I NEVER more unwillingly took pen in hand than at present to set down the subsequent Discourse, for mine own Vindication against so many unjust and untrue aspersions as have been cast upon me, and so great severities as have been used towards me. For it was in my hopes that rather some publique and legal Tryal should have given me the means of clearing my self to the World, than my pen. Neither could I but in reason ex­pect, that whether by Treaty, or by Force this unatural War should be extinguished, such only as had been ac­cused of illegal Oppressions, or such as had been the Inven­tors to set on foot, or the Instruments to act those things which were the cause of those unhappy mis-understandings and divisions betwixt the King and the People, should have been reserved to the highest and severest punishments. But that others, who neither were, nor could be, charged with any other Crime, but their adherence to either party, according as they were guided by their Consciences, might (after some such moderate sufferings as the less success­full party are usually liable unto, or after some legal Trial) have been admitted to an Act of Oblivion, whereby those general animosities which this War hath raised might have been allayed, and by little and little have grown to be forgotten, and those naturall and near relations betwixt man and wife, parents and children, friend and friend, which this War by difference in opinion and part-taking [Page 2] hath destroyed, might (together with the peace of the Kingdom) have been restored.

And in expectation of some such happy accord, or some moderate reducement when that all mens Cases might have been calmly considered of, and that the great Successes of the Houses in their war would have been seconded by their Acts of the greater and clearer Iustice, And that such as had made their humble addresses unto them, should have been admitted to the means of informing them, and not to be censured or condemned unheard, especially such as Petitioned for, and submitted to the Justice of the King­dom.

Upon this hope and expectation I passed by more than twenty printed aspersions, full of infamy, bitterness and detraction, but void of all Truth. These I neglected, al­though I saw the operation they had of raising a hatred and detestation in the People, who fetched their intelli­gence from them, and grounded their opinions of preju­dice upon them.

But that which I was far from neglecting, but lay'd to my heart, with great sadness and grief of mind, was. The severe Censures of the Houses in their Propositions to the King at Oxford, when (without Summons, Hearing, or Con­viction) I was censured to be made incapable of holding of any place or imployment in the Kingdom, or to come with­in the Verge of the Court, without laying the least Crime or Delinquency to my charge; and since in the Propositions at Uxbridge (their severity increasing towards me) they added much to their former Censure; I am sure without a­ny further Crime or Provocation on my part, having before that time (with the Kings leave) retired my self from the Court, with intention to have passed the rest of mine age in a private life, which (the War not permitting me at my House at Sherbone) I did at Exeter, for the space of more than 2 years, with as much privacy, as was possible for me. Yet was I so unfortunate, that (although their former de­sires of my being removed from Court were accomplished by my voluntary Act neither time did allay their displea­sure, [Page 3] nor my absence from Court restrain their further seve­ritie towards me. But I was voted in those Propositions prepared to be offered to his Majesty, and afterwards sent unto him, to be in the number of the most high and capital Offenders, who were not to expect Pardon or Mercy either concerning Life or Fortune.

Yet herewith was not my Patience and resolution of Silence overborn, conceiving this Exception could signifie nothing more than that such Excepted Persons, upon whom the displeasure of the Houses was highly fallen, should not be admitted to that general Pardon of Course, which, joyn­ed to some pecuniary Mulct or Composition, should be a Dis­charge and indempnity to others that had born Armes, without further Tryal or Impeachment; But that the Ex­cepted Person▪ should be reserved to a particular strict Le­gal Tryal, and being after a fair hearing legally convicted of those presupposed, hainous and foul Crimes (the suggesti­ons whereof induced the Houses to lay this heavy mark of Distinction upon them) They being so condemned should have the severity of Law and Justice to pass upon them, and be excepted from Pardon, as far as lay in the houses to ex­cept them. But I did not conceive that the intention of the Houses was or could be, to except them from a legal Tryal, or fair Hearing, nor from being acquitted or clear­ed, if they were innocent. For no man could entertain so hard or prejudiced an opinion of the two Houses, or of the Scotish Commissioners who concurred and assented to the Propositions, and the Exception, that they should, upon the transferring of such Persons as the House of Peers should nominate of their Body, or the House of Commons of their Members, or of the Body of the Commons, or the Scotish Commissioners of their Kingdom, condemn im­plicitely, or Proscribe (in compliance one to the other, without distinct knowledge of the Person or the Crimes) so many noble Personages and Families to totall ruine and destruction, without hearing or due processe of Law.

Besides their demanding of the Kings assent to pass their [Page 4] Condemnations and Incapacities by Act of Parliament, must needs imply a due preceding Tryal and Conviction to be intended for the satisfying of the King of the Crimes and guilt of the Persons, For it cannot be presupposed of the Houses, that (either in regard of piety or reason) they could expect, that the King should involve himself in so merciless a sentence of shedding so many mens blood, and destroying so many good Families (implicitely upon trust of other men) without distinct information and satisfacti­on of his own Conscience, And this, against Persons who have been most Loyal, and their Crime and Delinquencie only for having faithfully adhered to him, according to the Law and their Oaths.

So that my Opinion then was, That the intention of the Houses could be no other, but that whereas some were ad­mitted to a pecuniary Composition for their pretended De­linquency, the Excepted Persons should not be admitted thereunto, but be reserved to the severity of Justice with­out mercy, but first be admitted to a legal Tryal.

And herein I was further confirmed by divers Treaties made with their General upon the laying down of Armes, and the surrendring of Cities unto them, and particularly of Excester, where I was, and was to have injoyed the be­fit of those Articles, by which it was permitted unto me, and unto all other Excepted Persons, to endeavour by the space of four moneths to make our Peace and Composition, And this would never have been condescended unto by their General, and ratified by the Votes of both Houses, if they intended their Vote of Exception as a final Sen­tence, irrevocable, and unalterable, which they have like­wise by their own Acts declared to be otherwise: For that upon mediation, and further information, they have been pleased, to several Persons to remit the severity of the Vote of Exceptions, and have admitted them to Com­position.

Upon all these preceding Reasons, being confident that some such fitting season would be offered, either by way of Petition, or by way of being called to a fair and Legal [Page 5] Trial, That I should be heard, and (after a particular Charge of all such Crimes as could be laid against me) I should be admitted to a just defence, Upon this ground I have hi­therto remained silent, and made no Answer to those so many most unjust and untrue Calumnies and Aspersions which have been cast upon me both in Print and other­wise.

And now by the said Treatie of Excester I supposed a fair opportunitie given me, to address my self unto the Houses to attain that which was ever in my desires, which was to be admitted unto an Hearing, That they might judge di­stinctly of my Case, after a full Information of all that con­cerned me; And thereupon I addressed my humble Petiti­on to the House of Peers, That I might receive so much Fa­vour and Justice from them, That (since I was by the Treaty admitted to use my best indeavours so far to satisfie the Houses, that I might be left in the Condition of other men that had served the King) I might be heard by them, And in case I should not upon hearing give the Houses satisfaction of not deserving to be a Person Excepted, I would not de­cline any thing whatsoever the Houses should order con­cerning me. And in Case that it should not be seasonable, in regard of their many great Affairs at that time, to afford me such a Tryal, That I might remain privately at mine House, ingaging my self to do nothing to the prejudice of the Hou­ses either by Act or Correspondence; And to make my ap­pearance whensoever I should be summoned, and to abide their Order. This Petition had likewise an humble Re­quest unto the Lords, That the said Petition might be com­municated with the House of Commons in such sort as their Lordships in their wisdom should think fit; For I might not (being a Peer) make my addresses but by them, or their particular leave: Yet knowing that the Proposition of Ex­ceptions was by the joint Vote of both Houses, and that no Proceeding therein could be but by joint concurrence of both Houses, I judged this the most proper Expedient of making my addresses unto them both.

I accompanied this my Petition with a letter of much [Page 6] Respect unto the Speaker of the House of Peers, with many Motives to induce them to condescend to my Petition. I received Answer by letter bearing date the 10. day of Iune 1646. from the Earl of Manchester (Speaker pro tempore) in the name of the House, as followeth. My Lord, The House of Peers have received your Letter, and have commanded me to return your Lordship this Answer, That they leave your Lordship to take the benefit of the Articles of Excester, which they will carefully observe, &c.

Hereupon, (having the Articles of Excester confirmed) I came up in person unto London, and exhibited my second Petition to the House of Peers, with the same Request I had formerly made, That it might be communicated with the House of Commons; And by a letter signified unto the Speaker of the House of Commons my being come to London upon the publique faith of the Treatie of Excester, The particular safe-Conduct of their General under his Hand and Seal, and his letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the assurance of the House of Peers, That the said Articles should be carefully observed by them.

My second Petition was, That I might without offence sollicit my Cause, and use my indeavours to give satisfacti­on to the Houses. I received Answer by the Earl of Man­chester, That the Lords thought it reasonable that I might take the full benefit of the Articles, and use my best indeavours in sol­liciting my Cause in Person, to my best advantage. But the next day after I had received this permission from the Lords to follow my Cause, I was notified and served with an Or­der by the Serjeant at Armes of the House of Commons, That notwithstanding it was agreed by the Articles for Rendring up of Excester, Oxford, &c. That the Excepted Persons might come to London to endeavour to make their Peace and Compo­sition with the Parliament, the House of Commons was resol­ved to admit them to no Composition, notwithstanding the said Articles, And therefore it being to no purpose for them to use any further indeavours in that kind, the Serjeant at Arms of that House was from time to time to give notice unto all such Excep­ted Persons, That they should immediately depart without the [Page 7] Line of Communication and Parts adjacent, and not to return, &c. I conceived this very derogatorie to the House of Peers, that I should be ordered by the House of Commons without the Concurrence of the Lords, especially in a mat­ter wherein the Lords had declared themselves before.

Herein I thought it fit to have recourse unto the Lords, and sent the Copie of the said Order unto divers of them, who seemed to find it very strange, and wished it might be offered unto the House the next morning, which was ac­cordingly done; But having been read, (after some time of a general silence) another business was set on foot, and this laid by, so that I found little relief was to be had where I might so justly have expected it.

But (in regard the Serjeant at Arms had told me, He could return no Answer to the House of Commons, but his dutie was only to notifie the Order, and to give an accompt if obedience were not given to it) I wrote a letter unto the Speaker, conteining some few modest and necessary re­quests. But nothing would be heard concerning me, but that I was to depart the Kingdom within the limited time by the Articles of Excester, which being within very few daies to be elapsed, I was constrained to make all the haste I could to the sea side, and there to imbarque my Self and Companie, and horses, in a small boat, with three Mariners only and one Boy, having used all possible means to have my time enlarged only for some few daies, for the provi­ding of fitting Transportation, but could not obtain it: so that two daies before the expiration of the time limited by the Articles of Excester, I imbarqued at Weymouth, and passed into France.

The Reason of my leaving the Kingdom of England was First, for that I was assured that the time of the Treatie be­ing expired, I should be seized as a Prisoner of War, and so I might have been proceeded against by Marshal law, or an Arbitrarie Power, instead of a legal Tryal according to the law; which neither then I did, nor will at any time de­cline. The second was, That notwitstanding by the 21. Article for the surrendring of Excester, it was agreed, That [Page 8] no Oath, Covenant, Protestation or Subscription, should be imposed upon any Person whatsoever, comprised in the said Articles; Yet the House of Commons ordered 2 of June 1646. That no Person should come to reside in the Parliament Quarters, (which was then all England) but he should take the National League and Covenant, and the Negative Oath, notwithstanding any Articles that had been or should be made by the Army; neither of which I thought could stand with my Loyaltie, or the Oaths or Protestation which I had formerly taken: Besides, I did conceive, that no Person could live with comfort or safetie under such a Power, that so avowedlie broke the Publique Faith of their own Armie and General, whom though I found very desirous to have his Capitulations punctually performed, yet were they in all things broken by the Hou­ses or their Committees, whensoever it was for their bene­fit: For the General having given me his Letters, and Pro­tection under his hand and seal for the injoying and dispo­sing of my goods for the space of four months according to the Articles; yet the Committees of Dorset-shire slighted the said Articles and Generals latters, being both shewed unto them, and sold the said good [...] for a third parr of their value, for their own or friends advantage.

By this manner of proceeding, I (having fallen from all hope or possibilitie of clearing my self by being brought to a legal Trial, or publick Hearing, And being loath to go to my grave (from whence I cannot be far) branded with that black Mark of not being capable of Pardon or Mercie, nei­ther for Life nor Fortunes, which must insinuate me to the world to be some horrid, pernicious and wicked Malefa­ctor) find my self obliged in that I owe to my self, in Vindication of mine Honor and Innocencie, as likewise to my Familie and Posteritie, who will find themselves left to want and misery, to let them see that it hath been an inevitable necessity and adhering to my Loyalty and Consci­ence, that hath involved me in that general Calamitie that hath be fallen the Kings overborn Partie, and the particular indignation of others, and no particular wicked­ness [Page 9] or demerit of mine, that hath assigned and severed me to that severe and merciless Sentence of Unpardonable De­struction.

If I could have had any hope of being admitted to a pub­lique or Legal Proceeding, I should never have betaken me to any other way of clearing my self, although I am not ig­norant, upon how great disadvantage and hazard any man is brought to a Tryal upon the Impeachment and pursuit of the Houses: Neither had I any reason to slatter my self with any indulgency towards we: Yet withall, I had, and have, so great confidence of my own clear Innocency, in point of not meriting to be excepted from the same course of proceeding afforded others, That I was never more de­sirous to attain any thing, than I was, and am, to be ad­mitted to an equal and fair Hearing, and Legal Tryal.

As for the point of having served and adhered to the King, I shall neither deny or evade it; but my Case is in that, the same with many Thousands; and I should be too indulgent to my self, not to expect the same misfortunes and suffering with others: But now almost despairing of ever to be so happy as to see mine own Country again, in regard of my Age and Infirmities, and in less hopes of ever being admitted to a fair Hearing, since the very ways of Addresses or Petitions unto them are debarred me, and the using of any further indeavour to satisfie them is voted down, And since their Sentence is already (before either Examination, Tryal or Conviction) put in execution, (in as much as concerneth Fortunes or Estates) by their actual possessing and disposing of them: So that (having nothing left unto me but an exiled Life, present wants, and an ex­pectation of greater poverty) I shall indeavour to bear those heavy visitations which God hath been pleased to send upon me and my Family, with that Constancy of mind, and pious submission to Gods holy will, as befitteth a good Christian; and leave unto my Family and Posterity the subsequent Discourse: where, in the first place I shall set down those Reasons that induced me to adhere unto the King, being (as I conceive) thereunto bound, in [Page 10] Honour and Conscience, by the Law of God and of the Land, by many solemn Oaths, by natural Allegiance as a Subject, and by Honesty and Gratitude, as a sworn Ser­vant both to his Father and to himself; Of which several Obligations I shall speak in the first part of this Discourse: And in the second part I shall make so true and faithfull a Narration of my Proceedings, as I doubt not But to appear to have been a Faithfull, Loyal, and Affectionate Servant to the King my Soveraign and Master, But to have had no hand in any of those Exorbitancies which caused those mis­understandings betwixt the King and his People; To have been no Incendiary betwixt the King and the Houses;See the Spee­ches made for Accōmodation before the War was actually begun, in Ap­pend. pag. 1. & 9. But on the contrary to have used all possible indeavours as far as in me was, to have put those unhappy breaches and diffe­rences into a way of Accommodation, whereby a Civil War might have been prevented; and since the War, there never was any Overture, or hope of Peace, to which I did not contribute, both my prayers, and all the furtherance that was in my power, And so not to have deserved that merciless Sentence of Unpardonable Destru­ction.

