THE RESOLVING OF CONSCIENCE Upon this Question Whether upon such a Supposition or Case as is now usually made The King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties Subjects may take Arms and resist and Whether that Case be now RESOLVED I. That no Conscience upon such a Supposition or Case can finde a safe and clear ground for such resistance II. That no Man in Conscience can be truly perswaded that the resistance now made is such as they themselves pretend to that pleade for it in such a case III. That no Man in Conscience can be truly perswaded that such a case is now that is that the King will not discharge His trust but is bent to subvert c. Whence it followeth That the resistance now made against the higher Power is unwarrantable and according to the Apostle Damnable Rem 13. Also that the shedding of bound in the pursuit of this resistance is Murder By H. FERN D. D. c. Wo unto them that call evill good and gool evill that put Darknesse for Light and Light for Darknessae Isa. 5. 20. O my Soule come not thou into their secret Gen. 49. 6. Printed at York by Stephen Bulkley 1642. To all Misse-led People in this Land HE that in these times will speak any thing to the People in behalf of the King is likely to doe it upon disadvantage and be heard with prejudice but they that would be profitably informed by what they heare must lend an equall Eare to what is spoken which I hope you will do being such for the most part as professe to make a conscience of your wayes I desire therefore of you into whose hands this Treatise shall come that you would receive it with mind and affection answerable to that wherewith it is offered to you free from partiality and private respects that you would consider Cases of Conscience are written out of Conscience And were a distressed Prince a fit object for flattery or this kind of instruction capable of such language yet is this a time for every man to informe and speak his Conscience and as many of you as shall reade me in this book will I hope conceive I had no other purpose in the publishing of it then to give testimony to the truth for the directing of your Consciences and the discharge of mine own I have therefore written it plainly without affectation of curiosity having a respect onely to your profit the Learned through the Land are sufficiently persawded and I may asure you all Ages have asserted this truth out of which I could have drawn a cloud of witnesses and presented them to your sight but thought it more expedient for your direction to shew you the cleare light of Divine Scripture and rectified Reason the onely rules of Conscience and if by these you shall be brought to see the crookednesse of the New Doctrine of these times and the uneven dangerous windings of this way of resistance I have gained the end of my desires and you have not lost by it One thing I must note as strange that to discourse upon this argument shouldbe thought as it is by many a worke altogether beyond the profession of the Divine Indeed popular States-men have alwayes held it very impolitick and unreasonable that Subjects should not in dangers imminent have means to save themselves by a Power of resistance and accordingly framed their principles and grounds of State as unquestionable We examine not the power or wisdome of Law-makers but when we receive their Law Declaration or Command and know it in terminis understand it in the sense it be its certainly it belongs to the Divine to consider whether it be against Gods Law and accordingly to instruct his people If it be agreed upon as a thing known in this State that the King is the higher Power according to St. Paul the Supreme according to St. Peter the Father of the Commonwealth according to the fifth Commandement surely it belong to the Divine to urge obedience honour and subjection according to those place and reprove resistance forbidden there Which obedience we acknowledge to be limited and circumscribed by the established Laws of the Land and accordingly to be yeilded or denyed to the higher Power if those Laws be not repugnant to the Law of God And for Resistance as we have not yet heard of any Law of the Land that commands or warrants it so we know that were there any Law or Ordinance made to enjoyn it such would not bind being against the Apostles expresse prohibition back'd with arguments drawn from the very reason of Goverment as shall be shewen in this following Treatise Be they who they will that present you with imminent dangers and work upon your fears that tell you of Fundamentall Lawes and give you rules of policy to captivate your reason when all that 's done it is the Divine that must settle the Conscience which will not be quiet if in yeilding obedience to any Law or Ordinance it comes to a suspicion that such an Ordinance of man entrencheth upon the word of God Let me tell you for I suppose you follow this way in the simplicity of your hearts how you are wrought upon by them that mis-leade you You are dealt with according to your generall desire of the continuance of true Religion and the Subjects Liberty not according to the particular grounds of safety which conscience doth require You are told the Gospel and your Liberties and all you have are in most imminent danger and without taking Arms for the defence irrecoverably lost and that this is lawfull by the Fundamentals of this Kingdom You must take all this upon trust without an expresse and particular warrant to rule and secure your Conscience against the expresse words of the Apostle forbidding resistance Rom. 13. You professe your selves enemies to Popery and good reason for it but why should you therfore be enemies to your King that declares against it too I would you could observe how under pretence of keeping out Popery you are led in this way of râ—sistance by the like steps that brought Popery in For examine your hearts and try if the name of Parliament which is of honourable esteem with all be not raised to the like excesse of credit with you as the name of the Church is with the Papists if you have not within you a silent thought of infallibility in that great Councel and so with an implicit faith are ready to receive and maintaine what ever is concluded there if you be not drawn to believe your Prince is minded to overthrow Religion and upon such a supposall or beleif according to the very method of Jesuitical practises to take up Arms against him If you do not rest satisfied with your generall intention of a good end that is the defence of Religion not examining the meanes you now use to compasse that end like those that for the advancing
upon them or else the State as they usually say had not meanes to provide for its safetie Thus one phansie of theirs thwarts another because both are groundlesse But more anon of those meanes of safety they suppose to be in every State by the power of Resistence Hitherto of Scripture which is most powerfull against Resistence in the prohibition and the reasons of it by which Conscience will clearly see it can have no warrant from Scripture for Resistence Now let us try what Reason can enforce SECT. III. For proving this power of resistence there is much speech used about the Fundamentalls of this government which because they lie low and unseen by vulgar eyes being not written Laws the people are easily made to beleeve they are such as they that have power to build new Laws upon them say they are And indeed none so fit to judge of them as they Yet this we know and every one that can use his reason knows that the Fundamentalls must needs be such as will bear the setled government of this Land such as are not contradictory to the written established Laws but both the government we see used in this Land and the written Laws which we reade must have a correspondency and anology of reason to these Fundamentalls and these to them Well then they that plead for Power of resistance in the people lay the first ground-work of their Fundamentalls thus Power is originally in and from the people and if when by election they have intrusted a Prince with the Power he will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or as in this Kingdome to the two Houses of Parliament the representative body of the people to see to it they may reassume the power This is the bottom of their Fundamentalls as they are now discovered to the people But here we may take notice by the way that however the Fundamentalls of this Government are much talked of this is according to them the Fundamentall in all Kingdomes and Governments for they say power was every where from the people at first and so this will serve no more for the power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey but if this must be a Fundamentall it is such an one as upon it this Government cannot be built but Confusion and Anarchy may readily be raised as shall appeare by the clearing of these two particulars Whether the Power be so originally and chiefly from the people as they would have it then Whether they may upon such cause reassume that power First of the originall of power which they will have so from the People that it shall be from God onely by a kind of permissive approbation as we may see by the Observator and all other that plead for this power of resistance We must here distinguish what the Writers of the other side seem to confound to wit the Power it selfe which is a sufficiency of authority for command and coercion in the governing of a People from the designing of the Person to bear that power and the qualification oâ— that power according to the divers wayes of executing it in severall forms of government and then we grant that the designing of the person is sometimes from the People by choyce and that the power of the Prince receiving qualification by joynt consent of himself and the people is limited by the Laws made with such consent but the power it self is of God originally and chiefly which we prove by Scripture and Reason First by such places of Scripture as plainly shew an ordaining and appointing rather then a permission or approbation 1. The Apostle speaks it expressely The powers are of God Rom. 13. 1. and the Ordinance of God vers. 2. S. Peter indeed saith every ordinance of Man 1. Epist. 