lawfull service you serve under The Lord of Hosts but the more the service concerns his glory and the good of his Saints the more will God own it The very Chronicles or Records of the wars of the Church the Lord is pleased to have styled The Booke of the wars of the Lord Numbers 21. 14. The Name of the Lord is exceedingly much interessed in these wars You young ones who are willing to offer and venture your selves in this service you honour your selves betimes yea God and his people doe and will honour you God will remember the kindnesse of your youth You tender-hearted mothers bee not unwilling to give up your children the fruit of your wombes to this service but blesse God that ever ye bare any in your wombes to be of that use to stand up for God and his people as your children have an opportunity now to doe If as you heard when God hissed for the fly and for the bee they came much more doe you come when God calls and that aloud to come and help him against the mighty And when you are in the service seeing it is so honourable take heed you stain it not as others have done of whom it may be said as it was of the children of Ephraim Psal 78. 9. The children of Ephraim being armed turned back in the day of battel They kept not the covenant of God The covenant of a souldier is the Covenant of God Hence the oath that a souldier took when he came to his Captain the Romans called Sacramentum A brand of dishonour was upon Ephraim Judges 12. 4. Yee fugitives of Ephraim Let not such a Brand be upon any of you ye Fugitives of such a county of such a town your General the Lord of Hosts is worthy of all you can possibly do for him Plutarch tells of Scipio Africanus shewing a friend of his three hundred of his souldiers exercising their Armes neare the Sea where there was a high tower There is never a one of all these said he but if I bid him climbe up that steepe tower and from the top of it cast himself down into the sea but he will readily do it What will not you be ready to shew more respect to your General this Lord of Hosts then any heathen shall do to a Heathen General be willing to venture your lives for him this is your glory for he accounts it his If in this cause you should turn your backes upon your enemies with what face could you ever after look upon your friends Psal 69. 6. Let not them that waite for thee O Lord of Hosts be ashamed for my sake Take this Text with you into the Army and pray to God O Lord grant that I may so behave my selfe in this great businesse I have undertaken that none of those that waite on the Lord that have prayed for and now wayte for the salvation of God may be ashamed for my sake I have read of one Abaga a Tartarian that had this device to make cowards valiant he caused them that ran away from the battell ever after to weare womens clothes I do not say that there should be this brand of dishonour but one brand or other it is fit should be upon such as basely forsake such an honourable worke such an honourable cause as this is Thirdly If God be the Lord of Hosts hence there is no war to be undertaken but for God and according to Gods will it must bee by commission from this great General To goe into the field without him is dangerous but to go against him is desperate Ps 20. 5. In the Name of the Lord will we set up our banners But if any shall say We are afraid we goe not by the Commission of The Lord of Hosts because we goe against the King Doth God give Commission for Subjects to fight against the King For answer The sound of these words in the eares of men oh what an efficacie have they But when they are examined and applyed to this businesse the truth is there is nothing at all in them to any man that will be rationall For first It is not against the King it is defensive onely to defend our lawfull liberties our estates which we inherit as truly as the King inherits any thing he hath It is to defend our Religion which is our chiefe inheritance The law of Nature and Scripture teacheth us to defend our selves from violence and wrong God hath not put man and whole Kingdoms into a worse condition then brute creatures and yet they by an instinct of nature defend themselves against man that vvould hurt them and yet they vvere made for man but Kingdoms vvere not made for Kings but Kings rather for Kingdoms And the Scripture warrants this you know David gathered 600. souldiers together to defend himselfe against any injury Saul intended and indeavoured against him And when the children of Benjamin and Judah came to him to the hold 1 Chron. 12. 16 17 18. The spirit came upon Amasai and he said Peace be to thee and peace be unto thy helpers for thy God helpeth thee What David did in this kind was no other but what God helped him in 2. It is not against the King but for the King it is for the preservation of true Regall power in the King and his posteritie it is to rescue him out of the hands of evil men who are his greatest enemies The Scripture bids that the wicked should be taken from the throne of the King Who should take them away if he had a mind to doe it himselfe he need not suffer them to come to his throne but when he does suffer them to come there and abide there yet they must be taken away if a Representative kingdome hath not power to take them away who hath 3. That which is done is not done against the power of the King His power is that which the lawes of the land invests him withall The Scripture bids us be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. It doth not bid us to be subject to the wills of those who are in highest place If we be either actively or passively subject to the Lawes of that country wherein we live we fulfill the very letter of that Scripture that commands us to be subject to the highest powers Wherefore that which is now done is not against the King though it be against the personal command of the King yet it is not against the Legall power of the King when we speak of a King we mean such a man invested with a Regal power by the lawes constitutions of that country he is the King of Now if nothing be done against this power that the laws and constitutions of our country invests him with then nothing can be said to be done against the King People are much mistaken who do not distinguish between a man in authority and the authority of that man A man
that were few in number that went from one countrey to another them for whose sakes Kings were reproved he said that these anointed ones must not be touched though the Kings and people of the world thought them to be but ordinary ones yet God accounts them his anointed ones and will not have them touched but if Kings shall meddle with them to doe them any hurt he will reprove thē for their sakes You may see how God reproved that King Nebuchadnezar for their sakes Jer. 50. 17. This Nebuchadnezar hath broken their bones observe the expression This Nebuchadnezar he makes but a This of Nebuchadnezar a great King when he comes to reprove him for the sake of his anointed ones and mark further how the reproofe is when their inheritance is but touched Jer. 12. 17. Thus saith the Lord against all the evill neighbours that touch the inheritance c. Behold I will pluck them out of the Land If they do but touch my peoples inheritance I will pluck them out of the Land And Isa 10. 27. all this care of God over his people is laid upon their anointment The burden shall be taken off their shoulder and the yoake from their neck and the yoake shall be destroyed because of the anointing I suppose now every one that lookes into this Scripture Touch not mine anointed will see that it hath been grosly abused and made to speak rather the conceits of men then the meaning of the Holy Ghost But for futher satisfaction consider it is not peculiar to Kings to be anointed It is true they were anointed in the time of the Law but as they were anointed so Priests were anointed Prophets were anointed yea other Magistrates and Captaines of Gods people are called the anointed ones First for Priests Numb 3. 3. These are the names of the sons of Aaron the Priest that were anointed And you know the Prophet Elijah anointed Elisha And Zac. 4. 14. speaking of Zerubbabel and Joshua the text saies these are the anointed of the Lord now then if this meaning could be put upon the words that those which are Gods anointed must not be touched whatsoever they do then Priests and Prophets whatsoever they do must not be touched for they are as truely Gods anointed as Kings are yea Captaines and inferior Magistrates must not be touched because they are Gods anointed also The third thing is the difference between Kings anointing then as David and Solomon and others were and Kings anointing now Then God chose such himselfe by revealing from Heaven that they should be Kings it was the immediate choice of God and then they were upon this submitted to by the people but now the people first agree that such a one shall be King the Kingly power shall be in such a family successively and then God establisheth this choise or agreement There is a great difference between these two First Gods chusing and then the peoples establishing and this the peoples chusing and then Gods establishing There the Kingly power was not conferred by way of compact or covenant but with us it was and so is with others But what if the Kingdom be got by Conquest the right come in that way Those who plead thus for Kings know not what they do in making this plea For if there were no other right neither precedent nor consequent but meerly because such a one was the stronger and got it and so holds it now then whosoever is the strongest at any time he hath right if a stronger then he comes he shall have the right This is no good Divinity nor Polity to plead thus that which subjects my conscience to such a one is the submission upon some compact covenant or agreement This may be when Kings are elective but what will you say concerning Kings that are hereditary Kings that inherit inherit no more then their fathers had and their fathers no more then those before them so that you must come at length to the root to the first who had this Kingly power invested upon him and by whom was he invested with this but by the people and what subjected the consciences of people to acknowledge this man or this family more then another man or another family but only the agreement that passed between this people and such a man or family But there is yet one Objection more out of Scripture We reade that Davids heart smote him but for cutting off the lap of Sauls garment because Saul was Gods Anointed The consequence that follows from hence is cleerly this That no private man in his own cause for so was David then by his own power may seize upon the person of a King in an offensive way especially such a King which had his call immediatly from heaven what further consequence that concerns our busines in hand let any shew from this place that can But is not this a Popish tenet that in case of Religion Subjects may rise up against their King Papists hold and practice against this and for this and beyond this as they see they may serve their own turns in their practises especially of late they have laboured to infuse into people yea and into Princes an opinion of their absolute power as conceiving it for the present most conducing to their ends who have preached up that all is the Kings that his wil is our Law that whatsoever he cōmands must be obeyed either by doing or suffering Prelates and prelatical men have infused this doctrine so that to question this was dangerous enough yea not to bee zealous in it was enough to have the brand of an Antimonarchical Puritan And the reason why the Popish party labours so much to cry up absolute and arbitrary Government in Kings is because their being but few they hope to gain some of them at least to them and then this absolute power shall be made use of for the extirpation of the truth and upholding Popery In gaining one King they gaine almost the whole Kingdome if this King may rule by his absolute power if once he be a Papist then this absolute power is the Popes absolute power it is the Prelates absolute power for if he useth it not as they please they can excommunicate him they can free their Subjects from their allegiance yea being by them excommunicated Marke what follows it is one of the Canons of Pope Urbans We take them not in any wise to be man slayers who in a certaine heate of Zeale towards the Catholique Church their mother shall happen to kill an excommunicated person This they teach and practice if they doe not gaine them to be full Papists yet if they can by popish matches or by any popish party in the Kingdom gain them to be inclinable any way to them or remisse in the profession of the truth they get a great advantage by this absolute power of the King the Prelats have upheld their tyrannicall power
