of Nature to defend my self from outragious Violence being altogether an Innocent I cannot see specially in a case concerning GODS immediate Honour as well as my safety 2. If Lawes cannot tie my hands in all Cases in the forenamed from resistance much lesse an Arbitrary Power but of that it will be convenient to discourse a little further and apply it also to Civill Matters as well as to Religion wherein we shall also see whether all Civill Lawes doe so tie us as none of them neither may be resisted and if any which and which not I say then an Absolute Arbitrary Power or absolute Monarchy as some call it is not at all the Ordinance of GOD and so no lawfull Power secured from resistance by Rom. 13.2 First GOD allowes no man to rule as hee list to make what Lawes he list to punish how and whom hee list But his Word speaks the Contrary every where Secondly GOD not allowing Men cannot give it to a Conquerour or any other They can give but what GOD allowes for they have no more their owne in that sence Now no man can give any thing but what is his owne Thirdly particularly no man is allowed by GOD or can be made by Man an absolute Monarch a meere Arbitrary Prince in point or Religâ—on I am farre from denying Authority about Circumstantialls in Religion But I meane he hath no Authority to bid what GOD forbids or to forbid what GOD bids or punish them that obey GOD rather than him GOD never gave this Power nor can men give it Fourthly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to violate the Chastity of any A Law of Platoes Community is null because against GODS expresse 7th Commandement and may and ought to be resisted yet now we are among civill matters Fiftly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to take away the life of his Subjects any one at his meere pleasure or without a Law broken whether Civill or Martiall and knowne to the Transgressour or which he ought to have knowne and might which Ionathan could not hee had no meanes to know of his Fathers Oath being then made and in his absence Lycurgus his Law to destroy all Children that were deformed or weakelings and Pharaohs Arbitrary Command to destroy all the Israelitish Males were both alike tyrannous and null and might have been resisted In all these cases there is I say no absolute Monarchy no meere arbitrary Power Lawfull none that is GODS Ordinance And whosoever challenges such Power is in that not GODS Deputy but an Vsurper whether King or Caesar Roman or Turkish Emperour or any other Sixtly but the only Cases wherein a Monarch may be absolute in Matter of Liberty of mens persons of Goods anâ— manner of Judaciall proceedings and making or taking away Officers and Honours and such like in those I grant that as GOD denies not but a Monarch may have absolute Authority onely he must use it to Good so men may give away their Liberty by Feare or otherwise and become much enslaved to their Princes Will in comparison of what others are And if any bee so which I beleeve not of the Roman State though much was done arbitrarily by the Emperours I yield they may not resist though they be sorely pincht They may thanke themselves who bound their owne if therefore our Parliament in after Ages or this by being forsaken by the People seduced by the Dr. should so enslave us we must beare it and not resist because it is our owne Act who choose them and put all such things into their hands but in other things we should not could not be bound as I said before The Doctor hath a third Reason We cannot expect absolute meanes of safety and security in a State but such as are reasonable REPL. If by absolute meanes of safety and security hee meane such as God cannot defeat we grant what he saith or such as God hath forbidden But if he take it of rationall means he saith nothing at all that allotts any means which are not absolutely sufficient according to humane proceedings to procure sâ—ch a safety as a State shall nâ—ed A State is a most considerable body and may challenge all possible meanes which God hath not denyed them and so even a private man may being altogether innocent except where a greater good then his Particular life calls him to venture it or yeeld it up But there is no greater good on earth in civill respects then the safety of a state Therefore all meanes not forbidden from Heaven are reasonable and to bee expected and used though not expressly provided for that is mentioned in the Fundamentalls of this Government which the Doctor would require Then he falls a commending the excellent temper of the three Estates King Lords Commons having each a power of denying REPL. They have so in making particular Lawes But the Quest now is of exercising the generall and maine fundamentall Law of all States to save the whole from ruine and subversion Here though all three agreeing and none denying makes the safety more secure and more comfortable and honourable Yet no reason but in a Co-ordinate Power as here it is plainly so see the Fuller Answer to the Doctors Booke any two or of three or even any one of them rather then all should faile and be dissolved should have Power to endeavour the common safety which the others neglect or intend to subvert or betray And I verily beleeve the Doctor himselfe or any other of his partie if hee forbeare not to say so much least it should be retorted on himselfe will confesse that the King and the Lords may save the Kingdome from ruine without or against the House of Commons and the King and the House of Commons without or against the Lords and which is yet more the King alone without or against both Lords and Commons For indeed this is the very thing now pretended by the King for his taking Armes to save the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and his owne Rights c. which he saith the Lords and Comâ—ons whom he termes the Major part of both Houses present intend and goe about to subvert And if they did so certainely all true Subjects and Paâ—riots ought not onely not to joyne with them in their Armes but to joyne with the King in his against them And if it could be possible that all the three Estates should agree to ruine Religion and the State even the Body of the People should by vertue of the power which each State hath for its necessary safety have Authority sufficient to defend themselves and resist all outragious Attempts of mischiefe as hath been proved before though then for want of many conveniences and perhaps of wisedome to manage it the defence and resistance must needs be much more hazardous and dfficult The power therefore of denying and so all other power in each of the 3.
againe it can never be rationally conceived the people have given away such a naturall liberty such a necessary power for their common safety Unlesse it can be proved that they have done so The proofe then before the Barre of indifferency of judgement and unpartiall conscience will lie on the Doctors part not ours Fourthly But he saith the representative Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure REPL. 2. It hath been so de facto multo but whether it bee altogether so de jure may justly be questioned upon these grounds First for their meeting when the Prince is an Infant or if a prisoner in enemies hands and so cannot give out a legall Warrant for their meeting or if distracted hath not the State power to meet in Parliament for their common safety and the Princes too They have met in the infancy or minority of Kings and made Lawes as in Edw. the 6. time and not by the meere power of the Protectour for the Nobility after put him out his head was cut off afterward by a Law made while he was Protectour It was then and could be nothing else but the inherent power of State to meet so in cases of necessity Yet I beleeve there is no written Law for this but the generall Maxim of Salus Populi suprema lex And this will extend to the case of Tyranny as fully as any of the former if not more Withall did not the Lords in Richard the 2 nds time call a Parliament without the King wherein they had their grievances redressed and this afterward was confirmed in the first of Hen. the 4 th Secondly then for their dissolving It hath indeed beene very much practised by our two last Kings But our Histories so farre as I remember quare whether Hen. 3. did not dissolve some Parliaments in discontent mention not any such thing as a Parliament dissolved in displeasure or against the desire of the Houses But as they meet very frequently oft-times every yeare somtimes oftner so that in the space of a hundred yeares there are counted above a 100. Parliaments So they sate till they had ended the Princes and their owne businesses which went much together and so it never came to a matter of examination or discontent the delay of calling them to meet or the too timely dissolution of Parliaments Parliaments were not wont to bee so odious or dreadfull to Princes as within these forty yeares they have been By whose default they have been so since let the encrochments upon Magna Charta and the Subjects liberties direct any to judge 2. But further for both these First the Parliament averres that there are Lawes that there should be a Parliament every yeare and so they have abated of their Right rather then gained upon the King by the Act of the Trienniall Parliament 2. And for the dissolution I have heard some wisemen affirme that by Law it cannot be dissolved while there are any Petitions of grievances or such matters of importance depending and unfinished Whereunto may be added most justly that in ordinary times Countrey Gentlemen and Noblemen and in a manner the whole body of the Parliament would be as sick of a long Parliament and continuall attendance as the King could wish and would petition rather then be tyed so by the legge for a dissolution or at least a Prorogation And it 's well enough knowne that even this Parliament after the Act of Continuation past were as weary of sitting as need to be desired till the Rebellion in Ireland seconded by the growing evills at home put new spirits into them and forced them to that diligence of attendance and unwearied labours so many as have taken the common good to heart as no Age or Story can parallel here or in any other Kingdome or Nation Thirdly beyond all this I appeale againe to the Kings Answer to the 19. Prepositions formerly mention'd and aske whether if the King have absolute power to forbeare calling them at his will and to dissolve them at his pleasure it be not a meere nothing that hee saith the House of Commons have power to impeach his owne Followers and Favorites who have broken the Lawes even by surreptitiously gotten commands from the King and that the Lords have power to judge and punish and are an excellent skreene between the King and the people to assist each against any incroachings of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve the Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three and that the Power legally placed in both Houses is more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny What serves all this for when his Favourites will keepe him from calling a Parliament perhaps all his dayes unlesse unlook'd for neceâ—sity force him to it We haoe â—eene our selves about 13. yeares without one and had there not beene conceived hopes that there would have beene Money given against the Scots it had not been then called as it was Againe what serves the calling them when the same Favourites being questioned shall counsell a dissolution We have knowne that too even three times in this Kings Reigne and no other dissolution but on these grounds And the last was within three weekes because they would not in all hast and contrary to all former Presidents and Priviledges give mony against the Scots and embroyle the two Kingdomes in a perpetuall Warre not having had one grievance redressed And in the case of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties which is the Doctors Case propounded It is undoubted he will if he can dissolve them as soone as they offer but to punish any of his Favourites and so to crosse the designe unlesse he dare not of which anon because therefore I believe the King in that Answer hath not ascribed more then right to the Parliament It will follow that in right specially in such case they ought not to be dissolved And that if by force they should be or should not have been called at all the People have right to meet together when and where they can in a Parliamentary manner or otherwise to such end as to defend themselves and one another from tyranny and the designed subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties as hath beene often said Fourthly but for the present condition of our Kingdome and Parliament I must professe that as I admire the providence of God in the Act passed for the continuation of this Parliament so I doe for the forementioned expressions of the King in that answer Which laid together may to any understanding men wholly decide this first Question betweene the Doctor and us in point of Legality in our Kingdome if there were nothing else said or to be said that supposing such a designe to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties This Parliament hath if no other had or could have being dissoluble at pleasure compleat power and Authority to