2. but of man there and of God here is much differing there it is ' anthrâ—â—pine of Man subjective that is every ordinance or power set up amongst men but here it is ' apo theou of God causaliter that is from him his ordinance and if in that ' anthrâ—â—pine there be implyed any creation or causality or invention of man it respects the qualification of the power according to the forms of severall governments and offices in them which are from the invention of man it does not make the power it self the creation of man which is the constitution and ordinance of God and men are not onely naturally bent to society but also are bound as they are reasonable creatures to set up and live under government as under an order of that providence by which the World is governed II. He is called the Minister of God v. 4. but if so from the People and no otherwise from God then they would have him he should be Minister Populi rather he is indeed their Minister for their good which makes the People to be the end of this governing power not the fountain and originall of it therfore the necessity of subjection urged in the fifth verse ha's a double ground The ordinance of God whose ministers Rulers are ther 's the fountain and originall of Power to govern then the Peoples good upon which Rulers ought to attend that 's an end of the Governing Power III. To the same purpose speak those other places By me Kings reigne and I have said ye are Gods Psal. 82. in relation to which our Saviour saith Joh. 10. They are called Gods to whom the word of God came that dixi that word is the command the issuing out as it were the commission for the setting up of a governing power among the people These places cannot be satisfied with that poore part they on the other side leave to God in the setting up of power for the governing of men that is to approve it when the People ha's created or invented it Indeed if we consider the qualification of this governing power and the manner of executing it according to the severall forms of government we granted it before to be the invention of man and when such a qualification or form is orderly agreed upon we say it ha's Gods permissive approbation And therefore the imputation is causelesse which the Pleaders on the other side do heedelessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines as if we cryed up Monarchy and that onely government to be jure divino For although Monarchy ha's this excellencie that the Government God set up over his people in the person of Moses the Judges and the Kings was Monarchicall yet we confesse that neither that nor Aristocracy or any other form is jure divino but we say the power it self or that sufficiency of Authoritie to govern which is in Monarchy or Aristocracy abstractly considered from the qualifications of either form is an efflux or constitution subordinate to that providence an ordinance of that Dixi that silent Word by which the world was at first made and is still governed under God Secondly as this appeares by the former
places of Scripture so it is also suitable to Reason Because God doth govern all creatures Reasonable as well as Unreasonable the inferiour or lower world he governs by the heavens or superiour bodies according to those influences and powers he ha's put into them and the reasonable creatures Men he governs too by others set up in his stead over them for which they are called Gods because in his stead over the people and the powers are said to pe ' apo theou tetagmenai Rom. 13. 1. not only ' apo theou from God but also as orders ranked under him too subordinate to that providence by which all creatures are governed These his Ministers he sometimes designed immediately by himselfe as Moses the Judges Saul David c. Now he designes his Vicegerents on earth mediately as by election of the people by succession or inheritance by conquest c. To conclude the Power it selfe of Government is of God however the person be designed or that Power qualified according to the severall forms of government by those Laws that are established or those grants that are procured for the peoples securitie Thus much of the originall of Power SECT. IV. NOw we come to the Forfeiture as I may call it of this Power If the Prince say they will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or the two Houses the representative body of the people to see to it and reassume that Power and thereby to resist This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of Power from the people by vertue of election and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people as also to be necessary in regard of those meanes of safety which every State should have within it selfe We will examine them in order and shall find the Arguments inconsequent Concerning the derivation of Power we answer First if it be not from the people as they will have it and as before it was cleared then can there be no reassuming of this Power by the People that 's plain by their own argument Secondly if the people should give the power so absolutely as they would have it leaving nothing to God in it but approbation yet could they not therefore have right to take that power away For many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them are not afterward in our power to recall especially such in which their redounds to God an interest by the donation as in things devoted though afterward they come to be abused So although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves yet because the Lords hand also his oyl is upon the person elected to the Crown and then he is the Lords anointed and the Minister of God those hands of the people which were used in lifting him up to the Crown may not again be lifted up against him either to take the Crown from his head or the sword out of his hand This will not a true-informed Conscience date to doe Thirdly How shall the Conscience be satisfied that this their argument grounded upon election and the derivation of power from the people can have place in this Kingdome when as the Crown not onely descends by inheritance but also ha's so often been setled by Conquest in the lines of Saxons Danes and Normans In answer to this they looke beyond all these and say the right is still good to the people by reason of their first election I answer So then that first election must be supposed here and supposed good against all other titles or else this power of resistence falls to the ground It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choyce here as elsewhere but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistence or think that first election will give it power against Princes that do not claime by it We tell them the Romane Emperours were not to be resisted Rom. 13. 2. They reply as we had it above that they were absolute Monarchs But how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarchs was it any otherwise then by force and arms the way that the Saxons Danes and Normans made themselves Masters of this people and was not the right of the people as good against them for the power of resistence by vertue of the first election as well as of the people of this Land against their Kings after so many Conquests This I speak not as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors God forbid But to shew this slender plea of the first election can no more take place against the Kings of this Land then it could against the Romane Monarchs especially according to their argument that hold all power originally from the people and that as we observed above to be the Fundamentall of all government Therefore whether Kings were in this Land at first by election or no we acknowledge what belongs to the duty of a Prince in doing justice and equitie what Grants also Laws Priviledges have since those Conquests been procured or restored to the people unto all those the King is bound But yet not bound under forfeiture of his power to the people which now comes to be examined in that capitulation or covenant he is said to enter with the people In the next place therefore That Capitulation or Covenant and the Oath which the Prince takes to confirme what he promiseth are so alledged as if the breach or non-performance on the Princes part were a forfeiture of his power But we answer The words capitulation or covenant are now much used to make Men believe the Kings admittance to the Crown is altogether conditionall as in the meerly elective Kingdomes of Polonia Swedeland c. whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation which is sooner or later at his pleasure but alwaies to be in due time in regard of that security His People receive by his taking the oath and he again mutually from them in which performance there is something like a covenant all but the forfeiture The King there promises and binds himself by oath to performance Could they in this covenant shew us such an agreement between the King and his People that in case he will not discharge His trust then it shall be lawfull for the States of the Kingdome by Arms to resist and provide for the safety thereof it were something If it be said that so much is imployed in the first election We answer We examined that slender plea of the first election above as it was thought to be a derivation of power Now as it is thought to have a covenant in it we say That usually in all Empires the higher we arise the freer we find the Kings and still downwards the People have gained upon them for at first when the People chose their Rulers they did as Justine in the beginning of his History observes resigne themselves to be