by infusing this principle of the absolute power of Kings into their eares and the cares of the people but if the Papist sees he hath no hope to gaine the King or advantage by him then he turnes his tenets another way and sayes that for the promoting of the Catholique cause yea although Kings do governe by the Laws of their Kingdom yet because they are against the Catholique Religion Subjects may rise up against their King and kill him This doctrine of theirs we abhor wee say that if power be given to Kings by Law yea or to other Magistrates though it be against Religion we have no help but suffering or flying until we can be helped by a legall way but if when we have Laws for our Religion and liberty the King out of his own will or seduced by others shall in an illegal way seeke to deprive us of them now we may defend our selves and in this we resist not the Kingly authority but the wil of such a man And yet further if it be possible that we may give satisfaction in this thing the mistake whereof is so exceeding dangerous consider if the taking up Arms to defend Religion and liberties that we have by Law be treason or rebellion then all the reformed Churches are traytors and Rebels Have not the reformed Churches in Holland in France in Germany done this Did not Queene Elizabeth take the Holanders taking up Armes to defend their Religion and liberty against their King into her protection and assist them with money men Ammunition King James in his answer to Perron defends the Protestants in France for what they did He sayes Their civill wars was not taking up Arms against their King it was but standing upon their guard And did not our King Charles send aid to the Protestants in France defending their Religion and liberty against their King at the Isle of Ree and is not the Prince of Aurania whom we usually call the Prince of Orange the General to the Army of the States defending themselves against the K. of Spain whose Countries those once were Yea and hath not our King acknowledged our brethren the Scots his loyal Subjects and yet they did as much as we yea a great deale more they were indeed at first called Traitors and Rebels in the prayers the Prelates sent about and commanded to bee read in Churches but upon due consideration they were found and so styled loving and loyal Subjects and so in time we hope we shall But if we shall thus plead and stand for our liberties how can we expect the King should ever look upon us with any respect or confide in us wil it not set the Kings heart against us God forbid we should do any thing justly meriting the losse of His Majesties favour and his heart confiding in us The happines of a Kingdom is in Princes ruling as fathers and Subjects obeying out of love rather then meer necessity K. James so renowned for learning and deep understanding was fully of that minde that his brother the K. of France had no better Subjects in his Kingdome then the Protestants which yet stood up to defend their liberties by force of Armes His words in answer to Perron are these I dare promise to my selfe that my most honoured brother the King of France will beare in mind the great and faithfull service of those who in matter of Religion dissent from His Majesty as of the onely men that have preserved and saved the Crown for the King his Father of most glorious memory I am perswaded my brother of France will beleeve that his liege people pretended by the Lord Cardinall to be hereticks are nor half so bad as my Roman Catholike subjects who by secret practices undermine my life serve a forraigne Soveraigne are bound by the Maximes and rules published and maintained in favour of the Pope before this full and famous assembly of the Estates of Paris to hold me for no lawfull King are by his Lordship there taught and instructed that Pauls commandment concerning subjection to the higher powers adverse to their professed Religion is onely a provisionall precept framed to the times and watching for opportunity to shake off the yoke Surely then it is impossible but that His Majesties heart must needs confide in us although seeking to maintain our lawfull liberties rather then in any Papists whatsoever Yea yet further heare what K. James his thoughts were of the Protestants in France towards the latter end of his former Answer to Cardinall Perron he hath these words During the minority of K. Francis the second the Protestants of France were only a refuge succour to the Princes of bloud when they were kept from the Kings presence and by the over-powring power of their enemies were no better then plain driven and chased from the Court I meane the Grandfather of the King now raigning and the Grandfather of the Prince of Conde when they had no place of safe retreat besides in the whole Kingdome In regard of which worthy and honourable service it may seeme the French King hath reason to hold the Protestants in the princely Ark of his gracious remembrance Shall Protestants be kept in the Princely Ark of the gracious remembrance of a Popish King and shall Protestants be cast out of the heart of a Protestant King and that onely for defending their lawfull liberties in a just way God forbid Yet further heare the fidelity of Protestants to their Prince In all the heat of revolts and rebellions raised in the greatest part of the Kingdome by the Pope and the more part of the Clergie they stood to their King to beare up the Crown when tottering and ready to fall And at this day the King of France hath in pay betweene three and forescore thousand Protestant Souldiers for the defence of himselfe and his Dominions he maintains so many yeerly his chief Commanders being Protestants as confiding especially in Protestants for their fidelity and certainly so may our King doe he should finde none more faithfull to him and ready to venture their estates and lives in defence of him and his Legall power then the Parliament and those who adhere to them and this no question even those about His Majesty doe beleeve in their hearts whatsoever they say they otherwise would never venture to put His Majesty upon such wayes as might exasperate them so as they doe Was it ever knowne when Parliaments have been Papists and the Kingdome Papists that ever any dared venture to put Kings upon such things as might provoke such a Parliament and the people that then would adhere to them Certainly other manner of effects would have followed the provocation of them at such times Why was it that the Laws against Papists have been so remissely followed and not onely Law but Will against the Puritans have beene so hotly pursued but this they were afraid of papists that they would doe some mischiefe but for Puritans
as the Parliaments In such things where I must have regard to humane testimony to what part I see the most that have the sense of Religion to adhere that side I will be on except I see better grounds then yet the D. brings to draw me from it Prov. 2. 20. That thou mayst walk in the way of good men and keepe the paths of the righteous SECT 1. IN this Sect. these special things are considerable 1. What he grants 2. what we grant 3. What he sayes we grant He grants we may deny obedience to the King not onely in things unlawfull by the Law of God but by the established Laws of the Land It is well this is granted Heretofore we know this was the generall Tenet whatsoever was commanded by the King yea by any men in authority if but by a Prelate except it were against Gods Law we were bound to obey it any thing that was not sinne must be yeelded to and that for conscience sake The D. in this is ingenuous he confesseth that not onely Gods Law but mans Law limits Kings power This is a great case to many mens consciences to know so much And further if this be true that all those Scriptures that urge obedience to Kings and men in authority must be understood with this limitation that is if they command according to the Laws of God and according to the Laws of the countrey over which they are 1. He sayes In point of resistance we grant it must be in such a case where there are Omnes ordines regni consentientes an unanimous consent of the two Houses There is no determination that the greater part present of either House agrees upon but is as truly valid and legal as if there were an unanimous consent of them both It is so in all bodies where things are carried by vote 2. He sayes We yeeld it must be a meere defensive resistance If the King should send any to mischiefe us to say we must onely defend ourselves so as not to offend them is a contradiction as for the Kings person is it not the profession of the Parl. to defend it therefore we neede not dispute now about defending our selves against it 3. He sayes this likewise is granted that the Prince must first be bent to overthrow Religion Liberties and Laws and will not discharge his trust before there must be resistance By this he would insinuate that our Arms taken up are unlawfull because the King hath not declared himselfe thus What need we be put to meddle with any thing but this in the case in hand That a Kingdom seeing it self in imminent danger of enemies to infringe the liberties of it may stand-up to defend it selfe yea although they come forth against it in the name of the King This is our case and if the D. disputes against any thing but this he sights with his own shadow If this be case as certainly it is then a great part of the Doctors book is impertinent to the businesse of the Parliaments raising forces For forces may bee raised upon other grounds then the Kings being bent to overthrow Religion SECT II. THe strength of this Section and almost all the book is in that place of Rom. 13. and in this place I