage Covenant and cause of Divorce both in the institution of Marriage They two shall be one flesh doth in reason imply and the Law of God doth expresly declare and the like implication of reason and declaration of Law must appear before we can see any warrant for Subjects to resist and provide for their own safety for as of the parties married so of a Prince and the people entrusted to him by God it may be said whom God hath enjoyned let no man put asunder and let not the woman usurp authority over the man nor Subjects over their Prince SECT XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the 5th Sect of the former Treatise VPon that which was said They sharpenmany weapons for this resistance at the Philistins forge borrow arguments from the Papists M. Bridge replyes There is much difference betweene them and us in this particular I. The Papists contend for the Lawfulnesse of deposing Kings wee not Difference there must needs be betweene you in this particular for they Challenge such a power for the Pope you for the people But you doe not contend for the power of deposing or as you told us above the people from their power of resistance need not make that inference here is great security for the Prince We see your party making use of those Examples which the Papists bring for the deposing of Kings as that of Saul Vzziah Athalia and one of your fellow Answerers has endeavoured to prove such a power of deposing with whom we shall meet at the end of this Section and we know your principles wil carry the people so far if they wil follow them if as you teach them they have justly taken Armes in order to their own safety so they shall thinke in order to thâ—â—â—fety they cannot lay them downe or any longer trust their safety with the former Prince II. The Papists plead for power of deposing a Prince in case he turn Heretick we hold a Prince may change his Religion and yet the Subjects thereby not excused from their Allegiance You will give him leave to change Religion himselfe so will the Papists if all His Subjects may have free liberty of their Religion but in case he also endeavour to force that contrary Religion upon his Subjects for that must be supposed how then will your Allegiance hold When you challenge the power of Armes in order to your own and the States safety will you think that the preservation onely of your goods Estates and out ward liberty is concerned in it and not of your Religion too How have you wrought the people into Armes against their Soveraigne but by this name Religion and that not because He is turn'd Heretique and changed his Religion or has imposed a Contrary Religion upon his Subjects that you could not tell them but only by making them beleive He favours Popery and there is feare He will change Religion which is as weak and low pretence as any Iesuit can descend to for drawing People into Armes against their Soveraigne III. The Papists hold it lawfull to kill a Prince and that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do it We abhore it That is their new forge under ground set up of late by Iesuits I did not mean you sharpned your weapons there but at the old forge where the Popes power of acquitting people of their Allegiance and commanding them into Armes has been beaten out some hundreds of years And however you say you abhor this Doctrine of killing Kings that is of Butchering them by privat hands yet I feare and tremble to think if your Soveraigne had falne in Battell by the edge of your sword or shot of your Artillery yee would have acquitted your selves and found him guilty of his own death in that he would not being desired forbeare to go down himselfe into Battel against his Enemyes Some of your Fellowes M. Bridge are much wronged if they did not after the businesse of Brainceford play the Popes in absolving the Souldiers there taken from the Oath whereby they had again bound themselves from bearing Armes against his Majesty and I can witnesse how the best of your party in Yorkshire had plited their faith for conserving of the Peaâ—e of the Country and how they were dispensed with and commanded into Armes Let us proceed The Fuller Answerer also complaines The fift Section is a plain begging of three Questions the Resolver would have us maintain Pag. 25. To pardon your abuse of speech we know what you mean and must tell you we need not put upon you more then you undertake to maintain which is more then you can prove more then former Ages have been Conscious of enough to make your Religion if you have any heare ill in after times But let us see what you say in vindication of your selves We say not that every State hath these meancs of safety by resistance unlesse reserved by them Answer Yet
CONSCIENCE SATISFIED That there is no warrant for the Armes now taken up by SUBjECTS BY WAY OF REPLY unto severall Answers made to a Treatise formerly published for the Resolving of Conscience upon the CASE ESPECIALLY Unto that which is entituled A fuller Answer By H. FERNE D. D. c. Speake unto the Elders of Iudah saying what are yee the last to bring the King back to His House seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the King 2 Sam. 19.11 Let your Moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4.5 OXFORD Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the Vniversity 1643. To the Conscientious Readers among the People TO you especially this is intended who professing to make a Conscience of your wayes have hitherto been led on in the dangerous and perverse way of Resistance and disloyaltie to give you some check and call you at least to a thought of the violent Course you were in pursuit of there was a Treatise formerly directed to you for your better help in the examination of your Way and the Resolving of your Consciences for it was marvailous to behold how men pretending Religion and Conscience should be so securely carryed on without all warrant so hood winckt with an implicite faith against the cleere light of the Law of God and this Land meeting them in the face which faith as by reason of its blindnesse it is most contrary to a Conscience desirous to be informed so the blinder it is the stronger it is and leaves a man miserably deceived with the conceipt of a Conscience well fatisfied To hold you on in this blinde devotion Foure Answerers have appeared for you against the aforesaid Treatise that you may at least say you have foure for one but if you take them all and bray them in a Mortar together you shall not beate out of them