of faith and learn how to use it to live by it when our lands our stocks our trades our friends our wit our shifts as the ordinary means of our livelihood shall faile us That we may live not onely above our fears and troubles and doubts but above the world above our selves in God and in Christ in whom vve may see supply to all our vvants satisfaction to all our desires and have recompense for all our losses and every thing that may make for our good and welfare light in our darknesse life in our death strength in our weaknesse riches in our poverty and comfort our selves that we serve a Master that will one day right all our wrongs reckoning the injuries that be done to his as done to himselfe so that we should not think much to part with our Country our Children our Possessions our life if the world will take them from us for Christ and his Gospels sake All these and much better than these shall be restored to us one day and vve may say thus to our selves yet I am not miserable so long as my Redeemer is happy he lives and I shall live vvith him men may take from me my goods but they cannot rob me of my grace they may banish me from my Countrey but not from Heaven take from me my life but not my happines no my faith my heaven my soul my happines is in his keeping that will safely preserve them for me and me for them But I fear I have held thee too long in the porch I shall now open thee the door and let thee in praying God to make those lessons as profitable to thee as the Authors desire vvas they might both in his preaching them and his vvillingnesse to have them published for publike good I. A. AN INTRODVCTION Vnto the Treatise necessary for all good Subjects to understand c. I Have perused Doctor Fearne his booke intituled The resolving of Conscience wherein I finde that he hath exceedingly mistaken the question the question in truth is whether the Parliament now hath justly taken up arms we affirme it he denies it and withall slips into another question whether it be lawfull for the Subjects to take â— armes against their King But if he will so propound the question â—en I must preface these two or three distinctions and one caution First at the subject is considered two waies either unitivè conjunctively OR divisivè divisively The Subject considered â—â—visively hath alwayes applied himselfe to prayers and teares using no her remedy and of this we speake not but conjunctively considered â—ate-wise so he now doth and 't is lawfull for him thus to take up arms â—condly the Subject may be said to take up armes either as an act of â—f preservation or as an act of jurisdiction exercised towards his Prince â—e first way we say it is lawfull the second way we contend not for â—irdly the Subject is said to take up armes against the King either as aâ—nst the Kings person and of this we do not speak or as against the â—ngs commandment for their own preservation so we affirm it and then â—r position is That it is lawfull for the Subjects conjunctively considered to take up The position â—nes for selfe-preservation against the Kings commandement where â—o things are to be cleared First that this is the case of the Parliament â—condly that this is lawfull for them to do first this is their case for as any reasonable by-stander may observe there are 3 grounds of this the proceeding the one is to fetch in Delinquents and such persons as aâ— accused before them to be legally tried in that highest Court of the Kingdome the second is to defend the State from forraigne invasion who seâ— more into the danger then we do the third is to preserve themselves aâ— the Countrey from the insurrection and rebellion of Papists and that thâ— is lawfull we prove by divers reasons some drawn from nature somâ— from Scripture some from the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome some from the being of Parliaments and some from the common truâ— reposed on Princes First from nature It is the most naturall worke in the world for everâ— thing to preserve it selfe Naturall for a man to preserve himselfe naturall for a Community and therefore when a Common-weale shall chuâ— a Prince or a State-officer though they trust him with their welfare the that act of their trust is but by positive law and therefore cannot destroâ— Iacob Almain de auth ecclesiâ— apud Gerlon the naturall law which is selfe-preservation Cum humana potest is supra jâ— naturae non â—â—istit seeing that no humane power is above the law of nâ—ture Secondly from Scripture the Word of God saith expressely in 1 Chrâ— 12. 19. That David went out against Saul to battaile yet he was Sauâ— subject at that time for the Lord of the Philistims sent him away sayinâ— he will fall to his Master Saul which Text I bring not to prove that Subject may take up armes against the King person but that the Subject may take up armes against those that are malignant about the Kings person notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary which becausâ— this of David is said to be against Saul and that Davids heart smote hiâ— for cutting off the lap of Sauls garment the meaning therefore must neeâ— be that he went out in battell against those that attended upon Sauâ— strengthned by Sauls authority notwithstanding Sauls command to thâ— contrary And in the new Testament Rom. 13. 1 We are commanded to subject to the higher Powers now the Parliament being the highest Couâ— of Justice in this Kingdome as King James saith in his Basilicon Doron must needs be the higher powers of England though the King be sâ—preme yet they have the high power of declaring the law as this Doctâ— Fearne confesseth being most fit to judge what is law They thereforâ— declaring this to be the fundamentall Law of the Kingdome for the suâ—jects to defend themselves by forcible resistance notwithstanding tâ— Kings command to the contrary it is the duty of all the subjects to be â—bedient to these higher powers Thirdly from the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome It is according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome yea written and not unseene Lawes That the Parliament are trusted by the Common-weale with the welfare and security thereof whence I doe reason thus If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common-weale then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-weale with the safety thereof as well as the King though not so much then are they to looke to it and to use all meanes for the preservation thereof as well as the King But so it is that the Prince is bound to looke to the safety and welfare of the Kingdome as is agreed by all and secondly therefore he is
That in the established Lawes of the Lanâ— we have the Princes will and consent given upon good advice and to obey hiâ— against the Lawes were to obey him against himselfe his suddaine will against his deliberate will so that if there be any established Lawes whereby the King hath given his former deliberate consent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now sounds then this objection is but a false allarum Now though I be no Lawyer and must refer you much to what the Parliament hath said who are the Judges of the Law yet thus much I can tell you as consonant to right reason That unlesse the Parliament have a power to send for delinquents and accused persons to be tried in that highest Court of Justice I say unlesse they have such a power they are no Parliament The King hath often protested to maintaine the liberties and priviledges of Parliament Now suppose a man be complained of to the Parliament for some notorious crime it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Serjeant at Armes for him and if he refuse to come that Serjeant at Armes hath a power to call in more helpe and if the Delinquent shall raise twenty or thirty or a hundred men to rescue himselfe then the Parliament hath power to send downe more messengers by force to bring up the Delinquent and if they may raise a hundred why may they not upon the like occasion raise a thousand and so tenne thousand And if the King shall protect these Delinquents that is but his sudden will the Doctor saith his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his sudden will now this is the knowne Law of the Kingdome and the constant practise of all Parliaments that they have a power to send for their Delinquents and indeed else how can they be a Court of Justice if they cannot force the accused to appeare before them And therefore according to the Doctors owne principles the Kings deliberate will being in his Law he himselfe hath sounded this Trumpet though by his sudden will as he calls it hee is pleased to sound a retreat For though the Doctor saith that the Parliament takes up Armes against the King yet herein he doth but abuse them mistake the question deceive many The truth is they doe but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earle of Essex send for those Delinquents that have beene obnoxious to the State and to deny them such a power as this is to deny them the very being of a Parliament For by the same reason that they may send one Serjeant at Armes for one they may send one thousand for one thousand Then the Doctor tells us That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel for Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Ans I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marvelling For what caâ— be more plaine then that Text 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house anâ— the Elders sate with him and the King sent a man from before him c. buâ— when the messenger came to him hee said to the Elders see how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut thâ— doore and hold him fast at the doore The Dr. wonders if resistance werâ— lawfull why no Prophet should call upon the Elders of the people foâ— this duty of resistance here is the Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings messenger Then lastly the Dr. saith that Scripture Rom. 13. Let every soule be subject to the higher powers and ver 2. Whosoever resists the power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation doth above all give us a cleare manifestation upon the point Ans Now therefore let us here joyne issue and if this place which thâ— Dr. makes the very hinge which all his discourse moves upon be noâ— clearly and fully against him then let the consciences of men be satisfieâ— in all that he saies but if it be against him then let them reject all that hâ— affirmes He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to resiâ— with a forcible resistance the command of a King though he commanâ— what is unlawfull because sayes he that this commandement was given unâ— the Christians to be obedient unto Roman Emperours whose commands were meerly destructive to the Christian Religion and those powers nothing but subverters of that which was good and just Ans That there is no such thing commanded in this Scripture I proâ— by these reasons 1. Because the power that every soule is here commanded to be subject to and not to resist is that power which is not a terrour to goâ— works but to evil The 3. verse being made a reason of the 2. the 2. verâ— saith Whosoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God and they that resâ— shall receive to themselves judgement then the reason is given for Ruleâ— are not a terrour to good workes but to evill ver 3. and therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden is not in things that are uâ— lawfull and contrary to the Law of God 2. The power that we aâ— commanded to be subject to and not to resist is the ordinance of God aâ— the Minister thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good ver 4. â— saies the Apostle speaking of the Ruler that we are to obey he is the Minister of God to us for good but when he commands a thing unlawfull aâ— contrary to the law of God he is not the Minister of God to us for goâ— therefore in this Scripture there is no such thing commanded us to subject to and not to resist the ungodly command of Princes Ob. And if it be said that though his commands are unlawfull yet he may be a penall ordinance of God for our good I answer that in this Scripture we are not commanded to submit unto a penall ordinance because the submission injoyned here by the Apostle reaches to all times and places and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penall ordinance 3. Therein the Apostle commands us in this Scripture to be subject and not to resist wherein the Magistrates are Gods Ministers but in unlawfull commands they are not properly and actively Gods Ministers though God may make use of them though in regard of their place they may be Gods Minister yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not when they command things that are evill and contrary to Law Now so we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action Gods Ministers Verse 6. For this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing 4. It appeares by all the first verses of this