beleeve the D. will see or if he doth not others will that he is utterly mistaken in the sense of that place The Apostle sayes expresly Whosoever resists shall receive damnation But he doth not say expresly whosoever resists the highest men shall receive damnation but whosoever shall resist the power Let every one be subject not to the wills of the highest men but to the higher power there is a great deale of difference betweene these two The higher power that is that authority that God man hath put upon such a man it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that must be subjected to not resisted We professe against resisting power authority though abused If those who have power to make Laws shall make sinfull Laws and so give authority to any to force obedience we say here there must either be flying or passive obedience but if one that is in authority command out of his own will and not by Law I resist no power no authority at all if I neither actively nor passively obey no I do not so much as resist abused authority This may seeme strange at the first but if you thinke of it you will beleeve it The D. thinkes the answer to this place is onely from the limitation of the person or the cause of resisting as if we held that no particular men upon any cause but States may resist upon such and such causes whereas we doe not answer so but we distinguish betweene the man that hath the power and the power of that man and say although the power must not be resisted according to the letter and the sense of the Text yet the illegall will and wayes of the man may be resisted without the least offending against the Text. But we shall meete with this Scripture again and again and shall fellow it with answers accordingly He comes to examples as first the peoples rescuing of Jonathan from Saul He sayes the people were in Arms already and did but use a loving violence This example is onely brought to prove that Subjects may withstand illegal commands of Kings and no further and that it plainly proves onely he sayes it is a loving violence Well then it is a violence they resolve that the Kings command shall not be fulfilled yea though hee adds an oath to it It was indeede a loving violence to Jonathan so is all the violence that the Parliament offers a loving violence to the Kingdome yea and there is true love to the King too in it The King hath not yet sworn that he will have such things as the Parl. will not suffer so as to come to our cognisince but Saul swore that he would have such a thing done and yet the people would not suffer it to be done and yet you dare not blame them for this nay you commend them for it The second example is David resisting Saul the D. sayes It was to save his person from Cut-throats And is not our Army to save Parl people from Cut-throats 2. He sayes David did no act of hostility but only defended himselfe David had no authority over any that followed Saul for he was then a private man but our Parl. hath authority over Delinquents that follow the King 2. David was loath indeede to venture upon a pitcht battail or to exasperate Saul or his Subjects because his strength was weake 600. to a King therefore he flies up and downe and takes not every advantage that if it were possible he might gaine faâ—our in the eyes of Saul and his Subjects but if they had falne upon him and his power had beene equall to theirs
that shew that Princes may make use of other help So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered Further besides this we answer that the power of all Kings is not alike it is no argument because one King hath such and such power therefore all must needs have The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the severall Laws of severall Countries Let us see what the third Scripture sayes for yet our consciences are not scrupled it is Numb 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them Doth it follow that this must be so every where you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets and that the Priests should blow them as well as the former The consequence would be full as good No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests for it is commanded there as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets because it is so ordered there we know the Law is judiciall and for those judiciall Laws the equity binds no further then according to rules of prudence and justice every countrey shall see behoofefull for their conditions Besides if this did binde then it were a sinne for an Act to passe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands for certainly it might not then be done no not with Moses and Aarons consent The next Scripture is 1 Sam. 26. 9. who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed who endeavours it doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Persons 2. Doctor willet upon this place gives you this Answer That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands no not upon a tyrant for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe of a murderer much lesse a Magistrate a Prince But secondly he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King and yet have been guiltlesse as Ehud upon Eglon King of Moab therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King Yea Doctor willet answers in the third place that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State He indeed limits this and sayes it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election as in Polonia and gives this reason From whom Kings receive their authority by them may they be constrained to keep within bounds This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes This distinction he used to deliver the opinion from opposition in England but if the distinction be examined there will appeare little strength in it We doe not find that D. willet was ever reproved or his writings censured for this thing Concerning that restriction of his to Kingdomes by election we shall when wee come to shew from whence all Kings have their power see that if it proves true of them it will prove true of others for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others will be found either from election or covenant which will come to all one D. Ferne proceeds thus If the King had come into the battel his person might have been hurt as well as any This had been but accidentally If a father should voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy against whom the childe is in service and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father being there especially he being desired beseeched by any meanes not to be there but to withdraw himselfe doth the child contract guilt in such a case His next Argument from Scripture is That the Prophet reprechending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance First There is much difference betweene Kings now and those Kings The people then did neither give them their power nor limit their power They doe both now when first they are set up Secondly if this be a good argument that because when Kings oppressed the prophet did not cal upon people for resistance therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful then if when people have resisted cast oft the Government of their King the Prophets have not reproved them for it then it is lawfull for people in some case to resist He that will harken to his own reason must acknowledge there is par ratio If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance then there may be no resistance sayes the Doctor Then if when there is resistance the Prophets rebuke not that resistance then there may with as good reason be resistance say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression and hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him rather then to his ancient grave counsel the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did but rather seemed to take their parts 1 Kings 12. 24. â—eturn every man to his house for this thing is from mee Now the D. comes to his great place again Rom. 13. which he sayes be will free from all exceptions Nay bare me an Ace of that The truth is he vever so much as mentions nor thinks of the great exception which duly considered will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose First he supposes that the King is the supream as Peter calls him or the higher power as here 1. It is true Peter cals the King Supreame but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man and therefore to be limited by man He may be the chiefe man in authority and yet limited in that authority he is supreame but not absolute We grant that the Houses of Parliament and we all are his Subjects but not Subjects to his will but to that power of his that Law gives him 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power Here observe his mistake Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract Well The King hath the highest power and we must be subject to this power of his and not resist it Who denies all this When all this is granted the D. hath got nothing at all for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him we do not resist the higher power although we do not do nor suffer what hee would have us to do or suffer Then he reasons from the person whosoever
a servant by stipulation makes a man his Master who was not before Now the power of the Master is Gods may he therefore never be deprived of that power Servants must serve Christ in serving their Masters as truely as Subjects must obey God in obeying their Prince Pastors and Teachers have a ruling and a ministeriall power and this power is Gods may it therefore never be taken away from them His second Argument is We cannot recall what is once given as in things devoted 1. That can never be proved that a thing devoted to a religious use can never lawfully be imployed to no other This is a groundlesse conceit because he brings no proofs for it Eadem facilitate rejicitur qua asseritur But this that we speake of is a civill thing And for Kings that the power they have may not be taken away he gives that reason Because the Lords hand and his oyle is upon them So the Lords hand and oyle is upon Captains and other Magistrates Ioshua and Zerubbabel are called The anointed ones Prophets Priests have Gods hand and oyle upon them and cannot the power for no cause be taken from these And yet how confidently doth the man conclude This will not a true informed conscience dare to doe Certainly notwithstanding all the information in this argument he may doe it But he proceeds How can conscience be satisfied that this their argument grounded upon election and derivation of power can have place in this Kingdome when as the Crown descends by inheritance and hath often been setled by Conquest 1. There is no body here that yet hath attempted to take any power away from the King that Law hath given him 2. Howsoever the point of inheritance or conquest cannot hinder For first none inherits but that which his Progenitors had his Progenitors had no more originally then by consent was given them therefore the difference between Kings by inheritance and Kings by election in this case is not much And for Conquest that onely settles former right or makes way to some farther agreement