governed by such of whose prudence and moderation they had experience and then Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant the will and discretion of the Prince was Law unto the People but Men were Men though in Gods place and therefore for the restraint of that Power with consent of the Prince such Laws have been still procured by the People as might make for their security Now from a promise the King makes for doing Justice the duty of every Prince for the continuing those Priviledges immunities that have been granted or restored to the People and for the observing of those Laws that have been established with the Princes consent and from that oath by which for the greater security of the People he binds himself to the performance of the premises to infer a great obligation lyeth upon him is right but to gather thence a forfeiture of his power upon the not performance is a plain but dangerous inconsequent Argument And though such Argument may seem to have some force in States meerly elective and pactionall yet can it never be made to appear to any indifferent understanding that the like must obtain in this Kingdome And to this purpose Phil. Pareus excuseth what his Father had written more harshly upon the 13. to the Romans in the point of Resistence that it was to be understood of elective and pactionall government not to the prejudice of England or such Monarchies For where the King as it is said never dyes where he is King before oath or coronation where he is not admitted upon any such capitulation as gives any power to the People or their representative body as is pretended to Nay where that body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that there in such a State such a power should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the fundamentalls of such a State can never appear reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistence that is now made by such a pretended power What then shall we say Is the King not bound to perform Yes by all means Or ha's he not a limited power according to the Lawes Yes What then if he will take to himself more power or not perform what he is bound to Suppose that though thanks be to God we are not come to that Then may the Subjects use all fair means as are fit to use cryes to God petitions to the Prince denials of obedience to his unlawfull commands denials of subsidie ayd c. But are they left without all means to compell by force and resistence This however it may at first sight seem unreasonable to the people and very impolitick to the Statesman yet ha's Scripture forbidden it as before was plainly shewed and so doth Reason too as will apeare in the examination of their last proofe they make for re-assuming this power and resisting from that necessity of means of safety which every State is to have within it self Of which now SECT. V. IN the last place it is thus reasoned Were it not so that the two Houses might take and use this power the State should not have means to provide for its own safety when the King shall please to desert His Parliament deny His consent to their Bills abuse His power c. So they When right and Just will not defend a thing then Necessity is usually pleaded as if because Salus Populi in a good sense is Suprema Lex every thing must be honest which is Spartae Vtile imagined to conduce to the proposed end We answer therefore First They have many weapons sharpened for this resistence at the Philistins forge arguments borrowed from the Romane schools among them this is one the very reason that is made for the Popes power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresie For if there be not that power in the Church say they then in case the Civill Magistrate will not discharge his trust the Church ha's not means for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its own safety Well as we reply to them the Church has means of preserving the faith such as God ha's appointed though not that of one Visible head which though at first seems plausible for preserving the Unity of faith yet ha's experience shown it to be indeed the meanes to bring much mischief upon the Church So to the other we say The State ha's meanes of preservation such as the Law ha's prescibed though not such as are here pretented to in this power of resistence which though seemingly plausible yet true Reason will conclude them dangerous and at this day God knows we see it Of this in the fourth answer more particularly Secondly If every State ha's such means to provide for its safety What means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Romane Emperours in and after the Apostles times or the people then enslaved what means had they for their Liberties had they this of resistence Tertullian in his Apol. sayes the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand but they had no warrant and the Apostle expressely forbids them and all other under the higher power to resist If it be replyed as it was above touched That things being so enacted by Law it was not lawfull for them to resist I answer But it is known that not onely those Edicts which concerned Christian Religion but also all other that proceeded from those Emperours and enslaved the people were meerly arbitrary and enforced upon the Senate and that the Senate did not discharge their trust in consenting to them and therefore according to the former position the people might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition or else no means of safety left in that State So would it be in this State if at any time a King that would rule arbitrarily as those Emperours did should by some meanes or other work out of the two Houses the better affected and by the Consent of the Major part of them that remaine compasse his desires might the people then resist The Apostle forbids it to them as well as to the Romans in such a case if so where are these means of safety by this power of resistance Or are these means of safety extinct in the Consent of the Senate or the two Houses No the people will tell them they discharge not their trust they chose them not to betray them enslave them but according to the principles now taught them they might lay hold upon this power of resistence for their representative body claims it by them Thirdly we answer We cannot expect absolute means of safety and securitie in a State but such as are reasonable and such are provided especially in the fundamentalls of this Government by that excellent temper of the three estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or
and Parliament fill all with rapine and confusion draw all to a Folkmoot and make every Shire a severall Government These are Dangers and Evils not conceived in the phansie but such as reason tells us may follow and experience hath often and this day doth shew us do arise upon this Power of resistence and for the preventing of which the Apostle gave his reasons against resisting even of abused powers as we heard above Lastly therefore Seeing some must be trusted in every State 't is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the higher or supreme Power with whom next to himself God hath intrusted the whole Kingdom all other that have power and trust having it under him as sent by him Good reason I say that the supreme Power which is worth 10000 of the Subjects should have the best security on its side for as much as Order the life of a Commonwealth is so best preserved and not so endangered by Tyranny as by factions division tumults power of resistence on the Subjects part and this is according to the drift of the Apostles reasons against resistence as before they were laid down Well now unto all that hath hitherto been said from Scripture and Reason let Conscience adde the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance also the late Protestation and consider what duty lyes upon every subject by the former to defend the Kings person and Right against what Power soever and how by the latter he hath protested and undertaken before Almighty God in the first place to defend the same and then what can Conscience conclude from the Premises that the Prince hath his Power for the good of his people true but that Power cannot be prevalent for the good and protection of his people unlesse it be preferved to him intire unlesse he hath the Power of Deniall and the chief command of Arms or that the Prince hath a limited Power according to the Laws established true but if Conscience be perswaded he does not hold himselfe within those bounds so fixed can it be perswaded also that the people may reassume that Power they never had or take that sword out of his hand that God hath put into it No Conscience will look at that Power as the Ordinance of God and the abuse of that Power as a judgement and scourge of God upon the people and will use not Arms to resist the Ordinance under pretence of resisting the abuse but cryes and prayers to God petitions to the Prince denialls of obedience to his unjust commands denialls of subsides aids and all faire means that are fit for Subjects to use and when done all if not succeed will rather suffer then resist so would a truly informed Conscience resolve were the Prince indeed what he is supposed to be and did he do indeed as the people are made to fear and believe he will do Hitherto we have been in the examination of the Principle upon which they go that plead for resistence and we have found both Scripture and Reason speak plainly against the resisting even of abused Powers professed enemies to Religion actuall subverters of the Peoples Liberties how much more against the resisting of a Prince that professeth the same Religion which we freely enjoy promiseth the maintaining of that and our Liberties onely upon a supposall He will not stand to His word will overthrow all This however it may seem lesse reasonable to the Statist in the way of Policie permitting as little as he can to the goodnesse of the Prince or the providence of God for the safety of the State yet ought it to satisfie a Christian in the way of Conscience which when it comes to a desire of being safe will not rest till it have a sure ground which here it hath against resistence laid downe by Scripture and Reasons even the Apostles reasons so powerfull against resistence The summe of all is this Conscience hears the Apostle expressely forbid all under the higher Power to resist finds no other clear Scripture to limit it finds that the limitations given will not consist with it for the reasons of them that are drawn from the election of the People and the Covenant supposed therein from the necessity of means of safety in every State to provide for it self were as strong in the Romane State as any nay are supposed by those that urge them to be the fundamentals of every State and so resistence is forbidden as well here as there in the Romane State which is also cleared by the Apostles reasons shewing the Power of resistence cannot be the meane of safety but strikes at Order and Power it self though made against tyrannicall and abused Powers as before often insinuated Therefore Conscience will not dare to go against the Apostles expresse prohibition lest it fall into the judgement denounced by him But if there shall be any Conscience as strongly carried away with the name of a Parliament as the Papists are with the name of the Church and thinking Religion may be defended any way that upon supposall that their Prince is minded to change it which is another humour of Popery will not be perswaded that the resistence made upon the present supposall is unlawfull against Gods Word and reason I am sure such a Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it is lawfull but must want that clear ground it ought to have especially in a matter so expresly against the Apostle and of such high concernment as damnation must needs runne blindly and headlong by a strange implicit Faith upon so great a hazard SECT. VI NOw we come to the Application of their principle to the present where we must enquire according to the second and third Generalls whether the resistence now made be such as is pretended to by them in such a case as they supposed and then whether Conscience can be truely perswaded the King is such and so minded as in the case He is supposed to be The chief considerations of these two Generalls are matters of fact The principle was examined by Scripture and Reason these admit the Judgement of sense and are cleared by what we heare and see which Judgement of sense is not so easily captivated by an implicit Faith as that of Reason is insomuch as Conscience here cannot be so blinded but it may see that were the principall good on which they rest yet this resistence which they make is not such as they pretend to and that this King whom they resist is not such as in the case they supposed him to be not such as ought to be resisted according to their own grants The second generall was That the Resistence now made is not such as is pretended to by them that plead for it and therefore Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it may lawfully bear part in it or assist them that in the pursuit of it pretend one thing and do another It was premised at the beginning that such a resistence should be