any true and reall Causes of these your Armes but Pretences onely nor any warrant from the Law of God or of this Land to justifie your taking Armes upon such Causes were they never so true and reall That you may more easily discern what is in them thereby the truth I have takē them in peices for you and by this Reply shewen you what is adulterate It is chiefly directed against M. Bridge his book and the Fuller Answer against that because it appeares under the Licence and Authority of Them he pleads for and is framed more to the capacity of the Vulgar against This because it is cryed up among the more Intelligent of the Party and carries an appearing depth of Reason though indeed no otherwise then stained waters doe which seem deep through the darknesse of their Colour What is materiall in M. Burrowes you shall finde repeated in Theirs or his own words and receiving answer With that other Answer which appeares without name but with a Margin full of Greek and Latin I dare trust you so that you will beware of one thing that dangerous discourse he has for the suppressing and taking away of Tyrants and will promise me another thing that you will not proceed in this unjustifiable way without direct and positive warrant for Conscience to rest on Yet shall you have something in particular to this Answerer in the 12. Section Before that Fuller Answer came to my hands I was told by one that had reason to know I should receive answer from a grave Divine but having perused it I found little of the Divine lesse of his Gravity but a phansy both ridiculous and dangerous He has set before his book a Premonition wherein he has painted out the Resolver under the severall shapes of birds and beasts as his flitting phansy led him a very peice of Pictured Tapestry fitter to hang before the entrance of a Stage then of a Treatise concerning Conscience but which is worst of all concern's not me onely but every good Subject in his book he has phansied such a frame of Government here in this Land that he has marr'd it in the Making for by an unheard of Coordination he has contrived it into a plain Popular State I held my selfe many wayes though this Age has had books enough to teach it duty engaged to answer for my own for yours for Truths sake I found my selfe much abused by mistakes and odious imputations especially of the Full Answerer but you worse by deceiving pretences Truth worst of all by false Principles and Doctrines given out under its name I desire you would understand what was spoken by me in the former Treatise by way of Assertion Conclusion or generall Rule concerning the two Houses was but a sacrificing to Truth from a Conscience not simply devoted to man what was related as matter of Fact did either not concern them or not touch them with any such foule aspersion as the Fuller Answerer would make you beleeve My Conscience is clear and my paper was not stained with such blots For disaffection to Parliaments wherewith I am charged I will not say how far my heart went along with This in the way of approbation but thus much I will say I alwayes had and still have to Parliaments affection enough though not to make me a Rebell to the light of Reason and Rules of Conscience or disloyall to His Majesty yet enough to ground any due obedience upon My heart would faile me as hers did upon the departure of glory from Israel 1 Sam. 4. to think how the Name of Religion and Authority of Parliament would suffer in after Times could they justly be entitled to the enquiry of these But I take it to be the desire of all good men and Loyall Subjects yea of the King himselfe That Parliaments should flourish in their due power and freedom knowing that neither he nor they can suffer by such I presume that many of the Thousands which follow his Majesty have engaged themselves in the Cause not only out of meer duty of Allegiance but also out of a sense of that very desire they are Confident is in Him to the continuance of Parliaments being such for the most part as have no other hope of advantage by the service then peaceably to enjoy what by the Law of the Land they may call their own such whose hearts God hath touched as he did theirs that went with Saul when some children of Belial despised him saying how shall this man save us 1 Sam. 10. Should I bring in the Kingdome as Ioab did the suborned Widdow of Tekoah like a woman in mourning apparell to speak the truth you would hear her Complaining Her Sonns have striven together in the field and smitten and slaine one another but for the iniquity let the King and his Throne be guiltlesse 2 Sam. 14. and farther adding Let the name of Religion be sacred and the Authority of Parliament blamelesse but there are certain Men upon whom the iniquity will lye heavy as the grave-stone and upon whose tombs if this Land give them
of foregoing Ages what he ha's from the mutuall oath of King and people pag. 5. may be good upon after agreement between them as will appear and his hanc potestatem a populo effluxam out of Fortescue although it supposes derivation of power from the people the usuall mistaken principle of Government which later times have given cause to examine and find unsound yet doth it not imply the people ha's reserved any power much lesse such a paramount power as he imagines Conscience has this certain by the continuall practice of this Government that there is such a constitution as gives power of consenting to the two Houses in making and declaring Law when ever the beginning of it was it cannot see that it began by a contrivement of the people at the supposed choice of the first King but rather that it was subsequent to Monarchy and procured by the people for their greater security not precontrived by them If objected The constitution is fundamentall therefore preceding the first King we answer it followes not for it may be a fundamentall yet not of Monarchy simply but of government as now it stands a fundamentall not of the Regall power but the peoples security For Government may receive a change qualification by consent of King and people from more absolute to mixt such a constitution is a fundamentall because all after-lawes are built upon it but not a fundamentall to the Regall power for it gives no power to him as it doth to the two Houses but rather lessens his power by limiting it upon agreement that he will not impose any laws upon his people without their consent But as for that reserved power of declaring law without the king and of commanding all when they shall judge