to adde to what was former The right comes not from power to conquer or act of conquering but from some agreement precedent or consequent He further argues It is probable indeed that Kings were at first by choice here as elsewhere but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistance or think that first election will give power against Princes that do not claime by it 1. Is it but a remote probabilitie that Kings were here first by election I demand what first invested such a Family with Regall power more then another It must be either God from heaven designing it as David or men appointing it or taken by force there is no quartum It was not the first and to say the third is the right is an extream wrong to the King If meer force can give right then whosoever is most forcible hath right it must therefore be something else what can that be but the consent of people to such a family which is in effect all one with elect on You may give it what name you will it is not therefore a remote probalilitie but a neere certainty that even here Kings were at first either by choice or by that which in effect is all one The Doctor sayes that Kings of England doe not claime their right by election It may be they use not that word but if the Doctor shall presume to dispute their claime for them and think to get a better and surer claime then the agreement of people that the Regall power shall be in such a family surely he will have no thanks for his labour Let him take heed of this Although he is pleased to call Election a slender plea yet I beleeve he cannot bring a stronger He is at his place in Rom. 13. againe with the absolute Monarchy of Romane Emperours This hath been answered againe and againe The next thing he discusses is the covenant the King enters into and the oath he takes And here he tels us our Kings are Kings before they enter into the Covenant or take this Oath Although they be Kings before they personally do covenant or sweare yet their right comes in by their Progenitors who had their right conferred upon them by some agreement or other so that they have covenanted in them But this clause in the covenant or oath is not expressed that in case he will not discharge his trust it shall be law full to resist We doe not stand so much upon the oath that every King takes as upon the originall agreement between people and King whereby this power was conferred first upon such a family and for that wee say that no more power was conferred then was done by vertue of that agreement and why there should not be the same reason in the Covenant between a Countrey and a Family in matters of so high a nature as there is in other Covenants amongst men let the Doctor shew or any for him The Doctor confesseth Page 16. line 21. That Lawes are for the restraint of the power of Princes But at length after the discussion of the businesse he tels you that to argue any forfeiture of power by breaking his covenant is an inconsequent argument You must beleeve him because he sayes so If his bare word will not satisfie you you are like to have nothing else Yet we would have him and all know that we do not think that every breach of promise and not performance of covenant in every thing makes a forfeiture this indeed were a dangerous consequent But the question is Whether no breach of Covenant may possibly in any case make a forfeiture We confesse our selves not willing to dispute this too farre He presently seemes to grant that there may be some force in the argument in States elective and pactionall but not in this Kingdome If the ground of all power that one man hath over another in Civill Government be some kinde of election explicite or implicite or some kind of agreement at the first let the Doctor shew how this Kingdome is freed But what if the King will not keepe to his agreement may the Subject doe nothing The Dr. 〈◊〉 Yes they may use faire means by Petitions and they may â—ery him Subsidies and ayds To what purpose are Subsidies and ayds denyed if the King hath power to take our estates when he pleaseth and there must be no resistance Though this he sayes may seeme unreasonable to people and very impolitique to the States-man yet plain Scripture and reason forbids it But this Scripture and reason lies hid from us as yet we have examined them as they have come and we have found plain mistakes in the alledging them SECT V. THis Section is spent in the argument of meanes of safety to a Kingdome in case the King should tyrannize if they might not resist it seemes God
evils imminent nor rectifie these disorders extant but by power added to their authoritie although there be no such horrible things as the Doctor speaks of namely the Kings intentions to subvert Religion and our Laws and liberties if the King do but denie to assist in the delivering us from those dangers not upon groundlesse jealousies feared but upon certain proofs we know we are in and in the delivering up of such delinquents as justice must not our safety cannot suffer to escape there is cause enough to satisfie our consciences in the lawfulnesse of our taking up Arms. Yea our protestation and duty though we had never so protested binds us to maintain by all our strength the Parliament in this and in maintaining them we do not at all prejudice the King in any lawfull power of his This generall is enough to satisfie in what is said in the two last Sections As for particulars mentioned there many of them are answered alreadie in the former discourse others being matters of fact it is more easie for any one to answer that hath a mind to examine what passages have falne out To go through them particularly I shall leave to some who have more time to spare then I they are far more easie to answer then what was before but not so profitable and yet the answer would exasperate more they are Subjects more suteable for Lawyers and Statists to treat about then for Divines Wherefore where as in the conclusion of all the Doctor defires those who will run the Hazard of this resistance first to set their consciences before the tribunall of God and confider whether they will excuse them there when they have shed blood to say we supposed our Prince would change Religion overthrow liberties No Doctor We can comfortably and will freely and really set our conscience before Gods tribunall in this case but we will not make that our plea but we will stand thus before the Lord. Lord thou who art the searcher of our hearts and our Iudge thou knowest we aimed at no hurt to our King we desired to live in peace we according to our solemne vow and Protestation have only endeavoured to deliver our Kingdom Parliament from the rage of ungodly and violent bloody men to bring forth the wicked unto justice to preserve what thy Maiestie what the law of nature and the Law of the Land hath made our own If thou wilt please to call us to suffer for thy Name we hope we shall be readie but because thou tellest us that it is not the part of a Christian but of an Infidell not to provide for his family therefore we have not submitted our selves wives and children to the rage of these bloody men for the substance of what we have done it hath been in thy Name that we may be faithfull to the King Kingdom Parliament and to posteritie What failings thou hast seen in the managing of it Lord pardon to us for Christ his sake Thus we are willing to meet the Doctor at Gods Tribunall but he shall not lay our plea for us we fear he will have enough to do to answer for himself yea to answer for that Book he hath put forth in such a time as this For a Conclusion of all LEt none think that though we thus iustifie taking up Arms that therfore we are of those that delight in War God forbid Our souls desire after peace we pray for peace we would gladly lay down our lives if we know our own hearts for peace Lately my name was injuriously added to a printed paper wherein there was a Petition against Accommodations It sayes I went along with it whereas I knew nothing at all of it untill neere a week after it was delivered to the House Thus are we at the mercy of every malignant spirit if he can get a Printer to assist him to be rendred to the world as odious as he pleaseth As great an injury I suffered before though in another nature when a few pieces of a Sermon I preached to young men were gathered together and patched up with a deale of non-sense and additions of their owne as they pleased and then put out as mine Although we live amongst men set on fire yet God forbid but we should follow peace but it must be the peace of Jerusalem not the peace of Babylon And the truth is had the people knowne their liberties before it is very probable these warres would have been prevented This I am confident hath been the great encouraging fomenting argument for these warres If we goe in the name of the King none will dare to stir against us What will they take up Arms to resist their King Had they seen the weaknesse of this their Argument as it is applyed to this businesse in hand that bloud that hath been shed would have been prevented And if the people of the Land knew the Liberty that God and Nature and Law gives them there would soone be an end of these Warres but a few such Doctors as this is may helpe to prolong them by dividing the people and putting them into a maze comming in so plausible a way to informe Conscience whereas in truth he gives no bottome for Conscience to rest on but rather puts it to a stand or rather into a labyrinth There is a necessitie that in these times peoples Consciences should be further satisfied in their liberties in this case then formerly because the time is we hope at hand for the pulling down of Antichrist and we find by Scripture this work at first will be by the people Revel 18. 2. The Angel came down from heaven and cried mightily with a strong voice Babylon the great is falne is falne And vers 4. I heard another voice from heaven saying Come out of her my people ver 6. Reward you her as she hath rewarded you and so to the 9. ver her destruction is threatned Now ver 9. the Text sayes The Kings of the earth who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her shall bewaile her and lament for her saying Alas alas Ver. 11. And the Merchants of those things which were made rich by her shall stand weeping and wailing ver 15. All her Proctors and Commissaries and Chancellors that grew rich by her they shall lament No marvaile then though so many Proctors get together to seek for peace upon any terms Here you see Babylon must down and yet the Kings lament her fall Who then must pull her down but the people Not that the people can raise a War meerly for Religion but God will so order things that the Papists shall by their malice be put upon such plots and enterprises that they shall make themselves lyable to the justice of the Law so that Kings shall have no legall power to rescue them from it but inferiour Magistrates assisted by the people shall in a just way fall upon them even then when the Kings of the earth and their
