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
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
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
cruel bloodshed and the outragiousnesse of war as much as in them lies which they see in all probability may follow upon giving the aversary that advantage he desires though the standers by see not the cunning of it 2. Great care must be had in the propositions of conditions about peace We reade 1 Sam. 11. 2. when the men of Jabesh Gilead would make a covenant with Nahash he told thē that upon this condition he would make a covenant with them that he might thrust out all their right eyes and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel 3. You must be sure you make such a peace as you may confide in it so as you may not be afterwards at the mercie of your adversaries whether they will keep the conditions yea or no you must take heede of disinabling your selves to maintain what your conditions of agreement bind to especially if you have to deale with Papists whose principle is that no faith is to be kept with Heretiques and for the Catholique cause leagues may be broke if your peace hinder your strength to maintain your right what security can you have in your peace one moneth 4. As things now stand great care had neede bee taken that the hearts of people who have shewne themselves forward venturing their lives exhausting their estates may not be discouraged lest if Parliamennts ever neede the people again they never finde them appeare for them stick to them and cases may fall out that there may be neede of the peoples standing by them hereafter as well as now or else their priviledges may soone vanish and their power be over-powred and so come to nothing Wee know how soon authority is contemned where power is not joyned with authority But do not our adversaries grow stronger then we if so it is in vain for us to oppose It is impossible to conceive they should except the Kingdome be so besotted as never yet any Kingdome was upon the face of the earth For 1. How can men of understanding who have estates in the Kingdome and have posteritie to live here imagine that the Kingdome should be better governed by the King with those Cavalliers about him then by the King with his Parliament 2. If the Parliament should now be over-powred and spoiled because they have gone according to their consciences for the good of the Kingdom must not all Parliaments hereafter lye at mercie 3. If these men prevaile is there not danger lest things should be carried as they please if they get power into their hands who knows but that they wil presume to give Laws to us that things shal be done according to their minds rather then the Kings doth not the King forbid plunderings now yet do they not plunder as they please if then they get power into their hands fully what will not they do then These things being so obvious to every mans thoughts that one can hardly bee a man to understand any thing but he must needes think of those things how then is it possible that the Kingdome should not generally rise with a spirit of indignation against these men who are thus risen up to make such spoile and waste in the Kingdome Although they doe not yet stir in many places hoping there may be some help of these things some other way but if they see there be no other help it cannot be conceived but this spirit of indignation must rise through out the Kingdome men will never suffer themselves to be baffled out of their Religion their liberties their estates on this fashion They will never so unworthily desert those whom they have chosen and betrusted with their estates liberties and lives those who have been so faithfull to them spending their strength in their indefatigable labours night and day wasting their estates and hazarding their lives for them wherefore it cannot be imagined that the adversaries should ever gather more strength then we 2. Suppose they could be more in number yet considering how vile and wicked what notorious blasphemers and cursers they are they are not much to be feared Plutarch reports of one Cyneas discoursing of the opinions of the Epicurians that they thought the gods tooke no care of had no regard of mens doings and that the onely happinesse was to live in pleasure for so the gods themselves did Fabritius hearing this cryed aloud and said The gods grant that Pyrrus and the Samnites were of such opinions as long as they have wars against us Supposing that if they were thus and had such vile opinions of the gods they could never prosper to doe any great matter We dare not say thus of our adversaries God grant that they continue thus vile and blasphemous as they are No we pray if it be possible that they may see how they fight against God that their hearts may be changed but yet we are of this beliefe that Fabritius was of that whilest they are so wicked and speak so vilely of God and blaspheme his name so as they doe that they are not much to be feared they wil never be able to doe any great matters the wrath of the Almighty will pursue them 3. And lastly if they should get more in number yet if our cause be Christs which is cleare to us for our consciences tell us we desire not we endeavour not the wrong of any man living much lesse of our King we then have Christ with us And as Antigonus once said to his souldiers when they said that their enemies were more in number Why how many doe you reckon me for So I may say in this case How many doe you reckon Jesus Christ for If he be not with us let us lay down all presently Wel but we are sure for the present there is a wofull disturbance in the Kingdom and mens estates are consumed in the extreme charge