it expedient for the safety of the kingdom upon the Kings refusall Conscience has no assurance from this Answerer that such a power was reserved which is enough to leave it without excuse if it obey such a power but on the contrary has strong presumptions and reasons against For first it cannot see how such a reservation of power can consist with the beginnings of government in this land whether we consider the Norman or the Saxons entrance Secondly it cannot see how it can consist with the known established Government for by such a power the Supremacy would be plainly setled in the two Houses they may when they judge it necessary use this reserved power which transcends all ordinary power in the King Thirdly should the Kings of this Land be admitted upon such agreement for this reserved power Conscience cannot but think it an unreasonable condition and neither for the Kings nor peoples security but a very seminary of jealousies and sedition as if in Matrimony for the King is also sponsus Regni and wedded to the kingdom by a Ring at his Coronation the parties should agree upon such and such neglect of duties to part a sunder or children for the king is also a Father of the kingdom and the body politique owes to him naturall obedience 24. H. 8. c. 12. should condition with their Parents upon such or such usage to be acquitted of their duty and obedience what our Saviour said of their light unlawfull occasions of Divorse non fuit sic ob initio it was not so from the beginning when God at first joyned man and woman may be said of such a reserved power of resistance it was not so from the beginning when at first Rulers and Kings were Fathers and so are stil called in the fift Commandement not to be resisted or abdicated by their children their subjects Lastly this contrivement seems plainly to contradict it selfe for it places this reserved power in the Comites and Barons which cannot be before the first King for Bracton tells us as he is cited by Sir Edw. Coke in mag Cart. Reges associant sibi Comites Barones ordinances eos in magno Honore Earls and Barons are made by the King and assumed for Councell therefore invested with a long Robe and for defence therefore girt with a sword which shews the power they have is not by a contrivement or reservation at the supposed making of the first King but from the King by grant and of grace much lesse is it such a transcendent and paramount power as this Answerer imagineth to be reserved in them and the House of Commons at the first constitution of government in this Land We have hitherto searched into the ground-worke of this frame of Government as he had layd it in a supposed contrivement and reservation of the people when they made their first King and have found it to be groundlesse so that Conscience cannot rest upon it to make resistance in obedience to such a reserved power which this man tells Us is in the two Houses but gives no proofe for it at all nor indeed can So that this which has been sayd against it were enough to overthrow the Co-ordination supply Finall resolution and Arbitrary Commands that he has built upon this fiction but we will particularly examine his discourse upon them which is but an opening and enlarging of his phancies upon the new Principles of these dayes set off with plausible shew of reason to deceive the unwary SECT IV. Of the Co-ordination of the three Estates and of the Supremacy of Power HIs Co-ordination he has thus expressed This mixture or Co-ordination is in the very Supremacy of power it selfe and the Monarchy or highest power it selfe is compounded of three Co-ordinate estates pag. 3. There is but one Highest but that one is a mixt one pag. 4. It was granted there is a Co-ordination to some purposes but not such as he urges it for in the matter of Supremacie and Supply which that we may the better discern we must according to our skill and that shall be no farther than the common use of reason and the Grammaticall construction of what the knowne Law does plainly declare may lead every mans apprehension unfold wherein Supremacy of power doth consist There is a power of Enacting and of Executing or administration accordingly the Supreame power shews it selfe in making new Laws and abrogating old in calling assemblies to that and other purposes in Treaties with forreign Princes sending Embassies appointing Officers of State Judges of Courts and other Ministers of justice through the Kingdome Now if the Co-ordination of the King and two Houses of Parliament were such as he doth expresse would seem to inferre by the supply they are to make upon the Kings refusall they should be Coordinati ad omnia simply co-ordinate and equall in those powers acts of Supremacy wheras in plain speech he cannot say they are co-ordinate with His Majesty but only in consenting to the making of Laws pag. 4. in all the rest the King is solely supream and all power of administration derived from Him So then their consent is required to one act or exercise of supream power
the Parliamentary power I doubt hee will not say the King and Lords have then the full power of Parliament but where then is this Supply will he say in the House of Commons we must call him now to his reckoning Pag. 3. where he tels us Of three Estates one is lesse then two and also to his rule he gives us Pag. 4. Coordinates supply each others failings and Pag. 11. The refusall of one part exempts not the other from their duty So that if this man hold to his own conceit hee must grant the King and Lords may Supply if the Commons refuse But if in that case he will not stand to his own reckoning and his owne Rule then must he quit his vain conceit of Supply by the two Houses in case the King refuse After this he seekes a reason of this Supply in the necessity of providing for the safety of the whole which else would be frustrated of its safety However this Resolver sleight the Observators Argument drawn from the highest end of Government the peoples safety he cannot deny but the Rule holds always finis quò ultimatior eò in fluxu potentier to that end all other subordinate stand but in the office of meanes and this is evinced by the text the higher power is a Minister for thy good Pag. 11. The Observators argument deserved to bee sleighted by the Resolver as inconsequent but it was confuted at large by shewing such meanes make not for that end the safety of the State but are remedies worse then the disease Nor hath this full Answerer strengthned the consequence one whit We grant