in authority may command what authority does not command But may we go against the command of the King It is not against his authorative command Many if not most men mistake in this they think the authorative commands of the King chiefly consist in his personall verbal commands but the truth is his authority is in his commands by his officers Seals and Courts of Justice we may appeale from his personal verball command to his command in his Courts of Justice whatsoever is his command in one Court of Justice may be appealed from to a superior Court and so to the highest and there we must rest But the King sayes That this which is done is done against Law If when the most inferior Court of Justice determines any thing to be Law it is not the Kings personall dissent and saying it is not Law that disanuls it but the judgement of some superior Court then if the highest Court in the Land which is the Parliament shall judge a thing to be Law surely the personall dissent of the King and saying it is not Law cannot disanul it But although the Parliament tels us that what they doe is Law yet they doe not shew where that Law is where shall we finde it extant We are to know that our Common-wealth is governed not onely by Statute Law but by the Common Law now this Common Law is nothing else but recta ratio right reason so adjudged by Judges appointed thereunto by Law and this is various according as cases doe occur so that although some presidents some generall maximes of this Law be extant yet if new cases arise then there must bee determination according to the nature of such a new case which determination by such as are appointed Judges is now Law although it were no where written before And certainly we have now such things faln out as no former time can shew presidents of As That a King should goe from his Parliament so as ours doth That a King should take up Arms as now he doth with many other things of consequence of a high nature which our Houses of Parl. in their Declarations publish which our eares tingle to hear of and our hearts tremble at the mention of These things were never heard of since England was a Kingdom therefore we can expect no presidents of what determinations there can be in these cases and some determinations of necessity we must have or else wee shall run to confusion The determination then of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome wee must account Law in this case This is the way of determining Cases that fall out in the Common Law First the determination must not be against any Statute Law and so is the determination of Parliament now there is no Statute Law against it Secondly it must be according to some generall Maximes of that Law Now this is one great maxime of it Salus populi suprema Lex The safety of the people is the supreame Law and according to this their determination is Thirdly when any inferior Judge makes this determination against any party that thinks himselfe wronged he makes his Appeale to the Kings Bench If at the Kings Bench that be judged Law against a man which he thinks is not right then he hath a Writ of Appeale ad proximum Parliamentum to the next Parliament so that it is apparent by the frame of Government in our Kingdom that the Parliament is supreame Judge of what is Recta ratio Right reason in cases of difficulty and controversie and this not being against any former Statute Law agreeable to the received Maximes of Common Law it is to be accounted Law although we finde not that Case or that Determination written in any Book before This is needefull for the satisfying mens consciences that things are carried according to the constitution of the Government of our Kingdom therefore in this we do not sin against Authority If mens consciences be not satisfied in these things what shal they do Now therefore because that which is urged upon mens consciences is the authority of man that we must obey we can never satisfie our consciences untill we know what this authority of man is that we cannot know but by the Law of the Kingdom It is necessary therefore that men understand what kind of government they live under that they may know when they offend against Authority and when not that they may not be deluded and brought into snares and things of dangerous consequence meerly by the name of Authority But yet it may further be said Grant the Parliament to be the Judge how can it judge without the King For the Parliament consists of three Estates the House of Commons the House of Lords and the King How can that then be said to be the determination of the Parliament which is not the determination of the King It is true for the making any Statute the passing any thing by way of Bill all the three Estates of the Kingdome are required to joyne but for the determination of what is Law that may be done by both the Houses in the absence of or without the knowledge of the King as usually it is In cases that are brought before them in the punishment of Delinquents they doe not send to the King for his assent to joyne with them in their determinations but in those proceed as a Court of Justice themselves But what if authority be abused may we resist Is not passive obedience required if active cannot be given There is a great deale of difference between the commands that are from abused authority and the commands that are from the wils of men in authority but not from the authority of those men That is abused authority when those to whom power of making Laws belongs shall make evill Laws in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flying untill some way may be taken for rectifying that Authority that is abused But when men that are in authority command any thing out of their owne wils which is no Law it is not Authority that doth command it in this case there is no resisting of Authority at all although the thing be denyed that is commanded in such a case if we neither yeeld active nor passive obedience we cannot be said therefore to resist authority For as Samson said in another case If you doe thus and thus unto me I shall be but as another man so if these men who are in place of authority do such things as the Laws and Government of the Countrey will not bear them out in they are but as other men yet some reverence ought to be shewed to their persons both in words and actions in regard of their place What say you to the Kings of Judah Many of them did otherwise then they ought and yet we doe not reade they were resisted but obeyed
1. In a defensive way they were resisted as appears by what was said before in the case of David gathering up 600. men to defend himselfe against Saul 2. Yea when Saul would have killed Jonathan the people resisted him and would not suffer him 3. We reade 2 King 6. 32. when the King of Israel sent a messenger to kill the Prophet the Prophet being amongst the Elders of the people calls the King the son of a murtherer and bade that they should shut the door against the messenger and hold him fast at the door The former Translation hath it Handle him roughly though sent by the King Yea the King himself was following yet his messenger comming with his command must be handled roughly The Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall oppresse him so Arias Montanus translates it opprimet is you shall use great rigour to him It is a vaine conceit in people to think that the command of the King is enough to bear out an Officer in illegall and unjust acts as if every one were bound to obey if he comes by the command of the King there is no such thing if any man doth any thing illegal although the King bids him he must answer for it as if it were his own act therefore it is that the Acts of Authority that come from the King they come by Officers because the Subject may have some to call to account in case of injury not being fit to molest the Kings own Person for every dammage the Subject suffers These three examples are out of question justifiable And if we would goe to bare example we shall finde that ten Tribes brake off from Rehoboam because he would follow the counsel of his young Cavaliers to make their yoaks heavie to make his little finger heavier then his fathers loynes yea and God sayes it was of him vvhat was done But further this is no certain rule that just what power the Kings of Judah had that and no more should all Kings have If in some things they may have more then it cannot follow because they had this or that power therefore all Kings must have the same If their examples be the rule for all Kings power then their examples must as well be to limit the power of Kings as enlarge it but Kings would think it much to be limited by their power therefore they must not urge the enlargement from their power too hard I will instance in one thing wherein the Kings of England vvould not vvillingly be limited by their example namely The confining of their succession to the heire male The daughters of the Kings of Judah did not inherit onely the males but the daughters of our Kings do If this Question be asked Why in some countreyes onely the Male inherits as in France in others the females likewise as in England why in some Countries the King is elective as in Denmark and others in others it is hereditary as with us The Answer will be given This is from the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms So then it follows not because some Kings in Scripture were thus and thus therefore all Kings must needs be so but according to the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms so is the diversity of the power of Kings Every Countrey in the first constitution of the Government hath power to divide the Government so much to the King so much to the Nobles so much to the Commons as they shall see best sutable to the condition of their Countrey so that we are not to goe by such a rule what power such and such Kings have had but what power every King hath in the Countrey where he is King Civil Government is left to the wisdome and justice of every Country in the constitution of it They may confer power upon severall Magistrates by severall portions as shal be most for the good of that Countrey That there should be Civil Government God hath appointed but that it should be thus or thus all in one or divided into many that is left to humane prudence going according to rules of Justice for the publique good If the kinds of Civil government were of Divine institution it must be all the same in every compleat Common-wealth which no man that I know wil affirm Ecclesiastical Government because it is spirituall and hath a spirituall efficacie in it must therefore of necessity be of Divine institution so the same in all places in the world where Churches are cōpleat But what shal wee say to the example of the Christians in the Primitive times who suffered so much wrong under Tyrants and would never resist The Civil Government under which they lived was such as it gave power to those Emperors to doe such things as they did the laws of those Countries being against them they could not help themselves but it is not so with us The Laws of our Countrey are for us and we seek nothing but to maintain those liberties we have by Law We have legall wayes to help our selves which they had not But above all Objections this sticks most with us Doth not the Scripture straitly charge us not to touch Gods Anointed First This doth nothing concerne this raising of Armes for it is for defence of our selves not offence against Gods Anointed But further that I may satisfie fully I wil say three things to this Objection First we will examine the Scripture out of which this Objection is raised and see whether there be any such sense in it as is ordinarily taken for granted Secondly I shall shew that Anointing is not proper to Kings but belongs to others as well as Kings Thirdly I will shew the difference betweene that anointing that Kings had in time of the Law from that they have now For the first This Scripture is 1 Chron. 26. 22. and Psal 105. 15. it is the same in both places 1. They both speak of times before ever there had been any Kings of Israel 2. The Anointing here is apparently meant of the people of God of the Church of the Saints God gives here a charge that none no not Kings should touch them to doe them any hurt It is not here meant that people should not touch Kings that are anointed but that Kings should not touch people that are Gods Anointed The Church of God being separated from the world to God being consecrated to God Gods sanctified ones are here called Gods anointed and that it is meant of people it is plain if you consider this Scripture from the 12. ver to this 15. ver When they were but few in number and strangers in the Land when they went from one Nation to another from one Kingdom to another people he suffered no man to doe them wrong yea he reproved Kings for their sakes saying Touch not mine Anointed To whom did he say it he said it even to Kings Whom should they not touch Not them