of these Wars and what shall we think will become of things at last It is true when a bone is out of joynt there is much pain but if the care be not of setting it right the very setting will breed much more pain There is much disturbance but it is onely the breaking out of what hath layn in the plots and secret workings of our adversaries a long time It was once the speech of Lysonder that if the Lyons skin will not serve we must help it with the Foxes Contrary now it is with our adversaries The Foxes would not doe the deed and therefore now they put on the Lyons It is well for us that things break out when there may be help to resist our condition was as dangerous though not so troublesome before now our disturbance is but the noyse of resisting a deluge of evil that was flowing in upon us That man certainly is not a wise man that is not willing the flouds comming in upon him should not bee stopped because the stopping of them will make a noise 2. But consider
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
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
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
malice and rage against us yea against Christ himselfe and his Saints 13. The spirit of valour and courage is also from this Lord of Hosts When the Spirit of the Lord came upon Sampson Gideon and others of the Worthies of the Lord what great things did they Heb. 11. 33 34. Who through faith subdued Kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lyons out of weaknesse were made strong waxed valiant in sight turned to slight the Armies of the Aliens It was through faith they were enabled to doe all this faith fetcht valour and courage from this Lord of Hosts Hag. 1. 14. The Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel and the spirit of Joshua and the spirit of all the Remnant of the people and they came and did worke in the house of the Lord of Hosts their God It was a warlike spirit to resist their enemies to encounter with dangers God hath stirred up a spirit in many of our Nobles in our Worthies of Parliament in some of our people if a spirit were now stirred up in the remnant of our people our worke would soone bee at an end It were the unworthiest yea the most horrible thing that ever was in this world that now people should forsake Nobility those they have chosen in Parliament and Ministers who have had a spirit to stand up for God and their liberties Oh that a spirit of indignation would arise in the whole Kingdome that they may not suffer themselves to be baffled out of their Religion their Liberties their estates by a generation of vile men that are risen up amongst us Zac. 10. 3 5. The Lord of Hosts hath visited his flock the house of Judah and hath made them as his goodly horse in the battel They shall be as mighty men which tread down their enemies in the mire of the streets in the battel It seems they presumed to come into their towns and Cities therefore sayes the Text They shall tread them down us mire in the streets They are vile and therefore to be trodden down as mire in the streets The spirits of those that seem to be the greatest terror amongst us are mean and base What worthy thing have they ever done have they ever stood before those that opposed them All their valour is in going up and down to Countrey houses in a poore unworthy manner pillaging and pilfring A spirit in people raised by God would scorne to be brought under by men of such spirits as these Further as God gives a spirit of courage so he takes it away when he pleases Is 19. 16. And in that day shall Egypt be like unto women and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the Lord of Hosts which he shaketh over it and the land of Judah shal be a terror unto Egypt every one that maketh mention thereof shal be afraid in himself because of the counsell of the Lord of Hosts It may be they will not confesse that they are afraid but may make their boast as if they had got the better but marke the words every one shall be afraid in himself If we could look into their bosoms we should see blacknes tremblings the terror of the Lord upon them Ps 76. 5 The stout hearted are spoiled they have slept their sleep none of the men of might have found their hands at thy rebuke O Lord the horse chariot are cast into a dead sleep and v. 12. He shal cut off the spirit of Princes he is terrible to the Kings of the earth he shall wipe them off as a man will doe a flower between his fingers or as easily as a bunch of grapes is cut off from the vine 14. The Lord of Hosts hath the absolute power over all weapons in battel to let them prosper or not prosper as he pleaseth This is beyond all the Generals in the world Isay 54. 17. No weapons formed against thee shall prosper If any shal say This is a speciall promise to them at that time mark what follows This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord This that is this promise of the Lord is the inheritance of his servants Now we of late have had the benefit of this our inheritance the last Lords day fortnight we did inherit this promise when there were 17. Canons discharged from the Adversary and not one man slain by them How was this made good that no weapon formed against thee shall prosper The adversary was enraged at this they said they thought the devil was in the powder No it was God that was there fulfilling this promise of his to his servants 15. All the successe in battels is from the Lord of Hosts It is not in men nor ammunition nor in advantages Eccles 9. 11. The battel is not to the strong A horse is but a vaine thing for safety Psal 33. 17. Behold is it not of the Lord of Hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity Hab. 2. 