MY intention is not in this Discourse (wherein the Vindication of mine own Honour and Innocency, and the setting down of those Reasons which deterred my Conscience from taking Armes against my King, is the main scope) to write a defence of the Cause in general, or to dis­pute the Question of Subjects taking Armes against their Soveraign; It will require a large and elaborate Tract a­parr, which may not be interrupted by any thing of the proceedings of a particular man: Neither will I censure or judge other men, nor fix upon others (though of a contrary [Page 11] way) any thing that may seem opprobrious, notwithstanding the Stile of Traitor and notorious Traitor hath often been my Title in Print; although that detestable name in this Case doth not make me blush. I know mens Consciences may by different Principles, be carried different waies: Neither will I censure so many men of all Qualities and Conditions, and religious Professions, of so much Impietie, as to have broken through all Tyes of Allegiance and Loy­altie, and so many Oaths, their Consciences unconsulted, and without conceiving they had found something to bal­lance their Judgements against so many precise and clear Duties. I shall only set down the motives and induce­ments of mine own Conscience; which ought to be to each Christian his Guide; against which, as he can do nothing well; so even good Actions become evil, if they be done with an unsatisfied or dubious conscience. The Rules of Scripture being, That we be fully perswaded in our minds, Rom. 14.5. That he is happy that condemneth not himself in the thing he alloweth, vers. 22. That he that doubteth is dam­ned, And that all things that are not of faith are Sin, ver. 23. So that as it will be easily agreed, That to all Christian men, Conscience ought to be the strongest and most unresistable guide, and of so great and binding authoritie with us, That it should over-rule all considerations of Safetie, Profit, Ambition, Revenge, or other Interest whatsoever: So it behooveth each Christian man to seek out the best and most unfallible marks and directions for the guiding of his Con­science in the right way. And this I may with truth de­clare (and take God to my witness in it) That when I did see, that no Industry (wherein I omitted nothing that was in my power, for the stopping, allaying, or reconciling of those differences and violences, which (breaking in like a floud) prevailed over mine, and all other peaceable min­ded mens indeavours) could produce any good effect, (And that there was now nothing left to any man, but (in an unevitable War) to make choice of the juster side, as his Conscience towards God in the first place, and his other civil duties and obligations should dictate unto [Page 12] him) I did, (after many Conferences with learned men of the other way, much studie, and reading of all that I could find to have written in favour or excuse of Subjects taking Arms against their King) resolve (contrary to all worldy or prudential Interests of my own) to adhere to the King, ac­cording as my Conscience was satisfied I was bound to do, By the law of God, By the doctrine and practice of all Chri­stian Churches, and in all times, By many Oathes, By the laws of the Kingdom, By my natural Allegiance as a Sub­ject, And by Gratitude and Fidelity, as a sworn Servant, both to his Father and Himself: Of each which several Obligations, I shall speak in the subsequent Discourse in the order that is here set down.

AS it will be easily assented unto, that Conscience ought to be the guide of our Actions: so the most infallible Rule whereby to guide Conscience to a Christian, ought to be, the Principles of Religion; and those Principles are, (above all other) binding and obliging which are deduced from the word of God. I shall therefore first begin with those religious and pious Motives which have in Consci­ence restrained me from taking Arms against the King, or making to him any hostile Resistance: For I desire it to be understood, that when I speak of Resistance, I alwaies un­derstand Actual and Hostile Resistance: For I well know, that in things in themselves sinfull, mala in se, I ought ra­ther to obey God than Men, And in such Cases, suffering is a full performance of our Duty of Obedience; Nay in Cases only illegal, non illicita, but illegalia, against publique or private Right, as if a Prince shall infringe the known un­doubted Prilileges of the Kingdom or of Parliament, or command that which is destructive unto them, The Wea­pons of our Resistance ought to be Replyes, Petitions, Remon­strances, [Page 13] Nay we may withold our free-will-Offerings, though not our Tributes of Dutie, we may stop our vo­luntarie supplies of giving Subsidies, we may make a stand in the transactions of affairs, untill the King condescen­deth to do us Right, as hath been often practised, As it was in the Case of the Earl of Arundel, who being restrain­ed and kept from sitting in Parliament in the year 1626. by the King, without cause shewn, The House of Peers sate many daies silent without debating or transacting any Business untill he should be restored to his libertie, and place in Parliament, or cause shewed for his detention: But to take Arms, or to use Acts of force, this is the Re­sistance which ought not to be used, and is neither justifiable by the Laws of God, nor of the Kingdom, And this Resi­stance I am far from being satisfied in my Conscience may be used by any subjects against their lawfull and undoubted Soveraign.

The places in Scripture, both in the old and new Testa­ment commanding (by positive precept) our obedience, and forbidding Resistance to the Powers ordeined over us by God, are many; But the Arguments of necessary deducti­on are infinite, whereas Resistance is no where command­ed or allowed; And the Arguments by way of Deduction which are made use of to tollerate the Subjects taking of Arms against their Soveraign, are by putting some places of Scripture upon wrack and torture to make them speak their sense; whereas it is an undeniable Rule in Schools, That In­ferences and deductions cannot justifie the breach of plain duties injoyned by any one positive precept of Scripture.

In the old Testament it was death to disobey (much more hostilely to resist) the supream Authority,Proofs out of the old Testa­ment. by positive precept, Deut. 17.10. Joshua 1.18. So it was to resist Pa­rents. And certainly in States and Common-wealths, tam Pater Nemohe is Pater patriae, and all the civill power that was of old in Paternall Iurisdiction, is now by the Con­sent and Common Agreement of the People placed in the supream power of a State, and the same obedience is due to it, and resistance to it as unjustifiable.

[Page 14]And such as will indulge to the People, a freedome to resume their first Original Power, grounded upon that Max­ime, Omnis homo nascitur liber, every man is born free, seduce them by so false a Principle, that the contrary of it is the truth, Nullus homo nascitur liber, no man is born free. Nei­ther was there ever yet in this world, anyone man born free. It is true, there was one man created free, our first father Adam, But all his Children, and all his Descent after him, were born under Paternall Iurisdiction; Nay our blessed Saviour (speaking of him as a Man, and Son to the blessed Virgin) was born under this Paternal Jurisdiction and fili­al Obedience, whereunto he submitted himself as is plain­ly set down Scripture, Luke the 2.51. where it is said, He went with Joseph and his Mother, and was subject unto them. Now this Paternal Jurisdiction, which was at first the sole Soveraignty which governed the world, By reason of Parti­ality in Parents, Oppression by such as were the strongest, and a multitude of inconveniences and confusions when the World was become numerous, and full of People, and e­very family become a Realm, As it was too narrow, so it grew to be so hurtful unto Mankind, That men were forced for their own preservation, Common Justice, and comfort of life, to transfer this paternal Jurisdiction, (all but fi­lial and personal Duty of honoring and obeying Parents) into Magistracy, and willingly divested themselves (for their own good) of that Native Libertie which they had before, And as the right power of Government is the same, which it was in paternall Iurisdiction, only by the Consent of the People changed into another hand: So the Obedience unto it ought to be the same, And the fifth Commandement of obeying Parents, is by all understood to extend unto the Magistrate, to whom the people having by consent tranferred the power of paternal Jurisction, are likewise by Divine Precept bound to obe­dience, and the People cannot still retein unto themselves, that, which by common consent they have divested themselves of, and transferred to others. So was it in the Common-Wealth of Rome, when by lex Regia the [Page 15] people had transferred all their power to the Emperour, they were not to resist, And it was to those Emperours, to whom our Saviour and his Apostles injoined Obedience, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake, and not unto the good only, but unto the froward.

David was pursued by Saul unjustly, his life sought by him; yet his Conscience check'd him when he had only cut off the lap of Sauls garment, 1 Sam. 24.5, 6. But when the attempting upon his person was mentioned, he then cryed out, Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anoin­ted, and be guiltlesse? 1 Sam. 26.9. Nay, when he might have slain Saul, and he was desired by Abishai that he might strike him to the ground, he did not only forbid him, but called unto Abner, telling him he deserved to die, that he had not more carefully kept and guarded his Master, vers. 15, 16. which sheweth, that not only not to hurt, but to preserve, is our Duty. And truly, if I should have lift up my hand, or drawn my Sword against the King, I fear I should not have been so happy, as divers have been that have gone the other way, in finding out such satisfactory Arguments or distinctions as would have rid or cured me of that horrour of Conscience which would have made me most miserable in the height of all prosperitie and suc­cesse.

All the whole context of the old Testament incite to the obedience, to the honouring, fearing and reverencing of the King; And all the Attempts that have been made upon the persons of Kings, or their Government, are either con­demned as wicked, or else were by the extraordinary and especial Commandement of God, making use of wicked men to be the Executioners of his just Judgments; Besides, the Government of the Jewish Commonwealth was a Theocratia, an immediate Government of God himself, and by the Consent of all Divines, Gods extraordinary Judge­ments are not to be made Rules or Patterns of ordinary Government. But God hath given us a written law in the Scripture; and by the constant precepts contained in them, we are to be guided; and not by the extraordina­ry [Page 16] Examples recited in them, Of which we may boldly say, That as it is most certain they were not wicked (how severe soever they may seem) because God commanded them; so it is as certain it were wickedness in us to imi­tate them, not having Gods especial Command for them, which will not now be pretended unto by any. The Cases of Eglon, Zimri, Jehu, &c. are justified by Gods being the Commander of them; and Sin is nothing but an Obliquitie from Gods will: But it is Gods revealed and declared Will which is to be our rule. God is pleased to declare Deut. 24.16. Ezech. 18.20. 2 Kings 14.6. That the Father shall not die for the sin of the Son, nor the Son for the sin of the Father; But every one shall bear his own ini­quity, This is his revealed Law by which we are to govern our selves: Yet God in his secret, yet most just Judgement, will have Achan with his Wife and Children, and all be­longing unto him to be stoned to death, the like of Corah, and divers others; which particular Judgements of God we ought to fear and reverence, but not to draw from them Example or watrant against the Commandement or decla­red Law of God.

But in the whole old Testament I conceive there will not be found any one Precept or toleration of hostile Resi­stance, nor any Example (the extraordinary Cases excepted) countenancing Disobedience to the lawful Supreme Ma­gistrate; But so much to the contrary, That there is no Duty (next after the fearing, honouring, and serving of God) more inculcated, than the fearing, obeying, and honouring of the King, as his Vicegerent, Dixi vos Di [...] est is, Psal. 82. v. 6. I said ye are Gods. Deut. 1.17. 2 Chro. 19. v. 6. The Kings Throne is called the Throne of God, the Judgement of the Supreme Magistrate, the Judge­ment of God, and most of the Attributes of God are ap­plyed unto them.

Proofs out of the New Testa­ment.And for the new Testament, The Precepts therein against Resistance, are not only much more positive and direct, but the punishments of much a higher nature: For the punish­ments of the old Testament are no where explicitly beyond death; whereas S. Paul saith, Rom. 13. v. 2. That He that resisteth the Powers ordained by God procureth to himself Damnation.

[Page 17]Our Saviour (Mar. 12.17.) commandeth us out of his own mouth, to render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesars, and to God, the things that are Gods. Now I must clearly prosess, That before the War was actually and hostilely entred in­to, my Conscience was in great suspension, and doubt, that those ways and Courses which were pursued, tended not only, not to give unto Caesar what belonged unto Caesar, but to take from him that which undoubtedly and undenia­bly was his; as likewise to take from God that which be­longed unto him, by applying that which had for many hun­dred years been dedicated and appropriated unto him, and his Service, to common uses, which hath in all times, and even amongst Heathen, been known by the name of Sacri­lege. And which divers grave and learned Divines of that way (as Dr. Burgesse, and Mr. White of Dorchester by name) in the beginning of the Parliament told me, That they would never a [...]ent unto or approve the applying the Revenue of the Church, unto temporal uses; They concei­ved they might be better imployed than they were, for the maintenance of Preaching Ministers, and other pious uses, But to be taken from the Church, and applyed to prophane uses, I am sure their Opinions were then against it.

For the former of taking from the King what was his, I was too much confirmed by the 19. Propositions of Grocers Hall, which were sent unto the King, some moneths before I withdrew my self from Parliament, As likewise by di­vers other particulars denied unto the King, which were as undoubtedly his, as the Crown. And for the second, of taking from God what belonged unto him, I wish my doubts had not been so well confirmed by the use that hath been made of the Lands and Revenue of the Church, to be made in great part, the Hire of Forein Forces against their Prince; and the rest to satisfie the Usury of the said wa­ges. So that those antient devout Dedications, intended for a perpetual Maintenance of Gods Church, and his Mini­sters, have by way of Commutation & Change been applyed to the pious uses of Usury, and the maintenance of a Civil [Page 18] war. But our Saviours Command being clear and posi­tive, to give unto Caesar what belonged to Caesar; I did conceive, That Honour, Fealty, Loyalty, and Obedience did as much belong unto him, as Tribute, Service, and o­ther Regalities of his Crown, All which I had by Oaths legally established, and by lawfull Authority administred unto me, sworn more than ten times to King James, to belong unto him, and to his lawfull Heirs and Successors, and often likewise unto King Charls, And that I would in them bear to him Faith and true Alleagiance. Now whe­ther the said 19.See the Propo­sitions in Ap­pend. pag. 13. Propositions (which are here unto annexed) And many o [...]her things, which as occasion shall be offered, will be instanced in, might not administer unto me a just Scruple of Conscience, of swerving from this plain precept of our Saviour, of giving unto Caesar what belonged unto him, and unto God the things that are Gods, I shall remit to any Christian of what Profession soever he shall be.