SCRIPTURE AND REASON PLEADED FOR DEFENSIVE ARMES OR The whole Controversie about SUBjECTS taking up ARMES WHEREIN Besides other Pamphlets an Answer is punctually directed to Dr. Fernes Booke entituled Resolving of Conscience c. The Scriptures alleadged are fully satisfied The rationall Discourses are weighed in the ballance of right reason Matters of fact concerning the present differences are examined Published by divers Reverend and Learned Divines IT is this fourteenth day of Aprill 1643. ordered by the Committee of the House of COMMONS in Parliament concerning Printing That this Booke entituled Scripture and Reason pleaded for Defensive Armes be Printed by Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith JOHN WHITE LONDON Printed for Iohn Bellamy and Ralph Smith at the Signe of the three Golden Lions neare the Royall-Exchange M.DC.XLIII To the READER T Is a bitter Controversie that our poore sinfull Nation is fallen upon wherein not onely Armes are ingaged against Arms but Bookes written against Bookes and Conscience pretended against Conscience In this perplexed condition What shall the people doe What shall they resolve They expect to receive Councell from Divines who though it be a mixt Argument are most likely to settle them And they have great reason to doe it for the truth is The world takes sufficient notice that the Cause as it now stands hath many Divines strongly ingaged unto it on either side and that their Resolutions have had a great Influence upon it and upon the people We know upon whom Doctor Ferne layes the burthen when he saith Many in the simplicity of their hearts have been wrought upon by such as misled them But we pleade in the words of the great Apostle That our rejoycing is this that in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisdome but by the grace of God we have had our conversation to the world and more abundantly towards our Congregations To whom wee appeale and to our Sermons preached among them whether wee have taught any thing but humble and holy obedience to all just and lawfull authority sincere love and constant maintenance of the Truth What is it that We may be suspected of What Designes may we be thought to carry on What Interesses What ends What is it that Wee hold deare unto us but the Gospell of our Lord but the soules of our people Did we make a gaine of them Did Titus make a gaine of you Thinke you that wee excuse our selves Wee speake before God in Christ 'T is not a new thing to be challeng'd as Seditious as Tertullus accused Paul To be hurtfull unto Kings aâ—d Provinces as Rehum and others wrote against the Jewes To be setters forth of new Doctrines as the Epicureans blasphemed that chosen vessell But our witnesse is with God and in our consciences and before the people in our preaching and in our conversation That we are not the troublers of Israel That we pray for the Peace of our King and that we seeke the wellfare of our Nation and that we teach no new no other Doctrine then what the Scriptures confirme as this Treatise will fully shew Theâ— what our King himselfe hath allowed in his clearing our Brethren of Scotland by Proclamation when they had Covenanted and taken up Armes then what our State hath formerly favoured in yeelding ayde to Rochell Then what other Churches Scotland the French Protestants the united Provinces and great Divines have given suffâ—â—ge unto And as for the State of this Kingdome in the very Constitution of it The Case is yet clearer King James himselfe blamed a Bishop for a right-Court-Sermon that hee preached before Him and the House of Peeres That hee had not distinguish'd well betweene a King at large and the King of England And in a manner even all the points of the present difference might be answered against the King by the King Himselfe in His Majesties Answer to the nineteene Propositions pag. 17 18 19 20. Which wee desire the Readers seriously againe to peruse as out of which a politicall Catechisme might be drawne to instruct the people just so as wee have instructed them To conclude After the Kingdome hath duely considered the many provocations it hath had which will appeare by the Remonstrances Declarations and Votes of Parliament The Noâ—successe of other Remedies as namely frequent Petitions and Treaties and hath read this following Discourse with a minde not prejudiced We hope that this present Action of Parliament will stand justified and our Judgement and Consciences cleare Especially after this our Protestation That wee seeke nothing but the Truth and to the Truth if others can convince us we are resolved to yeeld SCRIPTVRE AND REASON PLEADED For Defensive Armes SECT I. The Question rightly stated THe Question which the Doctor hath propounded as necessary to be scanned is thus exprest Whether if any King will not discharge his Trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Subjects may take up Armes and Resist He maintaines the negative and his principall place of strength is Rom. 13.2 Whosoever resists shall receive to themselves damnation This he interprets of resisting the higher power mentioned ver 1. by which he understands the King or Supreame and the resisting a resisting by Armes But it seemes to me however he make a shew of distinct handling his matter that he either carelesly or sophistically confounds things which ought to have been more distinctly exprest by one that truly desired to have resolved consciences in so weighty a cause as forbearing to defend Religion Laws and Liberties when they are all in danger of subversion To which purpose I shall make bold to propound divers considerations towards a better clearing of the true state of the question and the strength of his proofes for it 1. It cannot be imagined that a King who is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties meanes to doe this by a meere personall strength For which no Sampson-like strength would suffice but by the assistance of others whether men in office and trusted with the civill Sword under him if he can draw them into his designe or by the souldiery ordinary or extraordinary and that not in one part of the Kingdome but in severall parts as fast as he can get instruments for his turn 2. Here then will come divers questions belonging to the case 1. Whether the resisting by Armes the illegall attempts of an under Officer of Justice suppose a Major or Sheriffe though armed with Commission under the Kings hand or seale be a resisting of the higher power and damnable 2. Whether the resisting a Captaine of the Souldiery comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men though he also have a like Commission from the King be a resisting of the King and so forbidden Both these where the King is not present but in another part of the Kingdome 3. It will be further questioned in case he should grant resistance lawfull thus farr
whether it be lawfull to resist the officers or souldiers of the King he being besides them and animating them with his commands to doe violence I will suppose for the present the Kings person is and shall be safe notwithstanding the resistance or that els the resistance must be forborne I onely aske whether his followers commanded by him standing by to doe murthers and rapes may be resisted with armes or not 4. If he will say that in all these cases resistance may be made so the Kings Person may be safe 1. The King may thanke him for the care of his Person but his Power and Authority is as much impugned by this as by many that plead for the defence now actually under-taken 2. The Cavaliers and Followers of the King will thanke him never a whit For they may all be knocked on the head or starved and yet the Kings Person be safe And they would soon desert the cause if this were beleeved or would be rooted-out if this were generally practised and that is all the Defendants desire who honour the Kings Person and authority as much as the Doctor or any of his fellows not to say more how ever they resist his Cavaliers 5. If he will deny resistance where the King is present because there his commands are certainly knowne to be his which may be doubted of in remote Countries Then 1. So should it have been exprest for cleare understanding and not coucht in uncertainty 2. Then all these Cavaliers are justly resisted where the King is not present which againe if it were believed and practised would soone end the businesse For even in the next Parish to the King they might be resisted though not where he appeares and speakes 3. What if it be doubted whether the King be not forced by threatnings and feare of his life to command so and so Kings have been prisoners and have commanded so and by wise and good Subjects Castles and Townes have bin kept by force of Armes against such as they bad to assault it if not yeelded Our Law supposes The King can doe no wrong yet supposes wrong may be done in his name by his followers If he then command a notoriously wicked thing The Law will suppose him forced or the like And then resistance shall be as well lawfull as if he were absent Or even necessary to rescue him out of such wicked hands 4. What if it be doubted whether a King be bewitched by sorceries There have bin such things of old and the Devills power doth not seeme to be lessned now 5. What if it be doubted whether the King be distracted A thing that hath befallen Kings as well as meane men Are subjects bound from resisting the commands of a bewitched or distracted Person to the ruine of Religion Lawes and liberties still preserving his person safe 6. Suppose it be certaine he is not forced nor bewitched nor distracted Yet doing as bad as any forced bewitched or distracted person can possibly doe by commanding such tyrannicall Acts what reason can be imagined why such a command should tie subjects hands from resisting his followers offering to act his tyranny more then if he were forced bewitched or distracted Is the liberty of his body and mind from those violences an enslaving of his people to his lawlesse lusts of crueltie and mischiefe 6. If he say further that even his officers or souldiers if they have his Seale or warrant may not be resisted in the remotest Country Then besides the former inconveniences these are to be added 1. Any that come among ignorant common people may abuse them at their pleasure if they will but pretend the Kings Seale or Warrant It hath bin counterfeited for Briefes How ordinary would it be if it might not be resisted How would malicious men murther with it Robbers spoyle with it and who could remedy it 2. By this meanes any that had a designe to depose the King and usurpe the Kingdome might by a counterfeit Seale and Warrant kill all the Kings faithfullest Subjects and strengthen so himselfe and his party as the King should after have no power to save himselfe Lawes observed will secure sufficiently from this And liberty to resist illegall violences will appeare to be necessary to the Kings safety as well as the Subjects Kings have seldome or never bin murthered or deposed where Lawes have bin preserved in their vigour But often where illegall violences have had place Let this also not be forgotten 7. Well but thus the case I suppose is understood if not by the Doctor yet by the generall of those that take the Kings part against the Parliament that neither the King in Person nor any of his officers or souldiers that have commission from him may be resisted because that were to resist the King which say they all the Apostle forbids and threatens Rom. 13.2 But here again I blame the Doctors negligent handling of that place upon divers considerations further 1. Without doubt the first verse is to be regarded as being the foundation of the second as appeares by the word Therefore Yet that he hath greatly neglected Perhaps for feare the scanning of it would doe him an ill turne as I shall by and by endeavour to shew by comparing the subjection commanded with the resistance forbidden 2. In the first verse he doth very ill to reade alwayes except once by chance as I thinke higher power for higher powers and so never to tell us whether the other powers who are higher in relation to the common-people though inferiour in relation to the supreme S. Peters governours may be resisted or not even with Arms. Perhaps this fraudulently also 3. In the second verse he is very carelesse to tell us whether resistance which is three times in English but there are two Greeke words the first being different from the second and third signifie all kind of opposition though without Armes to the higher and supreme power at least but then much more with Arms Or whether it only signifie resisting with Armes and no other there forbidden and made damnable Yet this a needfull Question for a conscience to be resolved in and more ordinarily then about resisting And so would well have become the Doctors learning and pretended care of Conscience and even regard of Authority to have discoursed upon But since he hath not vouchsafed to doe any of these I shall take the paines to doe it for him and for the conscientious Readers as well as I can 1. The first verse begins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers Here are two questions 1. What is meant by being subject 2. What by higher Powers By being subject is meant yeelding obedience either active or at least passive that is doing or forbearing acccording to command or submitting to suffering when one do's otherwise It cannot be denied but both these are parts of subjection and that so much is commanded by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
Kings attempt upon their office and Gods worship 2 Chron. 26. And after thrusting him out of the Temple when God had smitten him with Leprosie for it I for my part put no great weight on the former But their thrusting him out of the Temple is somewhat towards a hinderance even by force of a Prince if he persist to violate Gods undoubted ordinances as it had been to have staid in the Temple being leprous added to the sinne of his going in at all and presumption to offer Incense But such a case is hardly supposable among us Only I adde that I wonder the Doctor offers to say God by smiting him with Leprosie discharged him of his Kingdome The Story implyes no such thing but only that he dwelt in a severall house and Jotham his sonne judged the people of the Land The Law allowed not any to come neare to such or touch them and what they touched without being uncleane therfore he could not sit in publike Judicature but his sonne did it for him yet for all that he remained King till his death and probably did give out divers Orders which might be done by means of those that must needs minister to him But if the Doctor say right may not an untoward Inference be made that if a King should attempt to violate Gods ordinance and worship in any thing and God should visibly strike him with some loathsome Judgement this should discharge him of his Kingdome which is more then ever the Parliament said or so much as thought as they call God to witnesse A fourth Example is Elisha's shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger that came to take away his head This example the Doctor saith speakes little Reply But as little as it speakes it forces him to speake that which if he will stand to I doe not much doubt but I shall make any unpartiall man perhaps even the Doctor himselfe to say his cause is lost in reference to his first Proposition Heare his own words Let us thence take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against the sudden and illegall attempts of such even of the King himselfe thus farre to ward his blows to hold his hands and the like I Reply 1. Then is not all resistance unlawfull and damnable if against suddain he may much more against deliberate intended illegall violence And his distinction of personall defence c. will not satisfie conscience by his owne words in the beginning of this Section If Ro. 13.2 be to be interpreted his way because every distinction and limit of any place in Scripture must have it's ground in Scripture What ground hath this in Scripture in his way either here or elswhere specially when he will not allow the Parliament to beleeve any intention to take away any of their heads notwithstanding all words and preparations against them without the spirit of Elisha But heare him further Not to endanger his Person this nor return blows this is not lawfull he saith Reply I am not willing to oppose him in these Assertions though the case may be so hard as a man must loose his life if he will meerly defend himselfe and in no sort offend But specially a woman