13. Yea lastly the whole battel is the Lords when it is a just cause 1 Sam. 17. 47. The battel is the Lords Now you see what the Scripture saith about Gods providence in battel You have the summe presented here together in which is a full and strong encouragement to those who fight the battels of the Lord. Now if the Question be asked Why doth the Lord thus work in Armies The Answer is 1. Because the lives of men are precious to him In them multitudes of creatures are cast for their eternall estates If not a sparrow not a haire from the head falls to the ground without providence much lesse the life of a creature appointed for eternity 2. Because of the great things of consequence that depend upon War the mighty turnes of Nations and changes of Kingdoms depend upon them But how comes it to passe seeing God is thus The Lord of Hosts that yet the adversaries of Gods people doe often prevaile in battel 1. It is for the chastisement of his people Ashur is made sometimes the rod of Gods anger Jer. 12. 7. I have given the dearly beloved of my soule into the hands of her enemies She is the dearly beloved of Gods soule yet she is given into the hands of her enemies We must not judge by the present prevailing that God loves those who have the day and hath rejected those who seeme to have the worst God sometimes for chastisement brings the worst of men upon them Ezek. 7. 24. I will bring the worst of the heathen and they shall possesse their houses The Lord hath raised up against us many that are the worst the vilest upon the face of the earth and they have possessed the houses of many of his Saints the dearly beloved of Gods soule We use to take the vilest the worst of men to be Hangmen the worst rags and clouts to scoure withall It is an argument that we are very foule
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
if the other party prevailes I am undone if I be not yea although I should do something for that party yet the Parliament will never do me any great hurt It is true the lenity of the Parliament on the one side and the cruelty of the other party on the other side hath been a great prejudice to the one and advantage to the other How many delinquents that have been complained of and brought up with great charge to the countrey yet have gone away insulting but whosoever comes under the power of the other either must yeeld or is undone yea it may bee undone though then hee yeeldes What blood hath beene of late shed by them even in coole blood But how unreasonable is this so to reason The Parliament is more just and gentle the other more cruell and mischievous therefore I will leave the Parliament to sink for any help it shall have from me and joyne my selfe with the other party God will judge these evill thoughts of yours and yet you may be mistaken in this your device to save your estate you may prove false to the Parliament and yet your estates not so safe as you thinke it may befall you as it hath done others that when these plunderers come to you if you tell them you are for the King you are no Round-head then they reason thus with you If you be indeed for the King you will be willing to have your estates goe to be helpefull to him and so they may reason you out of all you have and so you may be deceived of what you aimed at by discovering your selves not to be Round-heads Whatsoever you be yet if they prevaile your goods will be found to be Round-heads They are a little faire mannered now and then as yet because they have not the day but if once the day be theirs and they have power in their hands then they will call your goods by what name they please Platina tels us that when the citizens of Papia in Italy were at dissention by reason of the faction betweene the Guelphes and the Gibellines The Gibellines procured a favourer of theirs called Facinus Cajus to assist them covenanting that hee should have the goods of the Guelphes for his labour but he being once come into the Citie and prevailing he spared the goods of neither of them whereupon the Gibellines complained saying that their goods also were spoiled he answered them that they themselves were Gibellines but their goods were Guelphes You may perhaps be Royalists but your goods will be Round-heads Job 27. 8. What hope hath an hypocrite though he hath gained when God taketh away his soule If men by hypocriticall devises should gaine as they desire yet when God takes away their souls what good have they then But how miserable then will it be for them when God curses them for the present and when their soules are taken away at last what hope can they have then It is just that the curse of God should pursue them who will be of any side for their own advantage Ro. Hoved. fo 438. reports of Brabantes called Rutters that they would serve on any side for wages therefore they are called by Hoveden Nefando gens and he saies they were accursed in the Lateran Councell Whereupon the conclusion from all is There is nothing required of you in this service by both Houses of Parliament but what you may with a good conscience undertake by Commission from this great Generall The Lord of Hosts Be not therefore daunted with such words as those What will you fight against the King If you fight against the King who doe you fight for surely it must be for his enemies and who are they You know and all the world may know you fight for none but the Parliament and the Kingdome what shall the Parliament and the Kingdome be accounted enemies to the King how can they be under his protection if they be his enemies and if the King should put them out of his protection what doe you thinke would follow upon this No certainly when things come to be examined you see