of the Catholick cause as they call it attempt any thing however unjust even to the destruction of Kings that are set over them this blindnesse is Popish and practice Jesuiticall Lastly examine your hearts if you be not confirmed in your way by the number of your Professour like as they are by the Universality of their Church resting upon the person of men not trying the Cause it selfe by the touchstone of divine Scripture and rectified Reason I know it prevails with many thousands of you because you see as you thinke and use to say All good people that have sense of Religion and Conscience of their wayes do go along with you and you cannot beleive that God would suffer them to be so generally deluded let me tell you you do hereby very uncharitably conclude upon all those that run not with you to the like excesse and I may say without breach of Charitie they that appear with you in the Cause would not all be found such as you conceive them to be if they were examined by the true marks of Christian profession that is by the true doctrine of faith by their charitie honestie obedience meeknesse of Spirit and the like without which your Religion is vain whatever your exercises or performances of duties be the Pharisees righteousnesse will exceed yours and his frequency and length of prayer will be as sure a mark as yours nay the Anabaptist at this day will out-do you in any of your forms of godlinesse I do not speake this against the frequent and sincere performance of holy duties God forbid I should Nor do I speak it of you all I know there are many good and Conscientious men that go your way in the simplicitie of their hearts as those did that followed Absolom whom the just God suffers hitherto to be deceived that even by their example this power of Resistance may gather strength to the just punishment of this sinfull land and that they themselves when their eyes shall be opened which I hope will be ere long may see their own weaknesse and be so much more humbled for it In the meane time you are according to the blindnesse of a Popish way in all the former respects carried on against all rule of Conscience for you have neither certain knowledge of your Princes heart to resolve for resistance upon a supposall of such intentions in him nor have you any certain rule to warrant the lawfulnesse of resisting upon such supposall and to secure you against the Apostles prohibition and damnation laid upon it nor have you any judgement of Charity in concluding such intentions in your Prince against His deepest Protestations made in such times of His distresse and without that all is nothing though you lay down as you think your life for Religion How much safer would it be for you to be guided by the sure Rules of Conscience and if it should please God to bring upon you what you fear to suffer unjustly then in the unwarrantable prevention of it to do unjustly To this purpose shall you have this Treatise speaking to you for the direction of your Consciences If you think it strikes too boldly upon any thing concerning the Parliament I desire yours and their favourable interpretation fain would I silence every thought and word that may seem to reflect upon that high Court but what is necessary I must speak for truth and conscience sake from which neither King nor Parliament should make us swerve We are taught that Kings must not be flattered and the people ought to learn that Parliamens must not be Idolized that has been often charged as a fault upon the Clergy and This I fear is that sinne of the People which together with the licentiousnesse indulged back again to them ha's moved God to blow upon that wish'd for fruit we might have reaped by this so desired a Parliament For when I see Man is more sensible of every breach of his own rights and priviledges then of those unparallel'd breaches so frequently made upon Gods publike Worship I cannot but think the Lord will require it of this Land and when I see right and just subverted property and liberty exposed to the will and power of every one that is pleased to conceive his Neighbour a Malignant and able to make him so by commanding his Goods and Person I cannot but complain with the Psalmist The foundations of the Earth are out of course and appeal to Heaven Arise O God judge thou the Earth And I trust that albeit this Spirit of seduction may prevaile a while and this way of resistance prosper for the great but just punishment of this sinfull Land the Lord will look downe from Heaven and make Truth and Peace again to flourish out of the Earth will look upon the Face of His Anointed and by this Affliction as by a loving correction make him great Great to the maintenance of Gods true Religion and to the restoring of the Peace and prosperity of this Kingdom And Let all the People say Amen The Contents Sect. I. THe explication of the Question and generall Resolution of it Sect. II. The Principle or Ground on which they goe for Resistance examined by Scripture Their chief Examples to which should have been added Libnah's revolt answered now in the last Sect. Scriptures against them especially that of the 13. to the Rom. urged and cleared where shewed The King is that higher Power That all are forbidden to resist even the Senate which by the fundamentalls of that State might challenge as much as our great Councell can That prohibition concerns all times and was good not onely in that State because they were absolute Monarches but in all States because of the preservation of Order which should be in all and was good not onely against the Christians because their Religion was enected against by Law but also against the Senate and People though they were enslaved Sect. III. Their principle examined by reason Of Fundamentalls their ground-work according to the pleaders for resistance is the originall of Power from the People and their re-assuming it when the Prince will not discharge his trust The Power it selfe distinguished from the designing of the Person and the Qualification of it in severall forms of Government is from God as an ordinance or constitution under that providence whereby God rules the whole World Creatures reasonable as well as unreasonable Sect. IV. That Power cannot be forfeited to the People or re-assumed by them They cannot prove it by vertue of the first election or by any capitulations or covenant or the Oath between Prince and People Sect. V. Nor can it be proved by that necessity of means of safety which should be in every State to provide for it self but greater dangers and inconveniences would follow by such means of safety as are pretended to by resuming the Power Sect. VI The Examination of the Resistance now made Where shewen that it is
not so much as they themselves pretend to who plead for it either for the generall and unanimous consent of the Kingdome for it was not so agreed upon or for the defensive way of it because the King is upon the defensive For He was not first in Arms and the Contentiom must needs appeare to be for something the King hath right to hold or is bound by oath to maintain Also because to any Mans Conscience it will appeare to he an oppugnation rather then a resistance or meere defence Sect. VII The case is not in being No Conscience can conclude the King to be what they would have him supposed because the jealousies are groundlesse The King hath done sufficient to clear them by Promises Protestations acts of Grace And Conscience if it hold the rule of Charity will not against all those conclude contrary intentions in him upon them to ground resistance but will if it will not not be partiall judge the King hath offered such reasonable meanes of securitie to this State as ought to have been apprehended rather then this Kingdom embroyled in a Civil war and Ireland neglected Lastly a Conscience that concludes for resistance wants the perswasion of faith and the judgement of charity in an high measure and cannot appeare safely at Gods tribunall The Resolving of Conscience Touching the unlawfulnesse of the War and Resistance now made against the KING LAmentable are the distractions of this Kingdome and the more because they gather strength from the name and authority of that which as it is of high esteeme with all so should it be a remedy to all these our distempers a Parliament and from the pretended defence of those things that are most dear unto us Religion Liberties Laws Whereupon so many good people that have come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse are miserably carried away by a strange implicit faith to beleive that whatsoever is said or done in the name of a Parliament and in the pretended defence of Religion Liberties Laws to be infallibly true and altogether just But he that will consider men are men and would seek a surer rule for his Conscience then the Traditions or Ordinances of men taken hand over head shall upon reasonable examinations find upon what plausible but groundlesse principles upon what fair but deceiving pretences upon what greivous but causelesse imputations laid upon Majestie it self poore people are drawn into Arms against the duty and allegiance they owe to