Our Saviour doth further confirm this his Precept by his own Example of paying Tribute-money, though he might have exempted himself from it, as being no Stranger: Yet Mat. 17.27. Notwithstanding (saith he) lest we should offend them, Go to the Sea, and cast in an Angle, &c. So that he would rather do a Miracle, than do that which might seem to be like Sedition, or Disobedience.

St. Paul in the 13 chap. of his Epistle to the Romans, 1, 2, 3, & 4 verses telleth us, That we may not resist the Pow­ers ordained over us by God; And he that resisteth this Ordi­nance, shall receive to himself Damnation. And verse the 15. That we must be subject, not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. Now that the King is this Power ordained over us by God, I never heard any doubt made by any, of his just & rightfull Title. In all the Acts of Parliaments which have been by the Houses offered unto him for his Royal Assent since his coming unto the Crown, it is acknowledged, We your Majesties most humble and most faithfull Subjects. And if we ackowledge our selves his Subjects, we doe therein ac­knowledge him our Soveraign. And in the beginning of eve­ry Parliament both in the House of Peers, and in the House [Page 19] of Commons,Vide Stat. 1. Jacobi cap. 1. in App. pag. 18. wherin the So­veraignty of the King is ful­ly set down. before they take their Seat and Place in Par­liament, they do by Oath declare and testify in their Con­science, That the Kings Highnesse is the only Supreme Gover­nour of this Realm, and all other his Countries and Dominions, &c. And this Declaration I and all the rest of the Mem­bers of both Houses have made. So that it being an uncon­troverted and confessed truth, That the King is our lawfull Soveraign, and we his faithfull Subjects, and consequent­ly the Power ordained over us by God, the which to resist, by S. Pauls Doctrine delivered in plain and explicit terms, is, To procure to our selves Damnation. I must confesse, That (although I will not judge other men) yet I durst not ad­venture my Soul upon a Moot-Case, or upon Distinctions or strained Interpretations, against that which appeared unto me to be the literal and clear sense. S. Paul declaring Rom. 14.22, 23. That he that doubteth is damned. The mea­ning whereof I understand to be, That he that doubteth that that which he doth is sinfull and wicked, and yet ad­ventureth to do it, therein sinneth presumptuously, and thereby runneth a hazard of Damnation. And truly I did much more than doubt; for I was as S. Paul requireth we should be, Rom. 14.23. Fully perswaded in mind of the con­trary. So that (without Impiety and making Shipwrack of my Conscience against the plain Precepts of Scripture) I could not adhere to the way of Resistance.

I Well know that the Authority of Scripture needeth not any humane or forein support; But because the Parties of several, yea, contrary wayes, will both pretend to have the Scriptures in their favour, and from them to draw the rule of their Consciences alike, to me it seemed that nothing [Page 20] ought to be of greater Authority (under Scripture) or like rightly to interpret Scripture, than the unanimous Do­ctrine and practice of the Primitive times, and of those ho­ly and learned men, who as they were nearer to the times of our Saviour, and of the Apostles, and of those Pen-men of God, so doubtless they saw by clearer light than we do now at a greater distance. And really by what I could e­ver read or be instructed in from others, I could never find any thing, either allowing or countenancing the Sub­jects taking Arms against their Soveraign, although it were in the highest and most bloody persecution, and un­der the worst of Princes, many of them being Heathens, Tyrants and Apostates; And yet it was to these wicked Persecutors, to whom our Saviout and his Apostles in­joined Obedience; And the primitive Fathers practised it in their sufferings and Martyrdoms.

But I must confess I have met with a most untrue Alle­gation, and most injurious to Christian innocency. That the reason of the Christians bearing so many wrongs and op­pressions, was, because they had not then power and means to do otherwise, or right themselves. The untruth of this Allega­tion will appear by the writings of those Fathers whose profession it was to bear and suffer,Lib. 5. Orat. in Auretium. E­pist. ad Deme­trianum. Ni­ceph. lib. 7. cap. 6. Tertulli­un. in Apolo­getico. but not to resist; Flere potero, dolere potero, &c. aliter, nec debeo, nec possum resistere, was the Saying of S. Ambrose; S. Syprian saith, Quamvis ni­mius & copiosus noster populus, non tamen adversus violentiam se ulciscitur, sed patitur; And Nicephorus reporteth, that in one day, twenty thousand Christians were slain in the City of Nicomedia under Dioclesian. And many of their books are full of passages of this strain. And to conceive that power to resist was only wanting, is not only injurious to the Innocency of those Holy Men, but in­jurious to God, who if his Glory had not been more advanced by their Sufferings, Martyrdom and Persecu­tion, than by Resistance; or that Resistance had been com­manded by him, or he pleased therein, Those his holy Ser­vants should not have perished for want of Power. Our Sa­viour saith, when for the defence of his own Person [Page 21] he prohibiteth resistance, Mat. 26.53, 54. If he would he could pray to his Fa­ther, who would send him more than twelve Legions of Angels. And when the preservation of Gods Servants re­doundeth more to the Glory of God than their sufferings, He is never wanting to them; 2 Kings 6. v. 16, 17, 18. &c. Act. 12. v. 11. Act. 27.24. Act. 16.26. & 36. As we see by so many de­liverances by the extraordinary Power of God. But the truth is, That unto these Primitive men (treading in the steps of the Apostles) their sufferings were their Glory, their Rejoycing, and their Advantage. And divers of the Fathers, by way of prevention (as it were) foreseeing that this Scandal might be cast upon their Innocency and Chri­stian Patience (That it was want of means and power, and nor of will that they resisted not) do clearly declare, That nei­ther Numbers, Armes, or Courage, were wanting to them wherewith they might defend themselves; nor Injuries, Oppressions, and Persecutions wanting that might provoke them thereunto: But it was the Example of Christ and his Apostles sufferings, and their holy Doctrine and Precepts commanding Obedience, that suffered not their hands to fight against the Powers ordained by God over them, al­though they used both hands and armes with remarkable Valour and Success against the Enemies of their Princes, notwithstanding the said Princes were Heathen, and Perse­cutors of the Church of God.

But this Doctrine of not Resisting, some of our new Di­vines (who cannot but acknowledge it to be both the Do­ctrine and practice of the Apostles and Primitive Times) do now say, That God was not then pleased to reveal the Do­ctrine of Resistance, But that Martyrdoms and sufferings were the way, by which he thought it then sit no plant the Church, which he is now pleased should be protected by Resistance, and enlarged by power. Wherein they have mistaken the Text, For that, that Doctrine (instead of the Bible) is taken out of the Alcoran, where Mahomet saith, That God had sent Christ in the Spirit of meekness to establish his Law: But now by him he would have his Law setled and established by the power of the Sword and Conquest. And if prevailing or success might stand for Arguments, it will be hard convincing this Ma­hometan [Page 22] Doctrine. But certainly the general and universa Tenent of all the Churches of Christendom were, and I conceive are still, That as Religion ought not to be planted by force or constraint: So Christian Subjects ought not to make Religion the ground of their Resistance or taking Armes against their Prince. The Protestant churches de­clare against Subjects ta­king Arms a­gainst their Princes. And herein there is a concurrence of all Pro­testant Churches (although they differ in many other points) who in their publique Confessions do not admit of Hostile Resistance against their Supream Magistrate, And more particularly the Church of England (which (without any immodestie) may challenge her part in the Reformation, she having had many learned Propugners of it by their Writings, and not a few that have sealed it with their Blood, by patiently dying for it) hath declared against it, confirming the Exhortation to Obedience, published in the time of Edw. 6. and the Homilie of Obedience, by the Arti­cles of their Confession of Faith;Confessio A [...] gust▪ [...] 6. Gallia Art. 40. Helvet. Art. 26. Scot. Art. 24. An­liae Art. 27. The like doth the rest of the Reformed Churches in the Harmony of their Publique Confessions. So that it hath been the constant Doctrine of all Protestant Divines since the Reformation down until our times. And I have heard divers men (very eminent for their learning) aver it, That upon their Reputation they will make it appear, That these few years of Distractions in England have poduced more seditious Pamphlets, tolera­ting and incouraging Disobedience, than all the Christian world ever saw before.

The Prosestants had wont to charge the Doctrine of Resi­stance upon the Roman Catholiques; They likewise in­deavour to father it upon the Protestants. It seems both are unwilling to own it, I mean in their general received Te­nents; though it be true that some of both professions have written in the defence of it, though disclaimed and burned by publique Authority, as wicked and seditious on both sides.Osor. de Iur. Majest. fol. 140. Andreas Rivetus Professor at Leyden writing a­gainst a Jesuit that cast this Aspersion upon the Protestants, that they agree with them in the Doctrine of warring a­gainst or deposing Kings, saith, That no Protestant doth main­tain that damnable Doctrine, and that rashness of Knox and [Page 23] Buchanan is to be ascribed, praefervido Scotorum ingenio, & ad audendum prompto; To the over-hot spirit of the Scots, ever apt to be over-hold. The Protestants of France, not only in their Articles above cited, but in their books protest their Innocency, and that they abhor this Doctrine of Resisting forcibly. Pierre du Moulin hath these words.Pierre [...] in his [...]fence of [...] Faith, Pag. 3.4. Nous tenons que ce n'est point à vn Sujet de trouner en la Religion de son Prince occasion de desobeissance, feisant de la Pieté vne allu­mette de Rebellion. Nous sommes prests a' exposer nos vies pour la defence de nos Rois, contre qui que ce soit, fust il de no­stre Religion. Quiconque feroit autrement, ne defendroit point la Religion, mais serviroit son ambition, & attireroit vn grand blame sur la verité de l' Evangile. We hold that a Subject ought not from the Religion of his Prince to take occasion of diso­bedience, making of Piety a match whereby to kindle Rebellion. We are ready to expose our lives for the defence of our Kings, a­gainst whomsoever it be, although of our own Religion, And who­soever should do otherwise, should not defend Religion, but serve his own ambition, and would draw a great reproach upon the truth of the Gospel.

The Roman Catholiques, especially the Doctors of the Sorbons have written Volumes against it, and never fail to censure all books that maintain that Doctrine, to the fire. And the University of Paris in their published Censure of the 4. of June 1610. declare, that Seditiosum, impium, & hae­reticum est, quocunque quaesito colore à quocunque Subdito, Va­sallo aut Extraneo, sacris Regum aut Principum personis vim habere, That it is a seditious, impious and heretical thing for any Subject, Vassal, or Foreiner, upon what pretence or colour soever, to offer violence to the sacred persons of Kings or Princes. So that both Protestants and Roman Catholiques declaring a­gainst it, (that is, in the general received and approved Tenents and Opinions of their several Churches) of how little Authority ought the private Opinion of some few hot-headed Men to be, who (seeking to get themselves a name by being the Authors of some new and bolder Opini­ons) shall upon their own fancies, or some witty or subtle Inferences and Deductions (contradict the unanimous and [Page 24] universally received Opinions of all Christian Churches, and the Practice and Examples of so many Holy Martyrs from the very times of the Apostles even unto our days. Mr. Fox in his Book of Acts and Monuments specifieth many, even to their death, exhorting to Obedience to their Prince. I shall only set down one instance of many.

Those famous Sufferers in Queen Martes dayes, although the Reformed Religion, being newly planted, was likely by Persecution to be extirpate, and that some more hot and zealous seemed to have an Inclination to preserve them­selves and their Religion by way of Force (for at that time their power was great) Twelve of the most eminent a­mongst them for Learning and Piety agreed to the setting forth a Declaration of their Faith and Doctrine, in which they set down their Hatred to any such Inclination, and exhort with great earnestness of Spirit, and beseech in the bowels of Jesus Christ, all such as fear God, to behave themselves as obedient Subjects to the Queen, and to the Superiour Powers ordained of God under her, and rather (after their Example) to give their heads to the Block, than in any sort to Rebell, or to Mutter against the Queen, the Lords a­nointed: And towards the end of this their Declaration, they renew their Exhortation, humbly praying all men to be in no point consenting to any kind of Rebellion, or Sedition against the Queen, But where they cannot obey, but they must disobey God, their to submit themselves with all patience and humility to suf­fer as the Will and Pleasure of the Higher Powers should ad­judge, as they themselves were ready to do, rather than to con­sent to any Doctrine contrary to that Confession which they had made in the said Declaration. And most of all these men sealed this their Doctrine with their blood, being burnt in several places of the Kingdom, some in Smithfield, some at Gloucester, some at Coventry, as is set down particularly in the said Story, page. 1470. So that both the Protestants and Roman Catholiques, in their published and avowed Doctrine, disclaiming and censuring this Doctrine of Ho­stile Resistance as Impious and Heretical (as is abovesaid) of what Authority can the private Opinions of a few men [Page 25] (condemned by their own Churches) be, for the setling and satisfying for any sober and uningaged mans Conscience; against the Doctrine and practice of the whole Christian World and in all times? It is true, that a strong fancie a­gainst any thing, makes us hardly to be perswaded to it. But we easily believe that which we earnestly wish. And it is as true, that all times have brought forth some great and able wits that have ever affected to be the Authors of new Opinions, and the Arch-Heretiques have ever been noted to have been Men of parts, though of stronger fancy than solid Judgement. Many of these new Men (if not all of them) have (by learned answers of particular men) been confuted, as well as by publique Censures been con­demned, as Impious and hereticall; as Iunius Brutus by Baricane Dr. in Divinity and Canon of the Cathedrall Church of Tholouse, Anno 1614. This Iunius Brutus is an assumed and counterfeited name, the author of it (as it should seem) being unwilling to avow the Doctrine, and was published first in Latin, and afterwards set out in French Anno 1611. by Lewis Mayerne Turquet. It laid the ground of such Maxims and Tenents, as the Authors that have writ­ten against them do not content themselves with shewing their Opinions to be false and erroneous, but they in veigh against them as detestable and execrable. And i is far from my Intention, in this Discourse, the scope wher­of is only to set down faithfully mine own proceeding in matters of Fact, and in matters of Opinion to shew those Grounds and Reasons which have deterred my private conscience from having any part in lifting up my hand a­gainst the King,Admitting all the Positions either by Prote­stants or Papists were true, which allow Subjects to take Arms a­gainst their Princes, yet they agree not with the pre­sent Case. to enter into any matter of Dispute or Controversie with these new Doctors, but leave their Scho­lastical Confutation, to the learned Writings of those that have answered them, and to those publique Censures that have condemned them. Thus far I have, and shall make use of them, which is to shew, That (admitting all their bold and new Positions were true, I say, posito non conces­so,) yet by their own Maxims and Principles I could find nothing that could warrant me in point of Conscience to Hostile Resistance, for that the matter of Fact in the pre­sent [Page 26] Case, neither is, nor can be, with any truth or colour of truth applicable to their Tenents and Positions, which I shall endeavour to make clear by that which followeth.