there is no such matter No this businesse is for no hurt to the King Those men who goe up and downe pillaging and plundring and doing mischiefe to all extremity wheresoever they come who make a spoile of this Kingdome and that of Ireland and all under the name of the King These are the men who wrong the King rendring him to the Subject as if he were another Maxentius who reduced the City of Rome into such a condition as there was no forrest of theeves wherein the lives of Citizens were not more safe then in their houses In his Orations he made to his souldiers no words were more frequent then these Fruimini dissipate prodigite Enjoy riot spend These men doe what lyes in them to put men upon examining Whether the relation between King and people may not possibly be broke Whether Kingly power be such an indelible character upon any person as nothing can ever possibly put it out Whether that which is by compact and covenant do not bind mutually Are not they then like to perjudice the King more then any If there be any possibity of such thoughts risen in people what can occasion them sooner then the doing such open violence and committing such outrages aganst the Subjects in all places and that with boldnesse and confidence in the name of the King If it were as they say if people did beleeve these men it might cause strange thoughts of heart in them even such thoughts as these How can we bee in a worse condition under any What hath God tyed us if once a supreame Governor be acknowledged that he must ever be acknowledged Whatsoever he doth against us even to destroy us Where doth the Scripture say so It need be a very cleare Scripture that shall tye us to this to lie down under such intollerable burdens as these are to see our ruine the ruine of our wives chileren before our faces We must not resist those who have high power True so long as they goe according to their power given them or as long as they have it but may they not possibly be discharged of it Resisting the Priests is condemned in Scripture what can nothing therfore discharge the Priest of his priestly office and my acknowledging of his priestly power What did our forefathers so far give all power out of their hands as they have not left us so much as the benefit of the Law of Nature to help our selves withall What hath God made such difference between man and man as that one should spoile and destroy and do what he list and whole Kingdomes should lie downe under him and say nothing and doe nothing to helpe themselves Hath God made all the world to bee under the lusts of twenty or thirty men Nature hath not made such a difference betweene one man and another wee
earth With what infinite indignation must God needs look upon such vile wormes who dare resist such a glorious Majesty as he is God can but speak to any humour of thy body and it shall make thee lye roaring out in anguish and grievous torture thy life shall be more bitter then death unto thee This God may give commission to the next crumbe of bread and it shall choak thee and send thee down to hell God himselfe is against thee he walks contrary to thee in all his Attributes The swords point of his infinite Justice is at thine heart All the creatures of God stand ready armed against thee and would fly upon thee if God did but give out the word The Angels stand prepared Lord shall but one of us goe and cut off that wretch who dares presume to blaspheme thy name to lift up himselfe against thee As Abishai said to David 2 Sam. 16. 9. Why should this dead dog curse my Lord the King let me goe and take off his head The Ayre cryes Lord shall I conveigh infection into his body and poyson him The Water Shall I stop his breath The Fire shall I seize on him and burne him The earth Shall I open and swallow him up The beasts of the field Shall we run upon him and tear him Thy meat thy drink Shall we choak him or be bane to him Thou art in the midst of Gods Hosts compassed about on every side 1 Chron. 13. 14. When Judah looked back behold the battel was before and behind and they cryed unto the Lord. Look about thee oh distressed soule and see the Hosts of the Lord before thee and behind thee and cry to the Lord. Certainly there is no creature neere thee but thou hast cause to looke upon it with a shaking heart thou knowest not but that it may be thy ruine sent of God to cut thee off that thou mightest go to thine owne place Certainly it cannot be but ere long some creature or other will break in upon thee and be an executioner of Gods wrath upon thee if not prevented by thy repentance When God awakens a guilty conscience every creature is terrible to it the wrath of God is seene in the face of every creature Cain cryes out Every one that meets me will kill me Why Who was there in the world then to kill him not many besides his father and mother and yet every one will kill him especially if it be some extraordinary work of God in the heavens or seas or elsewhere as in extreame thunder stormes and tempests or the like how terrible is that to such a conscience as to Caligula and others The Prophet Elisha prayed to God to open the eyes of his servant to see Gods Hosts about him to deliver him from feare my prayer is that God would open thine eyes that thou mayst see Gods Hosts about thee that thou mayst feare if thy eyes were open it would be with thee as it was with those who came there against Elisha when their eyes were opened they saw themselves in the midst of Samaria in the midst of their enemies Certainly so long as God is thine enemy all creatures in heaven earth are thine enemies Wherefore consider how unable thou art to stand out against this glorious God lay down thy weapons of enmity cry out