their Prince by the Laws of God and man For directing the Conscience in such an examination this ensuing Discourse is framed as briefly and plainely as the matter will permit SECT. I COnscience in resolving upon a question first layes down the Proposition or Principle or Ground on which it goes then it assumes or applyes to the present case then it concludes and resolves as in this question affirmatively for Resistance thus Subjects in such a case may arm and resist But that case is now come Therefore now they may and doe justly resist Or negatively against Resistance either by denying the Principle Subjects may not in such a Case arm and resist therfore now they do not justly resist Or by admitting the Principle and denying the Case Subjects in such a case may arm and resist But that case is not now Therefore now they do not justly arm and resist What it is that Conscience is here to admit or deny and how it ought to conclude and resolve this ensuing Treatise will discover which that it may more clearly appeare we will premise First That in the Proposition or Principle by the word Resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command but a rising in arms a forcible resistance this though clear enough in the question yet I thought fit to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdome and upon all those that appeare for the King in this cause that they endeavor to defend an absolute power in him and to raise him to an Arbitrary way of government This we are as much against on his part as against Resistance on the subjects part For we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Laws of the Land For in these we have his will and consent given upon good advice and to obey him against the Laws were to obey him against himselfe his sudden will against his deliberate will but a far other matter it is to resist by power of arms as is in the question implyed and as we see at this day to our astonishment first the power of arms taken from the Prince by setting up the Militia then that power used against him by an army in the field Secondly we must consider that they which pleade for Resistance in such a case as is supposed do grant it must be concluded upon Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus that is with the generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses the representative body of the whole Kingdome also they yeild it must be onely Legitima desensio a meer defensive resistance and this also Conscience must take notice of Thirdly it is considerable that in the supposition or case it is likewise granted by them that the Prince must first be so and so disposed and bent to overthrow Religion Liberties Laws and will not discharge his trust for the maintaining of them before such a Resistance can be pretented to And although the question is and must be so put now as that it seems to straiten the Case and make it depend upon the supposall of the people yet it so much the more enlarges the falshod of the Principle for it plainly speaks thus If subjects beleive or verily suppose their Prince will change Religion they may rise in arms whereas all that have pleaded for Resistance in case of Religion did suppose another Religion enjoyned upon the subject first We will therefore endeavour to cleare all for the resolving of Conscience in these three generalls I. That no Conscience upon such a case as is supposed can find clear ground to rest upon for such resistance as is pretended to but according to the rules of Conscience What is not of faith is sinne and In doubtfull things the safer way is to be chosen Conscience it will find cause to forbeare and to suffer rather then resist doubtfull I say not that a Conscience truly informed will not clearly see the unlawfulnesse of this Resistance but because no conscience can be truly perswaded of the lawfulnesse of it and so that Conscience that resolves for it must needs run doubtingly or blindly upon the work II. That the resistance now used and made against the Prince is not such as they pretend to either for that generall and unanimous consent that should precede it or that defensive way that should accompany it according to their own grants
that plead for it and therefore Conscience cannot admit such a resistance as is made now adayes III. If Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull in such a case to resist and that this rising in arms is such a resistance as they say may in such a case be pretended to yet can it never if it be willing to know any thing be truly perswaded that such a case is now come that i◠That the King refuse to discharge his trust is bent to overthrow Religion c and therefore Conscience cannot but resolve this opposition and Resistance to be unlawful unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable and that people running into arm without sufficient warrant commit murder if they shed blood in the pursuit of this Resistance and perish in their own sinne if die in the cause SECT. II. FIrst then that the Principle is untrue upon which they go that resist and that Conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance for it heares the Apostle expressely say Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation and it cannot find any limitation in Scripture that will excuse the Resistance of these dayes The exception or limitation that is made is taken from the Persons resisting and the Causes of resistance thus They that are Private persons and do resist upon any cause receive damnation but the States or representative body of the whole people may resist upon such or such causes But how will this satisfie Conscience when every distinction or limitation made upon any place of Sripture must have its ground in Scrpture this has onely some examples in Scripture that come not home to the cause and some appearances of Reason which are easily refuted by clearer Scripture and Reason The examples alledged are I. The peoples rescuing of Jonathan out of the hands of Saul Answ. Here the people drew not into arms of themselves but being their at Sauls command did by a loving violence and importunitie hinder the execution of a particular and passionate unlawfull command II. Davids resisting of Saul Answ 1. Davids guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul if sent to take away his life 2. It was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul therefore he still gave place as Saul pursued and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power 1. Sam. 26. But thirdly because they gather out of the 1. Sam. 23. 12. that David would have defended Keilah against Saul if the inhabitants would have been faithfull to him We say that 's onely an uncertain supposition not fit to ground Conscience in this great point of resistance also to this and all other Davids demeanours in his standing out against Saul we say his example was extraordinary for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safeguarding his Person These are the cheif examples They make use also of the high Preists resisting the King in the temple and Elisha's shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger that came to take away his head and the like which speake not so much as the two former having no appearance of such resistance as is implyed in the question 〈◊〉 we answer 1. That of the high Preist is more pertinently applyed to the Popes power of excommunicating and deposing Kings then to this power of resisting now used but truly to neither For he did no more then what every Minister may and ought to do if a King should attempt the administration of the Sacrament that is to reprove him to keepe the Elements from him Ambrose Bishop of Milan withstood the Emperour at the entrance of Gods house not by Excommunication much lesse by force of Arms but by letting him understand he was not fit for that place there to be made partaker of the holy things till he had repented of that outrage and bloudshed at Thessalonica Upon which the Emperour withdrew The Preists here are said to thrust him out of the Temple but we must note Gods hand was first upon him smiting him with leprosie and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also It is added in the Text yea himselfe also hasted to go out But enough of this 2. Elisha's example speakes very little But let us thence take occasion to say That Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden and illegall assaults of such Messengers yea of the Prince himselfe thus far towards his blow to hold his hands and the like nor to endanger his person not to return blows no for though it be naturall to defend a mans selfe yet the whole Commonwealth is concerned in his person as wee see in the Commonwealth of the creatures one particular nature will defend it selfe against another but yeild to the universall If this be drawn from Personall defence to the Publick the Argument thus If the body naturall then the body politick may defend it selfe if a private person much more the whole State may and they do but shut the way up against the King that comes to destroy his Parliament and take away their heads We answ As the naturall body defends it self against an outward force but strives not by a schisme or contention within it selfe 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 Again Personall defence may be without all offence and does not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall resistance by Arms doth which cannot be without many unjust violences and does immediately strike at that order which is the life of a Commonwealth 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 nor can they conclude upon such an intention in the Kings heart without the spirit of Elisha He professeth he intends no violence to his Parliament nor has be taken away the head of any of theirs that have fallen into his power nor does desire any other punishment inflicted upon any that do oppose him then what a Legall triall shall adjudge them to which no good Subject ought to decline Now let us see how Scripture excludes this and all other exceptions giving no allowance to resistance in regard of Persons or Causes or other pretenses and this not onely by Examples but by Precept Conclusions Resolutions which are more safe First we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Numb. 16. 3. and perishing in their sinne If it be replyed the Persons indeed were publicke but there was no cause for it Moses and Aaron did not deserve it I answer but the other supposed they did and that is