they were confident they would not stir they would doe no hurt but beare and therefore they might doe what they list with them they needed not feare exasperating them they were taught obedience to Governors out of conscience and so they had them sure enough but the principles of the others would not bear too hard usage therefore they must be more fairely dealt withall I am confident if wee could have seene into many of their bosomes we should have found these reasonings in them It is true Puritans have beene taught obedience to Authority out of conscience and howsoever Princes may bee exasperated against Puritanicall Preachers as they call them yet they are as much beholding to them as to any people in their Kingdomes for bringing people out of conscience to obey Authority whereas others obey only upon necessities so serve Princes as they may serve themselves by them but in their teaching obedience to Authority they never taught obedience out of conscience to any mens bare wils How far obedience is due I have shewne before Wherefore although honest men are still bitterly inveighed against by the name of Brownists and Sectaries and Papists seldome or never mentioned yet we cannot thinke but they in their consciences are perswaded that they are not the dangerous men for resisting authority How is it possible for any man to thinke that a Brownist who onely differs from us in manner of Church discipline but agrees with us in Doctrine and Civil-Government yet that he may not be suffered to live in a Kingdom when a Papist may be embraced in a Bosome Surely the consciences of the meanest are as dear to them as the consciences of the greatest But it is said that a great part of the Army of the Parliaments are Anabaptists There is no great feare they can do much hurt if there be 40. Papists to oppose one Anabaptist But surely it is an unhappy mistake to say that there is any one Anabaptist in the Army but a mistake like many others For it is one of the tenets that Anabaptists stifly maintain that it is unlawfull to take up Armes upon any occasion and therefore they are never found to weare sword nor in their Ships to carry Canons for their own defence But doth not the King professe that he will maintain the Protestant Religion and governe onely by the Laws What need we trouble our selves then any farther The Answer to the Kings Professions and Protestations the Parliament hath already given it is far more fit for them to answer then that any particular should Onely this thing let me say I put it to every mans conscience to judge whether he can think that it is more likely for the King with those Cavaliers that are now about him and the aid of Papists comming in and called in unto him to maintain the Protestant Religion and Government by the Laws then the King together with his Parl. to maintaine the Protestant Religion and governe by the Laws Surely we must unreason our selves before we can think so But yet further perhaps some may say We doe not take that which is done to be done by both Houses of Parliament many of them are gone but few remaining 1. Some are gone but compare those who are gone with those that abide and you may easily see which way the stream of things would goe if those that stay and the Kingdome with them had not hearts to appeare for the maintaining what God and Nature and the Laws of the Kingdome have made their owne 2. There are not so many gone as are pretended if they were the greater part that disliked the others proceedings they might come and out-vote them and carry what they would against them 3. When I heare of such and such men going from the Parliament who ought to stay it puts me in mind of what I have read of Aeneas Sylvius before he was Pope himselfe he was of that judgement that a generall Counsel was above the Pope and some yet wondring why so many forsook the Counsel and would cleave to the Pope he gave this reason The Pope had Bishopricks and Deanaries and Prebendaries fat Benefices to bestow but the Counsel had no such things They saw which way preferment went and which way it was like to goe They have not seen Offices and great places of preferment bestowed by the Parliament 4. Suppose more were gone then yet are yet the Kingdome hath a Parliament in being untill both Houses have agreed to dissolve it and if so then either those that are gone or those that remain are the Parliament those who are gone dare not challenge it to themselves nor none for them They remember that the Prelats were too bold in nullifying what was done in Parliament because they were absent Those that stay then are the Houses of Parl. and if their determinations must not be valid because some of their Members be gone then we may cal into question all determinations of Parl. that ever have been before us for vvho knows hovv many vvere present or absent vvhen it vvas resolved upon the Question 5. If a Country should choose a Representative Body to elect a King over them and the choice being made by that Representative Body aftervvards the Country should refuse obedience upon that scruple that many vvere not present at that time the choice vvas made some did dislike it vvould not the King for all that account it Rebellion in such vvho upon such scruples should cast off their obedience But even in the Houses are not things carryed on in a Faction are they not led by a fevv 1. If there be this liberty to object against the highest Court of Judicature in a Kingdome vvhen can vve rest in any determinations that can be in any Civil Polity 2. What is this but to charge the vvhole Kingdome vvith folly to choose some unfaithfull and the Houses of Parliament simple that will be led by those that are unfaithfull 3. If any thing for the Kings prerogative were propounded by some and followed by others dare any accuse the proceedings to be factious Why then when any thing is propounded by some for the good of the Kingdome and followed by others should it come under such a censure 4. There was more danger of faction in the Prelates Convocations where the most of the Members were Bishops and their creatures in servile subjection to them There is no such danger in either Houses there is no such distance between the Members amongst themselves there is no such dependance of one upon the other 5. Faction cannot bee the act of a body that depends not upon another but in particular members of a body dividing themselves from it unwarrantably and turbulently seeking to get others to joyne against the body Heretofore the not submitting unto the illegall Canons and Decrees Injunctions Orders of every Prelat yea every paltry Commissaries court was accounted schisme
they shall doe will be nothing yea they themselves wil be nothing No marvail therefore although they and the Kingdome with them stand for that But what is that It is that the defence of the King Kingdome and Parliament from the danger of the plots attempts of Papists and all Malignants may be put into the hands of those that they may confide in To what purpose are good Laws made To what purpose is a Parl fitting if Papists Prelats Popish and Prelatical men Atheists Delinquents so infinitely discontent whom we had cause enough to fear that they would endeavour to get power that they might disanul all and according to those fears wee see what is come to passe if wee may not have the Militia of the Kingdome that is the onely positive Legall way next to that we have from the Law of Nature to resist such power as would endeavour to undoe all If a man should be bound to pay me such a debt and withall to joyn with me to provide safe means of conveying both my self and money to such a place if this man at the day appointed should pay the debt duly to a farthing but when I tell him of great danger by the way many lye in wait to surprise me and my money and I require of him to joyne with me to afford me such aid as I may goe safely for go I must if he refuseth and will onely consent to such aid as I not without good grounds have cause to suspect to be as dangerous even as those that lie in wait for me yea it may be I can prove that even some principal ones of those he would have for my aid safety are confederate and of the same company with those that lye in wait for me Now I demand what advantage is it to me that the debt is paid me supposing I must go have no other way to help my self but that which he denies to me is it not all one to me as if he had refused to pay the debt Doe you think that good words would be enough to you in such a case if hee should say I le warrant you you may be safe when I know certainly these men are of the company with those who lie in wait for me I have other men by whom I know will be faithfull and can be no prejudice to the other party and I desire him that hee would suffer those to goe along with me for my safety and he refuseth it But howsoever were it not better to harken to peace if possibly there may be wayes of Accommodation Peace is indeed a most lovely and desirable thing we desire with our soules to live in peace God himselfe knows there is nothing that would be more acceptable to us then to serve God the King in waies of peace God forbid but that we should in all our waies shew our selves the children of peace We could make large orations in commendation of peace as well as others yea in the midst of all the clatterings of our Arms and sounds of war-like instruments yet peace is in our eyes and hearts As faithfull Ministers in all the terrible threats they denounce in the name of God against impenitent sinners seeke the true peace of their souls so the true souldier who is faithfull to God and his Countrey although he hath the sword in one hand and fire in the other yet it is with this Motto Sic quaerimus pacem For a full Answer to this Objection I shal first answer meerly as a Divine out of the Scripture and then we may consider what may be said in true wisdome of Politic. For the first The Scripture tels us James 3. 