tâ—â— Judges then in the Kings Ans But how come we to this discourse to compare Monarcâ— and Aristocracy and to say that Monarchy is better government thâ— Aristocracy Doth it follow from the word True which the Dr. haâ— said to that proposition many see more then one and more safety 〈◊〉 the judgement of many then of one But seeing he is pleased to say â—he government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still first in Moses then in the Judges then in the Kings let us now diligently observe that Monarchicall government which God made choice of If Moses the Judges and Kings were are all Monarchs and Monarchy the best government Then 1. The best government is such where the people have the free choice of their Governour for so they had in the time of the Judges Chap. 11. 5. And it was so when the children of Ammon maâ—e war against Israel the Elders of Israel went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob and â—hey said unto Jephtha Come and be our Captaine that we may fight with the children of Ammon And Jephtha said unto the Elders of Gilead If â—â— bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon and the Lord â—eliver them before me shall I be your head And the Elders of Gilead said into Jephtha The Lord be witnesse betwixt us if we doe not so according â—o thy word Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead and the people â—adâ— him Head and Captaine over them v. 11. Thus wee see that that government which the Doctor cals the best and set up by God is such when the people have the choice of their King and the derivation of â—is power is from them as I have proved at large in the Preface to â—ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Israel Secondly then the best government is that where the King and â—eople strike a covenant at his Coronation which covenant the King is bound to observe neither doth his covenanting with the peoâ—le make him no Monarch for David was a Monarch yet David â—ade a covenant with the Elders of Israel and so they anointed him King â—ver Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. Thirdly then the best government is such also where the Prince â—oth advise with his people and Elders doing no great matter in State â—â— Religion without their consent and with their consent doing So David 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David consulted with the Captaines of thouâ—ands and hundreds and every Leader and David said unto all the Conâ—â—egation of Israel If it seeme good unto you let us bring againe the Arke â—â— the Lord our God unto us and all the Congregation said that they would â—â— so for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation So that â—â—e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome is â—o way repugnant but consistent with Monarchicall government or â—â—e government appointed by God himselfe Fourthly then also is the best government appointed by God such â—â— doth carry along with iâ— a lawfulnesse for the subjects to take up armes and make forcible resistance for their own security and safety of the Common weale against their Monarchs when cause requireth for did not the people sometime in Israel take up armes against some of the Judges And did not David though yet a subject to Saul take up armes and make forcible resistance It is said expresly 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19. Then David received them and made them Captaines of the Band and there fell some of Manasses to David when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battell The Doctor said before in his Treatise that David tooke up armes onely in his owne defence But doe these words note no more Only I presse them thus far as may shew a lawfulnes for the people to take up armes in a way of forcible resistance against the Kings commandement when the danger is eminent which we finde agreeable to the best government set up by God himselfe as the Doctor acknowledgeth In the fourth place the Doctor answers that such power of resistance will be no meanes of safety to a State but rather a remedy worse then the disease which he proveth from Rom. 13. which I have answered already and from some reasons as 1. This power of resistance if admitted and preserved may proceed to a change of government Ans To which I answer that if severall formes of government be of humane constituâ—ion as the Doctor speaks why should we think that they are utterly unalterable as the laws of the Medes Persians But secondly this principle of ours cannot boyle up to that height for we only say that when the Prince shall neglect his trust the people are to see to it and silenc'd not for deposing 2. He saith This power of resistance is accompanied with the evils of â— civill war Ans No but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre becausâ— some people are mis-led from their own natures to take up armes against their own Country Civill war is from the cause thereof now the Parliament calls for armes only to defend the Country thesâ— make the civill war that are against the Countries defence Thirdly he saith There is danger in this power of resistance for the if the people be discontented and have gotten power they may say the Members of the two Houses doe not discharge their trust and so by this rule takâ— up the power to themselves and so all rapine and confusion brought into thâ— Kingdome Ans There can bee no such inference made from this principle oâ— ours for the people do all acknowledge that we are to bee governed by Lawes and that as the Doctor saith the Parliament is thâ— Judge what is Law the people doe acknowledge according to truth that the Parliament hath the declarative power or the supreme power of declaring the Law the King doth not professe this but rather the contrary that he is no Lawyer nor skilled in the Lawes The Parliament doe professe it and the people acknowledge them to be so and therefore there is not the same reason that they should take their power to themselves in case that the Parliament should neglect their trust for why should the people take that power unto themselves should it be according to Law The Parliament will then tell them that they have done that which is according to law wherein they confesse that the two Houses have the power of declaring But now if the Prince shall neglect his trust and the people take a power to looke to themselves in times of danger by way of forcible resistance the Prince cannot say when the Parliament is against him the supreme power of declaring law doth agree my course to be lawfull so that you see there is not the same reason of both And whereas the Doctor saith That upon the like reason if the Parliament shall neglect their trust the people may call in
their power How can the people thinke that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land when the Parliament are the Judges thereof and the people confesse so and therefore the Doctor may be out of feare for this matter Lastly the Doctor saith That seeing some must be trusted in every Estate it is reason that the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and supreme power and that he should have the best security which is worth ten thousand of his subjects Ans I answer therefore the people do trust the King and his Parliament who are the highest power and Court in the Kingdome and if the greatest and best security should be about the King because he is worth 10000. subjects then surely the Kingdome it selfe should have the best security because the King is ordained for his Kingdom In Fine the Doctor presses the oath of Supremacie Allegeance and the last Protestation upon the conscience and wishes men here to consider their power of resistance and taking up of armes is contrary thereto in which he saith We sweare and protest to defend the Kings person Ans And thus we do by taking up of Arms for what man is there that considers things rightly may not easily perceive that if the Popish party should prevaile which are either about the King or of his Armies I say who may not easily thinke if they should prevail that either our King must be a ranke Papist of a dead man Who knows not that if the Papists get the upper hand though now they cry out for Supremacy Supremacy that either they wil force the King to another Supremacie or else quickly make a hand of him Is it not their opinion What better service therefore can a true subject performe to his Majesties person then by force of Armes to deliver him out of the hands of those spoylers that lye in waite for his pretious soule In the oath of Supremacie we sweare him our Soveraigne to be Supreme in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How does our doctrine or practise infringe this In the oath of Allegeance we swear to be his liege Subjects according to Law and that which we doe is so And in our Protestation we protest to maintaine the Kings Person the Parliaments priviledges the Subjects rights and our Religion if we doe not take up arms in this time of Popish insurrection how can we with good conscience say that either we defend the Kings Person from the violence of Papists which according to their owne Doctrine we know shall be made upon our King or the priviledges of Parliament whose power is to send for delinquents and those that are accused before them even by force to bring them into their triall or the liberty of subjects who have this given by nature to defend themselves or the truth of our religion which notwithstanding all flourishes we have seen such invasions made upon and now in our conscience under more hazard because those that are opposite unto it doe professe to defend it whereupon I presume that every good man that maketh conscience of his waies considering these things will not be backward to advance this publicke designe And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others charging men from this resistance upon paine or damnation yet a setled conscience will be no more scared with the Doctors damnation then with the Cavalliers God damne us Sect. VI. NOw the Doctor comes to the application of all in these two fast Sections in which I intend not to trace him into all that he saies The application of all being left unto what men see and know experimentally yet something I must say unto these Sections In this sixth he tells us that we doe not walke up unto our ownâ— principles which are as he saith that our resistance must be omnibus ordin but regni consentientibus that is as he translates it agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous consent of the whole States Ans But is this a good and true translation of the words The Doctor may know that when the matter comes to a scrutiny in the Regent house the matter is to passe with the consent of the Regents non-Regents and heads of the University and though all doe not manimously as one Man consent yet it may be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus But he saith How shall conscience be perswaded that this resistance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States for saith he he that knowes how the Militia in which this resistance chiefly began was brought in with what opposition especially in the Lords House and by what number that at length was voted also how the like proceedings was voted since how that a vote passed by a few upon the place though it have the power and condition of a vote for the formality of law was not passed in full assemblies cannot be perswaded in conscience that this is such an unanimous free generall consent as makes the judgement of the whole Kingdom Ans To the which I answer that by the like reasoning there is no act of Parliament or Law shall be of any force and he may as well question any law that is made for when was there ever any law made which all did unanimously as one man consent to By the constant law of the Kingdome though there be not so many in either House which have been present at these late affairs of the Kingdome it is to be acknowledged for an act of Parliament and so the judgement of the whole Kingdom Then secondly he tells us That we doe not walk up to our second principle viz. that our resistance must be meerly defensive for saith he those that are first in armes cannot be upon the defensive part page 22. and then page 21. saith he who were first in armes He that can number the succession of months and weeks in his Almanacke may decide this he shal find that armed men were thrust into Hull the Militia set up c. Ans To which I answer If those that are first in armes cannot be on the defensive part then surely Davids act was not meere defence as the Doctor saith before for we finde in Scripture that David and his men were gotten into armes before that Saul followed him surely the Doctors Almanack hath not all the months in it for he begins his account only at the businesse at Hull wheras before that the King came in hostile manner unto the Parliament gathered forces about Windsor but this must be left unto mens eies and experienced knowledge it being matter of fact Then the Dr. I know not how comes to enquire into the cause of these armes wherein after some flourishes he saith Would anâ— man have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their liberties Saying further what shall we then generally thinke of this