now enough it seems to make people not onely say to their Prince You take too much upon you but therfore to rise in arms also which I hope will appeare to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise Secondly see for the cause of Resistance 1. Sam. 8. 11. there the people are let to understand how they should be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord v. 18. Thirdly we have not onely Example but Resolution and Conclusion our of Scripture The people might not be gathered together either for Civill assemblies or for war but by his command that had the power of the Trumpet that is the supreme as Moses was Numb. 10. Also when David had Saul and his army in his power he resolves the matter thus Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords annointed and be guiltlesse 1. Sam. 26 9. If replyed now they intend not hurt to the Kings person yet might nor they as well have hurt his person in the day of battell as any of them that were swept away from about him by the furie of the Ordinance which puts no difference 'twixt Kings and common souldiers This also I must observe concerning this point of Resistance out of the Old Testament for from thence have they all their seeming instances That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatrie cruelty oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of Resistance But lastly that place of the Apostle Rom. 13. at first mentioned does above all give us a cleare resolution upon the point which now I shall free from all exceptions First I may suppose that the King is the Supreme as S. Peter calls him or the higher power as S. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it but I prove it S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authoritie The King as supreme and those that are sent by him 1. Pet. 2. 12 in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this Realm and that he is in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme Also acknowledged by the Petitions of the two Houses addressed unto his Majestie wherein they stile themselves His loyall Subjects But enough of this Secondly 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 the every soul in the first and the resistance forbidden here concerns all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not mâ—ke these Universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from the subjection Thirdly in those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Romane State and might challenge more by the Fundamentalls of that State then our great Counsell I think will or can But now the Emperour being Supreme as S. Peter calls 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 This for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the Cause Fourthly was there ever more cause of resistence then in those dayes were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties and therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against Resistence in the 3 4 5 verses For rulers are not a terrour to good works but evil and he is the minister of God to thee for good reply That Rulers so long as they are not a terrour to the good but minister for our good are not to be resisted the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the Powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good and just If it be replyed that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some I answer 1. This is a new exception never heard of I think but in these times 2. It is groundlesse and against the Text for the reasons of the prohibition in the 3 4 5 6 verses are perpetuall from that order that good for which the Powers are ordained of God which will be of force as long as there is government and will alwayes be reasons against resistence because resistence though it be made against abused Powers as then they were doth tend to the dissolution of that order for which the power it selfe is set up of God By which also that other distinction of theirs is made void when as they reply as they think acutely That they resist not the power but the abuse of the power It is also answered by some that the Emperours then were absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted I answer They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily which should have according to the principles of these dayes been a stronger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the government and was not the right of the people and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crown descending by three Conquests And this I speak not to win an Arbitrary power or such as Conquerours use unto this Crown but onely to shew that resistence can be no more made against the Kings of England then it could against those Emperours Nay with lesse reason against them then these Lastly it is replyed That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law but the Religion contended for is established by Law I answer But is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it Shall the Apostles prohibition be good against Christians in the behalfe of actuall Tyrants persecuting that Religion and not against Subjects freely enjoying the Religion established Or may Protestants upon a jealousie resist a Protestant King professing the same Religion and promising to conserve it entire to them 2. The prohibition does not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperours and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced upon them and they according to the principles of these dayes might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition and the Laws then forced
two of them without the third which as it is for the securitie of the Commonwealth for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine the evills of these dayes do shew so is this power of denying for the security of each State against other of the Commons against the King and Lords of the Lords against them and must the King trust onely and not be trusted Must not he also have his securitie against the other which he cannot have but by Power of denying This is that Temper of the three Estates in Parliament the due observing whereof in the moderate use of this power of denying is the reasonable means of this States safety but now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three Estates is restrained usually to the two Houses but also that Temper is dissolved I need not speak it the distractions and convulsions of the whole Commonwealth as the distempers in a naturall body do sufficiently shew such a dissolution and what 's the cause of it If it be replyed as it is for the reasonablenesse of these meanes of safety through that Power of resisttence and the final trust reposed in the representative body of the people That many see more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one Answ. True But 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction Why shovld an hundred in the House of Commons see more then three hundred or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of indiffereent judgement and withdrawn 2. Reason doth suppose That the Prince though one sees with the eyes of many yea with their eyes who are of different judgement from him for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Councell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them and albeit he sometimes dissents from the Major or Prevailing part because he is convinced in his own judgement they seek themselves nor his or the Publike good or for other reasons that may perswade him against their Vote yet have all times thought good to have Kings and to reduce the judgement of many unto one The Government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still first in Moses then in the Judges then in the Kings yea generally all Authors yeild and experience ha's taught it That Monarchy is a better government then Aristocracy because the Tyranny and Miscarriage of one sometime happening in a Monarchy is nothing so dangerous as Oligarchy Faction and Division usually incident to Aristocracy or the Government by many equalls Again as all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy which settles the chief power and finall judgement in One so will there be alwayes sufficient reason to withhold the King from a wilfull deniall of his Consent to the free and unanimous Vote of his Houses he cannot but see there will alwayes be some necessary good accrewing to him by his Parliament that will keep him in all reason from doing so and no cases can be put or inconveniences feared upon his Power of denying but greater and more eminent will appeare upon his not having it as ha's been insinuated and now do follow Fourthly therefore and lastly we answer Such power of resistence would be no fit means of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the disease This is very plain by the drift of the Apostles reason which he gave against resistence in the 3 4 5 6. v. of the 13. to the Rom. in which we may consider that although the Powers then were altogether unjust tyrannicall subverters of true Religion nothing answerable to the end for which the Governing Power is ordained yet doth the Apostle draw his reasons against the resisting of them from that good that justice that order for which God hath set up the higher Powers to insinuate that the resisting of the higher Powers even when they are so does tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Commonwealth and this not onely because there is still order under tyranny but chiefly because if it were good and lawfull to resist the power when abused it would open a way to the people upon the like pretences to resist and overthrow even Powers duely administred for the executing of wrath upon them that do evill I enter this dicourse not to cast the least blemish upon Parliaments which are an onely remedy for distempers of the Kingdome not to reflect upon the intentions of those that are yet resident in that high Court unto God the judge of all they stand or fall not to raise jealousies but to settle Conscience and in the way of reasoning to shew according to the Apostles reasons what dangers and evills may ensue upon this power of resistence For first of all This power of resistence if admitted and pursued may proceed to a change of Government the Principles that now are gone upon and have carried it so farre as we see at this day may also lead it on to that greatest of evils And I have heard and seen it defended by the example of the Low-countreys how they excuse it throughly I examine not but this I am