17. The wisdome that is from above is first pure then peaceable Such an expression did it not come from an Apostle would be scorned by many profane Atheisticall spirits amongst us yea they would accuse James himselfe if they dared for a Puritan for speaking thus The Scripture frequently joynes Peace and truth peace and holinesse peace and righteousnesse grace and peace together We must be sure so to seek peace as we must seek the God of peace the Gospel of peace That were a fearfull peace that should make war between the God of peace and us or deprive us of the Gospel of peace Let us not dis-joyn or disorder the Angels Doxologie Glory be to God on high peace on earth good will towards men So peace on earth as glory may be to God on high and the good will the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this our God towards us Placet ista distributio sayes Bernard this distribution pleaseth me wel that God should have glory we have peace Oh that this Angelical distribution of glory peace might please us all The truth is peace is sweet and those which are thought enemies to it pray a hundred times more to the God of peace for peace then those who plead so much for it Peace is to be purchased at any rate but with the losse of Truth if this be the price of it we buy it too deare We use to say We may buy gold too deare It would be a hard bargaine if the glory of God if the liberty of his Ordinances that now we have an opportunity to enjoy if the most religious party in the Kingdome should be now sacrificed for a supposed peace which upon such terms certainly will not hold long This would make God our enemie not only because his glory truth Saints are dear unto him but because those who are most religious have stuck most to the Parliament they have ventured their estates their lives their children their servants for the safety of King Kingdome and Parl. Never was Parl. so engaged to any party in England as they are engaged to these now Therefore it were the most horrible injustice that ever was in the world if the Parl. should leave them yea sacrifice them to their adversaries only to provide for a false uncertain dishonourable peace for themselves and others It cannot be imagined that such a thought could enter into them God would never suffer such injustice as this to passe this world without the expressions of his high indignation against it And in way of true wisdome of civill polity these foure things must be considered of 1. How far treaties may be advantagious to the adversaries We read Dan. 8. 25. that through peace many should be destroyed Under the name of peace there may be fomented the most bloody cruell war that ever England hath knowne Many people when they hear of the word Peace they are so pleased that they run away with that not knowing what bloody cruel designes may lye under it and be promoted by it and they think that if some follow not the treaty presently though upon never so great disadvantage it is because they are bloody and love war whereas in truth it is that they might prevent
wisely who have bin the cause of this disturbance Puritanicall Preachers are cryed out of So Elijah was said to be the troubler of Israel Amos was said to speak such words as the Land could not bear Paul was accounted a pestilent fellow a mover of sedition They cryed out of the Apostles that they turned the world upside down Luther in his time was called Tuba Rebellionis the very trumpet of rebellion But if men wil not shut their eyes and stop their ears they cannot but know the cause of our disturbance hath been the pride and cruelty of Prelates forcing illegall things both upon our brethren in Scotland and upon us Is it not as clear as the Sun that the disturbance began with their imposition of their own Service-book upon them Have not they their Preachers sought to infuse such principles into Kings that all is theirs to dispose on as they please That they are bound to no Laws A doctrine condemned by the Heathens We reade of Trajan the Emperour when he ordained any Pretor giving him the sword he would bid him use the sword against his enemies in just causes and if he himselfe did otherwise then Justice to use then his power against him also And as Ministers so people that have been most conscientious they have been cryed out of as disturbers Thus it was in the Primitive times if there were any evils upon the Countries where the Christians dwelt they cryed out of them as the cause of all the voice presently was Christianos ad Leones bring forth the Christians to the Lyons so now the Round-heads the cause of all Men that will examine things and are not mad with malice wonder how such an apprehension can arise They suffer the wrong and yet they are accused for the trouble of the Kingdom by reason of their sufferings they are more in the view of people then other men and therefore when men are in a rage they fall upon them that are next hand They indeed will not yeeld to such illegall things as others will they think themselves bound what lies in them to keep the Kingdome and their posterities from slavery and for this good service although it cost them deare they must be accounted the cause of all the evill in the Kingdome Did they ever plot any Treason as Papists have done from time to time Did they even in times of Popery ever seek to blow up Parliament houses as Papists have done There is a great deale of stir about these men but what have they done the very foundations of this our Land are out of course but what have the righteous done So far as they can they yeeld active obedience to what Law requires of them in what they cannot yeeld active they yeeld passive and what can man require more of them Onely they wil not yeeld to mens wils and lusts beyond that authority they have over them and who wil that hath the spirit of a man in him But these are not friends to the King Surely those who obey so far cannot without extreme malice be accounted enemies to the King They pray more for the King then any people doe yea they do more for him and his in a right way then any people doe Who have ventured so much of their estates to reduce Ireland to the obedience of the King as those that are thus called Round-heads Will it not be found that some few of these in the City of London have disbursed more of their estates for the Kings service in this thing to keepe this his lawfull inheritance in his possession and for his posterity then all those thousands that are now with the King in his Army And heretofore who were the men that were most free with their estates to assist the Parl and to have recovered the Palatinate but these kinde of men Howsoever now God sees and the world sees they are ill requited at this day No no God and we hope in time Man also will find our other troublers of the Kingdom rather then these The Lord judge between us and our adversaries in this thing As for the great cost charge the Kingdom is at 1. We must know those who have done least in this kind complaine most those upon whom the weight and burden of the work hath layn you heare not to make such complaints of the charge 2. Better venture halfe then lose all In this thing that saying is true Dimidium plus toto If we be too sparing now it is the onely way to lose all it is better to have but a piece sure then by venturing to keep all to lose all If we will keep all we may soon lose all as many have done they have kept their estates for the spoilers Yea we were better to have lesse as our own with freedom then more with bondage at the wils of others Times of extreme danger are no times of complaining of charges If a mans house be on fire were it not absurd for him to cry out against breaking of the tiles because it wil put him to charges There is a story of a man who in discontent hanged himself his servant comming into the room at that instant seeing his master hanging he presently cuts down the rope so saves his life afterward this man being extreamly covetous wrangles with his servant because he would rather cut the rope then untye it so put him to more charges Doth not all lie at the stake is not the very life of the Kingdom in danger is it not time for us now to have our hearts raised above these things Let us take heed our covetousnesse be not our undoing and if our enemies find treasure with us then how justly may they mock and jeere us When Constantinople was taken in the yeer 1453. it appears by the Turkish History that it was lost through the Citizens covetousnesse The Citizens were full of gold and silver when it was taken but would not pay the souldiers that should have defended them and so their enemies made merry with their riches The like is reported of Heydelburgh taken by their enemies not many yeers since upon the like ground God hath been beforehand with us in many mercies and he hath yet more rich and glorious mercies for us that surely will pay for all at last over and over again We are unworthy of our liberties unworthy of the Gospell if we prize them at so low a rate as if they were not transcendently above all the costs we have been at or are like to be at We think these charges much but there is not one yeare wherein our neighbours in the Low Countries are not at far more charge then we have been at this chargeable yeare all our extraordinary charges are below their ordinary But although there is nothing can be said but God allows of these wars yet were it not better in prudence that I be not seen in them for if I be