must loose her chastity in which case and principally the latter let the Doctor answer what is to be done and whether no blows may be returned But that the Princes person may not be willingly assaulted the speech of David forenoted is that which concludes me and not at all the Dâ—â—argument He saith the whole common-wealth is concern'd in his person and that a particular nature will yeeld to the universall Rep. But he argues fallaciously the whole is concern'd somewhat in the Princes person but not so as that it perishes if he die or be kil'd Which is often and no harme no visible chang but that he is missing Wheras the yeelding of a particular nature to the universal is to keep that from dissolution perishing as the Naturalists say no otherwise But that which follows is yet better Thus he objects for us against himself if this be drawn from personall Defence to the publike resistance now used as they usually make the Argument thus If the body naturall then the body politicke may defend it selfe If a private person much more the whole State may and they do but shut up the way against the King that comes to destroy his Parliament and take away their heads then he answers two things 1. As the naturall body defends it self against an outward force but strives not by a schisme or contention within it self So may the body politick against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the head and another part of the same body for that tends to the dissolution of the Whole Rep But by his leave he abuses the similitude between a naturall and a politick body and perverts the state both of the Question and the example in hand and withall runs into more absurdities then one in his own way as I shall now shew him 1. The naturall body can do nothing but by the guidance of the head that is of the soul residing in the head and imploying the sences and faculties placed in the head to that purpose But a body politicke is a company of reasonable men whose actions may be divided from their politick head and yet be rationall and regular and when the particular politicke head is distracted or while an Infant it can and doth order it self within him and so it doth and must doe when the politick head is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties because the subversion of these and not the opposition or resisting of those that would subvert them would be the dissolution of the whole But so would not be the very death of the politicke head though as I said before it is unlawfull to attempt it Whereas the death of the naturall head is certainly the dissolution of the whole naturall body 2. As the naturall body may defend it selfe against outward force so against the malignity of any disease or paine in any member of the body even resient in the very head and so the hand may pull out a tooth even for the painfullnesse of it though seated in the head and perhaps one eye for some disease thereby to save the other and lance and cut the flesh and even cut-off a limme legg and arme to stopp a Gangrene yet is this no making of a schisme or unnaturall contention within it selfe 3. He hath granted it to single persons but denies it to the whole body or a considerable part together Reply Then belike if six or twenty or a hundred single persons be assaulted illegally by a like number of single persons suppose in their severall houses in the same Towne they may shut the doores and defend themselves and even any of them hold the very Kings hand and ward his blowes But if they happen to be all in
a body together in the market place and be assaulted by such a number or a quarter so many they must not offer to resist but let them cut all their throates because forsooth in the body politicke one part must not be set against the head and another part of the Whole 4. He grants the body politicke may defend it self against an outward force but not as now one part c. Reply Then belike if the King imploy Danes or Irish against the Parliament and Kingdome they may resist them and is not the case so now at least in part but not if he imploy only English-Cavaleers Surely the mighty wits of the Earle of Strafford who was condemned mainly for counselling to bring in nine thousand Irish to reduce this Kingdome wanted our Doctor to have advised him to forbeare that designe and only Arme English and then the peoples hands and consciences should have been tyed from resisting by the Doctors and his fellow-Chaplaines Divinity and must have yeelded Religion Lawes and Liberties and neckes too for feare of dissolving the whole politick body by defence 5. When the state of the Question by himselfe set is when a Prince is bent to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties What dissolution of the Whole can bee feared by defence and resistance against such intentions worse then that or so bad While therefore he talkes of such defence tending to the dissolution of the Whole he perverts the Question or else forgets that the subverting of Religion Laws and Liberties cannot be accounted lesse then a dissolution of the whole politicke body 6. I say therefore by an Argument à fâ—rtiâ—ri retorting his words upon himself If a private person may defend himselfe a gainst illegall Assaults of the Kings Messenger or even of himselfe as before then much more the representative Body of a State and even any considerable part of the Body with them or even without them to save Religion Lawes and Liberties against an intent to subvert them And if against outward forraigne Force then much more against homebred unnaturall Members who exceed rather then come short of any outward Force in rage and câ—uelâ—y tending to the subversion of the Whole and all such unnaturall and gangren'd members are justly and necessarily cut-off for the safety of the whole though their cutting oâ— cannot be without a maime and lamenesse at least for the present I say for the present for new members will grow up in the politicke body in time though never in the body naturall 2. He hath yet another Answer for us in these words Personall Defence may be without all offence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall resistance by Armes doth which cannot be without many unjust violences and doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-wealth And this makes a large difference 'twixt Elisha's shutting the doore against this Messenger and their shutting-up the way against the King by armed men Repl 1. If some personall defence may be without all offence yet not all And he at least seems to have yeelded all personall defence lawfull so the Kings person may not be violated 2. Whose fault it is originally that generall resistance by Armes cannot be without offence Are the Plunderers not in fault but the defenders must be counted guilty And whose hand is it that strikes immediately at the order which is the life as he saith of the Common-wealth The defendants of Religion Laws and Liberties Or theirs who intend and attempt to subvert them all 3. How doth personall Defence if offensive to the Messengers assaulting strike lesse at the power over us then generall or common defence doth Or rather neither doth since the power over us as intended and ordained both by God and man is for the preserving and defending not subverting Religion Laws and Liberties and so defends the true power strikes not at it 4. If generall Defence cannot be without many unjust violences no more is any warre at all in a forraigne Country de facto But as the impossibility to restrain these wholly do's not make all warrs unlawfull so much lesse doth it a necessary defence in case of such danger to Religion Laws and Liberties 5. Whose fault is it that these unjust violences cannot be avoided the Assaylants or the defendants Let God and conscience be Judge To Him we feare not to appeale and while the conscientious Defendants labour as much as morally they can to prevent and rectifie all such unjust violences whether the danger of some acting them who must be imployed in the defence altogether forbids the generall defence to the utter subversion of Religion Laws and Liberties 6. And this indeed makes a large difference betwen Elisha's case and ours He defended but one against a sudden passionate command He pleades against malicious deliberate intents for defence of many the generall of all faithfull Prophets Magistrates Princes and all with Laws and Liberties for all posterity Let Heaven and Earth judge who is the wrong-doer and whether the defendants may not as Innocents call for justice as well as David against Saul 1 Sam. 24. 26. vide locum As for the Parliaments power to conclude of the Kings intentions without the Spirit Prophetick of Elisha I wonder we had not here also that Elisha defended himself by an extraordinary way being an extraordinary person as well as David before that belongs to the third Proposition handled in his third Section thither I refer it Only saying that since the printing of the Doctors book some bloud hath bin shed by the Kings Counsell of war at Reading in a pretended legality So at Oxford some others have lately been condemned with pretence of Law and what shall become of them who knows whether they will put them to death in terrorem to others Or reserve them for feare some of their party should be served with the same sawce Finally whereas he saith the King desires not any punishment should be inflicted on any that oppose him then what a legall tryall shall adjudge them to which no good Subject ought to decline Reply This were credible if we were assured what is meant by a legall tryall and that it did signifie not a tryall by such Judges and Juries as are apparantly partiall or if we could forget that the six Members accused of High-Treason in January last offered themselves to be tryed and the Parliament offered to try them in Parliament according to their Priviledges being Members of their Houses and from thence forth the Accusation was laid a sleepe till of late notwithstanding the reiterated importunities of both Houses of Parliament who also in one of their Declarations or Petitions to the King urged a Statutes how such accusations ought to be managed and conclude to this effect that by Law and Justice this ought not to be denyed And thus I have vindicated the Examples of Scripture by the Doctor alleadged for us and from
thence and from his owne words partly the Question in hand between us as farre as concernes the first Proposition I am now to proceed to his owne allegations against us In which he is so confident as he promises That Scripture excludes this and all other exceptions giving no allowance to resistance in regard of persons or causes or other pretences how true this is let what hath been said already be judge and this not only by Examples but by Precepts Conclusions Resolutions which are more safe These we are now to examine First his Allegation of the 250 Princes gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Himself satisfies that there was no cause for it Moses and Aaron did not deserve it I add they had done nothing but what appeared to be the formall will of God whose cloud and pillar was by day and night over their heads and whose many miracles had continually ratified the authority of Moses and Aaron Moses his very face by a continued miracle was sufficient to have dazeled them if he had pul'd off his vaile But to this he answers The Princes supposed they did deserve it and that is now enough it seemes to make people not only say to their Princes Yee take too much upon you but therefore to rise in Armes also Which I hope will appeare to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise Repl. 1. I have shewed there was not the least ground for them to suppose ill of Moses but all contrary 2. Because a false supposall allowes not a man to doe such or such a thing shall this forbid that action where the supposall is true and certaine By this all warre should be unlawfull for upon a false supposall it is Also all Justice should be injustice and unlawfull for upon a false supposall it is so We never said nor thought That uncertain supposals suffice to arme against a Prince but at least such as rules of reason and prudence allow in all cases of importance And whether there be now any such As he referrs so doe I to the end of the Treatise Secondly he urges 1 Sam. 8.11 Namely that God by Samuell tels Israel that if they would needs have a King he should take away their goods and make their children servants and then they should cry to God because of their King but he would not heare them which implyes they should be left without all remedy against his oppression but only crying to the Lord. To this divers Answers may and must be given Answ 1. Though this be further urged by some to authorize Kings to take their Subjects goods at their pleasure yet lesse the Kings of Israel never tooke it so For Ahab and Jezabel were not so unskillfull in the right of Kings that they would have had Naboth put to death by false witnesses for blasphemy that so his vineyard might come to the King by confiscation if by a plaine Law of God at the founding of the Monarchy he might have taken the vineyard at his will as the Text 1 Sam. 8.13 mentions his taking of vineyards even to give to his servants and much more for his own use But Ahab and Jezabel both though they wanted neither wit nor stomack to advance that Prerogative were it seemes novices in both to our Moderne Advocates for Monarchy or rather it is certain Samuell tells them what their King would do and not what he should do by right His words are Prophesies not Laws 2. Neither are the latter words of their crying to God and his not hearing them in forme of a Law and Prohibition or at the most but a Prohibition of attempting or thinking to have the government altered againe from Kings to Judges but a prediction by way of punishment what should befall them for their sinfully impetucus affecting and asking a King that they should feele him oppressing them and that God would never remove the burden as long as that King whom they should first have should live Nor yet alter the government againe from Kings to Judges though they should be never so weary of the one or other and pray never so much to him for either or both And indeed the event verifies this interpretation in both respects For Saul proved tyrant enough and particularly in taking their sons from them as it is threatned 1 Sam. 8.11 12. c. so recorded Cap. 14.51 But specially his tyranny was most prodigious in the Massacre of the Priests fore-mentioned And so did many of his successours after they had a King once they never were under any other government altogether For though they had no Kings of their owne from the Babylonish Captivity till the Maccabees time yet were they under strange Kings which was worse the Babylonians and Persians of which after their returne from captivity see their heavy complaint Neh. 9. and after them the Grecians and the Kings of Syria and Aegypt and then a while the Maccabees race possest the Kingdome till the Romans subdued them and set up Harod and his race under the Emperour who was indeed their King from thence forth the high Priest cals Caesar their King Joh. 19.15 and so doth the Prophet Zach. 11.6 till Vespasian and Titus destroyed their Common-wealth 3. This Prediction then of such punishment to them by their Kings oppressing of them cannot be a Law or punishment intended to other Nations being under a King who have not provoked God in seeking a King as Israel had God threatned and imposed on the Jews and other Nations in Nebuchadnezzars time their putting their necke under his yoake though he was not their hereditary Prince but an invading enemy From whence no man will gather I hope that any Nation are bound to yeeld to a forraigne Enemy invading them Also God threatned that the Jewes should be carried captives into other Countries and there they should serve other gods wood and stone c. where he would not shew them any favour I am sure no man will argue from hence that this is a law for other captives to submit to or was any excuse to them much lesse a law but a meere punishment to them and warning â—o other least in them also sin be punished with sin which is the forest punishment of all 4. This place then being such a prediction of punishment doth not prove so much as that to them it was unlawfull to defend their very goods against their Kings tyranny but that at the most it should be vaine to them because if God would not heare their cry their defence would be to little purpose and what they might save at one time would begotten from them at another when their King should list to attempt it 5. After all this Text let the utmost be made of it that can be reaches not to the first and maine Proposition of defending life Or the second of chastity but still the defence of those remaine lawfull and warrantable though also so doth the defence