bitterly of thy desperate folly make it thy great work above all things in the world to make up thy peace with him God yet offers mercy to thee as Alexander did those he warred against while the Lamp burned If they staid untill it was out there was nothing but bloud expected The Lamp of thy life is stil burning come in that thy soule may live There is no standing out against this God he will have glory from thee in spight of thy heart FINIS A briefe Answer to Doctor Fernes Booke tending to resolve Conscience about the Subjects taking up of Arms. By JER BURROUGHES THere came to my hand a Book of D. Fern tending to resolve Conscience in the case of the Subjects taking up Armes I find it carryed on without giving any ill termes but in saw expressions sutable to a Treatise that concernes Conscience and the more likely to prevail with it Onely now and then some bitternes breakes forth I shall very briefly yet faithfully give you the strength of it Where he speakes right I will acknowledge it and where he mistakes I will fairly discusse and shew you whence the mistakes arise I confesse he hath great advantage in the subject because it is for the King 1. Because it is safer to plead for the King though a man mistakes but if there be a mistake in lessening the Kings right a man endangers his utter undoing 2. Truth about this argument hath alwayes been tenderly handled those who have pleaded for the King have with courage vented themselves to the utmost but others have been forced to be silent or else but even to whisper and speak halfe out lest they presently meet with not arguments but things of another nature to answer them In which regard the power of Kings hath been raised to the height and men have drunk in such opinions of absolute power in them as they have heard confidently affirmed practised and seen in Books and feeled by many taxations and censures but whatsoever might informe them hath layne in the darke not daring to appeare Therefore well might the D. call what now people begin to heare and enquire after a new doctrine it is an old truth but newly discovering it self The name of King hath taken such impression in the hearts of people that for a while they will be prejudiced against whatsoever may but sound of limiting his power or maintaining our right against it What there is in the Epistle that may prejudice any mans conscience will be answered in what follows Preamble to SECT I. SO many good people that are come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse are miserably carryed away by a strange implicite saith to beleeve whatsoever is said or done in the name of the Parliament c. to be infallibly true and just It seems those who have not a sense of Religion do not so easily beleeve the truth and justice of what is done in the name of the Parliament This is most certaine who are hardest to beleeve what the Parliament sayes but Papists and notorious blasphemers and prophane livers I condemne not all but compare the generality of the one side and of the other you shall finde an apparent difference in the lives of the one from the lives of the other Yea so it is now that if a man as heretofore were not prophane or loose at least or zealous for ceremonies he was accounted a Puritan so now a Round-head that is in their ordinary interpretation one for the Parliament If it be said This is because Religion is pretended on the Parliaments side So it is on the other with as loud a cry
who knowes what he would have done but we are sure as it is it is defensive and that is all it is to prove that Subjects may take up Arms â—o defend themselves against the injustice of their Kings For that example of David at Keilah all the answer to that is that it is an uncertain supposition But examine the place you shall finde it as certain as a supposition can be It appeares plainly that David had some expectation that the men of Keilah would have stood to him and kept oft Saul comming against him and if they would it is apparent by the Text that David would have stood to it though Saul had come against him In the Text it is as plain as this Suppose the King were neere Hull going a-against Sir J. Hotham and Sir J. Hotham should seek to make sure of the men of Hul and enquire whether they would deliver him or not if the King came and he should come to know that certainly they would and upon that very ground slies away is this now an uncertaine supposition that Sir John Hotham would willingly have the Town stand to him and if they would stand to him he would stay there and defend himselfe against the Kings forces Hi last answer to Davids example is that his example was extraordinary because he was anointed to be King after Saul But yet for the present he was a private man although God had bestowed somthing extraordinary upon him more then upon other men but it follows not therefore that in this case he had an extraordinary power to resist the Prince Prince Charls hath no more power to resist his Father then the Parliament hath For the example of Elisha using the Kings messenger rough'y that came to take away his head he sayes it sayes little to the question in hand Yet he grants as much as it is brought for that defence is lawful against sudden and illegall assaults of Messengers sent by the King if against sudden why not against deliberate and plotted for they are worse This is one end of the raising of the Army to prevent such assaults If it be lawful to be done by violence by 2. or 3. when the messenger is but one then it may be done by 2. or 3000. when the messengers are 1000. For the example of the Priests thrusting out the leprous King That which this is brought to prove is thus much That there may be such