the safety of the Common-wealth is the highest end and unto that end all other are as meanes and that the higher power ought to minister unto that end But doth it follow therefore such a Supply by divesting the Kingof His power by turning the highest Minister out of His office is the means to that end The joynt agreement of the three Estates is the meanes for new provision for that end but in case they agree not about that provision which may happen by the refusall of the Lords or the Commons or the King then that the two agreeing parts what ere they be should supply the defect of the third had beene far more reasonable then that the supply should be made onely by the two Houses i.e. by the body only without the Head For this is not only to the notorious prejudice of the Supream Head with whom the Kingdome is immediately and chiefly entrusted but also it is alame provision and argues the first Contrivement as this man fancies it very inconsiderate in not providing in case the King and Lords or the King and Commons should joyne Now as the not providing in such Cases and the power of dissolving which resides in the King doe plainly shew that such a Supply is not the Contrivement of the first Constitution but a phansie of late popular Statesmen from whom this Answerer hath borrowed it so in very deed this way of Supply would not be a meanes of safety but of more inconveniency as at this day experience teacheth us and at large was shewed in the former Treatise Therefore if the three Estates cannot joyntly agree which is the reasonable meanes of making new provision for safety There is in the King by the same Constitution power to dissolve and protect His Subjects in their Religion and properties and Liberties according to the former Lawes established And although His Majesty hath bound Himself from dissolving them without their consent for this time of which this Answerer does vainly endeavour to make advantage in many places yet have not they thereby any more power then what they should have had without that Grant and so they have acknowledged themselves To conclude Conscience cannot be truly perswaded this power of Supply is in the two Houses by the Constitution of this Government But must needs see it is inconsistent with it and with that power the known established Law declares to be in the King and therfore Conscience cannot yeeld obedience to that power in making resistance against the King The Answerer immediately after the text above cited by him The higher power is a minister for thy good hath these words Pag. 12. Yes a fine way you 'l say of preserving the King by fighting against Him So starting from the safety of the people which was there spoken of as the highest end to the Consideration of the Kings safety as if he had been struck on a suddain with the terrour of that Battle that was made against the King or else because Truth it selfe upon the mention of the higher Power wrung from him a thought and acknowledgment of His Majesty in it Well let us see how he will have the King preserved by their fighting against Him No such matter saith he the King hath a double Capacity Politique and Naturall in fighting for the preservation of the Kingdom they fight for Him in His Politique Capacity as King in that He cannot be divided from His Kingdom or Parliament They fight to disingage His Person from that unsafe and unworthy imployment those Enemies to Him and His Kingdome put it to however he be perswaded by them it is His cause that hath ingaged them it is their own guilt and danger Pag. 12. So we are usually answered when we tell them of their Hands so many times lifted up in Battle against the Lords Annointed and of Davids resolution upon it who can lift up and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26. They reply it is but against the Cavaleir's and that unworthy Company that is about Him and have thus engaged Him and in so doing they fight for the Kingdome and for the King too in His Politique Capacity A shift that will no more save them from the Guilt then it will doe Him from their violence If He had been taken away in His naturall Capacity at Keinton Battle had there been any such thing as a King at Westminster had it not divided Him in His Politique Capacity from the Parliament there take away the Body and the shadow too destroy Him in His Person or Naturall Capacity and you destroy Him in His Politique and the Parliament too which ceases upon it Nor is that distinction of His double Capacity altogether vain but only in this point of Armes and resistance by force As just sentences of Iudges against His Personall Commands are for Him in His Politique Capacity so all denyalls of active obedience to unjust personall commands why here 's all this while no power taken from Him or usurped against Him No danger to His Person to His Naturall Capacity but in resistance by force of Armes especially in a Battle against Him which not onely takes the sword out of His Hand and usurpes the power but may also take Him away in His Naturall Capacity the distinction is most vaine For the Enemies that are said here to enthrall His Person and perswade
not an extraordinary example then may private and single men doe so too But t is nor for Subjects private or publique of themselves to draw armed men together The Houses when they conceived it fit to have a guard could not raise armed men for that purpose but by desiring it of the King Now we see Armies of Subjects raised by Subjects flie up and down all Countries giving the King himselfe and His men battell where they can fall upon them with advantage and yet Davids example is pretended And Mr. Bridge will yet give us one more instance from it not much unlike what the Fuller Answer had above concerning Davids fighting the Lords battels against Saul it is this David would have gone with the Philistins into battell against Saul 1 Chron. 