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
by Reassuming as I said before a taking of the whole power from him to themselves but onely for the particular Case in hazard and for the present necessity And now to begin with what he first mentions the Derivation of power I must tell him that he forges what he before complained of in others that they confounded the power it selfe with the person and the Qualification I am sure he doth so here if ever man did Hee before granted the Person and Qualification from men and then they approved of God and more then that no man pleads to be derived nor more to be forfeited plead not for so much nor he Paâ—liament neither But only the Qualification for he particular Case of danger and till that danger may be sufficiâ—ntly secured Yet here now at first to oppose the Forfeiture but of this particular which is only in question now before us he denies the power to be from the People and appeales to what he hath cleared which is onely by his owne saying but not altogether as hath beene shewed that the Power it selfe is from God But for all that if no more can be said against the persons forfeiting his reigning Power and specially in the Qualifications of it even for ever it may undoubtedly be forfeited and so re-assumed all of it which is more then I say Secondly but he will prove that though the People have this Power absolutely which himselfe hath more then once granted of the Designation of the Person and Qualification yet could they not have right to take it away REPL. The King will have no cause to thank him for his undertaking as well because he doth it not with any great strength as also because hee hath hereby provoked men to dispute even this Case which no way needed since the Parliament never pretended to this Right in generall but rather disclaimed it First he saith Many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them are not afterward in our power to recall REPL. True but some things are and that both if conditions be not observed and even at our owne pleasure A King makes some Officers for terme of life others quamdin se bene gesserint others aâ—â— ante bene placite To the latter hee may send a Writ of Ease at his pleasure and every day it s in his power to recall their Authority To the second their offices are sure without power of recalling till they are legally convicted of misbehaviour To the third as long as they live their Authority is firme and no power of recalling it wholly Yet even such may bee hindred from some Administrations by Accusations by and apparency of Crimes making it unfit for them to be trusted in the particular We imagine not the People to have power to recall that Regall Authority at their pleasure we argue not that they have power to recall it wholly upon any Case of Mal-administration All that we plead for is power to administer a part of it upon necessity which he will not administer for good but rather for evill And there are not many things that were altogether ours and in our disposing before we part with them but are still so farre ours as to use them againe in our necessity for that turne at least though there are some Secondly But he will prove this to be one of those that are not after in our power to recall especially saith he such in which there redounds to God an interest by the Donation as in things devoted though after they come to be abused REPL. 1. Grant this true in referrence to the Power of recalling them wholly which yet is not universally true as will appeare straight yet may there be power enough to administer so much as is of necessity A Wife is tyed to her Husband by the Covenant of God so called Prov. 2. by the Ordinance of God more ancient and no lesse strong then that of Politick Government She cannot recall wholly her Husbands Authority over her though shee was once altogether at her disposing to choose or another or none to be her head All the goods of the Family are his in Law and not here but by his leave and order Yet for her necessity she may by the Law of God and conscience administer so much of the goods as is fit and secure her Person from his violence by absence though that ordinarily be against the Law of Marriage and the end of it or any other meanes of nccessary defence But secondly it is not altogether true that there is no power or recalling any thing devoted to God Hezekiah took off the gold from the Doores of the Temple and the Pillars which he had overlaid and all the silver in the house of the Lord to pay the King of Assyria his demanded Ransome 2. Kings 18.14 15 16. If the Doctor will not owne this Act of Hezekiah I am sure he will that of David taking the hallowed Bread which was not for any by Gods Law to eate but onely the Priests This was devoted to God and not so much as abused and by him assigned to a speciall use yet from that diverted and lawfully without question And now I appeale to all Consciences Whether the necessity of saving a Kingdome from the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties be not greater then Davids necessitie was And if I will have mercy and not sacrifice did justifie Davids act will it not theirs who in a necessity use or administer the power of the Militia or Armes which ordinarily is only to be admieistred by the King Neither will Abimelech the Priests consenting to David alter the Case for it was devoted to God and but in necessity he might not have consented nor David accepted Necessity then recalled that particular Bread through devoted So necessity may recall this parcell of power in question Thus the Doctors ground failes him for our Case yet 3. see what he adds so although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves himselfe oft hath said and cannot deny but they give the Person his power and if they take it from his person yet they may leave it to his Heire but wee argue not for so much yet because the Lords hand and his oyle also is upon the Person elected to the Crowne and then he is the Lords Annointed and the Minister of God those hands of the People which were used in lifting him up to the Crowne may not againe be lift up against him either to take the Crowne from his head or the Sword out of his hand this true inform'd Conscience will not dare to doe REPL. 1. Is not Gods hand upon a Judge Is not hee the Minister of God Is not a King bound to God and to his People to appoint Judges who may lesse be spared in their Power then the Monarch himselfe for what is his Power when an Infant Is not the Kingdome then administred
purposes aforesaâ—d And this Parliament what ever oâ—her mighâ— bee is not deposeable dissoluble but by themselves The Sword cannot be Legally taken from them till they give it up It remaines then that they are bound in Conscience to GOD and to the People and King too that have entrusted them with this Power to use it to these ends to punish Delinquents and tempters though under Colour of surreptiously gotten Commands from the King to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties and to prevent Tyranny and preserve themselves and Religion Lawes and Liberties They may not onely Lawfully doe this upon these Premises and suppositions but they are by all Obligations to GOD and Man necessitated to doe so and even to take away the wicked from before the King that so his Throne may bee establisht in Righteousnesse This is clearely theâ— the Parliaments not onely Power but duty Iâ— they mâ—stake in the present case of which anon yet the generall case stands good they may and ought to doe so to take Armes when such a case comes The Dr. hath somewhat more to say against the Peoples power applicable to our Kingdome Let us heare it also How shall Conscience be satisfied concerning the Peoples power derived from their Election when our Kings are such by Inheritance and claime not by Election and the Crowne hath been oft setled by Conquest REPLY Neither is Conquest any thing of it selfe to power or Lawfull Authority of which onely we argue but only as it obtaines consent by agreement which is all one in Sence and Effect with Election Only Election sounds more Freedome of will Conquest Imports a Force occasioning that will But it is evident in Reason that he that is free as all men are by Nature as was said before except their bond to Parents becomes not subject de jure till his Consent Agreement or Election makes him so and to no more then his Consent reaches explicitely or implicitely and so for many men they can no other way be subject to one to a Prince or Monarch but by their Agreement whether for feare of his Force or hopes of his vertue he is not their King or Lord till he be made so by their Consent I meane at first and Originally But what need I stand to provâ— this largely when our Dr. hath confest it in sence before in saying the designing the person and Qualification of the Power is from Men Mans invitation what is this put mans choyce Agreement Consent together And if there be 100. Conquests the Conqueror hath not the qualification of his power one whit enlarged by Right untill the People have consented and yielded up their former Rights and when they have then his Right is setled accordingly and to his sâ—ccessours if so consented to else not and to hâ—s â—eâ—res if consented to else not and to Heires male onely as in France or Femaâ—e also as in England according to the consent Or if the Conquerour to obtaine the Peoples 〈…〉 his posterity will offer to have leâ—t power then his Predecessour bed â—eâ— upon such consâ—â—t the qâ—alification of his power is lessened for ever after to hâ—m and his Conquest thâ—n first or last one or many are no more to right oâ— power then an occasion or Motive to consent consent Choise Agreement are all in all Secondly as for Inheritance it is nothing but a succession of consent Indeed posteritie are bound to the consent of their Parents for the Person Family qualification but to no more In all other Cases and respects they are as free as their Parents at first were A Prince then onely inherites what was given the first of the Nation or others since by consent of the people and by written Law or custome he must claime any power he will exercise or else he cannot plead any right title to it And his qualification of power admits of encrease or decrease as he and the People agree and consent His power is altogether derived by Election and consent first and last whence I will inferre no more but as before that therefore in case of necessity the people may use so much of it as may suffice to save themselves from Ruine and that may be inferred from it by what went before As for his Repetition of Rom. 13. and the Roman Emperours being Monarchs absolute I need say nothing to now I have said enough before After this he comes to the Covenant and Oath which the Prince takes to confirm what he promised which he denies to make the Kings Admitttance to the Kingdome altogether conditionall as is the meerely Elective Kingdomes of Polonia Swethland c. and that it is nothing to allow resistance unlesse in the Covenant could be shewed that in case he will not discharge the trust it shall be Lawfull for the States to resist REPLY The Oath is onely urged to shew that the Kings Conscience is bound more firmely then what he is sworne to and as a Testification of the Câ—venant The mattâ—r sworne to is the maine nor that urged for an absolute forfeiture but for the case of necessitie Secondly in more Elective Kingdomes the conditions of the Covenant are more largely perhaps and more solemnely explicite then in successive and the Power is morâ— Restrained then in some successive yet consent bâ—ing the foundation of succession as was said before a King that enters upon the succession doth by that verâ—ually before his Oath oâ— Coronation consent to the first Conditions or Covenant those that have been made consequently and in that sence his Admittance is altogether conditionall not that the people may refuse him at their will without new Conditions but that he may not refuse the former Covenant and Conditions by offering to take more power then those gave him or his Ancestors which is all one And if he doe the people are not bound to obey those Commands the Dr confesses before and I adde as before they may resist his illegal Violences 3. For now the case is all one as if the choyce or agreement Covenant oâ— consent were originally made but yesterday And then consider it We are a multitude of Free-men and whereas we might have agreed on an Aristocracy We agreed on a King on such and such Covenants or Conditions without mention that wee will resist if he break them But simply promise Obedience on those Conditions and he on those accepts the Crowne But next day breakes all and shewes hee is bent to subvert all Religion Lawes and Liberties How now in Reason for of Scripture we spake enough before can it be supposed that such a choyce or agreement hath turned us into such Slaves as we must onely suffer and not at all resist or rather is not all reason plaine that I have given away no more of my naturall freedome which is to resist all violence and wrong then I meant and exprest to give away I say then that unlesse a Nation have covenanted not to resist in such and