uncleannesse in a King that may cause Subjects lawfully to resist him when he would doe a wicked act The Doctor sayes First Gods hand was upon him So when God shall leave a King to some horrible way of evil certainly Gods hand is upon him then He answers But he hasted to goe out himselfe But the Scripture tels us the Priests likewise thrust him out they would not suffer him to be in the Temple The next thing in the Sect. is a similitude from the naturall body Though a member may defend it selfe against outward violence yet no member must be set against the head for that tends to the dissolution of the whole If the similitude may be followed we say that some members are as necessary to the life of the head as the head is necessary to the life of those members 2. A Kingdome may sometimes have one head sometimes another but so cannot a naturall body Further he grants Personall defence doth not strike at the order and power that is over us but generall resistance by Arms he saith doth No it may maintain and regulate order and there may be as little injustice on the one side as the other But the case is not as Elishaes for the King professeth he will use no violence and we cannot know his heart But that example of Elisha is brought to prove the lawfulnes of using force against Kings in using violence and what violence hath been already used the world knows Page 10. He comes to Scriptures denying resistance let us see what full Scriptures these are The first is Num. 16. 1. c. The conspiracie of Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron It is strange that this example must be paralleld with our Parl. taking up Arms Was it not a most unjust and vile conspiracie meerly out of the pride of malicious spirits Can the D. or any man think that in justifying Arms in some case we justifie all villanous conspiracies and out-rages Besides this place condemns rising up against the Priest as well as the King Yea certainly if they had risen against the meanest officer that God had appointed in Church or Common-wealth as here they did against Moses Aaron it would have bin a very hainous offence Yea if Moses himself should have thus risen against any Officer appointed by God it had bin a vile sin in him therefore this proves no more against subjects resisting Princes then Princes resisting subjects or one subject resisting another Further we do not rise against His Majesty as they rose up against Moses Aaron we desire not that he should have lesse power then God the Laws have given him but we would preserve this in him and keep off the stroke of any further power so that we need not for this thing so much as examine the cause upon which they rose whether it were supposed or not for the case is far differing in the end of the rising But Corah and his company supposed the cause sufficient Supposed causes for any thing is not enough now we are not examining the truth of the cause of taking up Arms but whether they may not be taken up by the Subject against the mind of the King for any cause Wel our consciences need not be much scrupled from this Scripture Let us examine the rest he brings The second is 1 Sam. 8. 11 18. where the oppression of the King is mentioned and no means of help mentioned but crying to the Lord. Is the bare relation of the oppression of a King without mention in that place of any means of help but crying to God a sufficient proof that though Kings oppresse never so much yet there is no help Suppose I bring a place of Scripture where there is a relation of Subjects rising up in a wicked way against their Prince in that place there is no other help mentioned but only the Prince committed this to God God revenged it can there be drawn from thence an argument that when Subjects rise against Princes that they have no other help against them but committing the cause to God We need not go far for a Scripture in this kind the very place the D. brought before wil do it Num. 15. when Corah and his company rose against Moses we there read of no other help that Moses used but he committed the thing to God God revenged it But you wil say yet there are other places
every soule There was then sayes he the Senate c. But what power the Senate had for the present upon agreement or how much of their power was now given up to the Emperour by agreement he shews not and if he shews not this he sayes nothing Then he tels us of the cause Christians had to resist because their Emperours were enemies to Religion and had over thrown Laws and liberties To the first we acknowledge we must not resist for Religion if the Laws of the Land be against it we must either suffer or seek to enjoy our Religion in the uttermost â—arts of the earth rather then resist For the Emperors subverting Laws and Liberties he must prove that the people â—enate had not given absolute power to them for the present for the preventing further wils they feared or else it reacheth not our case for we know our people and Senate â—ave not given any such absolute power We must not be put to prove they had for it 〈◊〉 his argument therefore if he wil make it good he must prove they had not And yet â—ppose they had not if we should gratifie the D. in that thing yet the Argument would â—e but weak for the Apostle requires them not to resist their power their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee â—oth not charge them not to resist their tyrannie Certainly they could have no power at that which was given them by some agreement if they challenged further it was no â—uthority at all such kind of tyrannie as they would assume to themselves the Apostle â—â—rbids not the resistance of in that place As for that he sayes that some affirm that prohibition