bound to it because he receiveth this power originall I speake not in opposition â—o God but I say originally from the people themselves as appears by the government of the Judges and Kings of Israel which government this Doctor saith was Monarchicall the best plat-forme for England For Judges 8. 22. The men of Israel come unto Gideon to make him their King and Judges the 9. 6. They gathered together and made Abimeleck their King and Judges 11. 8 9 10 11. The people covenanted with Jephtha and made him their King and as for Saul though he was designed by God to the Kingdome yet the people themselves chose the kinde of their government first when they said Give us a King to rule over us after the manner of the Nations After that God had annointed Saul it is said 1 Sam. 11. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gigall and as for David though he was annointed King by Samuel yet we finde that he continued a Subject unto Saul after that and the 2. of Sam. 2. He came unto Hebron and there the men of Judah were and there they anointed David King over the house of Judah v. 4. After that he was thus annointed by Judah to be King over them yet he did not rule over Israel till the other tribes also went out and made him King over them 1 Cron. 12. 38. It is said that all these men of warre came with a perfect heart to Hebron to make David King over all Israel as for Solomon though he was designed by God to the Kingdome yet it is said of him also 1 Chro. 29. 22. that all the Corgregation did eat and drinke before the Lord and they made Solomon the son of David King the second time and annointed him unto â—he Lord to be the chiefe Governour Solomon being dead the second of the Chron. 10. 1. It is said of Rehoboam that he went to Shechem where all Israell came to make him King and in the second of Sam. 16. 18. it is said thus And Hushai said unto Absolon God save the King God save the King and Absolon said unto Hushai Is this thy kindnesse unto thy friend why wentest thou not with thy friend And Hushai said unto Absolom againe nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and with him will I abidâ— â— that wee see that these Monarchs both of the Judges and Kings â— Israel were chosen and entrusted by the people and had their poweâ— of governing from them 3. The Parliament also is immediatly trusted bâ— the people and Common-weal with the safety thereof as wel as the King though not to be King for they are the officers of the Kingdom and therefore chosen immediatly by the people and not designed by the King anâ— this kinde of officers was in Davids time also there were some Officerâ— then that were the Kings Officers his Cooks his Bakers the steward oâ— his house and the like Others were the officers of the Kingdome called the Elders and heads of the Tribes which though they were under him yet were they with him trusted in the affairs of the Kingdome whom therefore he did consult with in the great affaires of the State 1 Chron. 13. 1â— wherefore seeing the King is to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the people and the Parliament arâ— as well trusted by the people with the safety of the land it is their duty iâ— case of danger to looke to it which they are not able to doâ— and makâ— good their trust unlesse they have power to take up Arms against an enemy when the Prince is misled or defective 4. From the being of a Parliament As it is a Parliament it is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome therfore hath power to â—â—nd for by force those that are accused before them that they may come to theiâ— triall which power if I mistake not inferiour Courts have much more the highest 'T is out of doubt agreed on by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Sergeant at Armes to bring up such an one as is accused before them and if they have a power to send one Sergeant at Arms then 20. if 20. be accused then a 100. if there be a 100. accused then a thousand if there be a thousand accused then tenne thousand if there be tenne thousand accused and so more or lesse as occasion serves for there is the same reason for two as for one and for 4. as for 2. and for a 100. as for 20. and for a 1000. as for a 100. and take away this power from the Parliament and 't is no longer a Parliament but the Kingâ— and his forefathers have by law setled these libertieâ— of Parliament and therefore according to Lawes they have a power to send for by force those that are accused to be tried before them which they cannot do unlesse they raise an army when the accused are kept from them by an army 5. From the common trust reposed on Princes and the end thereof which is to feed their people Psal 78. 70. He chose David his servant anâ— tooke him from the Sheep-fold to feed his people Jacob and his inheritance in Israel The end why the people have trusted the Prince is the sâ—fety and security of the Kingdome the safety and welfare of the State not that the King might be great and the Subjects slaves Now if a people should have no power to take up armes for their owne defence because they had trusted the Prince therewithall then by that trust they intended to make themselves slaves For suppose the King will let in a common enemy upon them or take his owne subjects and make theâ— slaves in Gallies if they may not take up armes for their owne defence because they had trusted their Prince therewithall what can this be but by their trust to make themselves slaves unto him 2. The caution that is to be premised is this notwithstanding all that I have said yet I doe not say that the subjects have power to depose their Prince neither doth our assertion or practice enforce such an inference Object But if the power of the Prince be derived from the people then they may take away that power againe Resp It followes not neither shall the people need to thinke of such an inference Indeed if the power were derived from the people to the Prince firstly and that the people should be so strait-laced that they should have no power left to defend themselves in case of danger when the Prince is misled or unfaithfull then the people might be occasioned to thinke of deposing their Prince but though the power of the Prince bee originally from them yet if they have so much power left as in times of danger to looke to their owne preservation what need they
thinke of any such matter Object Why but if the people give the power then if abused they may take it away also Res No that needs not seeing they never gave away that power of selfe preservation so that this position of ours is the onely way to keepe people from such assaults whereby the power of the Prince is more fully established whereas if people were kept from power of selfe-preservation which is naturall to them it were the onely way to breake all in peeces for Nullum violentum contranaturale est perpetuum no violent thing against nature is perpetuall Thus have I clearly opened our opinion and proved our sentence give me leave now to speake with the Doctor Section I. THe Doctor saith That in the proposition or principle by the word resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command but a rising in armes a forcible resistance this though cleare in the question yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdom and upon all those that appear for the King in this cause Gubernatâ—res ergo in â—is rebus quae cum decalogâ— justis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent pâ—ae caeteris hominibus privatis perpretrantes id quod malum est Coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium prestante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordiâ—asse instituisse potestatem illam gladio defendendi bonum puniendi malum praecipit ut omnis anima sic ipsi guber nâ—ores tali Dei ordinationi fit subjecta hoc est obligat ad sacienâ—â—m bonum si velit defendi ist a. Dei ordinatione non ob sua facinoâ—a impia puniri Magdeburgensis cent 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod aâ—tem ad nos proprie pertiner possum enumerare duodecim aut etiam amplius reges qui ob scelera flagitia aut in perpetuum carcetem suÌ„t damnati aut exilio vel morte voluntaria justas sceleruÌ„ poenas fugerant nos autemid contendimus populum a quo reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vindicant regibus essâ— potentioreÌ„ Iusque idem in cos habere multitudinem quod illi in singulos a multitudine habent Bâ—â— de Gub Regni apud Scoâ—os Here the Dr. would insinuate in the very entrance of his book that so he might the better captare benevolentiam curry favour for the matter of his discourse following That the Divines of England are of his judgement But if they be so surely their judgement is lately changed But indeed what Divines are of his judgement not the Divines of Germany not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches not the Divines of Geneva not of Scotland not of Holland not of England Not the Divines of Germany who say thus Governours therefore in such things that are repugnant to the Law of God have no power or immunity above other private men they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunity above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the ordinance of God bearing the sword for the punishment of vice as other private men For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. saith that God did institute and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and he commands that every soule and so the Governours themselves would bee subject to this ordinance of God that is bound to doe good if they would be defended by this ordinance of God and not by their wicked deeds make themselves liable to punishment Not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches witnesse their taking up of armes for the defence of themselves at Rochell Not the Divines of Geneva For as Calvin in the 4. book of his institutions chap. 10. saith thus For though the correcting of unbridled government be revengement of the Lord let us not by and by think that it is committed to us to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and suffer I speak alway of private men for if there be at this time any Magistrates in the behalfe of the people such as in old time were the Ephori that were set against the Kings of Lacedemonia or the tribuner of the people against the Roman Consuls or the Demarchy against the Senate at Athens and the same power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal assemblies I do so not forbid them according to their office to withstand the outraging licentiousnesse of Kings that I affirm if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty their dissembling is not without wicked breach of faith because they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themselves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God Not the Divines of Holland for we know what their practise is towards the King of Spaine Not the Divines of Scotland for Bucaâ—an saith for I can number twelve â—r more Kings among our selves who for their sinne and wickednesse were either cast into prison during their life or else eschewed the punishment by banishment But this is that which we contend for that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater then the Kings and the whole multitude have the same power over them as they have over particular men out of the multitude witnesse also their late taking up armes when they came into England which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebellion Not our English Divines whose judgement Dr. Willet was acquainted with as well as our present Dr. who saith thus Touching the point of resistance certaine differences are to be observed for when there is an extraordinary calling as in the time of the Judges or when the Kingdome is usurped without any right as by Athalia or when the land is invaded by forraigne enemies as in the time of Maccabees or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany in all these cases then is least question of resistance to be made by the generall Councell of the States yet where none of these concur God forbid that the Church and Common-wealth should be left without remedy the former conditions viz. those alledged by Pareus observed when havock is made of the Common-wealth or the Church and Religion Thus also Doctor Bilson whose booke was allowed by publicke authority and printed at Oxford speakes If a Prince should goe about to subject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme or change the forme of the Common-weale from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the lawes established by common consent of Pr. and people to execute his owne pleasure in these and other cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend
theiâ— King Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adversaries whereby theâ— contend as he sayes for resistance as that of the High Priest resisting the King in the Temple and Elisha shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger thaâ— came to take away his life to the first he sayes that the High Priest did no morâ— then what every Minister may and ought to doe if the King should attempt tâ— administer the Sacrament that is reprove him and keepe the elements from him Ans But if that were all the Priests should not have beene commended for their valour but their faithfulnesse and ver 17. it is said that Azariah â— Chron. â—â— 17 the Priest went after him and with him fourescore Priests of the Lord that were valiant men In that they were commended here for valiant it shewes that their worke was not onely reproofe but resistance And whereas he saith that they thrust him out of the Temple because God â—and was first upon him smiting him with Leprosie and by that discharging him of the Kingdome also Ans I answer how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being smitten with the leprosie was an actuall discharge from his crownâ—â— Then the Doctor saith Elisha's example speakes very little but let uâ— thence saith he take occasion to say that personall defence is lawfull against thâ— sudden and illegall assaults of such Messengâ—rs yea of the Prince himselfe thuâ— far to ward his blowes to hold his hand and the like c. Ans 1. If you may ward his blowes and hold his hands this is morâ— then praying and crying and suffering 2. Suppose the King hath an army with him how can you hold an armies hands without an army and therefore according to his owne wordâ— it is lawfull for the subjects considered State-wise to raise an army to deâ—end themselves 3. But this instance of Elisha tells us that Messengers sent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken prisoners is not that a resistance for Elisha said see you how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut the doore and hold him fast at the doore 2 Kings 6. 32. Then the Doctor comes to answer a similitude of the body naturall and politicke whereby it is argued that as the body naturall so the body politicke may defend it selfe to which the Doctor answers as the naturall body defends it selfe against an outward force but strives not by schisme or contention within it selfe so may the body politicke against an outward power but not as now by one part of it set against the head and another part of the same body Answ Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it selfe against an outward force and what is the Militia for especially but against forrainers Then the Doctor distinguisheth betwixt a personall defence and a generall resistance by armes He saith a personall defence may be without all offence and doth not strike at the order and power that is over us as generall-resistance by armes doth which doth immediately strike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale which saith he makes a large difference betwixt Elisha's shutting of the doore against the Kings messenger and their resisting the King by armed men Answ But why was Elisha's defence personall because he was but one person that was defended then if one man defend himselfe against 1000. in armes that is a personall defence or was it personall because onely the person of the Prophet made defence and had none to assist him not so because he spake to the Elders to shut the doore and hold him fast and if this act of Elisha was contrary to the Kings command why did it not as immediately strike at the order and power that was over him as our resistance doth now indeed if the subjects as private men strengthned with no authority should gather together in a rude multitude to oppose lawes and governours then that worke should strike immediately at the order and power and life of a State but that the State should send out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the highest Court of the Kingdome that justice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene stanched up is rather to confirme and strengthen the order and power of authority and so it is in our case Then the Doctor proceeds to some Scriptures wherewithall hee thinkes to strengthen his opinion let us follow him First saith hee we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people against Moses and Aaron Numbers 16. 3. and perishing in theiâ— sinne Ans I answer that Moses and Aaron had not neglected their trust and our question is in the generall laying aside all respect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his trust and doing that through his baâ— Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State may not by the wholâ— State be resisted therein Now see how extreamly wide this instance 〈◊〉 from this question First of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the wholâ— people nor the representative Body nor any imploied by the wholâ— people 2. Moses and Aaron had not offended but were innocent The Dr. answers The other supposed they had bin guilty and that is enougâ— it seems Ans It seems so indeed by him that supposalls are enough to chargâ— the Parliament but with us supposalls are not enough to charge ouâ— Prince 2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. saying there the people are let tâ— understand how they would be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they havâ— no remedy left but crying to the Lord vers 18. Ans In this Scripture Samuel shewed them what their King would do not what he should doe and when he saith at the 18. verse You shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lorâ— will not heare you in that day he telleth them not what should be their duty but what should be their punishment for he doth not say then shall you cry unto the Lord and he shall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promise of acceptance But he saith you shall cry in that day because of your King and the Lord will not heare you in that day setting forth the punishment of that theiâ— choise 3. The Dr. saith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civill assemblies or for War but by his command whâ—â—ad the power of the Trumpet that is the supream as Moses was Num. 10. Answ The Parliament hath sounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the supreme power hath given commandement for For theâ— Doctor saith Section 1. page 2.
13. Chapter that the subjection and obedience here commanded by the Apostle is not passive obedience or subjection but active for the Apostle having said ver 1. and 2. Let every soule be subject to the higher power and not resist he saith at the third verse Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power doe that which is good and at the sixth verse For this cause pay you tribute also But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and sinfull the Doctor saith we are to be subject only passively therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden in the Scripture not such as relates the unlawfull command of Princes as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things destructive to the Christian Religion accordingly Hierom upon the place Oftendit Apostolus in his quae recta sunt judicibus obediendum non in illi quae religioni contraria sunt And besides the Doctor himselfe confesseth page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary but perpetuall therefore to reach unto those times when the Prince should command that which was good therefore the subjection here commanded was active subjection and not meerly passive But the Doctor saith he will free this place from all exceptions and therefore he saith first I may suppose the King supreme as St. Peter calls him or the higher power as St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question Answ And is it but now put to the question What shall we say then of that speech of Doctor Bilson By superiour powers ordained of God we understand not onely Princes but all publicke States and Regiments some where the people somewhere the Nobles having the same intrust to the sword that Princes have in this Kingdome and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to those that are in authority Suppose we be in some country where there is no King but States doth not this Scripture command us subjection there also How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onely the King The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome and the highest Court of Justice must needs fall within the compasse of these words the higher Powers unto which by vertue of this commandement of the Apostle we are to be obedient How then is this true which the Doctor saith that by the higher Power is meant the King onely or supreme in opposition to the Parliament But I prove it saith he For S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority the King as supreme and all that are sent by him 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter ranke are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Ans Calvin and other Interpreters herein is contrary unto the Doctor Nam qui pronomen eâ—m ad Regem refeâ—unt multum falluntur Estigitur huc communi ratioâ—â— commendandam omnium magistratuâ— authoritateÌ„ quod mancato Dei praesunt ab eo mitâ—untâ—r unde sequitur quemadmodum Paulus doâ—â—â— Deo resistere qâ—i ab eo ordi nata non se obedienter submittunt Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who saith thus Those that referre the pronoune him to the King are much deceived for this is that common reason whereby the authority of all Magistrates is commanded because they doe rule by the commandement of God and are sent by him By him being referred to God by other Interpreters and to the King with the Doctor Then the Doctor saith secondly In this Text of the Apostle it is said All persons under the higher powers are expresly forbidden to resist for whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soule in the first Ans That which the Doctor aimes at in these words is to make the whole Parliament subject unto the King And who denyes them to bee the Kings subjects and that as men and Englishmen they should not be subject unto the King But if he meanes that as a Parliament they should be subject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth then how is that true which he saith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is such an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine c. Or if he meane that as a Parliament jointly considered they are to submit passively unto the unlawfull commands of the King and that passive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is so to straiten the Text as never any yet hath straitned it neither indeed can any conscience thinke that when the Apostle commands us to be subject unto the higher powers his meaning is only by way of suffering in his unlawfull commands and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands Thirdly the Doctor saith That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell he thinks wil or can Ans But what then Is it not therefore lawfull for the subjects now to resist the higher power commanding things unlawfull because the Apostle commanded there that we should not resist the higher powers in things that are lawfull Herein lyes the Doctors continued mistake He thinkes this command of the Apostle was given to the Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands whereas the Apostles command in this place reaches to all times and is made to all that are Christians Although they did live under Nero yet it does not follow that the Apostle commanded them to be subject to him in unlawfulls If indeed Nero's commandements were onely unlawfull and this direction of the Apostle was made onely to the Christians in those times and that the subjection commanded were onely suffering subjection then this Scripture might make much for his purpose But though Nero was an enemy to the Christians yet some of his commandements were lawfull and this direction of the Apostle was not made onely to the Christians in those times but as a generall rule for all good men and the obedience and subjection here commanded was not onely to be passive but active which I have proved already wherein I also appeale to the Doctors own conscience whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and subjection to the Prince and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide and his argument null Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed that that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some whom he answers Ans I answer that the Doctor here makes his owne adversary and fights with him Many other answers he refutes also it being not in my purpose to make good every pamphlet but to satisfie mens consciences onely I cannot but here take notice that the Doctor professes against arbitrary