such cases they have power to resist because it is a naturall right each hath against all except Parents so farre is it from my being bound not to resist unlesse I have expressly covenanted that I may Though withall I doe not say that I may covenant at all to resist in no case as I shall have occasion to shew anon Fourthly in the meane time if the Doctor grant that in case the agreement be that if the Prince discharge not his trust the states may take Armes and resist as in effect he seemes to doe when he saith That were something for if he doe no such agreement Then is not all Resistance damnable nor Rom 13.2 Rightly interpreted by him For this and more the Brabancons had in their Agreement with their Duke even to choose another as the Doctor himselfe tells us afterward So ever now and then he must contradict his maine Proposition by the force of truth But he saith after that The slender Pleaâ— Election is thought to have a Covenant in it but usually the higher wee rise in all Empires the freer Kings were and still downward the People gained on them And by this he would imply that specially in successive Kingdomes as this what ever may be said of merely elective States there can be no forfeiture of power by breach of Covenant made in after Ages by succeeding Princes REPLY In the first times there was a great simplicity in all covenants in sale of Lands and letting of Lands and the like yet no man ever sold or gave away or lent more then hee meant though the force and fraud of ill men forced after Ages to more express Covenants In like sort Ex malis moribus bonâ— Leges as well between Prince and people as between common men the tyranny of Princes forced People to require them to sundry necessary expresse Lawes Yet these Lawes now for Phrase or expression will not in reason be thought more then was intended in the first simple Covenant how briefe soever it were for certainly free people and in their right wits never meant to enslave themselves to the wills and lusts of those they chose their Princes But to be subject to them for their generall good which when they found by experience to be violated or in danger to be so for want of expresse Lawes specifications of the Generall Law of Nature the generall good of the society they were forced by necessity to require them to make such Lawes for their generall safety and particularly also to prevent inferiour officers from tyranny under the name of the superiour and so to prevent all necessity of Armes within themselves And some good Princes for their peoples comfort have even been forward of themselves to make such Lawes which yet without our making they were bound for the most part to have done accordingly for the welfare of their Dominions The People then have gained nothing for the great part of Lawes for their Liberties but ability to claime them as undoubted more then before nor have Princes lost any thing almost but a power of impovershing ruining their Subjects so much as before they seemed to have for the satisfying of their owne Prodigalities and Lusts Still then it remaines that the People had a right to all fitting Liberties even after they submitted to a King unlesse they expressly gave them away as unto some Câ—nqâ—erours the conquered Party were sometimes forced to doe But yet N. B. even then the Conquerours followers who were part of his subjects at that time and by whoâ—e hands he conquered the rest whether more or fewer did consent and agree to the Peoples and so their owne Posterities having but such and such Liberties and yeelding to the new Conquerour and his Posterity such and such Power and Authority So still consent gave whatsoever a Prince could or can challenge I say then once more unlesse in the first foundation of a State Kingdome or Empire and this Kingdome particularly the People did make their King so absolute as to give away all power of resistance from themselves in any case which the Doctor I beleeve will never be able to prove of this or any other Civill State though they made no expresse conditions or Covenant much lesse any mention of reserving a power of resistance yet the Law of Nature allowed them still some Liberties what they were we shall have occasion to scan in the next Section and amongst them this for one to resist any violence against themselves in any thing that the Law of Nature did undoubtedly make them still Masters of and was not subjected to their Princes power But the Doctor concludes his reasoning against such power of resistance to be in our Parliament with that which indeed hath least shew of strength of any thing he hath said yet Thus he writes where the King as it is said never dies where he is King before Oath or Coronation where hee is not admitted upon any such Capitulation as gives any power to the People or the representative Body as is pretended to nay where the Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that therein such a State such a Powâ—r should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the Fundamentals of such a State can never appeare reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistance that is now made by such a pretended Power REPL. This is the most plausible Plea he hath or any can bring specially the latter part of it about the calling and dissolving the Parliament at the Kings will and pleasure But to this also as well as all the rest sufficient satisfaction I doubt not may be given before indifferent judgements and unpartiall Consciences in the manner following First as the King never dies so he never growes he never hath more authority unlesse by a new grant from the people then his first Predecessor had unlesse it can be proved that the people then gave away their liberty of defence from outragious violence which all are naturally invested with it is free for them now as well as it was the second day or houre after they chose or consented to their first King as was implyed before Secondly as he is King before Oath or Coronation So he gives away none of his Rights in his Oath nor doe the People when they crowne him But he there professes himselfe bound by his Kingly Office to rule so and so for the common good and they yeeld no more to him then they did to his first Predecessor as before Thirdly as he is not admitted upon any such capitulation in expresse terms as mention this power of resistance in the people or representative body in case of Tyranny So nor doe the people at his admittance expresse a yeelding to him such absolute power as they may not or will not in any case resist I say againe and
doe all they doe that so they may prevent and restraine the designed tyranny Fiftly Yet I have one thing more to alleadge supposing the power of calling and dissolving wholly in the King ordinarily yet there may be such power in them so long as they doe sit to command Armes to bee rais'd for the suppressing of any Delinquents maintaining themselves with Armes even under the colour of the Kings Authority which I thus make good If there be any such kind of Power in the very Judges in their Courts at Westminster for the whole Kingdome and in their severall Circuits for the Shires they sit in although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will meerly and put out ordinarily at his pleasure and they can neither keepe Assizes at any time nor keep any Terme any where but when and so long as the King pleases to give Commission if I say there be such a power in the Judges and even in one of them then much more in the whole Parliament which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest Judicature in the Kingdome and hath most power during their sitting Now that such a kinde of power is in the Judges I appeale to experience in the case following A private man hath a suite with the King about Land or House and the like The King hath possession and some Officer or Tenant of his holds it for the King The Judges having heard the Cause give Sentence for the Subject adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the Kings Tenant or Officer he refuses and armes himselfe to keep possession still Upon this after due summons and processe of law a Writ of Rebelliâ—n shall goe out against the Officer of the Kings even though he should pretend to keepe possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriffe shall be commanded to raise Armes even the whole posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment from resisting the Kings auâ—hority in his Lawes Here now is raising Armes by the Kings legall Authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer haâ—h a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall bee punisht by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence Aâ—ke the Lawyers whether in sense â—his be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King doth not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not The Parliament then may in the case of necessity raise Armes against the Kings personall Command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all And this by the Kings legall Authority and the resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the Instruments so imployed Legally though with Armes by the Parliament If the Doctor now or any for him will retort upon me as he thinks what I said before that if this be granted a King intending Tyranny will not call a Parliament or if he have called it he will straight dissolve it as soone as they attempt any thing against his mind REPL. I reply he will doe so indeed if hee can perswade the people by the Doctors Divinity or Law to endure him and his followers to take away their Goods and doe what else he list and they for want of a Parliament called or sitting dare not defend themselves at all But if hee find that they believe no such Doctrine but without dispute of Law or Consciences resolve rustically not to be robbed of their goods at pleasure or used like meere slaves but that they will defend themselves and somwhat they begin to doe and beat away or kill some that come to take their goods away in such illâ—gall manner he may then be glad to call a Parliament to quiet the People who perhaps also may begin to mutiny by troopes and be willing to sacrifice perhaps some of his Followers unto them as â—mpâ—oâ— and Dudley were in the beginning of H. the 8. though they proceeded with colour of the penall Lawes and even to provide for his owne Maintenance as 〈◊〉 â— In such a case some against his will cal'd a Parliament Anno of his Reigne And that it may be he will not he dares not hearken to those that would perswade him to dissolve it because then hee should bring all confusion besides want upon himselfe againe which was Hen. the Thirds Case Anno. Therefore I conclude that the Parliament as I said before may have this power and upon advantage of the Kings necessities and Peoples not enduring oppression be able to exercise it even though they meet not but at the Kings will and are dissoluble at his pleasure And so I have said enough of this Section except onely that I must note that in the close of it he either thinks those he hath to doe with Parliament and all grosse fooles or else he shewes himselfe extreamly simple in reckoning up the remedies of Tyrranny though he love not to use so harsh a word but we must when hee hath stated the Case for us of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The denying of subsidies and ayd c. If hee meane in Parliament such a Prince never meanes to call any If out of Parliament this is the grievance that he takes it against Law by Ship-moneys and Monopolies and Imposts and any way and if they deny it themselves are fetcht up by the Pursevants and put in prison and for not executing such illegall commands Fined at pleasure halfe or all their Estates and perhaps starved in prison or little better Kept so close that they fall sicke and dye Nay if the Prince proceed to command his Souldiers or Officers to kill without delay any â—hat shall deny Subsidie or Ayd though never so illegall Hath not then the Doctor propounded a goodly remedy of Tyranny to deny him Subsidy and Ayd As if to quench a house a fire hee should send for a paire of Bellowes to blow a coole breath Let him now consider whether hee uttered those words in scorne or in policie and with what science or skill in common Reason not to say in Politicks and so with how truely an informed conscience he deales justly between the King and the People We have yet some further strength of his reason to examine in the next Section Of which now SECT V. IN this Section hee propounds this Reason as alleadged for the peoples Power that else the State should not have meanes for its owne safety when c. REPLY This Reason we acknowledge ours and considering what a State is a Body composed of many thousands who by themselves or their Ancecestors set up a King over them for their safety and good this Reason is as much Reason as any thing can be betweene Man