All the Roman Catholiques which have written in fa­vour of resisting Princes in some Cases, lay for their ground a supposed Supremacy in the Pope, Shewing that the Tenents of Roman Catho­liques are not applicable to the present Case. in matters spiritual, and thereby erect a superior Jurisdiction over Princes, which must of necessity be presupposed, before they can pretend to censure or punish: for par in parem non habet imperium, and that is the true and unanswerable Reason why Kings cannot be punished but only by God, because there is o­ver them no other superiour Jurisdiction on earth; but the Pope pretendeth over all Christian Princes, aswell as other Men, a direct superiour Iurisdiction, in spiritualibus, in matters spiritual, and an indirect Power, in ordine ad spiri­tualia, in temporalibus, in matters temporal. And upon this ground, the Romanists affirm, That in such cases, viz. If they be Heretiques with obstinacy, Persecutors of the Church of God, Incorrigibly Disobedient, or Apostates, The Pope may then (say they) discharge their Subjects of their Obedience, and they may lawfully resist their Soveraign. But this Tenent is to me, and to all other Protestants of England, of no Autho­rity, who eject this Doctrin as erroneous, and have solemn­ly sworn the Contrary. But that is not the point that is now to be proved, my Assertion being, That (admitting this their Tenent were true) yet it is no way applicable to the Kings present Case in matter of Fact: For those that give unto the Pope, power of censuring and punishing of Kings, first presuppose the Crimes of Apostacy, Heresie, Persecution, &c. and them to be duly and sufficiently proved, There must go out Citations to the party supposed to be the Delinquent, there must be Hearing, Conviction, and Sentence. Further, before any execution of Sentence, there must be Admonition, and a Return of Obstinacy, And after this there doth precede Excommunication before Deposition or Dele­gating of power to any other, either to execute the Sentence, or to discharge Subjects of their Obedience. And this will be seen in all their Writings, and in their Practices, and particularly in the Case of the King of Navarre. But [Page 27] it is impertinent to insist further thereon, and to fight against the Air, when no man will have the Folly or Ma­lice to attempt the application to our present Case. The use that I only make thereof, is, to assert what I have for­merly said, That (admitting the false positions of the new Doctors that have written in favour of Subjects making Hostile Resistance against their Prince were true) yet the present Case against the King can neither be justified or maintained by any of their Principles.

Having instanced with those of the Romish Church, I shall examine the Tenents and Principles of other Professions, though I know not in what Church Communion to place them, since no Protestant or reformed Church doth avow, (as before is shewed) their Principles. And because Ju­nius Brutus, is, as it were, the Ground-work and Text of all these new Opinions, I shall faithfully set down what his Opinions and Tenents are, And how they are appliable to the present Case. He is forced as well as the Romanists to Constitute a Superior Jurisdiction above Kings (for hi­therto they both agree) which as they place it in the Pope, so he placeth it in the people, deriving the power of Prin­ces originally from them, and from that Maxime of Quic­quid efficit tale est magistale, he maketh the People above the King, and that although the King be Major singulis, he is Minor universis.

Having laid this as his Foundation he descended to set down upon what kind of Soveraigns, and in what Cases this their Power may be lawfully exercised, which he saith may be only against Tyrants; of which he saith there are two sorts; Tyrants of Usurpation without any just Title,Sheweth that the opinions of such Prote­stants as allow in some cases of subjects ta­king of arms against their Prince, if they were true, yet are not appli­cable to the present case. and Tyrants in Government, which (although they may have a just Title) yet they become Tyrants in Regimine, Tyrants in point of their government. For his first sort of Tyrants, it will be impertinent to speak of them, for that all men ac­knowledge the Kings Title to be just, and we have all sworn it, and submitted unto it as our Ancestors have done unto his Ancestors, by the space of many hundreds of years, So have we particularly unto himself for the space of these twenty years and more. But for his [Page 28] second sort of Tyrants, who from legitimate and rightfull Princes, become Tyrants by their wicked and lawlesse Go­vernment, and thereby (in his opinion) make the Sub­jects taking of arms against them lawfull, and justfiable, The best way to apply his Doctrine unto this Case, is, to set down in his own words whom he would have to be so qualified and conditioned, as may be esteemed such a Ty­rant, and so consequently (by his Doctrine) may be hostilely resisted: his words are, If a Prince of deliberate purpose do ruine the State; If audaciouslie he overthroweth all Laws and Duties; If he no waies care to keep his faith; If he have no re­gard to Convention, Justice or pietie. If he be an Enemie to his Subjects; briefly, If he practise all these wickednesses which we have specified, or the principal of them, Then certainlie he may be judged a Tyrant, that is to say, an Enemie to God and Man. So that the question is not here of the Prince that is none of the best, nor of the wisest, nor of one that doth the best Justice, nor of the most valiant, But of a Prince that is most Wicked, Malicious and Treacherous, a Contemner of the Laws, an e­nemy of the People, and Destroyer of the Realm. And in the Page before, he saith, We must not expect to have Princes in whom there is no fault to be found, but rather esteem that all goeth well with us, if those that govern us are midlinglie good.

Now although the Doctrine be wicked and false (for if any such Chimera or Fantasm as he hath made his Tyrant, were to be found, The People ought not (quocunque quae sito colore, upon no pre [...]se whatsoever to take arms against their lawful Sove­raign) yet (taking it for good and Orthodox Divinity) I con­ceive there needeth no other Argument but the reciting of his Tyrant to make good my Assertion that the Case would no way concern the King. But the Wickednesse, Malice and Danger of this Tenent (besides the falseness of ir) is, That (having once constituted a Position, That by the people the Prince may be hostilelie resisted in such and such Ca­ses, and being in such and such a degree wicked, and the people likewise therof to be the Judges) there is a latitude left to eve­ry Sect, to every mans Passion, or to every mans Interest to [Page 29] fancy to himself, that what disliketh him, is Impiety, Here­sie, or Oppression, And to judge of the measure of his Prin­ces wickedness; or if he be not wicked enough, yet to re­sist him by way of prevention, lest he should become such: For he saith not long after, That Tyranny is like an Hectique Feaver, which at the beginning is easie to cure, but hard to dis­cover; but afterward is easily known, but is become incurable, and therefore must be timely prevented. But leaving the wickedness, danger, and falsenesse of this Doctrine to be con­sidered of (admitting it were good and true, as is before said) let us examin how it is applicable to our present Case. He supposeth his Tyrant to be an Enemy to God and Man, with so many other Attributes of wickedness and impiety, That Nero, Caligula, Domitian, Iulian the Apostate, Phala­ris, and Dionysius may well be ranked in his middle number of Princes, that were not of the worst, And I conceive that Treason and Malice it self will abhor the applicarion, in any sort, of his description of a Tyrant unto the King, and so consequently of this new Doctrine, to our present Case.

For my self, I must avow it, that by what I have read in the above-cited Author, in Buchanan, in Suarez and Maria­na, and what our Countryman Bishop Bilson hath written, I was much confirmed in my Opinion of the unlawfulness of taking Armes against the King: Exceptio fir­mat Regulam in non excep­tis. For all rules with Exception confirm in all things but in the things excepted. And all these Authors write with great strength, against Resistance and ta­king Armes against the Prinre, but only in the Case of Ty­ranny, and the Romanists in case of the Popes deposing of them; The latter whereof (neither being, nor admitted if it were) I shall lay aside, And shall only shew how far the King is from any of these Wickednesses and Impieties, of which they compose their Tyrant.

I well know that Kings are Men made of the same Paste of flesh and blood with others, and subject to the same weaknesses, and to the same passions, And (as Brutus saith) our reason can no more be severed from our said passions and infirmities, than the soul can be from the Body, whilst the man is yet living, And thereupon saith, We must not ex­pect [Page 30] to have Princes against whom nothing can be said, but we must think that all goeth well with us, if they be, moyennement bons, Middlingly good. And Commines saith, That a Prince whose virtues exceed his vices, ought to be esteemed and stiled a good Prince. And of Princes it is a good rule, Optimus est qui minimis urgetur, He is best that hath the fewest faults; for some faults, being Men, they will all have. And cer­tainly whosoever shall rightly know the King, and be ac­quainted with his irreprovable Course of life, his constant and dayly practice of devotions of Piety, will not deny him the Title of a right good Prince, And so (notwithstan­ding his misfortunes, and the unsuccessfullness of his af­fairs) he will be esteemed when he shall be rightly known, and considered without prejudice, as he is unto me, by reason of my long and near attendance about his Person, and of whom I will be bold to say without flattery, That (having by the space of almost Forty years been conversant in most of the Courts of the Princes of Christendom, as a pub­lique Minister, and been no uncurious observer of the De­portments of the Princes of my time) I never knew any Prince, or scarcely any private man, in whose life there hath been less reproveable: And what is here said, I con­ceive will be abundantly sufficient to shew, that, if this new Doctrine of hostile Resistance were admitted for good, it would in no kind justifie it in this present Case; It being only applicable to the worst of men, when here it must be made use of, against an exemplary good Man, and who may be justly numbred amongst the best of Princes, As I doubt not but it will clearly appear, when the truth of many things which have been suggested against him, shall be faithfully set down, As there will be occasion to do in the following Discourse.

And so I shall pass to the next religious Obligation, whereby my Conscience hath been restrained from taking armes against the King, which is the sacred Tye of the late Protestation, and of so many solemn Oaths, whereby I have engaged my self before God to bear him true Faith, and Al­leageance, and to defend his Person, and all his just Rights and Dignities.

IT will be easily assented unto by all sorts of Christians, that Solemn Oaths established by lawful Authority, and legally administred, and in a matter that is not Malum in se, absolutely wicked, are the highest and strongest Obligati­ons that can pass from Man to God, from Nation to Na­tion, from Subjects to their Prince, or Prince to their Sub­jects, or from Man to Man, And this is not only so declared in Scripture, but was undoubtedly part of that Natural and Moral Law which was by God planted in the heart of Man even from the Creation. For we find it in practice before any written Law, and by all Nations, Heathens and Un­civiliz'd, and altogether ignorant of the Precepts, either of the old or new Testament: yet by the light of Nature,In Appendice page 17. they held Oaths the most sacred of all Assurances, and Per­jury amongst the most execrable and detestable of all Impie­ties.

Now the Oaths that I and the rest of the Kings Subjects have taken unto him for the serving of him with Loyalty, with true Faith and Alleageance, for the Adhering to him against all Persons, for the defending of his Royal Person, for the Maintain­ing and Upholding of all Rights, Dignities and Prerogatives be­longing to him or annexed to his Imperial Crown, will be clearly­est exprest, by setting down the Oaths themselves in termi­nis, which shal be annexed hereunto, for not interrupting too long the series of this Discourse.

Besides the Oaths formerly established by Law, at the be­ginning of this Parliament, There was a solemn Protesta­tion propounded by the Houses of Parliament, to be taken by themselves, and so through the whole Kingdom, And was allowed of by the King; And this Protestation was by my self taken in the House of Peers and subscribed by me, [Page 32] wherein I Promise, Vow and Protest in the presence of God, as far as lawfully I may, with my Life, Power and Estate, accord­ing to the Duty of my Alleageance, to Maintain and Defend his Majesties Royal Person, Honour and Estate. Now how the taking arms against him, and the assailing and pursuing of him in Battel, can be for the defence of his Royal Person, or the seizing of all his Revenew, for the Maintenance of his Estate, or the divesting of him of all Power and Authority with so many other sad things, that against him have been said and done, and which my Pen blusheth to set down, can be for the Defence and Maintenance of his Honour, or how the Stile of Majesty which in this Pootestation we give him (the Usage of him considered) can be otherwise judged of but as a Scorn and Derision, I understand not; sure I am, that I took the said Protestation in earnest, and with an Atte­station of God, that I would faithfully perform it; And so by his holy Assistance I will ever do, according to the ex­press words in the said Protestation, with my Life, Power and Estate. Neither am I in any kind able to conceive, how it is possible for any Christian Man, that hath taken the former Oaths, and Protestation of Adhering, Defending and As­sisting of the King against all Persons whatsoever, to swallow, much lesse to digest the new Negative Oath, which in the subsequent words:In Appendice. pag. 18. I, A. B. do swear from my heart That I will not directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in this War, or in this Cause against the Parliament, &c. I am likewise as much unsatisfied of the late National Cove­nant how it may stand or be reconciled to these former Oaths and Protestation. But in regard that is a Businesse of great Consequence and length, I will set down in a Tract apart those Scruples which hitherto have deterred my Conscience from venturing upon it.

That these Oaths have been established by lawfull Au­thority, they were made and enjoined by free and unque­stionable Parliaments, whose Acts (I speak not of Ordinan­ces, but of Acts wherein the Royal Assent hath concurred) are of that high and Soveraign Authority, that the Law admitteth of no Plea nor averment against them, And this I am confident will be by all acknowledged. They have [Page 33] likewise been legally administred by the Ministers, that by the said Acts have thereunto been appointed and or­dained; and for the Justness and Righteousness of them, the Confirming of them by so many several Acts of Parlia­ment; by which Laws no person can have a Voice in Parli­ament, but stands to all intents and purposes, as a person that had not been elected or returned; if he sit in the House before he have taken the said Oaths; And the continuing of the enjoyning of them by the Houses unto this day, must clear all Dispute or Question of that kind: For the Houses do not admit of Members unto their Houses, nor Officers into their places, until they have first taken the said Oaths, in such sort, as by the Statutes is ordained: So that it is clear, that they are aswell as others satisfied in the good­nesse of them. Besides, the subject matter of these Oaths is just and righteous in it self, being only in pursuance of those duties of Obedience which are commanded us both by the Law of God and the Land, and which are extra ju­ramentum, obligantia, obliging in themselves, though there were no Oath.

It is further to be observeed, That besides the legal pe­nalties that may be injoyned for the refusing or breaking of rhese Oaths, they contain something further than tempo­ral Punishment can reach unto, they carry with them, The heavy Iudgement of God declared in Scripture against the break­ers of solemn Oathes; And in this Case, there is yet much more added, for we accompany the breach of them with the most horrid and fearfull Execration that any Christians can draw upon themselves, renouncing the Help and Protection of God Almighty, and the Benefit of our Reemption contained in the Holy Gospel, if we fail in the performance of them; which I understand to be quantum in nobis est, if we do not indea­vour to do the utmost in our power to keep them. But volunta­rily for Fear or Interest, not only to break them, but to do that, which by the very plain words, is contrary to the said Oaths, and is contrary to that sence in which I took them, (as I understand the taking of armes against the King to be) with many other things of necessity following thereup­on, [Page 34] I durst not adventure upon that which my Conscience judged so great an Impiety.