power or such as conquerours use as he did Sect. 1. professe that he was much against arbitrary government But I wish the Doctor would be pleased to consider his own principles as he delivers them in these papers for he sayes that the Roman Emperours were absolute Monarchs and did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily and that they did make themselves such absolute Monarchs by conquest Then he sayes this Crowne of England is descended by three conquests And therefore if one conquest is a reason for the arbitrary government of the Emperour he cannot but thinke though he conceale his minde that his government also ought to be much more arbitrary What else remaines in this Section I have either spoken to it already or shall more aptly in the following Discourse Sect. III. THe Doctor saith That for the proving this power of resistance there is much speech used about the Fundamentals of this power which because they lye low and unseen by vulgar eyes being not written laws the people are made to beleeve that they are such as they that have the power to put new laws upon them say they are Ans Herein he turnes the Metaphor of Fundamentalls too far as if because the fundamentals of a house cannot be seen therefore the fundamentall laws cannot be seen which are not therefore called Fundamentall because they ly under ground but because they are the most essentiall upon which all the rest are built as fundamentall points of Religion are most seen and yet fundamentall Secondly he sayes these fundamentals are not written lawes The Parliament say they are and produce severall written lawes for what they do The Doctor and those that are of his sense say they are not who should the people be ruled by in this case but by the Parliament seeing the Doctor himselfe saith none are so fit to judge of the lawes as they Then the Doctor saith Those that plead for this power of resistance lay the first ground worke of their Fundamentals thus The power is originally in and from the people and if when by election they have intrusted a Prince with a power he will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or as in this kingdome to the two Houses of Parliament the representative body of this Kingdome to see to it they may re-assume the power This is the bottome of their fundamentals as they are now discovered to the people Ans We distinguish as he doth the power abstractively considered from the qualifications of that power and the designation of a person to that power The power abstractively considered is from God not from the people but the qualifications of that power according to the divers waies of executing in severall formes of government and the designation of the person that is to worke under this power is of man And therefore the power it selfe we never offer to take out of Gods hand but leave it where we found it But if the person intrusted with that power shall not discharge his trust then indeed it falls to the people or the representative body of them to see to it which they doe as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince It is one thing for them to see to it so as to preserve themselves for the present and another thing so to re-assume the power as to put the Prince from his office As for example Suppose there be a ship full of passengers at the sea in the time of a storme which is in great danger to be cast away through the negligence and fault of the Steers-man the passengers may for their own present safety that they may not be all cast away desire the Steers-man to stand by and cause another to stand at the Sterne for the present though they doe not put the Steers-man out of his office And this is our case we doe not say that the Prince not discharging his trust the people and Parliament are so to re-assume the power as if the Prince were to be put from his Office which the Doctor not distinguishing thus would obtrude upon us but only that the Prince being abused by those that are about him whereby the charge is neglected the people or representative Body may so looke to it for the present setting some at the sterne till the storme be over lest the whole suffer ship wracke And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us disputing against us as if we went about to depose our King which we contend not for nor from these principles can be collected Then the Doctor saith That however the fundamentalls of this government are much talked of this is according to thâ—n the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and governments for they say power was every where from the people at first and so this would serve no more for the power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey Ans If it be the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and Governments then it seemes it does not lye so low and unseen as the Doctor said before because all the world sees it Secondly whereas he saith this will serve no more for power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey he seemes to insinuate that France and Turkey have no such power of resistance but who doth not know that the Protestants in France are of this judgement with us and practise witnesse that businesse of Rochell Then the Doctor saith we will cleare up these two particulars whether the power be so originally chiefly from the people as they would have it Then whether they may upon just causes re-assume that power and saith first of the originall of power which they would have to be so from the people as that it shall bee from God only by a permissive approbation Ans If the Doctor takes Power for Magistracie it self and sufficiencie of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abstractively considered as distinguished from the qualification of that power according to the divers waies of executing it in severall formes of government and the designation thereof unto some person then I do not beleeve there is any man in the Parliament whom the Doctor especially disputes against or of those who write for them that hold that the power is from the people and by permission and approbation onely of God neither can they for in that they contend so much for the Parliament it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abstract is from God himselfe and for the designation of a person or qualification of the power according to severall forms of government the Dr. himself grants it in this Section to be the invention of man and by Gods permissive approbation Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments That power as distinguished from the qualification thereof and designation is of divine institution Ans Wherein he might have saved his labour in those three arguments for none doth deny
it yet we will examine what he saith in the arguments 1. he saith that the Apostle speakes expresly that the powers are of God Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God vers 2. by which power he understands the power it selfe of Magistracy as distinguished from the qualifications thereof or designation of any person thereto 1. And if so how is that true which he saith before Section 2. where he saith that the higher power in Paul Rom 13. is all one with the King as supreme 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confesseth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power so doth the Apostle himselfe calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane constitution 2. If by power here Rom. 13. be understood Magistracie and authority it selfe in the abstract then when we are commanded to submit thereunto the meaning cannot be that the Christians in those times must submit to the unlawfull commands of the Emperour as the Doctor would have it before seeing the way of governing by an Emperour or Prince is but the qualification of the power surely if by power we are now to understand Magistracie and Authority it selfe in the abstract then all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to submit thereunto is to acknowledge a Magistracie then all the Doctors arguments and his strength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible resistance to unlawfull commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground Then the Doctor tells us in the same argument this power is called an ordinance of man subjective wherein he laâ—es this distinction That power is considered two waies either as it is subjective amongst men and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else as it is considered causaliter and so it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God Ans But this is too strait for it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only because it is amongst men but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane constitution in foure respects 1. because it is so causaliter the forme of severall governments being an invention of man 2. Subjective because it is amongst men 3. Objective because it is busied about men 4. Finaliter because it is ordained for man and the Common-weale yet power it selfe is the constitution and ordinance of God Then the Doctor proves That the power is of God because the Magistrate is called the Minister of God Rom. 13. vers 4. Ans But here he slips from the power it selfe to the person designed to the power for the power it selfe is not called the Minister of God which was the thing he undertooke for to prove And so in this third argument where he saith to the same purpose speak those other places By me Kings reigne I have said ye are Gods yet he confesseth that the formes of government by Kings and Emperours is an invention of man in the first argument But now suppose the Doctor had proved that the power abstractively considered is of Gods institution and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in severall formes of government and the designation of the person thereto be of man what hath he gotten from or gain'd upon his imagin'd adversary For suppose that his adversary should say that they may depose their Prince if he neglect his trust which is not our case because that his power is originally from them how doth that which the Dr. hath said weaken this argument For though he hath proved that the power of it selfe is from God yet having granted that the formes of that government and the designation of a person thereto is from the people they may as well urge and say therefore we may alter the government and may depose the person because he was of our designing as well as they might have argued so if the power it self had been from themselves Then the Doctor saith The imputation is causlesse which the pleaders on the other side doe heedlessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines as if we cried up Monarchy and that only government to be Jure Divino Ans To let passe reproaches how can we thinke otherwise if wee should beleeve all that the Doctor saith For he proves that the power mentioned Rom. 13. is Jure Divino and yet he saith Sect. 2. That the â—igher power there is all one with the Supreme or King in Peter but this with â—he nature of Monarchicall government we shall come to consider more â—ptly in that which followes The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it â—elfe is of God that the qualification and designation was firstly of man which we all grant Sect. IV. NOw we come to the forfeiture saith the Doctor of this power if the Prince say they will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or the two Houses the representative body of the people to see to it and to reassume that power and thereby to resist This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of power from the people by vertue of election and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people as also to be necessary in regard of thâ—se meanes of safety which every state should have within it selfe Wee will examinâ— them in order Ans Herein he doth charge us with this opinion that wee hold it lawfull for the people to reassume their power in case the Prince dischargeth not his trust making the world beleeve that we contend for deposing of Kings or that the Parliament goes about such a worke as that is for what else is it for the people or Parliament to re-assume their power from the Prince whereas we desire all the world should know that we now take up armes as an act of selfe-preservation not endeavouring oâ— intending to thrust the King from his Office though for the present the State sets some under the King at the Sterâ—e till the waters be calmed as we said before Then the Doctor saith concerning the derivation of power we answer first if it be not from the people as they will have it and as before it was cleared theâ— can there be no re-assuming of this power by the people Ans How doth this follow for all that the Doctor had cleared before was this that power abstractively considered was from God noâ— from the people now let us see whether the clearing of that will brinâ— in such a consequence as this that there can bee no re-assuming of this power by the people if it will enforce such a consequence then the syllogisme is this â—f power and magistracy and authority it selfe be of God and the forms of government and designation of persons be of man theâ— there can be no re-assuming of this power by the people But the poweâ— itselfe and magistracy is of God the formes of government and designation of persons is of man saith the Doctor Sect. 3. Therefore there caâ— be no re-assuming this power by