Estates and in any two of them or all the 3. together is given and is to be used ad Edificationem ad Salutem non ad destructionem for the common good and safety not ruine For in that it is Null and voyd in all reason and equity But the Doctor saith Must the King only trust and not be trusted Must he not alwayes have his security against the other which cannot be but by power of denying REâ—L 1. But he forgets that the Question by himselfe stated is when the Prince will not discharge his trust and more then soâ— is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties Then it is sencelesse to trust him till 〈◊〉 shewâ—s another a better mind and it is most ridiculous to allow him in this case a pâ—wer of denying safety for that is to allow him a power of subverting all 2. But when the â—u is as now it â—s made in Hypothesi whether the Prince or the two Houses do mean wâ—ll or ill and who doth or doth not discharge their trust and who doth or doth not intend the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties who can be Judge betweene them or who can amongst men decide the difference but the Body of the People Exercising their understanding and consciences to judge who is in the right by all that hath been said and done on both sides formerly and of late and so their power and strength too to defend the right side and resist the wrong-doers And these whether the Doctor or any under Heaven will or no must have and will have the Power of denying or granting meanes for their owne and others safety and securiâ—y The Doctors reproaches against the Parliament I passe Only where he sayes Conscience might demand for its satisfaction Why should 100. in the House of Commons see more then 300 or 20. in the House of Lords more then 60. that are of a different judgement and withdrawne REPL. Satisfaction may well be given First by saying it is evident the major part of the House of Commons when they were most full were all that way that 100. are now though that be a slander for but a while since there were 300. there The King a yeare agoe in â—anu last commanded all that were in the Countrey to come up which certainly most of them did Yet no Votes but this way they goe now onely things were not then at the â—eighth they now are 2. If yet the Major part were of another judgement they would certainly come and vote and end the businesse The House hath often called the absent and punisht some for it certainly they knew then there were not enough against them of their Members to over-vote them 3. They that are wilfully absent are offenders against the Law and the common good and so are not to be trusted or thought to have wisedome to see things right how many soever they may pretend to be For also 40 being the legall number for the House of Commons to vote any thing It is against all Rules of Politick Bodies that the absence of others there being thâ— Legall Number present should hinder or discredit any Vote or Act of the Legall Body One judge of Assize two Commissioners or Arbitrators and the like suffice for any Businesse and though still the greater number the more honour and comfort yet a legall number must and will ever suffice 5 As for the Lords who pretend their absence forced by reason of Tumults First this by an Almanack as the Doctor speaks elsewhere may be confuted the greatest part of those that came and after withdrew stayed a considerable time after the Tumults till the King was gotten to Yorke and begun to call them away And if his calling them away or their withdrawing themselves shall have power to make the votes or judgement of a part that are yet resident there as the Dâ— hath learned to call them Null or not to be regarded then have the King or such a number of Lords and Commons even out of the Parliament-House power to disanull a Law even the Law for the not dissolving of this Parliament without an Act for it which must passe all the 3. Estates both Houses and the King and in which each have their power of Denying And this alone what ever might be pretended against other Parliaments makes the legall Votes of the two Houses the full judgement and Authority of the whole representative Body of the Kingdome how few soever be present or how many so ever be absent and upon what pretence soever 2. But withall if I were Confessour or Chaplaine to any of those Lords that have withdrawne themselves and upon pretetence of the Tumult deny to returne I would make bold to aske them this Qu. in their eares for their consciences satisfactoin as well as mine owne which City and Countrey rung of them and which produced such and so many Petitions for the setling of the Militia and helping Ireland and outing the Bishops and Popish Lords out of the House of Peeres whether their refusing to concurre in the reliefe of Ireland and in securing the Kingdome even in petitioning the King for the settling of the Militia which yet the King after acknowledged necessary to be setled were not the true and only cause of those tumults that were And if so where was their judgement to see the means of safety or their conscience to provide for it And then whether their owne guilt did not more send or drive them away then any violence of the Tumults Which tumults yet I approve not nor ever did But if God so punished those that would not discharge the trust it is easier to answer that question why so many remaining should see more that is better then thrice so many if so many dissenting and withdrawne As for the Doctors preferring Monarchy before Aristocracy hee shall not have me for his Adversary who thank God I am borne and live and hope to dye under a Monarchy though not absolute as the Doctors Position would make him when he listed though the Doctor wisely disclaimes any such intention But for his reasons why a King should seâ—e better then the Major part of both the Houses because he sees even with their eyes though dissenting from them and hath other Councel besides and that he hath many reasons to perswade him to consent to their free and unanimous Votes All this is most unreasonable as the Question is now stated of a Prince bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties for we are still upon that generall supposition in this Section for whatever they see he will be sure as farre as he sees his owne strength to consent to nothing that shall hinder his designe And therefore to plead his power of denying or his wisdome in this case is to yeeld him all power to bee a Tyrant Which after all the Dr. will yet prove he hath so farre as he may not be resisted in it by the inconveniences
and then came in that manner to the House of Commons to demand those five And whereas the Doctor saith the King is bound by Oath to maintaine the Government and Revenue as by Law they are establish't REPL. 1. He discovers a secret to us which we understood not before All men stood amazed at the late Oath to this effect for the government and among other Arguments against it not a few considerable men of the Ministry and Gentry before the Parliament lookt at it as an injury to the King and opposite to our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacie and so the Parliament did in effect vote it because it urged men to sweare never to consent to alter the Government which yet the King and State might possibly judge fit to be altered But we never thought that the King was supposed bound by his Oath to it already and much lesse that all Kings in succession would be bound as now the Doctor teaches us by their Oathes to maintaine it as it is by Law establisht This it seems they presumed upon and so thought to have made all sure by swearing all the Ministery and Universities and Masters of Arts and Schoolemasters and Physitians who would have had influence enough into the whole Kingdome within awhile But God laught at this Project turned it upon the Head of the Projectours and all the Party as appeares this Day And so I am perswaded He will doe all their Present endeavours of Warre to recover themselves 2. But in good earnest doth the Doctor or any else thinke the King bound by Oath to maintain Bishops still in England though he hath consented to take them away in Scotland to prevent War even though he hazard the ruine of the Kingdome by a Civill Warre and notwithstanding any inconveniences represented to him by the complaints of his People and the wisedome of his Parliament and his owne too Or doth his Oath bind him to any more then to maintaine them so long as they are establisht by Law as he sweares to maintaine all his other Subjects in their Rights and yet an Act of Parliament may alter many things in mens Rights Are not all Rights of Church and State which are not properly jure divino compromitted to the Parliament the three Estates King Lords Commons every time they meet And may they not alter and change this or that so farre as it is humane and establisht but by the Lawes of the Land The Kings Oath then binds not him and his Parliament from taking away Bishops if they judge them not jure divino and their continuance to be prejudiciall to the State and Church and so of Revenues the same may be said 3. And if the Dr. will not admit this Answere but still contend the King did sweare to maintaine them at his Coronation as they were then by Law established Is not the King beholding to him for charging him with Perjury as in effect hee doth since it is evident that by taking away the high Commission Court and their power in their Courts of imposing Oathes and Penalties and after that their Votes in Parl. hee hath not maintain'd them as they were by Law establisht when he tooke the Oath How the Doctor will answer this I know not sure I am if any Minister having taken the Oath never to consent to alter the Government as it now stands establisht had offered to petition such a taking away of their governing power he should quickly have beene accursed as a perjured person and accordingly so dealt with It remaines then that the King onely swore to maintaine them according to Law while they should stand by Law and not to bind himselfe from any Law-making though to take them away in case it should appeare to be for the good of Church and State And if this be not made good that their taking away will be so let us all fight for them But if it be woe to those men that hazard the King and two of his Kingdomes England and Ireland once more as before they would two yeares one after another have hazarded England and Scotland to maintaine Episcopall greatnesse and Authority 4. What degree of Reformation or any thing like to the Primitive Bishops did they ever offer to be reduced unto which might have contented Parliament and People both if ever propounded in earnest to have asked no more Or what cure for any effectuall Reformation have any of them or their Party ever shewed since the Parliament met to have rendred it any way hopefull that they would bee good instruments hereafter 5. If therfore after all warnings they will needs put the King still on as it appeares even by the Doctors words to fight for their maintenance Let them remember Mr. Brightmans Propheticall Interpretation of the spewing out of the Laodicean Angell And though a vomiting somtimes makes a mans heart sick and ready to dye yet where he hath strength of Nature it comes up at last and proves happy cure Which in this case if it be Christs act as it much seemes to be will not faile to bee fulfilled to our comfort at last how weake soever it bring us first I conclude this then that as Physick is upon the defensive so much more the endeavour to cast up the humour which unprovoked or but a little stirred endangers the Bodies health by Inflamations the like So the late voting down the Bâ—s was meerly defensive and the War so much as it is to maintaine them themselves are and ever were upon the offensive and offenders in and the Parliament not at all Now for the managing of the resistance the Doctor offers to examine whether it hath beene so void of Hostility as that defensive way they pretend to should bee Let us examine it with him Here he contends 1. that the Defendant should be of answerable demeanour to David defending himselfe against Saul REP. But he may be pleased to consider that as all that handle the difference betweene an offensive War and a defensive do rationally maintain that he that is outragiously injuried as David in his Embassadors 2 Sam. â—0 Or dangerously threatned is but on the defensive though he be actually â—n Armes first through diligence and some advantages perhaps so a man keeps himselfe within the bounds of a defence though he actually offend him that does or that would assault him and even though he begin first So David did in the former case invading the Ammonites Country and yet he was properly defensive So a man on the high way if a Robber should assault him if he could prevent his blow and strike first it were but in his owne defence but much more to strike againe and kill if he cannot otherwise defend himselfe which yet is the highest degree of offence betweene party and party Ob. But David still withdrew and having taken the Kings speare and cruse he restored them without demand Rep. True but I have formerly given the reason why he ever
withdrew Pag. I need not repeat it And as for the cruse and speare he tooke them not away for feare of being hurt by them as now Ammunitions and other provisions but as the Dr. well sayes to shew Abners neglect and his own integrity and therfore when they had done him that service he restored them without demand But the Parl. cannot fly from place to place like David they must keep at Westminster or dissolve themselves and they have offered to restore that which they took to prevent their own and the Kingdomes being mischefed by it so that security might have been obtained for time to come witnesse the Petition sent by the E. of Holland and others to Beverley while Hull was besieged In a word there hath been nothing done in this kind of all that the Dr. reckons up which meer necessity hath not forced and most of those things must have beene done by David if he had kept Keilah against Saul as he desired and meant to have done 2 And whereas the Dr. further urges that the Kings loyall and peaceable Subjects are assaulted despoiled of their Armes goods estates their persons imprisoned because they would according to their allegiance assist him in this extremity or would not contrary to their conscience joyne with them against him Rep. This concerns two sorts of persons and for both though somwhat differently the satisfaction to this allegation depends upon the justice of the defence it selfe For 1. if the Parl. do justly take up Arms then without all doubt however the Dr. talks of an implicit faith they may seize upon the arms goods estates persons of those that actually under what pretence soever assist against them Though if their defence be not just then all this is confessedly a multiplication of injustice but if they may fight with the Army that opposes them they may disarm c. those that strengthen the army with monys c. 2. as for those that only wold not contrary to their conscience joyn with them against him I have 2. things to say 1. If any of these have in former times any way promoted illegall commands and practises it is much to be doubted they can bring but slender proof of their forbearing to joyn with the Parl. out of conscience There is nothing more easie then to pretend conscience in all controverted points But hee deserves not to be beleeved in his pretence that hath been but even now and much more if he be still a violatour of rules of conscience in other respects It is wel known how tender they have been of other mens consciences in needless Ceremonies in illegall Innovations in prophane violations of the Lords Sabbath and the 4th Com. who now cry conscience to save their mony or to weaken the Parl. 2. If any be really conscientious in the point yeâ— upon the necessity of a just defâ—nce the Parl. may as well secure their persons and specially their Armes and levy some monies upon them as in a common danger of a forrain enemy trenches may be digged on a mans Land or Forts built evâ—n against his will and in a fire breaking violently out the next house may be pâ—l'd downe to save a towne or many more houses Though it is also true that such ought to have recompence afterward when al the danger is over and so I doubt not but all truely consciencious shall have in due time When it shall appeare they only forbeare out of conscience and did no acts of malignancy withall nor spoke malignantly against the Parliament and their just proceedings The Modesty of some of many that have suffered a great deale worse within these few yeares then the Parliament makes their most