12.19 and said to Achish what have I done that I may not goe fight against the Enemies of my Lord the King 1 Sam. 29.8 Now among those Enemies was Saul Pag. 15. Desperate shifts that these men are put to when pretences and simulations must be made Scripture grounds for Conscience to secure it in battell against the King David a little before had made shew of madnesse before King Achish 1 Sam. 21. had pretended to Achish he had made an inrode upon the South of Judah 1 Sam. â—7 now might Mr. Bridge as well inferre therefore he was mad therefore he did fight against the Subjects of Saul and its lawfull for Subjects to fight against Subjects of their King but enough of this In the example of the Priests and King Vzziah out of 2 Chro. 26. he cannot see why they should be commended for Valiant men if not for resistance nor how it appeares by Scripture that Gods smiting him with leprosie should discharge him of the Kingdom Pag. 17. Surely they deserve the Commendation of Valiant men that when a King doth or commandeth unlawfully dare withstand either by a home reproofe or by withdrawing from him the holy things he is not to meddle with For the other matter he might have remembred that by the Law the Lepet was to be put out of the Congregation and dwell apart which is not consistent with Government therefore it is said of this King He was a Laper and dwelt in a severall house and Jotham his sonne reigned in his stead 2 King 15.5 What is replyed by Mr. Bridge or Mr. Burrowes upon the Answer to the example of Elisha may be answered by what is said above Sect. 8. concerning the preservation of the body Naturall and body Politique and concerning the sending for Delinquents Now for the instances that were brought in the former Treatise against Resistance or Armes taken up by Subjects To that of the power of the Trumpet placed in the Supreame Magistrate Numb 10. M. Bridge replyes The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the Supreame Power hath given Commandment for For it is an established Law that the Parliament should have power to send for Delinquents and such Law is to be obeyed because as the Doctor saith Sect. 1. it has the Kings deliberate consent however he is pleased now to sound a retreat by his suddain will pag. 20 21. The King has given His consent to that Law that gives power to the Houses to send for and censure Delinquents and is still willing that accordingly all Armies laid aside Delinquents should be brought to a legall triall but He never gave consent to a Law that should inable them to raise Armes under that pretence for there is no Law prescribes them that way or means to bring in their Delinquents M. Burrowes replies That of the Trumpet was a Iudiciall Law and binds onely in the equity of it Else it would be a sinne to put the Militia into any other hands for any time for it might not then be done no not with Moses his consent True it was a Judiciall Law and that might have told M. Burrowes his many exceptions from the circumstances and specialties of that Law were needlesse But an equity he grants and so there is in all Judiciall Lawes and we require no more in this then the equity of it which tells us and we see it in all Governments the power of the Trumpet or calling assemblies for War is still placed in the supream Magistrate and cannot be put into other hands without His consent To that place of 1 Sam. 8.18 The people had no remedy against the oppression of their unjust Kings but crying to the Lord M. Bridge replyes Samuel tells them not what should be their duty but what their punishment The Lord will not heare you pag. 20. It seems their duty was to take Armes and bring their Kings into order but he tells them not of their duty he tells them of their punishment It was indeed their punishment because all the remedy they had which was by crying to the Lord should not helpe them which had not been such a punishment if they had meanes to help themselves by power of Armes the power of selfe preservation as these men call it To that which was said of the Prophets It is a marvellous thing that none of them should call upon the Elders of Judah and Israel for this duty of resistance against their cruell and Idolatrous Kings Master Bridge replies see here is a Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings messenger Pag. 22. How happy are these men in their application of Scripture But what Elders were these of the Citie without doubt where Elisha was And I feare that some of the Elders of our chief City have been animated by Preachers that never were brought up in the Schooles of the Prophets upon such abused examples to lay hold on the Kings Messengers comming with not such an illegall commission as this did but lawfull and necessary Commands and Proclamations Againe what did Elisha call upon these Elders for to imprison the messenger that 's more then the text will bear unlesse to shut the doore against a man be to imprison him for this performance there needed not the authority of the Elders had any else been with the Prophet they might have done it without command had they known the Messengers errand as the Prophet did It is no more then any Debter may doe shut the door of his house against a Sergeant though comming legally to arrest him Had our City Elders that now have Forces at their command to secure themselves against all Ministers of Justice that have entred the Kings House and Castles keeping the gates shut against Him done no more but contained themselves within their owne houses keeping the door fast against the Sergeant the King would not have had cause to complain of them To that place 1 Sam. 8.18 and to that observation that none of the Prophets called upon the Elders for this duty of resistance the summe of M. Burrowes answer is Pag. 118. and 122. the Argument is Negative and he brings severall Instances negative which hold
not Answ It is true that many times such Arguments faile yet may they be within their own compasse very convincing as in this case It was said the Apostles prohibition against resistance was very expresse and that Conscience could finde no warrant or exceptions against it from other places of Scripture how should this be cleared but by answering such seeming instances as they brought and by bringing such places as were most likely to have given allowance to this remedy which is placed in the power of resistance for if Conscience cannot finde allowance for it in Scripture how should it adventure upon it against the expresse prohibition of the Apostle delivered without any exception or limitation One of his Instances I must touch as seeming to concerne the businesse more neerly when the ten Tribes cast off Rehoboams Government for his oppression no Prophet rebuked them Pag. 122. They were not at that instant rebuked for the thing was from the Lord and to take effect yet as it was from their licentious will of revolting it is called Rebelling against the house of David 2 Chro. c. 10. v. 19. and reproved by Hosea c. 8. v. 4. which is enough to tell Conscience what to think of it Now we come to the Fuller Answerer To the Instances brought against