HAving thus set down those Reasons which deterred my Conscience from making Hostile Resistance unto the King, which have been deduced out of the Word of God, the Doctrine and Practice of holy Men, and the Obli­gation of sacred Oaths, I shall now propose my Scruples drawn from humane Laws, but especially from the Laws of our Kingdom.

By the Common Law of England many things were Treason; But because the Common Law is not composed in one intire body or Text, and it was difficult for the un­learned and Lay-People to inform themselves exactly and distinctly what was Treason, and what was not, the good­ness of the King, and the wisedom of the Parliament, in the time of Edw. the 3. was such, that for the avoiding of the insnaring of the People in so high a Penalty and De­struction as followeth the being convicted of Treason, It was thought fit that all those things which for the future should be esteemed or adjudged Treason, should be parti­cularly and distinctly set down in one Law, and exclusively to all things else; which was accordingly done in the Sta­tute of the 25 Edw. 3. And in case it should so fall out, that any matter should arise, besides those particulars specifi­ed in the said Statute, No judgement should passe there­on, but it should be reserved till the next Parliament, But for those Cases in the said Statute expressed they were ena­cted to be Treason, and so to be adjudged by the ordinary course of Iustice.

And in regard that in the troublesome and disorderly time of Richard the 2. the prevailing party (which still swayed [Page 35] the Parliament) had made and unmade many several Trea­sons, as suited to the Designs and Interests of those that had the Power: In the first year of Hen. the 4. all those new­sprung-up Treasons were revoked and abolished, and Trea­son again reduced to the Statute of 25 Edw. the 3. The like inconveniences growing in the Wars betwixt the Houses of York and Lancaster, and afterwards by the fierce­ness of Hen. the 8. who upon the alterations he had made in Religion, had so insnared the Subject that the Prote­stants of the reformed Religion could not (by reason of the six Atticles) escape the Fire, nor the Roman Catholiques (by reason of the Oath of Supremacy) the Halter; Where­upon it was again desired by the Houses, that Treason might be reduced into a certainty, according to the Statute of the 25 of Edw. the 3. which was accordingly so enacted the 2. of Phil. and Ma. And all these three Statutes, 25 Edw. 3. 1▪ Hen. 4. and 2 Phil. and Ma. are yet in force; In which the attempting of any thing against the Kings Person, the adhe­ring to the Kings Enemies, the leavying War against the King, The seizing of any of his Forts or his Ships Royal, The Counterfeiting of the Kings Hand or his great or privy Seal, See the Stat. in Append. pag. 19. with many other particulars are so explicitely and clearly enacted to be high Treason, That whosoever should be guilty of the Fact, would have as ill a Plea to plead, That [...]unius Brutus, Buchanan, or any of our new Doctors did hold and maintain by their writings, That it is lawfull in such and such Cases to take Armes against the King, and so con­sequently in all the other particulars specified in the said Statute, As a Felon that had rob'd upon the high way would have to plead, that Theft by the Law of God is not pu­nishable by death, for which he would not want likewise his [...] Lod. Vives. Authors. But such as have been acquainted with the Courses held with those that have been Indicted and Ar­raigned for Treason, will know, That to be proceeded a­gainst only upon the plain and clear letter of the Law, is to have favourable Iustice; And he shall have the Kings Atturny, and the learned Counsel with Eloquence and great strains of Wit, by Deductions and Inferences (as though [Page 36] they had lost the day, if the Accused should be acquitted) stretch the litteral Text beyond what it can rationally or honestly bear, and speaking (as they say) for the King, no man dares reprove or restrain them. But to suppose that any Allegation of Conscience, or the Opinion of learned Authors (nay if it were Texts out of Scripture against the explicite letter of the Law, would be heard or admitted) were a great Ignorance. But he would be told, as I know some have been, That all other things were Matters dehors, Nothing to the purpose; The issue was only factum or non fa­ctum, And truly wofull experience had taught me to be wary in humane prudence, not to imbarque my self in a Busi­ness wherin my Conscience was not only altogether unsatis­fied, but if I should ever be brought to a legal Tryal upon it, mine own Judgment told me, I could have nothing to say in mine own Defence of Justification; or that could pre­serve my Self and Posterity from total Ruine and Destru­ction but Prevailing and Victory. Which at the most, could but protect, but could not make a bad Cause good.

But besides humane Prudence and fear of Punishment, there is a Conscientious Tye of obeying the Law, we being taught to obey, not only for wrath but for Conscience sake. S. Paul saith, That if there had been no Law, there had been no sinne;If all sin be the transgression of some Law, I would be satis­fied how men are become De­linquents that have transgres­sed against no law. which sheweth, That the breaking of just Laws and le­gally established, is sin. For the supream Powers therein are chiefly disobeyed who are supposed to command more Authoritatively by their Laws, than by their Verbal Com­mands.

Further, as the Laws are so positive against Resistance and taking Arms against the King: so likewise have the Laws been as carefull to Protect and thereby to Incourage the Subject to adhore unto their King: for it is provided by the Stat. 11 of Hen. 7. Cap. 1. That from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time be­ing in his Person, and do him true and faithfull service of Alle­gience in the same, or be in other places by his Commandement in his Wars within this Land or without: That for the said deed [Page 37] true duty of Allegeance he or they be no wise Convict or Attaint of high Treason, nor of other offences for that Cause, by Act of Parliament, or otherwise, by any Process of Law, whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life, Land, Tenements, Rents, Possessions, Hereditaments, Goods, Chattels, or any other things, but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any Vexation, Trouble or Losse. And if any Act or Acts, or other Process of the Law, hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance, That then that Act or Acts, or other Process of the Law, whatsoever they shall be, stand and be ut­terly void. Provided alwaies That no Person or Persons, shall take any benefit or advantage by this Ast, which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegeance.

So that if they that have served the King with Fidelity according to the Law, shall by their prevailing fellow-Subjects be attainted, and their Estates forfeited and disposed of at their pleasure, It must be by some such Transcendent Power, as must be above all Laws: For as by the Law, no Subject ought either to be attainted, or lose his Estate, for ser­ving the King in his Wars; so can no Confiscations, by the Law belong to any, but unto the King, or such as derive their Right from him. It is true, in the Heat and Conte­station of War, it is usual, that whatsoever Goods or Wealth, the souldier can lay hands upon, is (de facto) esteemed good Purchase; But after the War is ended, the Law useth then to recover her Force. And setled Inheri­tances in all former Civill Wars in England, have never been disposed of by the Arbitrary Power of the prevailing Party, although they were Kings claiming the Crown by Title and might have Right to Confiscations, but by legal Convictions and due course of Law; much more in the Case of Subjects taking Arms against their King, which is alwaies (in the beginning) stiled and proclaimed Rebellion, by the King that they Oppose, untill Success or Treaty qua­lifie that Name, That they should not content themselves with a General Pardon, and Act of Oblivion, and the settlement of the Government for the future, to their rea­sonable Content and Security for themselves, and their [Page 38] Estates, But that Inheritances must be confiscated and disposed of by them, and such persons as they shall please, without legal Tryal, and as it were by Proscription or Decimation, be by a Vote designed to loss of Life and Estate without Pardon or Mercy; What greater Cruelty could have been used towards them, if they had faln into the hands of the Turk or most merciless Conquerour? espe­cially if it shall be considered, that in this Case no Neu­trality could be admitted, nor the most peaceable-minded man avoid the being ingaged. For as by the Law it is Trea­son to take Armes against the King, by the above-recited Sta­tutes, so by the Statute of the 19 Hen. 7. It is loss of all Ho­nours, Castles, Lordships, Mannors, Lands, Tenements, and other Hereditaments, &c. not to take Armes for the King, and not to follow him in his Wars against his Enemies or his Rebels; which the Subject (de bene esse) is to understand to be such as the King proclaimeth to be Traitors; Not that a Proclamation maketh them so; but the Subject is so to esteem them un­til they be brought to a legal Tryal.

The most mise­rable condition of the Kings Loyal Servants by no prudence to be preven­ted, nor they by any Inno­cency to be pre­served.So that there never was a harder Condition, nor more unavoydable, than this of the Kings present Loyal Subjects, who should have been Traitors by the Law if they should have taken Armes against the King: and should likewise lose ther Lands, Honours, Castles, &c. if they did not fight for him; And yet contrary to the Law, Providing that no man should forfeit Life or Estate for serving of the King, He shall by an Arbitrary Power of his fellow Subjects be con­demned to lose both, without Pardon or Mercy; for doing that, for which he must have lost legally both Life and Estate (and his Soul to boot) if he had not done it.

BEsides the Obligation formerly set down, deduced from the Law of God, and the positive Law of the [Page 39] Kingdom, there is a third Law, which hath a great Authority in the hearts of all generous and noble-minded Men, which is the Law of Honour and Gratitude, which Law I conceive to be a Branch of the Original and first Law, The Law of Nature; For it hath had and still holdeth a Value and Reverence through all Religions, as it hath done through all times.

I must confess this Law hath been, and is in some kinds too high lifted up, and is become the Idol of many mens fancies, who pay unto it a more exact Obedience, and are more carefull not to transgress against it, than they are not to offend God, or the Laws they live under, whereof we have daily too many Presidents, when men rather than to be failing in point of Honour, will upon frivolous provoca­tions, decline all duties to God and Man, and sacrifice to this Idol oftentimes the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes, together with their Souls: But this is an Excess and Ex­crescency of Honour and Courage, in the justification where­of I know nothing that can be said; In the excuse of it, it is to be hoped, that in so generally-received an Error, where­by men become Infamous, and scarce fit for honest compa­ny that comply not therein, Custom and Universallity may allay and mitigate the Offence: But that Honour which I speak of, is better exprest by plain moral Honesty and Gra­titude, when neither Fear nor Disadvantage shall drive us or withold us from just Duties; nor the Misfortunes or Distresses of those to whom we have had former obligati­ons, make us leave and forsake to be assistant and servicea­ble unto them in all just and lawfull things, although it be to our own Hinderance, or that we can expect no further good or advantage by them. And herein my Case is diffe­rent from the common Cases of Subjects, being more parti­cularly bound unto Gratitude by many Benefits; and unto Honesty, Affection, and Fidelity by my Service in places of greatest Trust about the King, both for nearness to his Per­son, as a Gentleman of his Bed-chamber, and as a Ser­vant consided in as a privy Counsellour.

As for Ingratitude, it hath been at all times so detestable, [Page 40] That to the Reproach of being ingratefull, nothing can be added. And the betraying or forsaking of a mans Master in his Distress, hath so great a Rellish of the Judas, that no no­ble and generous Heart, would for any earthly Respect, do any thing that might seem to be like it, or be in hazard of being mistaken for it. For mine own part, I do ingenuously confess; that, had I no Precepts of the Law of God, no Tyes by the Law of the Kingdom, nor Horrour of Consci­ence for breaking those sacred Obligations into which I was entred, by taking so many solemn Oaths; Yet Gratitude and Honour singly should have been unto me of so high Re­commendation, That no Respect of my Life, Fortunes, or Posterity, should have made me lift up my Hand against my King, or to have forsaken my Master in his Miseries and Distress.

I have had the Honour to have served this King and his Father by the space of more than forty years, and was by his Father, from a younger Brother of a Gentlemans Fami­ly, raised by his Goodness (above my Merit) to the Dig­nity of an Earl, and a Conveniency of Subsistance in that Quality. I was trusted by him in seven Ambassages, and called to his privie Counsel, recommended unto the Prince his Son, as a Gentleman of his Bed-chamber, and (which was above all these Obligations) I was admitted to more than an ordinary measure of his Trust and Confidence. And certainly these great Obligations from the Father could not but imprint Gratitude in my Heart towards the Son, e­specially He being now become my King and Master, And so by all the Oaths that I had taken to the Father, I was likewise by him obliged to them as his Succes­sor.

But besides these Tyes of Gratitude, I must Protest, that weighing and considering impartially the Kings Actions, ei­ther as they relate to his Government as a King, or his per­sonal Deportments as a Man (setting Conscience aside, and that I had not been thereby restrained) I could never find any thing that could satisfie my judgement in point of Mo­ral Justice or right Reason for the taking Arms against him. [Page 41] I must and do confess that some things and too many w [...] ill done by the Kings Ministers, and the Subjects Propriety and Liberry might have run great hazard under an ill Prince, by those waies that were then set on foot. For to speak free­ly my sense, by the Principles then received, all was put into the Kings hands; for Necessity was made Master of all, and of that Necessity the King was made the sole Judge, (and Princes may easily mistake their own private Wants for publique Necessity) But from this Excess, little of the fault can with Reason be charged upon the King, and less ground for the taking of Arms; For it is well known, (the King having been unseasonably imbarqued in War both with France and Spain) his Treasure was wholly exhaust, and he was reduced to great streights. The King called divers Parliaments, but they proved so unhappy, that two or three of them were dissolved in great disorder, and the Kings Wants were not relieved, but the King and his People part­ed with little satisfaction on either side. The King then being enforced to use all indeavours for his Relief in these his great VVants, consulted with the Officers of his Re­venew, and his learned Councel, what course was to be ta­ken for his Supply without calling a Parliament, For it had been voted at the Councel-Table, That the Calling of a Parliament was not then fit or seasonable. And at the breaking off of the last Parliament before this, An. 1640. It had been declared by some of the Kings Ministers in the House of Commons, That if the King were not sup­plyed by Parliament, he must and would betake himself to new Counsells, The plain English whereof was understood to be, That the King would find out some other Course for his supplies, without making use of his People in Parliament. And this Opinion that Parliaments would for some time be laid aside, gave Boldness and Incouragements to all Pro­moters and Projectors to set on foot many Monopolies and Projects, which were still countenanced by the colour and pretence of Law; And amongst the rest, and indeed striking at the Root of the Subjects Propriety, was that of the Ship-mony brought forth. In what sort the Project of the Ship-mony was set on foot▪ the fault wher­of cannot with any Iustice be attributed to the King. And the Attorney Noy hath the [Page 42] name to have been the Father of it. He was in his time held to have been a great Oracle of the Law, and had been in for­mer Parliaments a great Patriot and Propugner of the Sub­jects Liberty, and his Opinion was of high Authority in point of Law with the King and with all Men: He assured the King, that there might be means found out of the Kings own (especially in times of Necessity) for him to supply him­self justly, and according to the Law, And so propoundeth this Project of the Ship-mony. The King relyed not upon the single Opinion of his Attorny, But as a good Prince ought to do, He took the further Advice of the Judges who are his proper Counsel in matters of the Law, and with whom he ought to Consult, And they are sworn to Counsell him faithfully, The Major part of them, which involveth the rest, approved this Project as legal, But the King would not content himself with their Verbal Advice, But required the then Lord Chief Justice and the Judges to set down the Case, and their Opinions of it under their hands, which they did accordingly. So that it being to be presupposed that the King (mote than in the points of administring Ju­stice) cannot have a distinct knowledge, either of the Ex­tent of his own Prerogative, or the abstruse Cases of the Law, In a point so much concerning him, as the relieving of him in his great wants by ways avowed to him to be just and legal, what more upright or prudent Course could a Prince take, than to be advised (not by young Men, or Fa­vorites at Court) but by his learned Counsell, and his grave Judges, sworn to advise him faithfully according to their best skill, who if they have behaved themselves wickedly or corruptly, upon their heads let Judgement light, But let the King and his Throne be free. But many Men conceiving (and not without Reason) That this private and extra judi­cial Opinion of the Judges, was not to be a binding Rule, did not acquiesce therin, but did refuse the Payment of the Ship-mony, and did indeavour to defend this their refusal by a due and legal way of Process, and particularly Mr. John Hamden. And the Business was brought to an Issue, and to a publique Tryal in the Exchequer-Chamber, which is [Page 43] the highest and supremest Judicature (under the Parliament) which the Kingdom of England knoweth in point of Law; for it is a Court composed of all the Judges of the several Tribunals, for the ending of such difficult and dubious Ca­ses, as have not been formerly over-ruled, or wherein there is found a difference in Opinion amongst the Iudges them­selves; And herein the Counsell on both sides, whether the Case be betwixt Party and Party, or the King and Subject, do not only plead, but argue the Case in Law, and the Iudges do commonly before they give Sentence, argue themselves the Case, in point of the learning of the Law, All which solemnities passed in this Case, without any interruption by the King; And after divers daies hearing and arguing, Iudg­ment passed for the King by Plurality of Votes, for the few­er Votes are involved in the Iudgment of the Major part, as there is a Necessity they should be in all Counsells and Iudi­catures, otherwise Controversies could not be ended, unless there were an unanimous Agreement in all that had Votes, which seldom happeneth. But in this Case three parts of fow­er Agreed in the Iudgment for the King; So that if the Iud­ges have erred now in Iudicature, being sworn to do equal Justice betwixt the King and the Subject, as they did before in their Advice unto the King, being sworn to Counsell him faithfully, the greater is their fault and Offence; But I must confess I am not able to set out the Kings Transgression.