the people saith the Doctor Sect. 4. Ans Will not his imagined adversaries easily deny the sequell indeeâ— if he had proved that neither the power nor the qualification nor the dâ—signation were of man but of God and cleared that first then hee had tâ—ken that argument from his adversaries but seeing he hath granted thâ— the wayes of government and designation of persons to bee of mâ— though he hath proved the power it selfe of God sure he hath no wâ—â— stopped the course of their arguments or practice against whom he dâ—â—putes Theâ—â— he comes to shew the inconsequence and saith If the people should giâ—â— the power â—â—absolutely â—â—they would have it leaving nothing to God in it but approbation yet could they not therefore have right to take that power away for many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part â—ith theâ— are not afterward iâ— our power to recall them Ans He supposeth we goe to take the power away from the Prince which we doe not as hath beene said 2. There is a difference between disposing of things by way of donation or sale and disposing things by way of trust true those things which we dispose of by way of donation or sale are not afterward in our power to recall as they were before the donation or sale as if a man give his childe land or sell land to his neighbour it is not in the power of the father or neighbour to recall or dispose of the land as before the donation or sale But if a thing be disposed of by way of trust then if the fiduciary or trusted shall not discharge his trust it is in the power at least of the trusting to looke to the matter himselfe as in case that a Steward bee â—usted with a mans house and thus when any government is set up in a land by a people they trust the governour they doe not give away their liberties or rights but trust them in the hand of the governour who if abused that he doe not performe his Stewardly trust as he should the people or representative body as an act of selfe preservation I doe not say as an act of jurisdiction are to looketo it Neither herein doe they so reassume their power as to take away any thing which they gave to the King but so as to actuate that power which they alwaies had left in themselves as the power of selfe-preservation Then the Dr. saith Although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves yet because the Lords hand also and his oyle is upon the person elected to the Crowne and then he is the Lords Anointed and the Minister of God those hands of the people which were used in lifting him up to the Crown may not againe be lifted up against him either to take the Crowne from his head or the sword out of his hand Ans â—f this be true then Princes that are meerly elective and not hereditary and whose comming to the Crowne is meerly pactionall cannot be deposed by the people for they are the Lords Anointed and the Ministers of God but this is contrary to the Doctor himselfe who in this same Section saith thus Although such arguments speaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power in the next line before may seeme to have some force in States meerly elective and pactionall yet can it never be made to appeare by any indifferent understanding that the like must obtaine in this Kingdome And to this purpose saith the Dr. Phil. Paraeus exâ—useth what his father had written on Romans 13. in the point of resistance that it was to be understood of elective and pactionall government and when the government is elective and pactionall are not the Princes the Ministers and the Lords Anointed Then the Doctor saith How shall the Conscience be satiâ—fied that this their argument grounded upon election and the derivation of power from the people can have place in this Kingdome when as the Crowne not onely descends by inheritance but also hath so often been setled by conquest in the lines of Saxons Danes and Normans Answ First how can the Conscience be â—atisfied in that which the Dr. writes in this his booke where he acknowledgeth in this Section that it is probable indeed that Kings at the first were by choise here as else where And in Section 5. saith that the forms of severall governments whereof Princedome is one are from the invention of man and so by derivation from man 2. The Drs. great design I perceive by his frequent touching this matter is to make our King a King by conquest for in Sect. 3. He saith Gods Vice-gerents here on earth came into their Office either by immediate designation the election of the people succession and inheritance or by conquest now he cannot say that our King came in by immediate designation he doth not say that our Princes lay claim to the Crown by vertue of their election if by inheritance then by the right of an election or by conquest for by meere inheritance a man hath no more then what those first had whom he doth succeed Inheritance being but the continuation of the first right upon the children the right of election he doth disclaim and of derivation of power from the people therefore the right that he makes our Prince to have to the Crowne is onely the right of a Conquest then if any mans sword be longer or stronger then his hee may quickly have as much right to the Crowne as the King which opinion of the Drs. for my owne part I must abhor from what danger will it not expose our dread Soveraign to Did not Athaliah reigne as a Conqueresse six yeares And who knowes not that she was lawfully thrust from the Throne againe by a stronger hand then her owne Meere conquest being nothing else but an unjust usurpation and if the Conquerour rule the whole Kingdome and keepe them under by conquest only why may not the subject rise and take up armes to deiiver themselves from that slavery Thus doth the Doctor open the door to greater resistance then those that he disputes against 3. Though a Prince should hold his right by conquest as the next right yet if he hold it also by derivation from the people as the remote right and the last be the more naturall and just way then arguments grounded on that remote right may be more valid then those that are grounded on the next right but thus it is with our Prince who although he doth succeed the conquerour yet doth also take in the voluntary and free consent of the Common-weale unto his Crowne which a meer conquerour doth not but rules without the consent and against the good liking of the people Then the Dr. saith We tell them the Roman Emperors were not to be resisted they reply that they were absolute Monarchs was it any other way then by force and arms the way that
the Saxons Danes and Normans made themselves masters of this people Ans Now in these words we see the Drs. mind plainly that he contends for an arbitrary government for he saith page 11. that the Emperours did rule absolutely and arbitrarily and here he saith how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarchs was it any other waies then by force and arms the way that the Saxons Danes and Normans made themselves masters of this people in whose right and lines he saith before the Crowne descended upon our King What can be more plaine then this for an arbitrary government It seems the Dr. was conscious to himselfe that herein he had discovered himselfe and therefore he saies this I speake not as if the Kings of this land might rule as Conquerours but that will not heale it Then the Doctor comes to the matter of capitulation or covenant or oath which the Prince taketh to confirm what he promised which saith he are so alledged as if the breach or non-performance of the Princes part were a forfeiture of his power But we answer saith he the words capitulation or covenant are now much used to make men believe the Kings admittance to the Crowne is altogether conditionall whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation Ans Herein the Doctor mistakes us for though we aknowledge a covenant yet we cannot be so weake as to thinke that any breach of the covenant is a forfeiture of the Kings power for then the best man could not be King long but we first affirme a Covenant for though the Kings of Israel were Monarchs and immediately designed by God himselfe to their office and so one would thinke there should be no need of their comming to the Crowne by a covenant yet to shew the necessity of this oath and covenant when they came to their Crowns they also took an oath and entred into covenant with the people to protect their rights and persons 1 Chro. 11. 3. 2. We say that this mutuall covenant betwixt the King and the people binds the King to the people as well as the people to the King and that therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppresse his subjects and to take up armes against them as for the subjects to take up armes against him Thirdly that hence it followes that the Kings power is limited 4. From this covenant and capitulation we say thereby it appeareâ— that the people doe commit a trust to the King which 5. If he doth neglect as he doth not alwaies forfeit his power so neither are they to forfeit their right of looking to themselves for the present And therefore all that the Doctor saies that we urge the covenant aâ—â— capitulation so much as if our King were a conditionall King and that which he brings to prove that he is a King before Coronation is needlesly urged against us for we say and speake plainly that though the righâ— that our King hath to the Crowne is firstly by derivation of power from the people yet he hath his right by inheritance and is not such an elective King as is chosen for a time and his life if he rule well and so his right to end in himselfe but to continue upon his posterity for the people doe derive their power two waies either so as to chuse a maâ— into office for his life onely in case he rule well and so our Kings Predecessors were not brought to the Crowne or so as to commit the trusâ— of the State unto him to descend upon his posterity which when his posterity comes to hath both a right of election and inheritance it being the right of inheritance as it is left by their fore-fathers and the right oâ— election in regard of its principle from whence it flowed and thus wâ— doe estate our King in his Throne hereby establishing him more surâ— therein and then the opposite opinion of conquest doth Then the Doctor tells us That though the King doe breake his covenant or not make performance thereof yet a forfeiture of his power doth not follow from thence for saith hee could they in this covenant shew us such an agreement between the King and his people that in case he will not discharge his trust thus it shall be lawfull for the States of the Kingdome by armes to resist and provide for the safety thereof it were something To which I answer we doe not presse the forfeiture of the Kings power upon non-performance of covenant but we say this that the end oâ— his trust being to looke to the Kingdome though there be no such word expressed in the covenant or agreement betwixt the King and his people that in case he shall not discharge his trust then it shall bee lawfull foâ— the State of the Kingdome by armes to resist and to looke to their ownâ— safety their safety being the end of this trust ratio legis being lex in reason that must be implied there is a covenant stricken betweene man a woman at Marriage when they marry one another it is not veâ—bally expressed in their agreement that if one commit adultery thâ— party shall be divorced and yet we know that that covenant of marriâ—gâ— carries the force of such condition What followed in this Section iâ— eitherâ— repetition of what was before or what in substance we have answered already Onely at the last the Doctor moveth this question What then if the Prince take to himselfe more power or not performe what hee is bound to and answers then may the subjects use all faire meanes as are fit to use cryes to God petitions to the Prince deniall of obedience to his lawfull commands deniall of Subsidies c. but are left without all meanes to compell by force or resistance Ans The subjects are considered two wayes Socially Severally Severally as private men and so it hath beene taken for granted that in â—ase of oppression the subjects have used no armes but teares and prayers Before this Parliament how many oppressions were there upon the people both in their estates and in Gods worship by those who had unâ—uly gotten authority from the King and yet wee saw no forcible resistance made but every man quietly subjecting himselfe under that suffering condition Socially and joyntly and so there is other remedy for the subjects then onely prayers and teares and that the subjects are considered in this posture wherein now we are professing that wee take not up armes as we are private men barely but as subjects united and joyned in the representative body of the Kingdome which never yet was counted unlawfull by any Divines as I have shewed before Sect. V. THe Doctor comes unto that which he calls our last reason the safety of the Kingdome where he saith first that we have many weapons sharpâ—â—d for this resistance at the Philistims forge our arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schooles as he saith Ans But there is much