Resistance in the former Treatise he replyes They are all in simple and absolute Monarchies those of the Iewes and Romanes nothing to our case Pag. 21. This is short worke yet doth M. Bridge Pag. 40. tell us by the example of the Jewish Monarchy what government pleaseth him best That wherein the people have choice of their King and make a Covenant with him at his Coronation and have power to take up Armes against the Monarch when cause requireth all this he endeavours to exemplifie in the Jewish Monarchy very impe tinently I must needs say yet enough to shew his disagreement with this Full Answerer Let us then see what satisfaction Conscinece can receive from this Answer either in the generall that Resistance is lawfull in limited not absolute Monarchies or in particular that those of the Jewes and Romanes were such An absolute Monarch is he that may impose Laws without consent of people a limited or not absolute one is he that hath bound himselfe to require their consent and to rule according to Law so made Now Conscience findes in Scripture Manasses and such wicked Kings subverting Gods worship Justice and all good government and no resistance allowed the Prophets never calling upon the Elders of the people for it also among the Roman Emperours It finders the like Tyrants and still hears the Apostle forbidding resistance Well It is under a Christian King one not wicked but commended by many vertues yet one that has invaded some liberties granted to the Subject upon agreement How shall it thinke it has warrant to resist this King because he is limited by such an agreement and the other not to be resisted for it sees that safety of the State in order to which this power of resistance is challenged is the end of government as well in the absolute as limited Monarchy It sees also that the absolute Monarch is bound by the Lawes of God and nature and by that duty of a Prince which is upon him in order to that end the safety of His people and it cannot be satisfied how the breach of something due by a civill agreement or Nationall positive Law should more expose the so limited Monarch to this power or resistance then those outrages against the Lawes of God and Nature against the very end of Government do the absolute Monarch It will not think if it may not resist this for such heinous provocations that it hath power to take Arms against the other for the breach of some liberties due to the people by a civill compact If it bee replyed that the King is limited by such a Condition as leaves power of resistance in the people reserved to them in the first constitution we answer It has been cleared that such a Condition is a meer fiction and most unreasonable a seminary of Tumults and Sedition The King is limited yet not so but as above declared by reason he cannot impose Laws by himselfe upon his people Now in particular of your Jewish Monarchy How appeares it to be absolute we know those Kings could not make any Laws either with or without the consent of people but were limited by the positive Laws which God gave them for that policy or Government and me thinks that this man should have conceived it would make too much for the approving of absolute Government in Kings to say God set up an absolute Monarchy over his people and if it was the wisedom of God to entrust his people with absolute and unlimited Kings why should not Christian Kings be trusted a little more then Subjects would now have them But something he sayes by way of proofe that it was absolute The Jewes desired to be governed after the manner of the Nations which was arbitrarily as the Doctor observes out of Justine and thereupon it is that God by Samuel tells them what such a King would doe to them not what he might doe as the Doctor seems to infer out of that place pag. 21. To say the Doctor seems to infer so is a grosse mistake not to have been admitted by him if he would have me or himself speak any sense if I had inferred the Kings of the Iewes might doe so my argument thence had been none but I concluded it plainly to be unjust violence and oppression and thence shewed such usage of a people was not just cause of resistance to them As for his Argument it concerned him to infer they might do so or else how does he shew they had absolute and arbitrary rule But his other inference from the Text is as good That the people in desiring to have Kings after the manner of the Nations desired to be governed arbitrarily and that arbitrary government was set out in what Samuel declares their King would doe As if the people here desired to have a King to oppresse and spoile them the thing they complained of in Samuels sonnes vers 5. The truth is the people desired to have a King to judge them we know in what meaning that phrase to judge them is used in the booke of Judges and explicated Hos 13. v. 10. viz. to goe in and but before them to save them from their Enemies and how that God had raised up hitherto Judges among them to that purpose Now they desire not to have Judges extraordinarily sent them as before for they saw they lay long under oppression many times ere such came but to have a King among them as other Nations had by an ordinary succession so they thought they should not be to seeke upon all occasions for one to goe out before them against their Enemies this is the summe of their desire not to have a
his Rights and power where with he is invested by law then it was for Subjects to force him from them and this is not against Aristotle who speaking of Kings in Barbarous Nations that have a power very neare to Tyranny those Kingdomes saith he have their security because the Government is established by law and the Custom of the Nation l. 3. pol. c. 14. Will this man then have Aristotl's reasons belonging to such Governments as he described take place here against the Regall power established by law and the Custom of the Nation which establishment might give us Security too but for such unquiet spirits as this man pleads for One step farther this Answerer has also a long plea against Tyrants for the forceable bringing them to account and taking them away upon which after he has spent many pages he layes the conclusion thus It is lawfull for the Kingdom to depose a Tyrant Pag. 25. but many of his proofes seem to allow it may be don by assassination I will not say it is his opinion but he tells us of the praise of Cassius and Brutus that they were Romanorum Vltimi and accordingly styles some in resistance now against the King Anglorum