This Case yet passed further, For it being brought into the Parliament by way of Grievance, the Iudgement was not only reversed, all Records burnt, and all Courses given way unto by the King, which the Houses themselves could think on, That no such Excesse might be attempted again in future times: But the Lord Keeper and the Iudges were (with­out any Interposition of the King) left unto the Justice of the Parliament, And the Lord Keeper and divers of them, were by the House of Commons impeached of high Treason; So the King having no hand in the setting it on foot, nor in the erroneous Iudgement, nor having protected the Parties cul­pable from Punishment, But the Grievance being redressed, and sufficient Caution and Provision assented unto by the [Page 44] King, for the preventing of the like for the future, I could not deduce from hence any Argument of the Kings intention to subvert the Law, or of any justifiable ground of taking arms against him.

And what is said in this Case of the Ship-mony doth like­wise hold in the Cases of Monopolies, The fault of Monopolies, not to be attri­buted to the King, but to e­vil Ministers and Referrees. which are alwaies sug­gested to be for the good of the Subject, as well as legal and beneficial to the King, who never granteth any of them with­out Reference; In point of Conveniency or Dis [...]dvantage to the Subject, they are usually referred to some of his privy-Counsell, In point of Law, to some of his learned Counsell, In point of his Benefit, to some Officers of his Revenew, Who if they have erred, or were corrupted, and the King by their ill Advice drawn to pass any unfit or illegal thing, I have known the Parliament for the space of these forty years address themselves by Petition unto the King for Redress, but unto the Referrees for the Fault, and the Causers of the Grievances. And if they could get the said Grievances re­dressed, and the Referrees brought to punishment, they alwaies esteemed it so gracious a Proceeding from the King towards them, that usually it was acknowledged with the return of some Gift or Supply: But that any Argument should be de­duced from thence, of any Intention in the King to subvert the Laws, I never knew it, Neither have I known that the King hath ever proceeded in matters of this kind, but in the manner here set down. And in this Parliament all Projects and Monopolies were put down, and all men that either had a Hand or Interest in them, (unless it were such as the House of Commons thought fit, for Causes known unto them­selves to pass by) were left unto the Iustice of the Parliament, without the Kings Protecting or Interposing for any one of them.

THe second main and important point that hath been made use of to the Kings Disadvantage, and by which [Page 45] the Hearts of the People have been most alienated from him was chiefly by ill informed Ministers in the Pulpit, who have most untruly suggested an unfirmness and unsettledness in the King in point of his Religion, and an inclination in him to overthrow the true reformed Protestant Religion establish­ed by the Laws of the Kingdom, and to introduce Popery. This I must confess was so far from planting in me any thing to the Kings Prejudice, That by so much the more it confirmed me in my Duty and Affection towards the King, by how much of mine own knowledge this wicked Aspersi­on was false and injurious: For in that point of the Kings Religion, few men living had the Cause, or could have the means to be so perfectly informed of it as my self. For besides that from his Youth upward I had been an eye-witness of his Education, being in the King his Fathers time admitted as a Gentleman of his Bed-chamber, I was for divers years imployed in the Treaty of a Mariage for him, with a Princess, of a differing Religion, And was to that purpose his Fathers Ambassador in Spain, when the King (then Prince) arrived there in Person, And it is true that the Spaniards had conceived great hopes of his becomming a Romish Catholique (wherein there wanted not incouragement both from divers in England and from some about him) and for the effecting of it, there was no industry omitted by them, but the learnedst men in Spain were imployed to satisfie him; And he was by Artifice brought to set a Conference with the said Divines upon Tearms of great Disadvantage: For one Wadesworth that had been an English Minister, and was then become a Ro­mish Catholique, was put upon him for his Interpreter, nei­ther had he the Assistance of any learned man with him: Yet gave he so good an Account of his own Religion, and answered so pertinently the Objections of the others, as was much beyond the expectation of all that were present at the said Conference. But seeing himself still pressed in that kind, Although the King of Spain assured him, that with this one thing all difficulties were overcome, and that he would sign him a Blanck in all things else; yet not to en­tertain them with any further hopes, he positively declared [Page 46] his Resolution to remain unremoveable in his own Religion; and would afterwards admit of no more Conferences in that kind, and certainly, if any earthly consideration could have been prevalent with him, he had then such Motives as might have wrought upon him. For besides the Disgrace of failing in his first Enterprice, (especially an Enterprise of Love and in his own Person) the Princess was of that Merit, and her Va­lue of him such, And his satisfaction of her Virtue, and his Affection to her Person so great, that nothing but point of Religion could have made him leave her behind him: For it was declared unto him that in Case he would conform him­self in point of Religion, no Dispensation from the Pope would be then needfull, but the Mariage should be consummate without any further expectation from Rome, as soon as he should desire it.

But he thereupon declared that he would rather expect the Dispensation, and resolved to imploy his indeavours that way, and so presently sent one Mr. Andrews (a Servant of his) to Rome, to cause Mr. George Gage (that was then there solliciting of the Dispensation) to procure the dispatch there­of with all possible diligence, and Letters were written un­to him by the Princes Order to desire him, that if there were at Rome any Opinion of the Princes becomming a Roman Catholique, and upon hope thereof any Retardment of the granting the Dispensation, he should undeceive them in that point, and press the Dispensation upon the Articles of Re­ligion agreed upon; The Prince was then moved by the Spa­nish Ministers to write unto the Pope in answer of some Letters which the Pope had sent unto him, and to move him for the granting of the Dispensation, and the Letters were brought ready drawn unto him, and some passages there were, from which some hope might be gathered, that in time, when it might be thought more seasonable than at the present (lest it might be thought he had changed his Re­ligion for a Wife) he would not be unwilling to receive further satisfaction in the Catholique Religion; all which he strook out, and wrote only a Letter of Civility, such a one as he thought fit to write to one, from whom he was to receive [Page 47] favour in a Business that he most desired, and without whom there was no possibility of obteining it, unless he would have conformed himself in point of Religion, which he being resolved not to do, he thought it fit to apply himself unto the Pope by all fair and amiable means, and particular­ly in promising not to be severe against those of his Religi­on, thereby to facilitate with the Pope the granting of the Dispensation: All which Diligences he might have excused by his Conformity; for then no Dispensation would have been needfull, And hereby no further hope remaining in the Court of Spain or at Rome of his altering his Religion, the Dispensation was granted upon the Articles formerly agreed on in point of Religion. These Letters have been published and translated into several Languages, which though I cannot say corruptly, yet strained as much as might be to his disad­vantage. And it is probable that the like Letters of Com­plyance to the Pope may have been procured in the Treaty of the Match with France, wherein the Popes Dispensation was likewise held necessary: But all are Arguments of the Kings firmness in his Religion, when he would rather un­dergo the trouble and delay of the Dispensation, than by his Conformity to have effected what he desired without any dif­ficulty or further hazard; and this hath been fully confirmed ever since, by his profession and living in the Reformed Re­ligion established in the Church of England, from which no man can say with truth, that he hath prevaricated in the least tittle.

Besides this great proof of his firmness and settledness in his Religion, his constant and daily Practice both in Pub­lique and Private in the exercise of his Devotions, may and ought to give satisfaction to all that consider him without prejudice; For his resorting twice every day to Publique Prayors, and twice a week at least to Sermons, and his fre­quent receiving of the Holy Sacrament, is publiquely known unto all; but his private Devotions to those only that are of nearer Attendance about his Person, who well know that he never faileth morning nor evening to retire himself to his private Prayers, and upon Occasions in the day time besides, he shutteth up himself to his Devotions; Insomuch [Page 48] that it is known, that upon particular Causes, he hath con­stituted to himself some Fasts, with that secrecy, that those nearest ahout him have gotten no knowledge of it, but by his Abstinence, for God hath given him so good a Health, that he neither needeth, nor otherwise useth to forbear Meals. It is likewise well known that he hath Composed excellent Prayers, which he hath caused to be used suitable to the Occasions, as particularly, for the good success of the Treaty at Uxbridge.

Further, I may testifie, and do it in the presence of God, that in Conference with me of great and private Trust concerning his present sad Condition, he hath told me, that although he could not but be sensible of his own Distress, of that of the Queen, and of his Children, the Calamity of the Kingdom, and very particularly of his Friends, likely to be destroyed for their fidelity unto him: yet that which most afflicted him, was the Apprehension of the Ruine and Destruction of the Church of England, and of the true Protestant Religion, which he conceived had the least to be mended in it, and most both in Doctrine and Discipline) agreeing with the Primitive Times of any Church he knew in the World; And I am of be­lief, that it will be found of much difficulty to pull from him this Opinon, unless his Conscience and Iudgement shall be convinced by some such learned and unanswerable Argu­ments as he hath not yet known: For although it be very probable that temporal regar [...]s may make him condescend unto great inconveniences and great lessenings; yet if I much mistake him not, that have known him many years, no suf­ferings or Dangers, nor other worldly Considerations what­soever, will be of Power to cause him to make Shipwrack of his Conscience.

And although it be very true, that the Queen his Wife be most dear unto him, and in all other things of greatest Power with him, yet in matter of Religion, his Resolution to live in it, and his Ability to defend it, was so well known unto Her, and to all about her, that as they could not but think it bootless to Attempt any thing in that kind, so they knew they could not essay it without Offence.

[Page 49]And although he hath alwaies indeavoured to breed up the Prince his Son in great Duty and Reverence to the Queen his Mother, with a strict command unto him to be obedient to her in all things; yet it hath alwaies been with this Re­striction, Except it be in point of Religion, And upon my own knowledge I dare and do deliver this for a positive Truth.

So likewise the matching of his eldest Daughter to a Pro­testant Prince (though not of the Rank of Kings) may be jud­ged as a great Argument of his love to the Reformed Religi­on. Besides, in the beginning of these troubles, knowing this malicious suggestion cast upon him, he set forth a publick Manifest unto the Protestant Churches to vindicate himself from that scandal, and to assure the World of his Constancy and Resolution to live and die in the Reformed Religion.

And as for his Piety in this his Profession, the Scripture saith, Shew me thy Faith by thy Works, And what greater Argument of Religion and Piety can there be to man who cannot search into the Heart, (to God that only belongeth) than a temperate, sober, good Life and Conversation. What blood in his Reign hath been sacrificed to his Wrath or Re­venge? What Confiscations have enriched his Treasure? What noble Family hath been dishonored by his Lust? What Incouragement hath Vice, Excess, or Licentiousness received from his Example? Nay, I am perswaded, that it will much trouble his Enemies, yea Malice it self, to find out the Vice wherewith to reproach his Life: yet how many Shimei's have reviled the Lords Anointed, of whom we are taught not to speak ill in our Bed-chambers? And when Cause of speak­ing ill against him hath been wanting, they have set him up as a But before them for their scurrilous Wits, Libels, and Hue and Cries, &c. I am far from charging the Houses for having a hand in these low and unworthy things, only I shall say, that it is possible for private Errors to become publique Faults, non Committendo, sed non Castigando. A Princes Re­ligion ought not to be a ground of Re­bellion or diso­bedience. It was Elies Case, and Gods Iudgement followed it.

Besides this certain knowledge that I had of the Kings settledness in his Religion; I was far from being satisfied in my Conscience (that if the King should have changed his [Page 50] Religion and become a Papist) it should have been lawfull to take Arms against him. For (as Moulins above saith, in the name of the Church of France) We ought not from the Reli­gion of our Princes, to take occasion of disobedience, making Piety the Match whereby to kindle Rebellion, &c.

