Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30564
|
A briefe answer to Doctor Fernes booke tending to resolve conscience about the subjects taking up of arms / by Jer. Burroughes.
|
Burroughs, Jeremiah, 1599-1646.
|
1643
(1643)
|
Wing B6059; ESTC R36307
|
21,417
|
16
|
is to be accounted Law which they interpret to be so I do not say that we are bound to beleeve that whatsoever interpretation they make was the scope and intention of that Law when it was first made But this I say that their interpretation must be accounted as much binding to us for obedience as the scope and intention of that Parliament that first made that Law Thus I have done with his Scriptures and the rationall part of his Book and I hope others will have done with it too If mens consciences be satisfied in the lawfulnesse of the thing it self Subjects taking up Arms against the will of the King His other part every one who understands how things are with us that is willing to be satisfied will be soon able to satisfie himself The substance of all that follows is suppose that Subjects may take up Arms yet whether there be sufficient cause for us to doe it Toward the conclusion of the Book the Dr. begins to be hot and somewhat bitter but I shall not here follow him in particulars but in the generall thus What the condition of our Kingdom is whether in danger or not What the condition of our Houses of Parliament whether they be safe or not whether their priviledges be broke or not Judge you whether Doctor Ferne or all the Remonstrances and Declarations we have had from both Houses be able best to certifie us we have received information enough and seen and felt enough to make us beleeve that our Kingdom is in great danger but it may be the Doctor sits in his study like another Archimedis drawing his lines and the Swords must be about his eares before he will see or beleeve any danger towards us The Doctor puts the case thus whether the conscience can be so perswaded that the King is such and so minded as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Arms against him in this he is as miserably mistaken as in all his other grounds from Scripture and his reasons if he thinks this be the controversie For 1. we take up no Arms against the King 2. Whatsoever the Kings mind be there is sufficient cause to take up Arms to defend our selves against others that seek our ruins We know of the plots of bringing the Armies in the North upon Parliament and Citie We know of the great preparations of Arms in forreign parts to send over hither and time hath discovered their further attempts although it hath indeed withall discovered they could not bring their attempts to their desired issue We know of many Delinquents that are fled from the Justice of the Parliament which cannot be attached without force and if they may so scape as they do to what purpose doth a Parliament sit it will soon be made ridiculous in the eyes of the world We know what is done in the execution of the Commission of Array and that by force of Arms and all these things by those who are under the authoritie of the Houses of Parliament wherefore if they cannot prevent these evils imminent nor rectifie these disorders extant but by power added to their authoritie although there be no such horrible things as the Doctor speaks of namely the Kings intentions to subvert Religion and our Laws and Liberties if the King do but denie to assist in the delivering us from those danger not upon groundlesse jealousies feared but upon certain proofs we know we are in and in the delivering up of such delinquents as justice must not our safety cannot suffer to escape there is cause enough to satisfie our consciences in the lawfulnesse of our taking up Arms Yea our protestation and duty though we had never so protested binds us to maintain by all our strength the Parliament in this and in maintaining them we do not at all prejudice the King in any lawfull power of his This generall is enough to satisfie in what is said in the two last Sections As for particulars mentioned there many of them are answered alreadie in the former discourse others being matters of fact it is more easie for any one to answer that hath a mind to examine what passages have falne out To go through them particularly I shall leave to some who have more time to spare then I they are far more easie to answer then what was before but not so profitable and yet the answer would exasperate more they are Subjects more suteable for Lawyers and Statists to treat about then for Divines Wherefore whereas in the conclusion of all the Doctor desires those who will run the Hazard of this resistance first to set their consciences before the tribunall of God and consider whether they will excuse them there when they have shed blood to say we supposed our Prince would change Religion overthrow liberties No Doctor We can comfortably and will freely and really set our conscience before Gods tribunall in this case but we will not make that our plea but we will stand thus before the Lord Lord thou who art the searcher of our hearts and our Iudge thou knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in peace we according to our solemne vow and Protestation have only endeavoured to deliver our Kingdom Parliament from the rage of ungodly and violent bloody men to bring forth the wicked unto justice to preserve what thy Maiestie what the law of nature and the Law of the Land hath made our own If thou wilt please to call us to suffer for thy Name we hope we shall be readie but because thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidell not to provide for his family therefore we have not submitted our selves wives and children to the rage of thâ—se bloody men for the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy Name that we may be faithfull to the King Kingdom Parliament and to posteritie What failings thou hast seen in the managing of it Lord pardon to us for Christ his sake Thus we are willing to meet the Doctor at Gods Tribunall but he shall not lay our plea for us we fear he will have enough to do to answer for himself yea to answer for that Book he hath put forth in such a time as this For a Conclusion of all LEt none think that though we thus iustifie taking up Arms that therfore we are of those that delight in War God forbid Our souls desire after peace we pray for peace we would gladly lay down our lives if we know our own hearts for peace Lately my name was injuriously added to a printed paper wherein there was a Petition against Accommodations It sayes I went along with it whereas I knew nothing at all of it untill neere a week after it was delivered to the House Thus are we at the mercy of every malignant spirit if he can get a Printer to assist him to be rendred to the world as odious as