Malignant Prisoner suffer may sufficiently shew what a Conscientious refusall signifies if it be no more but so And if the Parliam have nothing more to Answer for then rigour against such the Dr. will hardly prove they have transgressed the bounds of a lawfull defence His reproaches therfore in the close of this Sect. I let passe and come at last to his 7. last Sect. wherunto if as good a reply can be made as to the former I shall not much doubt the Sentence of Conscience of any one who is unengaged or unpartial in the whole Question between us SECT 7. WE are now come to the Tendrest Peece of all the Rest and how confidently so ever the Dr. charges the Parliament and all that cleave to them with Rendring the King odious c. and saith it concernes them so to doe yet it shall appeare by what I have to reply to him in this Section how little delight I have to make the King Odious and that the Parliament also hath and doth as much as lay in them to put off all Imputations from the King and charge them as the Law doth upon his Councellors Judges Followers and Favourites Here 1. let me remember him that whereas in other Kingdomes some Favourites when they have seen their Prince endangered have rather taken his actions upon themselves then cast theirs on him and been content to Sacrifice themselves rather for his safety then expose him to shield themselves It hath been the continuall practise of the plotters against our Religion and Liberties to Entitle the King to all their Illegallities and Oppressions There can scarce that Grievance be named if we except the Ship-money which was devolved upon the Judges and yet it is well knowne how they were tampered with in the Kings Name which they have not Fraudulently gotten the King to own as his Act and this is their constant practise to this day who then hath laboured to make the King Odious or whom did it concerne but they that so far as the people would finde fault with any thing they should be forced in a sort to finde fault with the King and this also helped to Charme all Tongues and tie down all hands till they provoked the Scots beyond all degrees of sufferance to come in with an Army and demand security in and by an English Parl. aswell as one in Scotland 2. Next whereas the Dr. upbraids the Parliament and People That it seemes they are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion they are so ready to fly to Armes to secure themselves Repl. 1. It ill becomes a pretender to and Disputer for Conscience to speake this Language that hath lived to see how many sufferings though not resisting to blood striving against sinne many even of the Parliament but specially of the Ministery and people have yeelded to within 16. or 18. yeares and never thought of flying to Armes but rather of flying out of their Native Country as thousands have done Unlesse the Dr. will undertake to justifie all that was Imposed upon mens Consciences all this while And if he will do so he shall save many Consciences a labour to judge with what a Conscience hee Writes 2. Doth he thinke that they could be so simple as
not to foresee that their very flying to Armes was and would be a great suffering and might prove if God should defeat them the meanes of extreame suffering A people so taught so enured to Passive obedience and no way enured to Warre could not be supposed willing or forward to engage themselves their purses or much lesse their Persons against the Name of their King and each day since the first Necessity hath continually sounded this out so that they had no reason to be forward to fly to Armes 3. By what I said on the former Section and added with the Petition by the E. of Holland even now mentioned It appeares they did not fly to Armes but fly from it as far as they could and durst 3. Wheras the Dr. often in this Section in the beginning middle and end insists mainly upon the breach of Charity in suspecting the King upon Remote feare and meere Jealousies causelesse Jealousies c. Repl. This may sufficiently be satisfied both in the behalfe of the Parliament and then of the People that adhere to them joyntly and singly For the Parliament and people both joyntly This may justly be said 1. The Dr. mistakes it is not simply a Jealousie of the King but rather of the Kings Councellors and Followers who find so much favour with him as they and others did before the Parliament against the Scots and us both and Ireland too witnesse all their heavy complaints against the Great Favourite Strafford that they are able to put him from time to time upon these Actions which his goodnesse of it selfe rightly informed and councelled would abhorre and hath so often declared against and yet Actions againe have discredited those declarations as the Memory of those that have been awake cannot forget both Referring to Religion and Liberties and the Parliament Remonstrances do amply set out besids other Books If therfore Security be once obtained against such persons I am perswaded the King will be no more suspected and in the meane time it must be a strange Charity that can chuse but suspect them 2. Where the danger is of much importance both for Greatnesse of Mischiefe and Inevitablenesse according to Man if not timely prevented Charity to ourselves and others will not onely allow but commend and even command to suspect and accordingly prevent such dangers by suspecting Persons and Actions which in lesser matters they would and might and should venture to trust Fire neere straw or Gunpowder is to be suspected more then neere hard wood Hedge-breakers and breakers of Houses are not equally to be suspected Religion Laws and Liberties are precious things and may be sooner lost then recovered And his Charity hath drunk of the water of Lethe that forgets these were lately attempted and endangered The Kings own Declarations acknowledge Laws and Liberties have been broken And how since the E. of Straffoâ—ds death all the old Projectors are become Converts is too hard a morsell for Charity to swallow when it must hazard such deare things to many of the same Persons againe Specially seeing still what they have done since the first sitting of the Parliam toward their old Projects as hath been partly noted already and somewhat more must be said by and by Next for the Parliament alone They are the great Councell of the Kingdome the publique Watch-men the Highest Court of Judicature it concerns them therfore to exercise their Charity for the safety of those that have trusted them Charity towards Attempters against a City is none of the Vertues of a Watchman nor toward Attempters of dangerous Treasons against a King and Kingdome the Vertue of a Judge Were they onely to loose their own Liberties or Lives their Charity might venture much further then now it may when they must Answer for Religion Laws and Liberties and so Lives and Consciences of a whole Kingdome of 2 Kingdomes England and Ireland as formerly of England and Scotland if not rather then and still of all 3. in a degree Who would not Curse their Charity detest their Folly if by their Credulity all this should be betrayed and ruined If Rhetorick needed in this cause no Subject could deserve it better then to cry down such a pernitious Charity as this would prove if they should be deceived with credulity And then for the People alone have they not a charity to exercise toward the Parliament as well as toward the Kings Followers whom have they trusted to be publike Watchmen the one or the other Whom hath the law trusted to be the great Councell and chief Judges the one or the other Who hath pleaded for their Liberties the one or the other 12. Subsidies were demanded with intent thereby to engage us in a bloody War against Scotland in the Parliament of Aprill 1640. Onely for taking away of Ship-money But this Parliament hath proved it so illegall and other things more that it was taken away without any cost at all by way of Exchange and many other happy Lawes hath the â—arliament passed and obtained for us But what one thing did the Kings former Counsellors move him to offer to his people by way of prevention for State or Religion in a whole yeer together To whom then must the People exercise their charity Must they condemn their watchmen as scaring them needlessely with Old Enemies discredit the law that saith No dishonourable thing ought to be thought of such a great Councell such a high Judicature And that when they more then ever any Parliament before give account to all men of all their Actions and the grounds of them Well shall that People deserve a ruine that believe Old Wolves rather then their faithfull Dogs then their Councell of Shepheards That shall thinke themselves bound to be charitable to those that have attempted their ruine and uncharitable to those that under God have hitherto saved them In a word let those that love Religion and Laws and Liberties compare the best actions on the one side with the best on the other and the worst on the one side with the worst on the other and then let charity judge if it dare or can the Parliament Fooles or Traytors to GOD and the KING and the STATE and the Kings followers the only wise men that have discovered their cunning Treachery and the only faithfull men to Religion his Majesty and Kingdome Take in then the Declarations and Protestations on the one side and on the other and remember is is not a single charity whether I shall suspect the King but first mixt whether I shall or may suspect the Kings followers who can doe any thing with him so farre as that they may doe contrary to what he saith and then a distinguishing charity whether I shall suspect them who were once most of them apparently Delinquents against Religion and the Laws Or the Publike Watchmen and the great Councell an Judicature of the Kingdom who have done so much and with such diligence to save and restore
both and then let Conscience exercise charity as it will answer to GOD to it selfe to all it's Fellow English men and Christians and even to the whole World Thus in generall now we must examine some particulars The Dr. names 4 grounds of feares and jealousie with which the people have been possessed All which he first rejects with a gentle comparing of the Parliamont who hath set them forth to the Devill the Arch-accuser This is his charity In stead of rataliating I will onely say the Lord forgive thee His first ground is Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in This he saith was given out before the setting up of the MILITIA to keepe the People amused the easier to draw them into such a posture of defence as was pretended and they are all discovered by time to have been vaine REPL. 1. why will he perpetually forget that the King himself granted the Militia necessary to be setled 2 It was not meerely Forraigne Forces to bee brought in but Papists and Delinquents rising at home that was insinuated a cause of the desire to have the Kingdom put in a posture of defence 3. Who knows not of the billeting of many thousands of Irish upon us even during the fitting of a former Parliament The Project of Germane Horse in the Dukes time is it quite forgotten The Earle of Staffords Councell not only to bring in his Irish Army consisting most of Papists wherewith to reduce this Kingdome was it not proved by the Oath of a Privy Counsellor present and confirmed by his own Notes taken at the time and did not the rest of the advise then given by that Politician that the King being now deserted by his Parliament might doe any act of power Quaere the words in his charge amount to Counselling the bringing in of any forces from any place And why must all intelligences after these prevented bee counted vaine 4. For is all suspition vaine because the thing suspected comes not to passe when mean are used to prevent it Is all preventing Physicke Vaine Is all feare of Pyrates in a Sea voyage vaine if none assault a well man'd and provided Ship Was not such a Navy being secured in safe hands as would under God have made great Forraign Forces repent their comming against the Kingdomee competent reason why those that did mean to come if they might have had no resistance on the Sea now thought it too hot a service 5. But besides the Navy they had no Landing place Hull being contrary to the Court-expectation and attempt as was Noted before secured by the Parliament and so might well be the more discouraged 6. Which is the more considerable because no sooner had they got a Port-Town namely Newcastle but though no Forraign Forces came who could not be so soon ready yet Forraign Ammunition came not a little and Forces of our Country-men who served in Forraign Countries and money too from Forraigne Princes or People And what more is comming if our unhappinesse continue till the Spring who can be secure But for this if it prove so the Dr. hath a defence ready All Christian Kings he saith cannot but thinke themselves concerned in the cause and it will be as just for the King to use them against subjects now in arms as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their naturall King REPL. 1. The Dr. bestirres himself to make the King strong to maintain the Prelacy among other things as himself hath told us before in the former Section he said that they that assist him doe it according to their Allegiance So that he intends that all his Subjects are bound by their Allegiance to assist him and fight against the Parliament even though their Consciences judge them to intend the conservation of Religion Laws and liberties and his followers to intend their subversion And here hee calls all Christian Kings iâ— as themselves concerned in the Cause 2. When the Rochellers took Arms according to their Priviledges and Edicts of the Kingdome to defend themselves And our Protestant or Popish Councellors got 8. Ships to be sent to assist the King of France against them and in the Low-Country they did the like too what will the Dr. say were all the Christian Princes concerned to assist against the Rochellers If hee doe the very souldiers and marriners that went into Ships shall rise up in judgment against him who when they knew what they went for utterly refused to fight against their Religion and so the greatest part of them were set a Shore againe and the rest went on their voyage and did the mischief to help beat the Rochell Fleet and give the King possession of the Haven so as he afterward with the help of the King of Spaine so still Princes are concerned against the Protestant made a Barricado so strong as when a Fleet from hence after re-Voyage attempted to relieve Rochell by Sea being then actually besieged by Land it could not be done 3. What will the Dr. say to that Voyage to Rey and that to releeve Rochell when it proved too late Why was not the King still concerned to helpe the King of France or was he 4 Will it be Just for the King to use Forraign Forces when to the understanding of Common Readers hee hath utterly disclaimed it in more then one Declaration 5 What Counsell would an Enemy to the King and Kingdome that hath read Stories and ours in speciall as the Dr. seemes to have done give but the using of Forraign Forces was not the Kingdome Conquered by this very meanes by the Saxons when King Vorteger was in debate with his Lords and People call'd them in to assist him Did not the Turkes so come into Europe and oft the like hath hapened 6. He counts it damnable to resist for defence meerly much more then as the Barons in K. Iohns time to call in a Stranger to make him King if then to call in other Kings to assist against the Parliament be as just as that was unjust it is a high vertue though to the utter endangering of the whole Kingdom whose Counsellour surely it were pity the Dr. should ever be who hath no more judgment or more Conscience or charity toward the publique good then to advise and commend such a practise 2. Next he propounds the Queens Religion as a matter which is urged to cause feares and jelousies Of which he saith It is no new cause REPL. 1. It is true to the great grief of all that truly love Religion or wish well to her Majestie but had others wish't it otherwise as the Dr. speakes for himselfe who have had accesse unto her She had not bin told by a great man in the Church in the worst season that could be when it is said shee had some Pangs about Her Religion and asked of it that Shee might well be saved in her Religion Or if any give no credit to this passage yet it is notorious