Vltimos he speakes of the taking away of Caligua Nero Domitian of the sentence of Plotinus Evil Kings rule by the Cowardlines of their Subjects of which more below so that the people had need to use more discretion in refusing such instances then this man did in alledging them but if it must be done by deposing his fellow Answerers are against it and for the two Parliaments which he cites the Observatour tells us No King was ever deposed by a free Parliament let this man make the application He tells me he cannot find what I spoke out of Tertullian his Apol. yet cites me words within two lines of it It runs thus in the Author Si hostes non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum Copiarum Vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas Castella Castra Cui bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis si secundum istam disciplinam non magis occidiliceret quà m occidere Let the Answerer Consture these words and he shall easily perceive they will render the sense that I gave of them The Christians had number and force sufficient to resist but they had not warrant And if he had looked a little before these words he might have seen Tertullian affirming the Christians had none such as Cassius among them Then out of his great reading but small judgement for he seems to turn his books by their Indices onely he tells us He believes the primitive Divines held not such Tenets as are of late started up concerning Kings for if they did surely the Parliament should have heard of it Pag. 22. I beleive they did not indeed hold such as are newly started up by those that the Houses have been willing to heare for my part it was not my purpose though the performance had not been difficult to tell the Parliament what the primitive Divines held but only to let the people know what Scripture and reason taught them to hold and rest upon But you give us some instāces out of antiquity 1. Theoderet cites Plotinus his saying Evil men raign by reason of the Cowardlines of their subjects we must not so think of providence as to think our selves nothing Ans If Plotinus had spoken to your sense for the Deposing of Tyrants the Authority had rested barely on Plotinus for Theoderet cites him not to any purpose concerning Kings but only to shew that Plotinus acknowledged Providence Nor is your sense the meaning of Plotinus for his drift is to shew that Providence expects our endeavours not to the deposing or killing of Tyrantrs as you desperatly insinuate and therefore translate the word Cowardlines which here signifies slothfulnesse effeminacy luxury but to the attaining of an happy and quiet life unto which purpose he there shewes how some men do bear the punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their sloath and luxury how others though evill yet being laborious do reap more fruit of their tillage and accordingly how evill men rule through the negligence and sloathfulnesse of others that is they being sedulous doe gain the Dominion or being in it they turne evill for the punishment of the sloath and vitiousnesse of their Subjects for it followes immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have left out this is just just how that they should be so punished and no reason their happinesse should be procured by providence or good Governours when they will doe nothing towards it themselves this is the full and only meaning of Plotinus Ennead 3. l. 2. cir med Secondly Nicephorus you say tells us of the Godly zeale of a Nobleman who took down Dioclesians Proclamation and tore it in pieces I could also tell you out of Scripture of Peters zeale who did strike with the sword in defence of his Master but was rebuked for it for the zeale may be good and commendable when the action is not so but an excesse and not to be drawn into a Rule or example Thirdly That Nicephorus tells us The Christians under the King of Persia fled to Rome for succor and how Atticus then Bishop of Rome obtained aid for them and they were denyed to the Persian King demanding his fugitive Subjects we acknowledge such a story in Nicephorus though no such matter when Atticus was Bishop of Rome unlesse you should mean new Rome that is Constantinople it seems Nicephorus his manner of Calling those of that Eastern Empire by the name of Romans deceived you but what does the true part of your story prove that Subjects may fly from their persecuting King or that one Prince may protect the Subjects of another Prince when they are come into his Dominions for releife be it so neither of them will help your cause But enough of these impertinences SECT XIII An Answer to what was replyed upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise IT was there said The defence of Religion and the Subjects Liberty can be no other then pretences of this War and It concern's them that will resist upon the Principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people To these and the like sayings Mr. Bridge Replyes These are sad charges bold and scandalous assertions to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with Hypocrisie He declamed against uncharitablenesse in others where is now the Charity of this man These were not Charges upon a Parliament but upon the chiefe Contrivers of and Actors in this Resistance as Mr Bridge might have observed in the former Treatise upon these indeed they will lye sad and heavy when he that knowes the heart shall discover the Hypocrisie and all those generous and honest and noble spirits to whose eares the true information of things abroad is not suffered to