difference betweene us and the Papists in this particular for 1. The Papists contend for the lawfulnesse of deposing Kings which we doe not 2. The Papists plead for a power to depose a Prince in case that he turn Heretick which we doe not for we hold that though a Prince may leave and change his religion the subjects are not thereby excused from their allegiance 3 The Papists doe not onely hold â—â— lawfull to depose and thus to depose their Prince but to kill him also 〈◊〉 that a private man invested with the Popes authority may doe thus all which we abhor from why therefore should the Doctor charge us thus and make the world beleeve that we favour the Popish doctrine in this particular But as the Parliaments Army is scandalized by the adversaries saying there are many Papists in their army to helpe on their designes so is our doctrine scandalized by our adversaries saying that we make use of Popish arguments to strengthen our opinion but the truth of this we leave to all the world to judge of But to prove this the Doctor saith further that by this reason the Pope assumes a power of curbing or deposing Kings for that if there be not a power in the Church in case the civill Magistrate will not discharge his trust the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its owne safety Ans But what likenesse is there between that of the Papists and this of ours The Papists saying the Church hath a power of preserving its own safety and therefore the Pope may depose we say the Kingdome hath a power to preserve it selfe and therefore if the King neglect the trust the State for the present is to look unto it And as for the matter of the Church we turne the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the Officer is an hereticke unlesse the Church have a power to reject him after once or twice admonition then cannot a Kingdome have a power to preserve it selfe when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse the Kingdome have a power either to depose him or to looke to their own matters till things be better setled But the Church hath excommunication granted to it by Christ himselfe for its owne preservation neither can we conceive how a Church can preserve it selfe from evils and errors unlesse it have a power to cast out the wicked officers as in the body naturall it cannot preserve it selfe unlesse nature had given it a power to deliver it selfe from its own burdens therefore the Commonweale also by the like reason cannot have a power to preserve it selfe unlesse it have a power to deliver it selfe from its burden but in case that an Officer be unfaithfull we doe not say that it iâ— lawfull for the Kingdome to depose him therefore it may be lawfull for themselves socially considered Statewise in time of danger to help themselves Neither herein as the Doctor would doe we appropinquate to the Romish doctrine for the Papists from this power of the Church doe infer a power unto the Pope and not unto the Church or community Secondly the Doctor askes us this question by way of his second answer If every State hath such meanes to provide for its safety what meanes oâ— safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperors in or after the Apostles times or the people then inslaved what meanes had they for their liberty had they this of resistance Tertullian in his Apology sayes thus the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand but they had no warrant Ans 1. The question is wrong stated it should have been made thus If any State hath such meanes to provide for its safety what meanes of safety had the Roman State under the Roman Emperours when as he doth say what meanes of safety had the Christian Religion under the Roman Emperours Christian Religion and the State are two different things Secondly in the primitive times the Christians indeed had none of this power of resistance nor warrant for it as Tertullian speaks because the Roman State was not with them but suppose that the Roman Senate or Parliament had stood up for them and with them the representative body of the whole Empire and this is our case not as the Doctor â—ayes it then would not the Christians have made resistance for their owne defence No question but they would and would have knowne that they had warrant therein who may not see that hath but halfe an eye the vast difference betweene the condition of the Christians in the primitive times and ours they not having the State to joyne with them they not being the representative body of the Empire as it is now with us yet this objection maketh a great outcry and there is some threed of it runnes through the Doctors booke but how easily it may be cut let the world judge there being no more likenesse betweene our condition the condition of the primitive Christians then between the condition of private men whom the whole State doth move against and the condition of people whom the State is with The Doctor replyes that though the Senate of Rome were against the Christians of those times yet if the people have the first right and all power bee from the people that people must rise up and resist because the Senate did not disâ—harge the trust and so it will be in this State if at any time a King that would â—ule arbitrarily should by some meanes or other worke out of the two Houses â—he better affected and by consent of the major part of them that remaine comâ—asse his desires the people may tell them they discharged not their trust they â—hose them not to betray them or inslave them and so might lay hold on this power of resistance for the representative body claimes it by them Ans Concerning the Senate of Rome and the people of the Romane Empire we say that though the Emperor and the Senate had been for the â—estructioÌ„ of the Christians yet if the whole body of the Empire had jointâ—y risen for the Christians I make no question but that many of those that â—ied would so far have resisted that they would have saved their owne â—ves but the Emperours and Senate being against them and the body of the Empire jointly considered not rising for them it is true indeed they had no warrant to make resistancâ— but to suffer as they did This iâ— none of our case Secondly whereas the Doctor saith both here and afterward in this Section that if upon our grounds the King will not discharge his truâ—â— that therefore it falls to the representative body of the people to see to iâ— then the people having this power may also say if the Members of the twâ—â— Houses doe not discharge their trust committed to them they doe not that which they were chosen and sent for and then may the multitude by this rule
and principle now taught them take the power to themselves First I answer that there is not the same reason why the people should be so ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their trust being they are very many chosen out of the whole Kingdome for their faithfulnesse approved every way for their goodnesse and wisedome whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown and so by vertue of his inheritance may rule though he be knowne to be vitious as also because it is received by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is as also because the people doe actually elect and trust the Parliament men with the present affaires of the Kingdome Now though the Prince indeed be trusted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers whereunto the people doe now consent yet there is not that actuall election or designation of him unto the present affairs of the Kingdom as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses as for example suppose that a people doe chuse their Minister trusting him with all the great affaires of their soules and there doth rise a controversie betweene neighbours wherein they chuse an arbitrator to umpire the businesses though these two Parishioners â—hat have fallen out have formerly trusted their Minister with all the affaires of conscience yet they doe not so readily stand to his verdict by reason of the generall trust as to the verdict of those arbitrators whom they have now actually chosen for this businesse neither can they in law oâ— reason so easily revoke or renounce the sentence of Arbitrator whoâ— they have chosen to this businesse as the sentence of their Minister whâ—â— they have trusted in the generall so in this case of ours though the Kinâ— be entrusted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of thâ— Kingdome yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and designeâ— by the people for the present affairs of the Kingdome and therefore thâ— people take themselves bound to stand to their arbitrement neither câ—â— they thinke that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and sentence as they are for the deniall of their Princes commandement Secondly I say there is not the same reason that the people should recall their power from the Parliament in case the Parliament should be unfaithfull as there is they should see to things in case the Prince be mis-led I say there is not the same reason though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people because that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince is not made the sole reason by those that the Dr. disputes against for this their resistance but the authority that they are clothed with whereas if a people upon surmises that the Parliament doe not performe their trust should call in their trust and their power then they should have left themselves naked of all authority and should be private men but now that they looke to themselves in this time of danger and in that sense doe re-assume their power which they have derived to their Prince they are still led on by authority Thirdly the Doctor answers that we cannot expect any absolute means of safety and security in a State Ans Neither doe we expect it though this be granted which we desire or that granted which he contends for Then he saith that there is an excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or two of them without the third for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or those and the Lords without the King might determine the evills of these dayes doe shew so is this power of denying for the security of each State against other Ans This both the Doctor and I must leave to the judgement of those that know the Lawes and the Liberties and the Priviledges of all three Estates Further he saith that now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three Estates is restrained usually to the two Houses but also that temper is dissolved Ans First it was alwayes so that the Parliament was made distinct from the King in ordinary speech saying The King and his Parliament when the Parliament is mentioned alone it may include the King but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together the speech can intend no more then the two Houses As when the body is mentioned alone it includes the head and the members but when the head and the body are mentioned together then the body doth not include the head Secondly that the Doctor saith this trust of the three States is diâ—solved I conceive it is a scandalous charge and so I leave that tâ— others Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed as it is for the reasonablenessâ— of this meanes of safety through that power of resistance and that many sâ—â— more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one I answeâ— saith the Doctor true but 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction why should one hundred in the House of Commons see more then thrâ—â— hundred or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of differenâ— judgement and withdrawne Ans I answer if there be three hundred of the House of Common withdrawne and but an hundred left and sixty of the Lords Housâ— withdrawne unto twenty if indeed there be so many gone away whâ— did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote and thâ— controversie had beene now at an end Then could it never have beeâ— said to the people that the Parliament are against the King theâ— might the three States have all joyned together and there had been nâ— further question Secondly the Doctor answers that the Prince though one sees wiâ—â— the eyes of many for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Counsell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them Ans This needs no other answer then that which followes in thâ— Doctors owne words where he saith that the King sometime dissenâ— from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament so that he maâ— see with their eyes and see other things then they doe and be of different judgement from them And if he may see with other mens eyâ— that are of different judgement from him because they doe present tâ— his eyes the difference of things with the reasons of them then mâ— the Houses of Parliament also see more then he does because the diâ—ference of things with the reasons of them are presented to them alâ—â— Then the Doctor descends to prove that Monarchicall government is tâ— best and that God made choice to set up that still first in Moses then in