or Priest or Jesuit according to his place even sentence of death if he could not avoidâ— it Onely with two cautions 1. That he should be as favourable as was possible 2. That he should give timely Intelligence of any severe sentence Let now charity judge what circumspection almost can suffice against such a generation of Men Or what jealousie can be too much of them that still professe this treacherous Religion And yet all this notwithstanding at last to have even professed Papists taken in against the Parliament Can this be without a designe in them that have counselled the King to it Was it not in a prudent fore-sight that they should be cal'd and admitted to helpe that the Papists have no where been plundered by the Kings Army though others have who held not with the Parliament 8. As for Ziba David knew not his treachery at the first and his lyes had so blasted honest-hearted Mephibosheth that it appeares David did scarcely beleeve his apology for himselfe Otherwise what ever may now be said of his credulous charity to Ziba to the prejudice of one that was not present to answer for himselfe it was none of Davids good deeds to be imitated to recompence a flattering Sycophant that had brought him a present in a hard time indeed with so large a share in Mephibosheths estate When by the Law of God he was to dye for his false accusation of Treason as Mephibosheth had deserved death had it been true But now our Papists are knowne to be Enemies to the Parliament as was said before and some of their Party in the Country sticke not to say that the Parliaments Intentions of rigour against them already shewed by the executing of so many Priests and Jesuites Men of tender consciences is one part of the Court-quarrell against them They are more like Doeg then Ziba who first accused the Priests and then readily undertooke the execution of a most cruell sentence and executed it with all cruelty But Psal 52. Reades their doome And Psal 54.4 Sutes the Ziphims too those of Davids owne Tribe that came and discovered him to Saul 1 Sa. 23.26 once and againe and so incensed him afresh against him Though Saul blesses them 1 Sa. 23.21 as his speciall good subjects that had compassion of him Conscience must now judge whether the Papists being favoured were any cause of the resistance now made or only the resistance now â—â—de was the cause that they were admitted to helpe the King in his distresse 9. But for the D â— to honour them with the Title of good subjects preferring them before the Parliament and so great a part of the Kingdome as visibly adhere to them is one of the highest reproaches that ever was belcht out against them enough for a Jesuite or a Pope to have said But the Dr. how ever he pretend modesty oft-times and respect to the Parliament stabbs them as desperately as any enemy could doe now and then While he seemes also resolved to justifie all that hath been done against them else he would have been silent in this peece and the next that followes about Ireland 10. In the meane time because he upbraids with a scandall that this resistance brings on our Religion which saith he would not be easily wiped of were it to stand or fall by the doctrines of this giddy age I must needs make bold to tell him that he forgets himselfe strangely and the Doctrines and practises of our Religion when he can scarce name that Country where there are any Protestants that have not taken Armes to defend Laws and Liberties and with them Religion even though not before allowed by Laws Sweden Germany France The low Countries Bohemiah Scotland And did not Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory assist them in France Holland and Scotland and K. James Holland and at least owned the cause of the French though he only sent Ambassadours and K. Charles did send to aide Rochel as I noted before and ownes the Prince of Orange sufficiently who yet is Rebell Generall against the K. of Spain if our Parliaments resistance be Rebellion Indeed we in England are the last and above all other Nations have been by the Court Doctors within this 40 Yeares much prepared to suffer any thing rather then resist Yet Bishop Bilson in the Queens time was suffered to averre that the States of a Kingdome might resist vide But it now above all other times greeves that we offer to doe what all others have done before us upon a great deale lesse Authority considering our Parliament continued by Act and its power granted by the King as I have noted before against all delinquents For if they could have subdued and swallowed us up the other Protestants in other Countreyes would much more easily have been devoured 4. The last Allegation is concerning the businesses of Ireland Of which because the Dr. saith the King hath written enough he had done wisely to have written nothing but that word Though I have not yet been so happy who would be glad to see it to meet with any Answer to the last Peece of the House of Commons which reckons so many particulars of wrong done to that poore Kingdomâ— Therefore till I meete with that I must needs tell the Dr. he saith not enough to cleare the businesse nor the Kings Councellours in that businesse For whereas his whole defence is â—in a word that the Kings necessity made it lawfull to make use of any thing intended for their releefe which he parallels by the Necessity that excused the Scots comming in hither To this divers things may and must be replyed 1. The Scots are no parallell for this carriage toward Ireland Their coming what ever the Dr. affirmes brought no such great detriment to the Inhabitants there if you except their professed enemies Papists and Prelates as the poore Souldiers and other Protestants of Ireland have suffered by the actions done concerning them 2. The King and Parliament have justified by Act of Parliament their coming as necessitated Yet they were proclaimed Traitours againe and againe and it was counted necessary to make War against them one yeare and a second as now against the Parliament The necessity then that is now pretended by the Kings party wants a great deale of the justification that the Scots have had before all the world specially remembring all that was noted before of the doings of the Kings followers before ever the Parliament did any thing but Petition 3. Which necessity by them pretended if it appeare a necessity by themselves made will it not make their actions concerning Ireland more horrid and proclaime the designe to be more rooted 4. But it must by no means be forgotten what hath been pretended for Ireland to which these actions are most contrary 1. When the King rode Northward and the Parliament more then once represented that it would greatly prejudice Ireland The King protested still it should not but he would be as
ready to doe all things for Ireland as if he had stayed at London 2. When he had been at Hull and demanded of the Parliament justice upon Sr. John Hotham he declared he would doe no businesse till he had satisfaction in that except only the businesse of Ireland 3. A few dayes after that he would in all haste goe over in Person to subdue the bloody Rebels and venture his Royall Person to recover that poore Kingdome Who now almost can beleeve his Eares or Eyes that any thing should be done to the prejudice of Ireland 4. If the dates be observed of some of those things mentioned in that Answer of the House of Commons they will be found done before the Parliament had done any thing more toward their own defence then when that profession was made after the Kings being at Hull when the King would have ventured himselfe to goe into Ireland 5. It is strange that the puniâ—hing of Sr. John Hotham and the suppressing the Militia the recovery of Hull and the Magazene which at last after many other Declarations perswading of no intention at all of a War against the Parliament the King declares he would loose his life but he would obtaine and this I think Quaere before there was any one man listed for the Parliaments defence should be thought a necessity allowing any retarding much lesse disappointing the crying necessities of Ireland after such Protestations of care for it 6. If the Parliament be not only not so good subjects as the now entertained Recusants but unlesse they be worse then those horrid Rebels of whom some of the Kings Declarations speake with destation enough while the Parliament protests before God and the Kingdome and the world that they have no Thoughts nor Intentions but loyall to the King and faithfull to the Religion and Kingdome and the Popish bloody Rebels who one while avouch they have the Kings authority for what they have done another while seeme to renounce him and to intend a new King But alwayes professe to intend the extirpation of the Brittish Nation and Protestant Religion in that Kingdome and then to come over into England to fight against the Parliament and Puritans and Protestants here If I say the Parliament be not worse then the Irish Traitours it is a prodegy that any necessity can be thought sufficient to doe such and so many acts as that Declaration of the House of Commons mentions or almost any one of them to the woefull prejudice of that bleeding Kingdome and great incouragement of the bloody Rebels It would be too long to insist on every particular which if a man would Rhetorically and but justly amplifie he might astonish all men how the former Protestations and those actions could agree and what necessity could be pretended for some of them as entertaining Irish Rebels c. vide 7. Unto all which adde but this as a corrollary that the whole is a most unhappy verification of that which at the first breaking out of the Rebellion was related as spoken from the Rebels that they had a considerable Party in England in the very Parliament and the Court and that they doubted not but to find us so much work at home as we should have no leisure to send succours to the Protestants there Nor can I forget what I heard a few dayes before the Irish Rebellion brake out that a Steward of a Popish great Lord disswading a Church-warden from obeying the Order of the House of Commons about taking away Idolatrous Pictures c. Bidds him not be too hasty for before a Moneth were at an end he should see great alteration and so it appeared though blessed be God not yet to the full of their hopes Lay now all these things together which the Dr. hath instanced in and forced this descant upon with those in the former Section and then let all consciences exercise their most unpartiall judgement and most ample charity and then suspect in whom the designe hath bin and is which hath necessitated the other party to take Armes to defend themselves and then let them say Amen to an Application of two Stories of Scriptures one of Jotham to the men of Shechem If you have done faithfully c. then rejoyce and â—et your party rejoyce but if not then fire come forth and devoure c. The other of Solomon concerning Abner and Amasa's bloud let it rest on the head of Joab c. but upon David and upon his house and upon his Throne let there be peace from the Lord for ever and let I say all that love God and the King and Justice and Truth say Amen But the Doctor will have us consider what the King hath done to exempt these scruples of feares and jealousies from the peoples minds Which in summe are the passing of Bils this Parliament and protestations for Religion Priviledges of Parliament Laws and Liberties For the first of these what are they worth in ill times and under ill Judges if once the Militia and the Navy be surrendred and this Parliament dissolved what did magna Charta the Petition of Right Articles of Religion serve to prevent all the illegalities and innovations upon Church and State before this Parliament or what did all the Laws and Priviledges of Scotland serve them for If suspected Councellours and followers be still about the King and favoured by him where shall be a security to take away these feares Also for the other What have Protestations prevailed to prevent former danger That unparallel'd danger to the House of COMMONS and the whole Kingdome by his comming into the House with such Followers waiting at the doors so weaponed so behaving themselvs and speaking then and since was it not the very day after his Message denying them the Guard they desired and protesting toward the close We do ingage unto you solemnly the word of a King that the security of all and every one of you from violence is and shall ever be as much Our care as the preservation of Vs and Our Children And how did all men judge that beleeved the Protestations set out at Yorke a while that no war was intended against the Parliament till some strength gotten as was noted before under the name of a Guard out of Yorke-shiere and more endeavoured by Agents in severall parts of the Kingdom and hoped for from beyond Sea altered the language and the face of things till it came to the present extremities Also whatever the Doctors Informations were at the time he was penning his clause of applauding the Kings excellent moderation amidst the pressures and extremities of warr shewing what respect he hath to the Property and Liberty of the Subject whosoever remembers what all but wilfully ignorant or altogether carelesse know of taking away armes from the Countries along to Chester and backe afterward the plundering of Banbury notwithstanding the Kings promise to the contrary and Abington Reading but most specially Brainford and Kingston