was temporary let them mainâ—â—in it that affirm it I am ful of the D. mind in that this prohibition is a standing rule As for that distinction which he sayes some make that they resist not the power but â—e abuse of the power We answer it is not resisting abused power for it is resisting no power at all Abused power is the ill use of what is given to men but the ill use of what was never given to them more then to any other is abuse of their wils but not abuse of their power By Power I do not mean Strength but Authority Further he sayes These Emperours ruled absolutely therefore upon that ground men might resist if for any thing 1. Although the Emperors might use some force to bring themselves to an absolute power yet whether the people were not brought to consent to prevent farther danger that must be disproved when our case ever fals so as we shall be brought to consent to an absolute power although it be out of feare which God forbid then this argument will concerne us but not before 2. What they got and held meerly by force without any consent and agreement was no power no authority at all but might be resisted no withstanding that prohibition The last thing in that Sect. is whereas we say that our Religion is established by Law theirs was not He answers 2. things 1. Shall the prohibition be good against Christians under Emperors persecuting Religion not against Subjects enjoying their Religion If those who have power to make Laws should prove so wicked as to make wicked Laws against Religion yet I am rather bound to passive obedience in that case then if men never so good should command according to their own will and not according to Law for there is an authority in the one though abused but none at all in the other His second answer is This prohibition did not concern Christians only but all people under the Emperour As before 1. we know not but these people had given up their right 2. If they had not that prohibition doth not reach them in those things wherein they had not Thus his Scriptures are answered and I professe I have not answered from a humour of seeking to overcome in a dispute to put glosses upon the one side or to seek evasions from the strength of the other but as in the presence of God to find out truth and to satisfie Conscience that hath to doe with God in a speciall manner SECT III. THe first Sect. is spent about the original of the power of Kings He first contends that the power is from God and that he needs not contend for we grant that the power not only of Kings but of all lawfull authority is Gods Ordinance but that such and such men should have this power and how much of this power should be put upon this man and how much upon that that is from man Hence it is very observable when the Apostle speaks of the power Rom. 13. he sayes it is of God buâ— when Peter speaks of the men upon whom that power is put whether Kings or thoâ—â— sent by him he sayes that is a humnne ordinance 1 Pet. 2. 13. yea a humane creation 〈◊〉 the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rea the D. grants this that though the power be from God yet the designing the person to bear that power yea and the qualification and lâ—mitation is from men by the Laws made with consent The supreme Magistrate is called the Minister of God Rom. 13. We acknowledg him so he is also said in the same place to minister for thy good I have said Ye are Gods This is true of inferiour Magistrates as well as superiour and yet none will say bâ— inferiors may be resisted His conclusion is in this Sect. that though the power be of God yet the person dâ—signed and the qualification of power in several forms of government limitation this is by the laws of men This is as much as we desire Many go no further then thâ— designation of the person to be from man but the D. is more fair he sayes the qualification is from man also If so mark what follows then no man can have any of this ruliâ—â— power but according as he is designed to it qualified for it limited in it by men whatsover the name be by which you call him Emperor King Prince Duke Lord c. SECT IV. THis Sect. is about the power of people to re-assume what power they have conferred upon Magistrates although Gods power yet conferred by them He argues thus If the power be Gods then people cannot re-assume If the King gives power to an inferior Magistrate the power that this Magistrate hath is likewise from God for so the Scripture sayes Rom. 13. All power is from God may not this power be re-assumed therefore Let none put this off with saying But people are not above Kings as Kings are above inferior Magistrates for that is nothing to the argument The argument that he makes is this If the power be of God it cannot be re-assumed Now the answer is That the power of inferiour Magistrates is of God and yet it may be re-assumed therefore his consequence is not good Further