the King when He is put to it admit his helpe and the more shame for them that professe the Protestant religion to force him to it This is according to this mans sense to call the Papists good Subjects better then the Parliament how will Romering of this The Papists have no cause to applaud themselves for any thing spoken by me but this I can say and say it upon experience that they take occasion to be confirmed and hardened in their way by the principles and practice of the adverse party for how will Rome ring of this That Protestants should take Armes against their King professing the same religion that a concealed Tradition of a reserved power of resistance should so farre prevaile and the people be so finely led on by an â—mplicit faith to build upon it that by vertue thereof the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance should be so easily dispenfed with that the Jesuites themselves should be cleane out done in the cunning of Lies and Forgeries to uphold a cause that pretends religion This Answerer after a fit of railing concludes with Prayer I shall onely â—dde this short prayer and with my very soule I speake it God blesse the King and send us peace and if it must not be till one side have prevailed I pray God it may be that side that loves the King best Truth would not let me bitherto accord with this Answerer but Charity now bids me joyne with him and to adde unto his prayer That it would please God to forgive that fide which under pretence of love to the King has so deeply wounded him in his Person and Kingly power also that our peace may be restored not through an absolute prevailing of either side by Armes but through a loyall submission of that side which has done the wrong to His Majesty and His People by this Lawlesse resistance Amen We have done with this man Let us see how Mr. Burrows concludes the businesse pag. 140. to the two last Sections which concerned matter of fact he briefly thus answers The Doctor puts the case thus Whether Conscience can be perswaded that the King is such and so minded as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Armes against Him In this he is as miserably mistaken as in all his other grounds from Scripture and Reâ—son for we take up no Armes against the King and whatsoever the Kings minde be there is sufficient cause to take Armes to defend our selves against others that seek our ruine Is it so that the Law is in your hand and it concerns you not What ever the Kings minde be He is bound by Oath to protect you against those that seek your ruine and accordingly has the power of the sword and the defending of Armes will you not then know whether it be his minde to defend you but take the sword into your own hand surely herein you are miserably mistaken if you thinke this is not to take Armes against the King and against that power which God and the Law entrusts him with for your protection Or have you not read how Armes taken up by some in the latter end of the Queens time to remove evill Counsellors such as they pretended sought their ruine were adjudged a leavying of warre against the Queen it will not helpe you to say Your Arms are taken up by authority of Parliament those were not for that 's not the point you may see by this your Armes are against the King and his power and authority if without it under what pretence soever you may take them up If the King doe but deny to assist in delivering us from such dangers and in delivering up Delinquents there is cause enough to satisfie our Consciences in taking of Armes It seems now it concernes you to know what the Kings minde is though not cause sufficient here to satiâ—â—ie your Consciences for you cannot say he denied this till you put your selves out of His protection and were your own protectors in Armes Nay after you appeared in this posture what was denied you from Nottingham that might give you cause to proceed in Armes till you brought them to give the King battell you take away His Armes and power against His will you use them in battell to the imminent endangering of His Person and yet you take not Armes against him and you can satisfie your Conscience of the lawfulnesse of it See now whether you can set such a Conscience before Gods tribunall and there lay the plea as you doe pag. 142. Lord thou who art the searcher of hearts knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in Peace to deliver our Kingdome and Parliament from the rage of ungodly men to preserve what thy Majesty what the Law of Nature and of this Land hath made our own Dare you justifie your selves thus at his Tribunall you may blush to speak it before man that knows not your hearts but sees how you have actually invaded the Kings Right and Power and imminently endangered His Person if the mercy of the Lord had not preserved Him how you break through the Lawes of God and Nature not to preserve what is your own but to gain the Lord knows what Thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidel not to provide for his family Dare you thus entitle Him to your blood-shed and rapines whereby you provide for your selves has he taught you to provide for the family of the Common-wealth by binding the master of the family and smiting your fellow-servants as those did Mat. 24.49 For the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy name that we may be faithfull to our King Kingdome and Parliament Pardon we beseech thee the failings Let your ends which you pretend be never so specious if the means you use be not Lawfull and Warrantable as they are not for the very substance of them either by the Law of God or Man your plea will not hold but your account will be heavy for all the blood shed and miseries this Land has groaned under which might have been prevented if Reason would have satisfied you Now the Lord that is at hand grant you moderation and then we doubt not but with his blessing we shall have Peace in good time to the restoring of his truth the Kings Honour and Rights the due Priviledges of Parliament and the Subjects Liberty ERRATA Pag. 2. med your for their p. 9. l. 13. your for their p. 49. l. 11. for 5. r. 15. p. 69. l. 9. natuall r. mutuall The Contents of the severall SECTIONS Sect. I. The Case and the Question upon it stated Sect. II. The frame of this Government as it is phansyed in the Fuller Answer Sect. III. Of the Originall of Governing power of Monarchy and of the beginnings of Government in this Land Sect. IV. Of the Coordination of three Estates in Parliament and of the Supremacy of Power Sect. V. Of the Supply which is phansyed upon the former Coordination Sect. VI. Of the finall resolution of this States Indgement and of the power of declaring Law Sect. VII The finall resolution is not arbitrary in the two Houses but only in the three Estates Sect. VIII A confutation of what is replied by the Answerers upon the first Section of the former Treatise Sect. IX A Confutation of what was replied upon the second Sect. of the former Treatise touching places of Scripture pretended for or alledged against resistance Sect. X. A Confutation of what was replied upon the third Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XI A Confutation of what was replied upon the fourth Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XII A Confutation of what was replied upon the fift Sect. of the former Treatise Sect. XIII An Answer to what was replied upon the two last Sections of the former Treatise FINIS