sure they can say That their Prince succeeding in the right of the Duke of Burgundie was admitted upon other conditions then the Kings of England are also that a contrary religion was enforced upon them by a terrible Inquisition whereas they that do resist the higher Powers here do freely enjoy their religion and have the Princes promise and protestation for it Secondly This Power of resistence when used and pursued is accompanied with the evils of Civil warre Former times shew it and how little was gained by it beside the expence of bloud as when all was referred to the rule and disposing of the 12 Peeres how long lasted it what security had the State by it and at this day we feel and groan under the evils brought upon us through this power of resistence the Law silenced the Property and Libertie of the subject every where invaded and the Lord knows when or how we shall be restored to them or better secured in them by this way Thirdly We see the danger if as it is now said for the justifying of this power of resistence The King will not discharge his trust and therefore it fals to the representative body of the people to see to it so the People being discontented and having gotten power shall say The Members of the two Houses do not discharge the trust committed to them they do not that for which they were chosen and sent for then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them take the Power to themselves it being claimed by them and say to them as Numb. 16. Ye take too much upon you or as Cade and Tylar boast themselves Reformers of the Common-wealth overthrow King
omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous consent of the whole State and that it should be onely Legitima defensio a meer defensive resistence and these laid down not that I admit resistence however conditioned for all that I have said before doth altogether condemn it but according to their own grants that plead for it To this purpose it is that they say the King is Vniversis minor lesse then the whole State and every body naturally defends it self Therefore if a contention be between the Plead and the Body it must in all reason be the whole Body that is set against it and if there be such an appearing against the supreme Power as tends to resistence the consent and judgement of the whole Kingdom must be against him or else every prevailing faction might indanger the State by causing such changes and evils as now it 's threatned with This is the reason of this unreasonable power of resistence in the people Well then how shall Conscience he perswaded that this resistence was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States assembled in the two Houses such as in this case may be called the judgement of the whole kingdome He that knows how the Militia in which this resistence chiefly began was brought in with what opposition especially in the Lords house and by what number there at length was voted also how the like proceedings of resistence that have been voted since are declared against by a greater number of each House then do remain in either such as have been cast out or withdrawn themselves upon dislike of these proceedings can he I say that knows this and who knows it not that hath eyes and eares be in Conscience perswaded that this is such an unanimous free and generall consent the judgement of the whole kingdome For though a Vote passed by a few upon the place ha's the power and condition of a Vote for the formality of Law yet if the question be Was this passed in full assemblies Was it freely and generally carried Did they all unanimously as one man consent unto it Conscience cannot be convinced there is such efficacy in the place as to make a few the whole or their agreement to be that judgement of the whole kingdome that unanimous consent which must be in the case of resistence by their acknowledgement that plead for it For were it in this case to be held for the judgement of the whole which is passed by a few then would the State be unreasonably exposed to that danger above mentioned which every prevailing faction might bring upon it under the pretence of the judgement of the whole kingdome Again is Conscience cannot be truely perswaded that this resistence is agreed upon with such a generall and unanimous consent as they themselves pretend to which pleade for this resistence so can it not be truely perswaded that this resistence is such for the meer defensive way of it as it ought to be according to their grants and pretences that appear for it Conscience here will see how to resolve upon the triall of these two particulars Whether the King or they be upon the defensive part then Whether the managing of this warre or resistence on their parts be so void of hostile acts as the defensive way which they pretend to ought to be Conscience will discern whether part is upon the defensive by inquiring First Who were first in Arms He that can number the succession of weeks and moneths in his Almanack may decide this He shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull the Kings Arms seized against his will the Militia set up and by that the Kings Subjects drawn into Arms before the King had any thing to oppose but Proclamations that subscriptions for Plate Money Horse that listing of souldiers for the field and appointing of Officer of the Army were begun upon their part before His Majesty did the like Now resistence doth in the word it self and in their pretence presuppose a power and force first made against them where as it is plain they were still upon the preventing and forehand with the Kinâ— still shewed him example for what he has done since in the way of Warre yet must the people believe he raises the Warre and they are upon defence But Conscience will not be so forced Secondly by inquiring what is the câ—â—se of these Arms What do they contend for And though it be clear that if Subjects be first in Aâ—â—s they cannot be upon the defensive yet the consideration of the cause will more apparantly convince it when Conscience shall see it is not for what is pretended but for something the King ha's right to deny that this resistence is made The preservation of Religion and Liberties is pretended but can it be for either The King denyes them not Their Religon they freely enjoy and was it ever known that Subjects should rise in Arms against their Prince for a Religion which he promiseth to maintain Or does Religion stand in need of a defense which it self condemnes a defence which would be a perpetuall scandall to it If therefore Religion be the pretence but no cause of Warre then is the Warre raised on their part the King is upon the defensive Or can it be for antient Rights and undoubted Priviledges that they contend The King denyes them not promiseth all security so he may enjoy his own and God forbid that either He or they should suffer in their just Rights But would any man ever have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their Liberties What shall we then think of this geneall Revolt from Allegiance that ha's possessed well-near ten Tribes of twelve They suppose he will not make good his promises and therefore they will make all sure seize his Arms and Forts strip him of all and if begin to stirre for his own Right and Dignity then the people must be made to believe he makes warre against his Parliament intends to destroy their Liberties But can any man in Conscience think his Majesty since the beginning of this breach was ever in such a Condition of strength as might threaten the Libertie of the Subject or destroy Parliaments when as it was long ere he could with much ado attain to any reasonable means of subsistence or to such a strength whereby he might seem to be able to defend himself To speak the truth Religion and Liberties can be no other then the pretences of this Warre the King ha's fortified them so with many Acts of Grace passed this Parliament that they cannot be in that danger which is pretended for the raising of this Warr It must be something that his Majesty does indeed deny for which the contention is raised That we shall find to be His Power of Arms and ordering the Militia of the Kingdome His Power of denying in Parliament His disposing of the
offices of State and such like Also the Government of the Church and the Revenue of it In the three former he challenges his right as his Predecessours had the other he is bound by Oath to maintaine as by Law they are established Well if these be attempted and his Majesty will not be forced from them cannot yeild them up but it comes to Arms then will Conscience easily be convinced the King is upon the defensive for the maintaining of what he justly holds his right or is bound by Oath to defend And if we hearken to the peoples voice for that commonly speaks the mind of their leaders we shall hear them usually call this Warre as they did that with the Scots The Bishops Warre His Majesty has indeed alwayes declared against the altering of the Government of the Church by Bishops being such as it alwayes had since the first receiving of the Christian Faith in this land and of all other Governments simply the best if reformed from abuses and corruptions that have grown upon it to the purging out of which His Majesty is alwayes ready to agree But be it the Bishops Warre though the abolishing of that Government be but one of the many inconveniences which this Power of resistence doth threaten this Land with and which the King has reason by Power of Arms to divert whether is it so just in Subjects by Arms to force a change of Government which was alwayes in the Church and by Law established as it is in the King to defend the same as he is bound by Oath it is clear which of the two are upon the defensive The second particular by which the defensive way of this resistance is to be examined was the managing of this Warre on their parts whether so void of acts of Hostility as that defensive way should be which they pretend to Davids resistence made against Saul is frequently alledged by them which example though it will not countenance their cause as was shewed before yet might it tell them their demeanor should be answerable He offered no act of violence to Saul but still gave place and withdrew from him the Spear indeed and the Cruse David tooke away from the Kings head but it was onely to shew Abners neglect who had the Command of Sauls Militia and to testifie his own integrity therefore he restored them before they were demanded 1 Sam 26. But now the Kings Spear and his Cruse his Ammunition and His