If it were lawfull to resist power abused it would open a way to people to overthrew powers duely administred 1. We do not say that power abused should be resisted but Will where there is no Power may be resisted 2. True there is danger in the peoples abusing their liberties and danger in Magistrates abusing their power He sayes he intends not to lay the least blemish upon the Parliament Yet in the Page before he sayes The Temper of the Parliament is dissolved and upon that saies the distractions in the Common-wealth shew the distempers and the danger of dissolution and what is the cause of it It would fill much paper to gather together the blemishes that this man casts upon the Parliament especially in his last page But that is not my work I would gladly have consciences resolved He proceeds to shew the difference between the Low-Countreys and us which no question is something but not so as can make what they have done lawfull and yet the Doctors tents right nor what we have done unlawfull He farther enlarges himself in discourse about the evils that accompany resisting of power Still we say power should not be resisted and where it is resisted sinfully yea where men in power are resisted any way there are like to follow sad consequences of affliction But what is all this for the satisfaction to conscience about the Lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of resisting men that have power in any case Then be comes to the oath of Supremacy and the Protestation The Answer to this depends upon what hath been said we swear onely to the Legall power we protest no further then the maintenance of that He saies conscience will look at that power he hath as the ordinance of God True what power he hath that is what the Laws give him we say is an ordinance of God But his abuse of power is a iudgement of God that we must cry to God against and a true informed conscience in that case will rather suffer then resist He still takes abuse of his power to be the doing whatsoever he please we denie that to be abuse of his power We say in that he doth not exercise his authorative power at all therefore he doth not abuse it If indeed some uniust Law should give him any power to do wrong the execution of this would be the abuse of his power and therein it is granted a true informed conscience would rather suffer then resist But in the other case when he doth what Law inables not to do all the arguments of the Doctor cannot so inform our consciences as to beleeve the State must rather suffer then resist Now the Doctor casts up his reckoning and thinks he finds it comes to thus much that he hath found Scripture and reason speak plainly against resisting He cries victorie to himself he tels himself what the issue of his own thoughts come to but he reckons without his Host his conquest is too hastie we are not of his mind I will onely observe one thing more in the conclusion of his Section If any shall be carried away with the name of a Parliament as Papists are with the name of the Church c. If the Church could do as much in matters of Religion as the Parliament can do in matters of the State the Papists were not so much to be blamed for being taken so much with the name of the Church as we are not for being taken so much with the name of the Parliament For 1. The Church cannot make new Articles of Faith or nullifie the old but the Parliament can make new Maximes to be accounted Law that were not before and undo what were before 2. The Church hath not a iudiciall power of interpreting the Law of God but the Parliament hath a iudiciall power of interpreting the Law of the State so as that is to be accounted Law which they interpret to be so I do not say that we are bound to beleeve that whatsoever interpretation they make was the scope and intention of that Law when it was first made But this I say that their interpretation must be accounted as much binding to us for obedience as the scope and intention of that Parliament that first made that Law Thus I have done with his Scriptures and the rationall part of his Book and I hope others will have done with it too If mens consciences be satisfied in the lawfulnesse of the thing it self Subiects taking up Arms against the will of the King His other part every one who understands how things are with us that is willing to be satisfied will be soon able to satisfie himself The substance of all that follows is suppose that Subiects may take up Arms yet whether there be sufficient cause for us to do it Toward the conclusion of the book the Dr. begins to be hot and somewhat bitter but I shall not here follow him in particulars but in the generall thus What the condition of our Kingdom is whether in danger or not What the condition of our Houses of Parliament whether they be safe or not whether their priviledges be broke or not Iudge you whether Doctor Ferne or all the Remonstrances and Declarations we have had from both Houses be able best to certifie us we have received information enough and seen and felt enough to make us beleeve that our Kingdom is in great danger but it may be the Doctor sits in his study like another Archimedis drawing his lines and the Swords must be about his eares before he will see or beleeve any danger to wards us The Doctor puts the case thus whether the conscience can be so perswaded that the King is such and so minded as that there may be sufficient cause to take up Arms against him in this he is as miserably mistaken as in all his other grounds from Scripture and his reasons if he thinks this be the controversie For 1. we take up no Arms against the King 2. Whatsoever the Kings mind be there is sufficient cause to take up Arms to defend our selves against others that seek our ruins We know of the plots of bringing the Armies in the North upon Parliament and City We know of the great preparations of Arms in forreign parts to send over hither and time hath discovered their further attempts although it hath indeed withall discovered they could not bring their attempts to their desired issue We know of many Delinquents that are fled from the Iustice of the Parliament which cannot be attached without force and if they may so scape as they do to what purpose doth a Parliament sit it will soon be made ridiculous in the eyes of the world We know what is done in the execution of the Commission of Array and that by force of Arms and all these things by those who are under the authority of the Houses of Parliament wherefore if they cannot prevent these