revolt from allegeance which hath possessed well neare tennâ— Tribes of the twelve and yet in page 21. he tells us of a vote passed by â— few upon the place that this worke of resistance is not carried on with a generall and unanimous consent and yet here he saith ten tribes of twelvâ— are for it In examining the causes of this war and resistance the Dr. saith To speake truth Religion and liberties can be no other then the pretences of this war the King having fortified them with so many acts of his grace passed this Parliament that they cannot be in that danger that is pretendeâ— for the raising of this war It must be something that his Majesty indeed doth deny for which the contention is raised which we shall finde to be his power of armes his power of denying in Parliament the government of the Church and the revenue of it which he is bound by oath to maintaine as by law they are established Ans This is a very bold assertion and scandalous to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with hypocrisie but how doth this agree to the Drs. owne principles who doth declaime against meâ— for their uncharitablenesse in not beleeving the Kings Protestations Is this then no uncharitablenesse in him charging the Houses with pretending one thing and intending another Is not conscience aâ— well bound to be charitable and to beleeve the Protestations of thâ— Parliament as those papers that come out in the name of the King and hath the Parliament and Houses carried themselves so unworthily and basely that under pretence of Religion we should thinkâ— they gape after the revenues of the Church O where is this manâ— charity And if the King be bound by oath as the Dr. saith to maintaine the government of the Church as by Law established yet hâ— is no more bound by vertue of that oath to maintaine that government then any other Law of the Kingdom and as for other Laws iâ— the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale them they may yeâ— without breach of the Kings oath so in this also Then the Doctor comes in the 25. page to open himselfe some what more freely concerning the government of the Church bâ— Bishops where he saith That it is such a government which tâ—â— Church alwaies had since the first receiving of the Christian faith in thâ— land and of all other governments simply the best the abolishing wherâ— of the King hath reason by power of Armes to divert To which I answer First that if the Doctor looke into the story of Queen Maries time he shall finde that suffering Protestant Churches which by reason of persecution were faine to lye hid in London were governed by Elders and Deacons That is simply the best government of the Church which is chalked and ruled out by the Scripture as the Doctor will confesse and if this government bee so I wonder that those that are so much for it should bee of that judgement that there is no particular forme of Church-government laid downe in the word which judgement they must needs bee of unlesse they will hold that the government of other Churches is sinfull and contrary unto the word which they are loth for to doe And truly if this government be simply the best the best hath the worst successe for there is no government in all the Churches of Christendome that hath had so many Sects and Schismes or occasioned so much separation from the Churches of Christ as this hath done There are many Sects and divisions in the low Countries but none of them departing from the Protestant Church there by reason of the Church-government or discipline but by reason of doctrine Let any man but seriously consider the Protestant Churches in Switzerland France Holland Germany Scotland and hee shall easily observe that there is no such separation or division made from the Churches by reason of the Church-government stablished in them as hath been here in England by reason of this Diocesan government And if any man shall say this bad successe here is rather to bee imputed to the wickednesse of the Governours then the corruption of government Why should hee thinke that the Governours in England are more wicked then in other Protestant Churches if the government itselfe did not give scope to their wickednesse And if the government of Diocesan Bishops bee of all governments the best wee wonder that Christ and his Apostles should not appoint it surely they appointed some government in the Church and what they appointed was â—ure Divino and so best whereas this was never counted Iure Divino till of late But if this government bee simply the best it will abide triall in its due time and place but that it should be so good as that the abolishing thereof the King hath reason by power of Armes to divert this is strange Now the Doctor shewes himselfe that hee had rather the Kingdome should be embrewed in a bloody warre then Episcopacie should be put downe and that will stirre up the King to an unnaturall civill warre for the upholding of that order Judge yee O all Englishmen whether it be better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lie imbrewed in their owne gore In the conclusion of this Section the Doctor complaines That the Kings Speare and Cruse and necessary Ammunition and provisions are taken away not restored though often demanded contrary saith hee to the example of David who having taken the Speare and the Cruse from Saul his King restored them againe before they were demanded 1 Sam. 26. Ans But though Sauls Speare was restored before it was demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned returne my sonne David for I will no more doe thee harme because my soule was pretious in thine eyes this day Behold I have played the foole and have erred exceedingly vers 21. Whereupon David arose and said vers 22. Behold the Kings Speare let one of the young men come over and fetch it Neither is mention here made of restoring the Cruse Some other things the Doctor hath in this Section wherein hee doth rather charge then prove but mens knowledge may sufficiently answer to those things SECT VII IN this last Section the Doctor tells us That though Conscience could be perswaded that it is lawfull to make a defensive resistance yet it can never be perswaded that the King is such as the people must bee made to believe he is for indeed it concernes all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant subverter of Religion and Lawes a person not to be trusted or at least as one seduced to such evill designes by wicked counsels that hee will bring in Popery that hee will not stand to his promises Ans These are sad charges but how groundlesse God and the world knowes
who may not see how tender the Parliament hath been of the Kings honour Therefore they have not beene willing to beleeve that those Declarations that came out in his name are his owne Therefore they charge all that is done on his counsellors not on himselfe herein being fully like unto David who though Saul came out against him yet did he not impute that unnaturall warre unto Saul himselfe so much as unto those that were about him saying unto Saul If the Lord hath stirred thee up against me let him accept an offering but if they be the children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven mee out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord 1 Sam. 26. 19. Therefore also when the Parliament hath written any thing that might in the least measure reflect upon his Majesty I have observed that they never did write so but to vindicate and to cleare themselves from some aspersions first cast upon them and when they did write so like Shem and Japhet they took a garment and went backward desiring rather to cover then to behold any nakednesse in our dread Soveraigne And woe be unto them from the Lord but I will not curse them with the curse of Cham who put his Majesty upon such actions whereby any nakednesse should bee discovered Then the Doctor comes to the examination of those fears and jealousies which have possessed the people which hee saith are raised on these grounds report of forraine powers to be brought in the Queens religion the resort of Papists to his Majesty his intercepting of meanes sent for the reliefe of Ireland To which he answers first That the report of forraine invasions given out to keepe the people in a muse the easier to draw them into a posture of defence are discovered in time to have been vain But saith he If there be now any foraigne aid comming towards the King as all Christian Kings cannot but thinke themselves concerned in this cause it will be just for him to use them against subjects now in armes Answ To which I answer That it doth not appeare that our fears were vaine because forraigne invasion hath been prevented for we may rather thinke that therefore we have not been invaded by forraigners because the Parliament hath beene vigilant both by sea and land to prevent them But who doth not see that so far as lies in the Doctor he doth invite forraigne forces into the land and so stir up other Princes for to send them and our King for to use them Whether this be agreeable to an English Divine or an English Subject I leave to be judged Then he saith The Queens religion is no new cause Answ To this I say nothing but leave it being matter of fact to the judgement of eyes that have seene actions whether there be no more cause of jealousie now then at her first entrance And thirdly for the resort of Papists and the Kings entertaining them the Doctor strengthens the intrust of it with that example of David we may see saith he what manner of men were gathered to David in his distresse and how Ziba was rewarded Answ To which I say this only how can the Doctor make it appeare that those that were gathered to David were men of another Religion from David and of such a Religion that by the State was counted rebellion who also by the State was to bee disarmed Which if the Doctor does not make good this instance is nothing to our case And 4 for the matter of Ireland I leave that wholy to the Parliaments Declarations who without doubt know the proceedings of those better then this Doctor and what conscience enlightened will not rather rest for satisfaction upon Parliamentary Declarations then upon this Doctors assertion in this matter The other things in this Section are mostly matter of fact and therefore I must referre them to mens sense onely I cannot but observe how in all things the Doctor cleares the King and casts dirt upon the Parliament but still with this cunning when he hath laid the greatest aspertion upon them he retracts in these words I speake not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdom of the great Councell like as before when he had said what he could or happily dar'd for the Kings ruling by conquest he comes oft with this kinde of speech This I speak not as if the Kings of the land might rule as Conquerours and this is an ordinary sleight when men have preached against purity and holinesse with as much bitternesse as they can then they thinke to come off in this or the like manner God forbid that I should speak against purity and holinesse But let him in Gods name cleare the King in what he may as wee are all bound to doe as farre as we can but can he not cleare his Majesty without such foule aspertions cast on the Parliament of whom he saith thus page 30. Men are higly concerned to consider whether they also that are the maine directors of this resistance doe discharge this trust they are called to whether to divest the King of the power of Armes and to use them be to defend his Person Right and Dignity Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this resistance and the imprisoning of their persons for deniall be the maintaining of the right and priviledge of the subjects Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines and to commit such unsufferable outrages upon the worship of God with such licentiousnesse be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church Answ These are foule charges upon the Parliament How can the Doctor say I enter not this discourse to cast the least blemish upon the Parliament Well blessed is the man that condemneth not himselfe in that thing which he alloweth The Doctor confesseth That man to bee subject to higher powers and that we are to submit to them he confesseth also That the Parliament is the highest Court in the Kingdome and it ought to judge what is the Law they having therefore judged this resistance to be lawful if the Doctor shall resist this their declarative power saying it is not law and cast such dirt and reproaches upon them doth he not condemne himself in the thing which he alloweth But in this last clause of his booke he summons conscience to answer upon paine of damnation and I make no question but when men shall have seriously considered his booke the verdict that conscience will bring in will this be As in the sight of God I have perused this Treatise of his and I finde it injurious to the King to the Parliament to the Divines of this Kingdom to the other Subjects to the Treatiser himself To the King for hereby he is put on and exasperated against his Parliament and Subjects further engaged in this war and encouraged to take the assistance of Papists who if he conquer by their meanes what Protestant good subject doth not bleed to thinke what will become of him To the Parliament being charged with the blood that is spilt in these warres with the miseries of Ireland with the Schismes and Sects of this Kingdome with open hypocrisie pretending one thing and intending another To Divines all whom he makes to be of his judgement To the Subjects denying to them the liberty given them by God and Nature and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and calling in forraigners upon them To the Treatiser himselfe who hath needlessely imbarked himselfe in a bad cause And lastly to the Scripture and God and his great Officer on Earth Conscience the Scripture being wrested God dishonoured and the conscience deceived Now the Lord grant that whilst we speake of Conscience we may in all things make conscience of our waies for multi conscientiam habuit adjudicium non ad remedium As concerning the King Give the King thy judgements O God and thy righteousnesse unto the Kings Son And as concerning the two Houses of Parliament Let the mountaines bring grace unto the people and the little hills thy righteousnesse Let the King and Queen and people praise thee O God yea let all our England praise thee FINIS