necessary Provisions are taken away intercepted not restored though often demanded used against Him with all advantage nay he is stript of the very Power and Command of Arms His Officers and Ministers thrust out and other substituted and by them His People drawn into Arms against Him Also by these that are in resistence against the King His Loyall and Peaceable Subjects are assaulted despoiled of their Arms Goods Estates their Persons Imprisoned because they would according to their Allegiance assist Him in this extremity or would not contrary to their Conscience joyn with them against Him What Conscience that will not follow this way with a stupid implicit faith can be perswaded that this Warre is the defence of the Subjects Liberties and not rather an oppugnation of them or that it is a meer resistence or withstanding of a force first made against them and not rather a violent illation or bringing in of force upon those that were disposed to Peace Therefore no Conscience that ha's a sense of Religion or of that which is just and right between Man and Man can beare a part in this resistence for fear of that sentence of damnation which the Apostle ha's laid upon it SECT. VII BUt in the last place if Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull upon such a case as they make to take Arms and resist and that this rising in Arms is such a defensive resistence as in such a case they seem to pretend to yet how will it be perswaded that the Case is now that is That the King is such as the people must be made to believe he is unles it will as desperately offend against the rule of Charitie in so concluding upon the King as it does against the rule of Faith and Perswasion in admitting so uugrounded a principle as is now rested on for resistence so that such a Conscience shall have in its perswasion neither certainty of Rule for the principle it goes on is false nor certainty of the Case for it knows not the heart of the King to conclude for resistence upon supposals of his intentions and in its judgement it will be altogether void of Charitie Indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant Subverter of Religion and Laws a Person not to be trusted or at least as one seduced to such evil designes by wicked Counsel But what Hath this King forbid the exercise of the Religion established or left off to professe it himselfe hath he disclaimed his trust or not upon all occasions promised justice and libertie to his Subjects Yea but they have cause to fear Popery will prevail and that he will not stand to his promises It seems thy are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion they are so ready to fly to Arms to secure themselves But shall subjects rise in Arms against their Prince upon such remote fears and jealousies as these will appear to be When can such be wanting in turbulent minds When shall the Prince be assured of safety This was the way that David himself was shaken out of his Throne and driven from Jerusalem by Absolom This cunning Rebell steals away their hearts by raysing jealousies in them and an evill opinion of Davids government 2. Sam. 15. 3. Some ground it seems he had for his treacherous plea through the negligence of those that were under David but it was his villanie to make use of it to the alienating of the People from their King Accordingly let us now consider what slender grounds our People have for their fears and jealousies then what security they have and mightt have against them that it may appear how causelesse those jealousies are in themselves how unjust causes of this resistence If we examine the fears and jealousies that have possessed the People we shall find them to be raised upon these or the like grounds Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in The Queens Religion The resort of Papists to His Majesty His intercepting of means sent for the reliefe of Ireland from whence the People by their good teachers are made to believe that He means to enslave this People re-establish Popery and does comply with the Rebels In answer to all which I needed not to say more then what Michael the Arch-Angell to the Devill that arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee Jude 9. but in particular For such reports of invasion from
intends not as He promises and thereupon to resolve for resistence No it will direct it self by the rule of Charity which is not rashly to conclude upon the Heart which it knoweth not or to think any evill and if the difference be betwixt two as in this cause it will hold the rule of indifferency impartially to consider the actions of both Conscience therefore that it may be informed of His Majesties intentions will it look upon him at such a distance as London and reade him onely in those horrid relations that issue thence and conceive of Him as they report Him to the People or will it consider some failings that necessity ha's inforced or other accidentall occurrences have occasioned and from these conclude intentions in Him contrary to all His Promises and Protestations This would be too partiall too uncharitable Conscience ought alwayes to be tender in judging upon other Mens intentions especially those of the Prince and those to be concluded as evill and to be made a ground for resistence which runs the hazard of Damnation In the 2. Chron. c. 21. 10. Libnah is said to revolt from the King of Judah because he had forsaken the Lord a Text that is objected to us and should have been answered in the first part but it is impertinent as all the rest are for it neither proves the principle That it is lawfull for the People to revolt when the King forsakes Religion but shews that such revolt is a punishment from God upon such a King though a sinne in the people Nor doth it come home to the Case for there the King had forsaken here is onely supposall that he will and that groundlesse and unconscionable too For as there was enough in David to clear those jealousies upon which that rebellion of the People following Absolom was grounded so is there on the Kings part to direct Conscience against this desperate uncharitable judgement if it look at those many Acts of Grace as new additions to that security by which this State ha's so long stood and from them conclude He would not in a faire way deny any thing reasonable If it consider those many promises strengthened with the deepest Protestations enforced with desires of successe from God according to His just intentions and all these as proceeding from a King under such affliction in such danger after such successe and experience of Gods protection approving thereby the reality and sincerity of his heart What Conscience can here conclude contrary intentions in him and not think it blasphemeth God and the King Furthermore as Conscience will not be uncharitable when it judgeth upon the intentions of another mans heart so neither will it be partiall when it judgeth between two unto which of them it should incline and therefore he that is abused to believe amisse of his King and solicited to enter this way of resistence is highly concerned first to consider Whether they also that are the main directors of it and to whom he would adhere to discharge their trust they are called to I say such an one unlesse he will resigne up his faith to men and receive their dictates as the immediate rule of his Conscience must consider whether all be just and honest that is done in that way Whether to divest the King of the Power of Arms and to use them against him be to defend his Person Rights and Dignity Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this resistence and the imprisoning of their persons for deniall be the maintaining of the Right and Liberty of the Subject Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines with such liberty and to commit unsufferable outrages upon the publike worship of God with such licentiousnesse be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church All these duties every Subject respectively is bound to discharge and the neglect of them his Majesty has chiefly charged upon those that he conceives the chief Directors and Actours in this resistance made against him and every man in Conscience ought seriously to consider it The necessity of the Commonwealth is pretended to defend the not-defending of the premises when as no necessity may excuse any failings on the Kings part as if his promises by which he stands obliged to his Subjects did not suppose they for their parts also should perform I know not how some particular men may be engaged and contract a necessity of resisting or seeking safety by Arms but I am perswaded no man in Conscience can think it a necessity of the Commonwealth to have all confounded or of a Christian to run the hazard of damnation by resisting My Conscience tells me and Qwill theirs one day tell them how much they have to answer for not improving that grace and willingnesse they had experience of in His Majesty and might still have found in him to the speedy and happy Reformation of this Church and State I pray God to give them Consciences truly inlightned and bowels truely compassionate that they may speedily and feelingly be sensible of the miseries this Land groanes under and faithfully examine how far they are answerable for them by rejecting such reasonable means of security as they might have 〈◊〉 for the safety of this State Amen And now if there be any one that will run the hazard of this resistence I desire he would first set his Conscience before the Tribunall of God where it must appear and consider whether it will excuse him there when he ha's shed the blood of others and expended his own to say I verily supposed and believed my Prince would change Religion overthrow our Liberties I must tell him it will not be safe for him to present such a Conscience at that Barre a Conscience that wanted the rule of Faith to warrant and perswade the lawfulnesse of resistence upon such a supposall a Conscience that wanted the certainty of perswasion that the Princes Heart which God onely knows was so inclined a Conscience that wanted the Judgement of Charity in concluding such intentions in the King notwithstanding all His Promises and deepest Protestations made in the time of His trouble without which Charity all is nothing though he layes down as he thinks his Life for Religion Such a Conscience I must needs conclude sinfull and liable to that which the Apostle threatens vnto Resistence Damnation FINIS 1. Cor. 13. Psal. 82 Ps. 18. 35. Rom. 13. 2. 1 Sam. 14. 2. Chron. 26. K. Iohn Eccles. 10.