he had rather live in the Countrey bring up his cattell and be quiet though he payes great taxes and be brought to be very servile yet that he may not be troubled his spirit can beare that servility let who will minde great things he loves to be quiet This was a low poore spirit and his posterity were for the generall very unworthy and vile For you shall finde in the division of the Land of Canaan that Issachars lot fell in Galile Josh 19. from the 18. ver to the 23. The description of their lot there from the cities as Jesreel the first and the out-goings of their border were at Jordan shews Galile was their place Now you know what was said of that place Doth any good come out of Galile usually it is so the posterity of men of servile spirits are vile and lewd 5. Difficulties are so far from disheartning men of courage that they raise their spirits They love a busines the better when they hear some difficulty is to bee passed through as Alexander said when he met with a great danger here is periculum par animo Alexandri Here is a danger fit for the spirit of an Alexander The example of David in this case is very remarkable in 1 Sam. 18. When Sauls servants told David that he might be the Kings sonne in law David was troubled at it and did not seeme to entertain the motion ver 22 23. but when they after told him of the termes upon which he should have this honour put upon him that it was to bring an hundred of the foreskins of the Philistims ver 25. which was a work of difficulty and hazard for on Sauls part it was propounded on purpose to be a snare to him for so sayes the Text Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistims now marke ver 26. when Sauls servants told David these things it pleased David well to be the Kings sonne in law that which he seemed to be troubled at when it was propounded absolutely that he is well pleased with when it is propounded with such a condition as had some difficulty in it wherby he had an opportunity to shew forth the excellencie of his spirit A base low spirit would have beene better pleased with it to have had such a thing without any such condition It is reported of the Lyon that such is his spirit as if he meetes with a prey that another hath killed before he will not meddle with it but he will seeke for one to kil himselfe if it be done to his hand as wee say he cares not for it but he will have one that shall be his own that he must doe something himselfe for it or else it pleaseth him not 6. A spirit of courage and true valour is not onely able to suffer willing to suffer raised by sufferings but can rejoyce triumph glory in sufferings account sufferings in a good cause great riches When we sit at home by our fire sides and have our tables furnished with varietie of dishes and goe to our soft beds and have the curtains drawne close we pitty poore souldiers that now lye abroad in the stormes upon cold earth who drinke water and often want bread yea many that might have fulnesse enough at home but that warlike spirit of theirs is above these things they can rejoyce in their hardships as much as you in all your abundance They think their lives more comfortable then yours because they are in service for the publique they have opportunity to doe worthily in their generations and you what do you doe you sit at home and have your ease and pamper your selves and doe nothing they would not by any meanes live your lives A true souldier like spirit is in his true element when he is in the midst of all the hardships of warres he loves to live and dye in such a condition Thus the Apostle a true souldier of Christ Rom. 5. 2. We glory in tribulations Moses accounted the reproach of Christ greater riches then all the treasures of Egypt Heb. 11. 27. Ignatius hath this expression He had rather be a Martyr then a Monarch When he heard his bones crash between the wilde beasts teeth Now sayes he I begin to be a Christian Cruaelitas vestra est gloria nostra sayes Tertullian to the persecutors Your cruelty is our glory Many of the Martyrs prepared themselves for their sufferings as Brides use to prepare themselves for their Bridegroomes with joy and gladnesse of heart The wounds they receive in the cause of Christ have more glory issue forth from them then blood they are an ornament to them they put a beauty upon them They account it far better to lose for God then to enjoy for themselves that part of their estates they part with in a good cause they account the best part of their estates they account themselves more rich in that then in what they still retaine Heb. 10. 34. They take joyfully the spoiling of their goods The reason of all is because their spirits are raised above creature-comforts their happinesse consists not in them they are not beholding to them for their peace and joy they can finde matter of joy in the parting with them as well as in the having them through that divine principle of holinesse that God hath put into them 8. A spirit of true courage hath all its fears swallowed up in the fear of God it hath learned to feare nothing but God and in order to God it sets the fear of God against all other fears One man fears poverty but I fear the God of heaven another fears reproach but I fear the God of heaven another imprisonment but I fear the God of heaven another death but I the God of heaven It sanctifies this Lord of Hosts and makes him to be the fear and the dread of it onely Cornelius the Souldier the Centurion of the Italian band is commended for his feare of God Act. 10. 2. a strange commendation of a souldier to be commended for feare yes for the feare of God This drives out all base fears by this he comes to fear nothing else but to be feared by his enemies 9. He reserves all his valour for this Lord of Hosts he hath no valour at all for sin there he is very fearfull his heart shakes at the very temptation to it and at the first risings of it there he seems to a worldling to be a very coward Other men have spirit valour enough for sin if we may call it valour but none for God This mans valour is all for God in his owne cause he is very flexible he manifests little spirit but when the cause is Gods then his heart rises there you may try him many people have passionate gunpowder spirits soon on fire in their own cause If they be crossed in their wils oh how resolute are they They will and they will they care not they care not what
hath left them destitute of all helpe they must needs perish To this he first answers That is the same argument that is used for the Popes curbing of or deposing Princes in case of Heresie otherwise the Church hath no meanes to preserve it selfe The good of a Church is spirituall and God hath given it spirituall means enough to preserve its spirituall good although there be no such power of the Pope over Princes and we know the Church was preserved and flourished in spirituall beautie when there was neither Pope nor Prince to preserve it But the good of a Kingdom is civill and naturall therefore it must have civill and naturall meanes to preserve it selfe by in case of danger Hence then although it be no argument that Popes may by power of Armes curb Kings and because else the good of the Church cannot be preserved yet it may be a good argument the people may in some case take up Arms to defend themselves against violence although the King gives not his consent because otherwise the civill and naturall good of men in a Kingdome cannot be preserved The second thing he sayes is What meanes of safety had the Christians in and after the Apostles times God called them then to suffer for they were not the State though many particular men that are not a State may easily be brought into such a condition as they have no meanes for safety but they must needs suffer and so many States when the externall violence is too strong for them but when God and nature gives them meanes of deliverance there is no necessitie they should perish When the Doctor disproves resistance better wee will either fly or suffer As for the Christians why they could not resist the Dr. speakes of a reason that he seemes to be satisfied in because things were so enacted by Law therefore they could not resist therefore he leaves their example as invalid in our case and so it were well that every one else would leave off urging that we may never heare of the example of the Christians in the primitive times applyed to our case more For though it seems to be something at first view yet it is nothing when it is examined But then he sayes The Edicts that concerned others were Arbitrary To this the Answer hath been already either the people then gave up their whole right to their Emperours which we have not done to our Kings or otherwise they were not bound to their Arbitrary government but might have resisted for their own preservations But if Parliaments should degenerate and grow tyrannicall what meanes of safety could there be for a State I confesse the condition of such a State would be very dangerous and like to come to confusion particular men could not help themselves and the whole State ought to suffer much before it should helpe it selfe by any wayes of resisting but if you can suppose a Parliament so far to degenerate as they should all conspire together with the King to destroy the Kingdome and to possesse the lands and riches of the Kingdome themselves in this case whether a Law of Nature would not allow of standing up to defend our selves yea to re-assume the power given to them to discharge them of that power they had and set up some other I leave to the light of nature to judge You will say this cannot be because the higher powers must not be resisted by any This is not properly to resist the power but to discharge the power to set the power elsewhere The servant doth not resist the power of his master when he upon just grounds leaves him and goes to another if he be such a master as is his master by his owne choice for such and such ends and purposes and had his power limited by agreement I know this will be cryed out of as of dangerous consequence wherefore God deliver us as I hope he will for ever making use of such a principle It is hard to conceive it possible that a Parliament can so degenerate as to make our condition more grievous by unjust acts then it would be if the power in a Kingdom should returne to the law of nature from whence at first it rose Divers lines together ofter the objection from want of safety in case of degenerating of Parliament he spends in commending the temper of our government in the three Estates with complaints of some distemper for the present In the one I joyn with him but for the other I undertake not to satisfie all his apprehensions of distractions in the Parliament The man I beleeve lives at a distance from Parliament and so looks at it through multitudes of reports which usually and especially in these times are exceeding false mediums to looke through Straight things will seeme crooked when the object is seen through water that is too thick a medium Reports doe so gather soile before they come to him that when they come they are an exceeding thick medium to see Parliament proceedings by Whereas it is said that many see more then one and there is more safety in the judgement of many then one He answers Why should an hundred in the House of Commons see more then three hundred and twenty in the Lords House see more then sixty that are of a contrary judgement If there were so many of a contrarie judgement more then the others why do they not come and out-vote them in what things are amisse 2. This addes much validitie in common reason to what they determine that they are alwaies a competent number allowable by Law to be Houses of Parliament and they debate and determine things in such an Assembly that is open for so many which all the Countreys and Cities in the Kingdom have chosen to come to debate or contradict as they think fit Such determinations although I do not say they should be accounted infallible yet they carry with them more likely reason then those who are carried by a few in some secret way Further why should such an Objection be made against the Houses of Parliament that no Court of Iustice no Societie that carries things by Vote will admit if it be once set that in such Assemblies there shall be so many at the least there may be three times more yet so many makes up the Assembly so as to enable it to such and such purposes How can this Obiection without wrangling be admitted Oh but many were of another mind or some belonging to the Assembly were not present After this the Doctor proceeds to the commending of Monarchy above Aristocrasie and the Kings Negative voice This is nothing to our businesse What though Monarchie be the best and what though the King should have power of a negative voice in the passing all Bils this is granted Then he comes again to his 13. to the Rom. The argument from this place is worn exceeding bare by this time