And when Hen. 4. that great King of France did leave the Communion with the Reformed Churches, and was re­conciled to the Church of Rome and conformed himself to the Rights thereof, by going to the Masse, and performing all o­ther Ceremonies, and Worship established by it; yet those of the Reformed Religion in France did not thereupon think it lawfull to withdraw their Obedience, or take Arms against him, but continued to serve him with all faith and Loyalty, And such as made those detestable Assaults, and that Pari­cide, who committed that horrid and execrable murther upon his Royal Person, took not their Incitements and Incourage­ments from the avowed Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, but from the writings of some hotter-headed Papists, to the great Scandal and Reproach of their Church, And from the Tenents of our new Puritan Doctors, [...] Hen. 3. King of Fr. by Iacque [...]. Hen. 4. King of by Fr. by [...]. The Prince of [...] by [...]. who by those Max­ims (wherin they both agree) have (instead of the Eastern Assassinates) brought in on both sides their Enthusiasts, fitly prepared Instruments for Treasons and Murthers, by whose hands so many Princes and Kings have fallen, and by whose Doctrine so many States have been involved in Rebellions and Civil Wars. So likewise upon the several Changes of Religion in England under Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Ma. and Queen Eliz. The Protestants of the Reformed Religion de­clared against h [...]stile Resistance, and exhorted to obedience and suffering, and confirmed their Doctrine by their own Martyrdome, as is before set down. Besides, the Precepts of Scripture (of not resisting the Powers ordeined by God over us) were, to command obedience to Princes that were all Heathen, Idolaters, and Persecutors of Gods Church. Our Saviours Precept was, To give unto Caesar what belonged un­to Caesar, and what St. Paul and the Apostles injoyn, was to­wards Nero. Neither did the Christians take Arms against Iulian notwithstanding his Apostacy, but continued to serve [Page 51] him, and to sight against his Enemies with fidelity and cou­rage. And I conceive it is the general received Opinion of all moderate Christians, That as Religion ought not, The Non-con­formists them [...]selves [...] out [...] P [...]tell a [...] 3 [...]c. 1605. [...] clear to this point. Vide Art. 4, 6, 9. in Ap. pag. 19. or (to speak more properly) cannot (though Dissimulation and Hy­pocrosie may) be planted by force so Subjects may not with­draw their civil and natural Allegiance due to their Kings upon any colour or pretext of Religion: For as no private man doth forfeit his Inheritance or free-hold, by Impiety or Atheism, (although he may forfeit his Soul▪ unless he com­mit some legal Crime: So a Prince, that holdeth his Crown by unquestionable Right of Succession, cannot forfeit his Temporal Inheritance by the erroniousness of his Religion (his Soul must only answer that forfeit) And although some have gone so far as to admit a lawfullness of the Subjects ta­king Arms against their Prince, for the defence and mainte­nance of their Laws and Religion, yet no man hath adventu­red so far, as to allow the taking Arms for bringing in of new Laws and a new Religion contrary to the established, and that by force, and without consent of their Soveraign, which is the present Case.

THere is yet one further Objection, wherwith I have heard some indeavour to countenance and justifie their taking Arms against the King, which was, That he first made War against his Parliament, meaning by force to introduce an Arbi­trary Power in Church and Common-Wealth; And that the War on their side was only defensive, and for the maintenance of their liberties, proprieties, privileges, and Religion.

The steps and progress of this unhappy War are so well known unto me, even from the first misunderstandings betwixt the King and People, and the improvement of them by Tumults and several Artifices untill they broke out into [Page 52] Acts of open hostility, that nothing did so much terrifie my Conscience from taking Arms against the King, or more con­firmed me in my Duty of adhering unto him, than the certain and infallible knowledge I had of the Kings hearty and un­feigned Desires and Indeavours to have prevented this War, and to that end to have done, and was ready to do all things that had been or should be with justice or reason propoun­ded unto him for the satisfaction of his Parliament, which I conceive, to all unpreoccupated Iudgments will be easily most apparent, when it shall be considered how many things he hath done (besides the easing of just grievances whereunto he is indeed obliged) which were meerly Acts of Grace, and which if he had denied, he should have done no wrong, And for the doing whereof, the wit of man can find no other reason or inducement, but his desire to satisfie his Parliament, and the keeping of things from extremities: For besides the giving way to the putting down of the Court of Starchamber, the High Commission, and the regulating of his Councel-Table; many other things he hath done, which some Kings would rather have adventured a War, than have parted with any of them, As the consenting to have his Privy-Councel (that had been sworn to secrecy) to be examined upon Oath concerning those things that had passed in his Presence in his most secret Cabinet Councel, The giving his Assent in such conjun­cture of times to the taking away the Bishops Votes in Parlia­ment,The King cau­sed Pr. Charles (his Son and Heir) to become a Suter unto the Houses for the saving the Earls life, who came in person and propound­ed it as the first Request he had ever made unto them, but could not ob­tain it. And the divesting of himself of the Power to dissolve the Parliament; notwithstanding that the evil Consequen­ces that might happen to him thereby, were represented un­to him in my hearing. And I conceive, that no man will be so partial but they do beleeve, that howsoever the King might be satisfied in point of Conscience by the Bishops and Iudges and the joint authority of both Houses, for giving his As­sent to the passing of the Bill for my Lord of Straffords Attain­dure; yet no man but beleeveth he would have saved his Life at a great Ransom: But hoping therby to have allayed the rage of his people, aswell as to have given full satisfaction to his Houses, with a sad and afflicted heart he signed the War­rant for the Earls execution. For he was then made beleeve, [Page 53] that with his giving way to his death, and his consenting to the Bill for not adjourning or dissolving of the Parliament, but with the Concurrence of the Houses, all misunderstand­ings betwixt him and his Parliament would be removed, and all things return to a calm and orderly way of Proceeding. Now if the King had had any secret Intention of making of a War, would he have done so many things so prejudicial to himself, and so against his heart, only for the preventing of it? and although his hopes of a quiet settlement by the pas­sing of these two Bills failed him, he yet gave not over the doing of all further things which he thought might renew a right understanding betwixt him and the Houses.

So likewise when that unhappy and unseasonable Act of his going to the House of Commons in Person happened, he in­deavoured to redeem it with such Acts of acknowledgemeot, submission, nay I may say asking forgiveness, as were ne­ver done by any King unto his Subjects.

So likewise in the particular of his Attorneys accusing of the Lord Kimbolton and the five Members, notwithstand­ing he had a President for it in his own time of Sir Robert Heath his then Attorneys impeaching of my self of High Treason, which Impeachment was received and admitted of by the House of Peers, and Arraignment and due process of Law, was by the said House ordered and awarded there­upon, yet, the King (finding the Houses therewith displea­sed) did not only command prosecution to be with­drawn, but left his Attorny to the Iustice of the Parliament; And I conceive, that it will be acknowledged by all Laws and Religions, That the very excesses and errors of Sove­raign Princes, if reparation and satisfaction may be obtained by Petition and Remonstrance, (as in these Ca [...]es they have been) Recourse ought not to be had by Subjects, to Arms or Hostile Resistance; and I am deceived if this be not also the Opinion of the severest of our new Doctors.

Where wrongs are done, if the party offending shall upon demand make reparation and give satisfaction to the party of­fended, and yet he shall notwithstanding make War, it is He that is the Agressor & that maketh the offensive War. Melior [Page 54] causa ad partem poenitentem transit, And the party first offen­ding, by his penitency and satisfaction, brings over the Right and Iustice to his Cause: and if this be betwixt Independent States, betwixt whom such as write de Iure Belli, say a le­gitimate War can only be, (for (War being defined to be publico [...]um Armorum justa contentio) Subjects are not al­lowed as lawfull Enemies opposed to their Soveraign for want of supreme and publique Authority) How much more ought such Acknowledgment and Reparations (as have before been set down) have satisfied Subjects in the behalf of their King, so far humbling of himself, as certainly would have pa­cified a modest Conqueror.

After the King had found himself disappointed of his ex­pectation, and that by his former yieldings and complyances the misunderstandings were little allayed, but greater appea­rances grew every day that other of unquietness and trou­bles, And that he had thought fit to withdraw himself from London for his safety, and the avoiding of Affronts, which he had cause to fear; (for that the five Members were the next day by the armed Train'd-bands of the City in martial manner to be brought to Westminster, and to pass by the Kings Pa­lace) Yet so desirous was the King to sweeten things again, that (upon great instance) he passed the Bill for debarring the Bishops their Seats and Votes in Parliament, upon hopes that were given (with no small Assurance,) that upon grati­fying the Houses therein, all things would speedily be put in­to a way of Accomodation.

I had often heard the King say, That (besides the wrong done unto the Bishops, who had as good Right to their Votes in Parliament as any other Peers from the first Original of Parli­aments) he conceived he could not do any Act of greater Pre­judice to himself and his Successors, than the passing of that Bill. Yet the desire he had of a reconciliation with his Parliament, overweighed all other Considerations and Interests whatso­ever, And he gave his Royal assent unto the Bill; But in­stead of that effect which the King expected thereby, it pro­duced rhe 19 Propositions of Grocers Hall before mentioned; Whereupon although the King gave no negative Answer, [Page 55] yet he put on a Resolution to make no further Answer to any new Propositions: But his Request to the Houses was, That they would set down together all such means as would give them satisfaction, wherunto they should receive a gracious and satisfsctory Answer to all they could iustly or reasonably de­mand; But this was declared to be a breach of privileges, to restrain the Proposals of the Houses either in matter or form. The King on the other side thought, that whatsoever he had formerly done had served only to strip himself of his known Rights, but had no way advanced a general accommodati­on, And so for the future, betook himself to Declarations and Protestations instead of Answers, wherein he proffer'd to concurre in all things they should desire for the settling of all Liberties and Immunities of the Subject, either for the Propriety of their Goods, or Liberty of their Persons, which they either had received from his Ancestors, or which by himself had been granted unto them. And if there did yet remain any thing of Grace, for the good and comfort of the Subject, he would willingly heaken unto all their reaso­nable Propositions. And for the setling of the true Prote­stant Religion, he most earnestly recommended the Care thereof unto them, wherein they should have his Concurrence and assictance. The Rule of his Government he protested should be the setled Laws of the Kingdom; And for the Indempnity and Comfort of the Subject, he offered a more ample and General Pardon than had been granted by any of his Predecessors, and for the performance of all he had promised, (besides solemn Oaths and Execrations whereby he bound himself) he desired God only so to bless and prosper him and his Posterity, as he should faithfully perform the same. And further, for the greater securing of what should be agreed and setled, he gave such voluntary security, as I conceive was never before demanded, nor by any King offered to his Subjects; That in the Case he failed in performance, or should do contrary to that which he had promised or agreed, He acquitted and freed his Subjects of their Obedience.

[Page 56]And this great desire of the Kings to have purchased Reconciliation with the Houses, will appear to have been known to me,In [...]ppendice pag. 1. and to have been so beleeved by me, by what I spake in the House of Peers the 20 of May 1642. and was published in print; most of this being but a repetition of what I then said, as will appear by the said Speech hereunto an­nexed.

Besides the above specified Reasons of the Kings desiring Peace, It could not be supposed, that in humane prudence the King could desire a War, being altogether unfurnished of men, mony and ammunition, and the contrary party provided of all, by the being seized of his Forts, his Magazins, his Navy, his Rents, the Revenew of his Crown, and of the powerfull and rich City of London, and of the perverted Affections of his People. He was fain at his return from Dover (whither he had accompanyed the Queen when she passed into Holland) to go from place to place, as to Theobalds, and to Newmarket, lingring up and down in hope still of some Overture of Ac­commodation, and many Motions tending thereunto, were made by my self and other the Kings Servants that stayed behind him with the Parliament; But they were not then thought seasonable, and wrought little effect, and the King having lost all hopes in that kind, held it fit to retire himself further from danger, (as he conceived) and so went unto York with a very mean Equipage and a slender Attendance of not above 30 or 40 Persons. It is true, that many of the Nobility and Gentry repaired thither unto him, shewing great Affection and Resolution to follow him in all Fortune; and Indeavours were used that the King might be put into the best posture of Defence that was possible, but ever with a desire that those small Forces might rather countenance some Treaty or Overture for Accommodation than that there was any belief that those Forces were fit to carry through a War. And to that purpose the Earls of Southampton and Dorset were sent unto the Parliament with new Overtures from Nottingham. But nothing would be heard untill the King had first taken down his Standard, and laid down Arms, which the King understood to be a total submission and yield­ing [Page 57] of himself up, seeing my Lord of Essex came forth, and within few daies march of him, with a great and powerfull Army, He himself having by Sr. Iacob Ashleys Certificate, not above 700 foot, whereof there were not above 400 ar­med, and 900 foot of Colonell Bellasis at Newark, most of them without Arms, An Equipage certainly not to have in­couraged the King unto a War, if it could have been avoid­ed; But such was Gods will for the punishment of the Na­tion.

But the Kings Forces indeed unexpectedly increased, by which the War hath been continued to the Destruction of the Kingdom, and more particularly of the Kings Party; but later by much than could have been expected by any foreseeing man: and neither the King, nor any rational man with him, but would have accepted and sought an Ac­commodation, though with great loss and prejudice. So that to make the King the first Agressor, and beginner of an Of­fensive War, and the Houses to have taken only defensive Arms, I could never understand it, nor know what it was they could pretend to defend; Since there was no wrong left unredressed, nor any thing that they could have pretence or colour to demand, that was not offered. Many things undeniably the Kings were witheld from him, and more dai­ly seized, But I conceive no one thing can be instanced, wherein the King hath deteined from them any Right, to which they laid Claim.A. The Right of all th [...]se speci­fied particulars from the l [...]t­ter A. to the Letter B. are fully shewn to belong unto the King, and that the Houses can have no colour of pretence un­to them. In App. pag. 20. But if the making of Ordinances (without the King) of equal Authority with Acts of Parlia­ment, to which the Royal Assent had passed; The keeping in their hands the Militia, Forts, and Navy, exclusively to the King; The altering of Church-Government established by Law, without the Kings Consent; The making a new Great Seal; The proscribing of the Kings loyal Friends and Ser­vants, to loss of life and estates without pardon or mercy, be­fore either Summons, Tryal, or Conviction; The taking to themselves the sole Power of pardoning and disposing of Con­fiscations; If the setting unto sale the Lands and Revenew of the Church, (for so many hundreds of years appropriated unto it) by their single Arbitrary Power, without the Kings [Page 58] Consent, who is Founder of all the Bishopricks, and which he was sworn to preserve; If the abolishing of the Court of Wards, and discharging the Subjects of their Tenures, and so consequently of their service to the Crown; If the detei­ning of the Kings Children from him, the breeding of them, and the future Mariage of them, belongeth unto them; If the Power of injoining new Oaths upon the Subject, con­trary to all Law, and without the King; If the making what they please Treason, ex plenitudine potestatis, [...]s the Dic Lun [...]e 4 Ma [...]i 1646. O [...]dered that whosoever should [...]a [...]our or conceal the King, and not [...] it, &c. should be pro­ceeded [...] as a Traitor, and d [...] without mercy. B. harbou­ring of the King, &c. notwithstanding that the Law hath de­termined what shall be adjudged Treason and nothing else; If the sending to, and treating with forein Princes, of War and Peace; or the nominating of Judges, Sheriff, and the Of­ficers of the Crown, and many things of this kind; If they lay Claim unto these as their Right; I must confesse I have not known any satisfaction offered unto them by the King: Only in the point of his Servan [...]s, he hath alwaies protested, that he would protect no man whatsoever, so that he might be brought to a Legal Tryal, according to the due Course of Law, which he is bound to see afforded to all his Subjects. But for the rest of the above specified particulars, I do not know that the King hath indeavoured their satisfaction: Neither can it be supposed by any rational man, that they will ground their defensive War upon any Claim they will make unto them. For although de facto in the Contestation of War, they have seized and possessed themselves of them, yet they will not pretend, that they have right unto them de jure, And it is Right that constitutes the Iustness or Uniust­ness of the entring into a War; Success protecteth, and may establish for the future, but cannot rectifie or make good an unjust beginning. And it must be their future proceed­ings, by which the most probable Iudgement can be made of their former intentions. For now that they have over­come all oppositions, If they shall return to a peaceable le­gal Settlement, and leave to use Arbitrary Government, which they may pretend they have been inforced unto, du­ring an Actual War; and shall only retain their just Liberties and Privileges, with such additions and inlargements of [Page 44] Graces, and Immunities, as the King, (being free, and without constraint) shall be contented to grant, together with pru­dent Cautions for their own Indempnity, and Security for the future (which in Cases of this Nature, must ever be supposed that rational Men will indeavour, and successfull men that have the Power in their hands, will expect) If they will let the Subject have the comfort and security of a general Par­don, and an Act of Oblivion; not force the consciences of their fellow subjects, by new Oaths, which they themselves have acknowledged to be contrary to the Law and against the Petition of Right; If they will endeavour really, the settle­ment of Religion, by a moderate Reformation, and not by a total ruine of the most Orthodox and flourishing Church of Europe; and so restore the King to what is undeniably his, and make the known Law the Rule of Government, These will be the strongest Arguments, that Defence was rather in­tended, than a Conquest. But if Armies shall be reteined when there are no Enemies; and by them an Arbitrary Pow­er held up over mens Lives, Liberties, and Estates; and the King kept in the nature of a subdued and useless Person; little will be believed of any Intention of taking only defen­sive Arms.