heart But that example of Elisha is brought to prove the lawfulnes of using force against Kings in using violence and what violence hath been already used the world knows Page 10. He comes to Scriptures denying resistance let us see what full Scriptures these are The first is Num. 16.1 c. The conspiracie of Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron It is strange that this example must be paralleld with our Parl. taking up Arms Was it not a most unjust and vile conspiracie meerly out of the pride of malicious spirits Can the D. or any man think that in justifying Arms in some case we justifie all villanous conspiracies and out-rages Besides this place condemns rising up against the Priest as well as the King Yea certainly if they had risen against the meanest officer that God had appointed in Church or Common-wealth as here they did against Moses Aaron it would have bin a very hainous offence Yea if Moses himself should have thus risen against any Officer appointed by God it had bin a vile sin in him therefore this proves no more against subjects resisting Princes then Princes resisting subjects or one subject resisting another Further we do not rise against His Majesty as they rose up against Moses Aaron we desire not that he should have lesse power then God the Laws have given him but we would preserve this in him and keep off the stroke of any further power so that we need not for this thing so much as examine the cause upon which they rose whether it were supposed or not for the case is far differing in the end of the rising But Corah and his company supposed the cause sufficient Supposed causes for any thing is not enough now we are not examining the truth of the cause of taking up Arms but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject against the mind of the King for any cause Wel our consciences need not be much scrupled from this Scripture Let us examine the rest he brings The second is 1 Sam. 8.11 18. where the oppression of the King is mentioned and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord Is the bare relation of the oppression of a King without mention in that place of any means of help but crying to God a sufficient proof that though Kings oppresse never so much yet there is no help Suppose I bring a place o Scripture where there is a relation of Subjects rising up in a wicked way against their Prince in that place there is no other help mentioned but only the Prince committed this to God God revenged it can there be drawn from thence an argument that when Subjects rise against Princes that they have no other help against them but committing the cause to God We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind the very place the D. brought before wil do it Num. 15. when Corah and his company rose against Moses we there read of no other help that Moses used but he committed the thing to God God revenged it But you wil say yet there are other places that shew that Princes may make use of other help So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered Further besides this we answer that the power of all Kings is not alike it is no argument because one King hath such and such power therefore all must needs have The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the severall Laws of severall Countries Let us see what the third Scripture sayes for yet our consciences are not scrupled it is Numb. 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them Doth it follow that this must be so every where you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets and that the Priests should blow them as well as the former The consequence would be full as good No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests for it is commanded there as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets because it is so ordered there we know the Law is judiciall and for those judiciall Laws the equity binds no further then according to rules of prudence and justice every countrey shall see behoofefull for their conditions Besides if this did binde then it were a sinne for an Act to passe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands for certainly it might not then be done no not with Moses and Aarons consent The next Scripture is 1 Sam. 26.9 Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed who endeavours it doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Person 2. Doctor Willet upon this place gives you this Answer That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands no not upon a tyrant for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe or a murderer much lesse a Magistrate a Prince But secondly he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King and yet have been guiltlesse as Ebud upon Eglon King of Moab therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King Yea Doctor Willet answers in the third place that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State He indeed limits this and sayes it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election as in Polonia and gives this reason From whom Kings receive their authority by them may they be constrained in keep within bounds This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes This distinction he used to deliver the opinion from opposition in England but if the distinction be examined there will appeare little strength in it We doe not find that D. Willet was ever reproved or his writings censured for this thing Concerning that restriction of his to Kingdomes by election we shall when wee come to shew from whence all Kings have their power see that if it proves true of them it will prove true of others for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others will be found either from election or covenant which will come to all one D. Ferne proceeds thus If the King had come into the battel his person might have been hurt as well as any This had been but accidentally If a father should voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy against whom the childe is in service and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father