THere was yet a further Tye of Gratitude put upon me, by the Generousness, and Reconcileableness of the Kings Disposition: (a virtue ever to be wished, but not often found in offended Princes) For I having been so unhappy, as to have fallen very highly into his Disfavour, and to have remained many years under a Cloud of his heavy Displeasure: yet not long before the beginning of this Parliament, having the opportunity of accesse unto him, at the great Counsel at York, And then being imployed as Prolocutor in the Commissi­on [Page 60] for the Treaty with the Scots at Rippon for a Cessation, and afterwards for the Peace at London; he was pleased to receive so good satisfaction concerning me, and all my former pro­ceedings, that he did graciously pass by, whatsoever offence he had conceived against me, and did not only call me to his Counsel-Table, (where, in regard of my many years service under his Father, he might have judged me usefull unto his service) but out of a Confidence and Trust (which to fail in even amongst Heathens, would be held odious) admitted me to the place of the nearest Attendance about his Person, as a Gentleman of his Bed-chamber, who (besides the Pri­vileges of Access in all places) have the Honor to sleep by him in the night in his Chamber, and to be trusted alone with the safety of his Person, as I have often been. And this place is accompanyed with a particular Oath of distinct services, Of attending upon his Person, of not Acting or Concealing any thing to his Prejudice, and other things of particular service, more than other subjects do swear unto.

And I must confess, that if all the above alleged Reasons had been laid aside, and that there had been no other Tye, but this new Obligation of the Kings Reconciliation, and of his trusting and confiding in me, knowing him to be so free, not only from all things that might justifie the taking Arms against him, but from all things of doing wrong, or oppres­sion, (if other mens errors or corruptions, were not put upon his Score) That if all the misfortunes that have befal­len me and my Family, had been foreseen by me, and might have been prevented by my forsaking of my Master, only be­cause he was in distress; I would rather have embraced this poor and exiled condition, than to have lived in any Estate of plenty whatsoever, reproaching to my self daily and hourly my Infidelity and Ingratitude.

THese are the Reasons that have reteined me in that Du­ty, which I conceived my self bound unto towards the King, The sum of them being briefly thus.

1. I understood Hostile Resistance against the King, to be expresly prohibited by the word of God, both in the old and new Testament.

2. I should have gone against the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church, and against the present Tenents and Confessions of Faith, of all the Reformed Chur­ches.

3. Admitting the Maxims of those hot-headed men, ei­ther Romanists or Protestants, that have written in favour of Subjects taking Arms against their Prince to be true, (as they are false, and condemned by their own Churches respective­ly) yet in this Case, they could be no Arguments to me; For that their Doctrine and Principles, are in no kind applicable to the present matter in Fact.

4. I should have directly broken all those solemn Oaths which I had so often taken, of Fidelity and Allegeance to the King.

5. I should have gone against the Laws of the Kingdom, by which to take Arms against the King, or to adhere to his Enemies, &c. is made Treason.

6. I should have been failing in the Obligations of Honor and Gratitude.

7. I should have transgressed against Moral Honesty, and natural Iustice, to have fought against the King, as an unjust and an irreligious Man, whom I knew to be, in more than an ordinary measure, Iust and Religious.

So that if I should have broken through all these Duties of Religion, of Oaths, of Loyalty, of Laws, of Gratitude, and [Page 62] Moral Honesty, by doing presumptuously against my Con­science; how could I but have feared to be made as mise­rable in the next World, as I should have remained desp [...] ­cable in this?

And howsoever this may be judged a severe Censure, 'It is only against my self, as I say in the beginning of this Dis­course, Men may upon differing Painciples go differing waies; And I cannot be so uncharitable, as to think so many grave, learned, and noble Personages, would break through so many plain Duties, under which they had formerly lived, And un­to which they had not only sworn but conformed themselves; But that they had either found out or had had revealed unto them, some such things for the satisfaction of their Consci­ences, as God hath not yet been pleased I should attain un­to. If I may see them in writing, I shall peruse them wil­lingly; And if I shall find in them, but so much Reason, as may induce me to believe, that upon their own Principles, and not by Fear, Interests, or likelyhood of prevailing, their Consciences may have been perswaded that way, Although I disapprove their said Principles, and still retain mine own, yet I shall say, Bonâ intentione mali sunt; which though it doth not justifie an evill Action, yet it doth in some measure excuse and lessen the Offence. St. Paul was a great Phil. 3. v. 6. Persecutor of the Church, But because he did it out of abundance of Zeal, 1 Tim. 1 v. 13. John 16.2. He obtained Pardon, for that he did it ignorantly: Our Saviour saith to his Disciples, The time will come that who­soever killeth you will think they do God good service. And those very Murtherers would have been in much better Case than I should have been, that should have sinned presumptu­ously and against the perswasion of mine own Conscience; where­as they had the Glory of God for their end, though upon false Principles. And certainly, presumptuous sins, being as it were a defying of God, are of greater Provocation, And I shall recommend unto those whose Consciences have led them another way, that Imborn, Charitable principle of the Law of Nature, as well as of the Gospel, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris; Whatsoever ye would that men should to do you, do ye even so unto them. Matth. 7.12. And if Conscience shal be a discharge or [Page 63] supersedeas unto them, against known Duties, against Oaths, and Established Laws, Let Conscience in me, grounded upon so many Reasons, as in this Discourse are set down, be like­wise pleadable for the doing of those Duties, to which I con­ceived my self obliged, both by the Law of God and Man, and which hitherto, both they and I have practised.

THese have been the Motives of setling my Conscience in the Opinion that I shall briefly here set down, deduced from the Principles of this Discourse, which (upon this indi­vidual Case) is;

That neither upon pretext of Religion, Personal Vices, Ex­cesses in Government, nor any other Colour or Pretext whatsoever, the Subjects of the Crown of England may with­draw their Obedience, or make Hostile Resistance to King CHARLES the present King, Being by Right of Inheri­tance, justly possessed of the Crown, His Title no way de­pending, either upon his Divine or Moral Vertues; And the said Subjects having received him, and acknowledged him for their only Supreme Governor, done him Hommage, and sworn to him Faith and Allegeance absolutely and with­out Condition.

As for other Kings or Potentates, whether Elective King­doms, or Kingdoms that (at the Erection of them) were re­ceived by the first King upon Express Covenant, and only with a Conditional Obedience, as is pretended by those of Aragon and others: of these I shall not speak. Neither shall I adventure to speak of those Catholique Kings and Princes, which acknowledge (in spiritual matters) a Superiour Iuris­diction in the Pope over them, (And he pretendeth (as hath been before set down) by necessary Relation and Dependen­cy of the Temporal upon the Spiritual) to have a Temporal [Page 64] Power over them, in ordine ad spiritualia; and hath often put this his Claim in Practice, by accompanying his spiritu­al Censure of Excommunication, with the Sentence of dischar­ging Subjects of their obedience to their Princes, and so con­sequently of deposing them. Herewith I shall not meddle, None of these cases being applicable to the present Case of King CHARLES, who is no Elective King, but holdeth his Crown by an unquestionable Title of Succession, derived to him by Descent from his Ancestors, for the space of more than six hundred years: Neither was there ever any Pact or Condition with him, or any of his Ancestors of forfeiture, in Case of misgovernment or wickedness; And breach of Cove­nants forfeiteth not an Ordinary Estate, unless there be an ex­press Clause and Condition of forfeiture: which in this Case, neither was, nor ever can be pretended. It is true, that his Ancestors and himself, have limited and restrained their Legal Right, by many Concessions and Laws in some Cases, as, The making of Laws without Consent of Peers and Peo­ple, and the levying of Mony, &c. which he cannot vio­late without great Injustice, as shall be after shewn: But no such Pact or Covenant can be produced, or pretended, whereby upon breach, he forfeiteth his Soveraignty, or ma­keth it justifiable for his Subjects to take Arms against him, or to inflict Punishments upon his Person, either by deposing, Death, or Imprisonment.

The Case likewise of Catholique Princes no way concern­eth him, who acknowledgeth in the Pope, no such Superior Jurisdiction: Neither if he did, are there any such Ecclesiastical Censures issued out against him, as might warrant so much as his Catholique Subjects to take arms against him. So that whatsoever Pretences may be in some Cases, concerning such Princes as I have above specified, (wherein I shall not presume to deliver any Opinion) yet in the present Case of King CHARLES, there can be no colourable pretence of taking arms against him, or of deposing him, which I under­stand to be, (in effect) when he is divested o [...] his just Re­gal Power; Or of the imprisoning of his person, which I un­derstand to be, not only when he is in Bonds, or lockt up in [Page 65] a Room; but when the liberty of going, and the freedom of speaking is restrained, to such places or persons as others shall please, and he remain under the Guard of Armed men, not of his own choosing, but imposed upon him by others.

It must be acknowledged, that the Kings of England derive their Title and Right from William the Norman, who although he came in by Conquest, yet his Successors (consi­dering that a Right acquired by Force, may likewise be recovered by Force, by those upon whom the forceable Intrusion was made) were pleased by way of pact and sti­pulation, to limit and qualifie that Imperium absolutum, which is acquired by Conquest ▪ And the People of England, thereupon did submit themselves to his Government, and became his Subjects and his Liege-men, And thereby was Constituted Imperium legitimum, a just and Rightfull Sove­raignty; the Kings remaining with Supreme Power, and the People with Common Right, whereby they were freed from the Servitude of Conquest, and remained under a free Subjection, whereunto they had by their Consent submitted themselves.

The Kings likewise did recede from Absolute and Arbi­trary Power, and remained with Supreme, but not with Absolute Empire.

By free Subjection, I understand when a People live un­der Laws to which they have given a free Consent, and not under the meer Will of the Prince; And that they retain such a Propriety in that which is their own, that without their Assent or legal forfeiture, it cannot be taken from them; And this is a true difference betwixt a Free Subject and a Slave or Servant. Quicquid acquirit servus, acquiritur Do­mino, Liber quod acquirit, acquirit sibi, Whatsoever a servant getteth, he getteth for his Lord, Whatsoever a Freeman getteth, he getteth for himself. And so although that Dominion of all belongeth to the Prince, Propriety belongs to every man, Dominium totius apud Caesarem, Proprietas apud singu­los.

The Difference that I understand betwixt a Supreme, and [Page 66] Absolute Empire, is, That in Absolute Empire, the Rule of the Peoples Obedience, is only the Soveraigns Will. So it is in Turky, Muscovia, and all such Princes, as retain entire, the Right of Conquest; and was in some sort under the Roman Emperor after the Lex Regia was established by the Peoples Consent; whereby they transferred their entire Right unto the Emperor.

Supreme Empire I understand to be, when a King hath a Supremacy and Soveraingnity over all, but his Absolute Power is limited and restrained by reciprocal Pacts, Laws, and Stipulations betwixt Prince and People, which is the Case of the Crown of England: And to these Pacts, the King and People are equally bound, before God and Man; And the King is as much bound to Iustice, and to the prote­ction of his Subjects, and to the observance of the Laws, (not only out of Religion, but out of Moral Honesty) as the Sub­ject is to Obedience. And he is not only accomptable to God, but his People have just and legal waies to seek Redress, wherein he shall do Wrong; notwithstanding that Axiome of our Common Law,Le Roy ne fait to [...]t▪ is on­ly to be under­stood in the or­dinary course of justice wh [...]ch the King admi­nistring by his Ministers, and not in Person, it is they that are the wrong do­ers and not the King, and the subj [...]ct against [...] his Remedy. That the King can do no Wrong; which is very false in many senses, and may be very well called fictio Iuris, a kind of Metaphysical Fiction. For Kings may do Wrong, and be as wicked as other men, and may commit Murther, and lye with other mens Wives, and wrongfully take take other mens Estates, which no Fiction of the Law can make not to be Wrong, although his Person be exempt from punishment. And that abstract Consideration of the King, for his just Power and Office, as it hath been often ill used heretofore in way of Assentation: So there hath been as ill use made of it in these troubles; when the taking of arms and the fighting against him, was pretended not to be against the King, but against CHARLES STEWART. But (to speak in Terms intelligible) a King both may do Wrong, and the People may seek their redress, in such sort as the Law of the Land alloweth: And the difference betwixt King and Peoples failing in their reciprocal Duties, is not but that they do Wrong alike, offend God alike, and are both of them liable to be questioned, according to the extent of [Page 67] the Law, by both their Consents established. The Subjects transgressing the Law, shall be punished according to the quality and measure of their Delicts. Felony, by loss of their Goods and Chattels, and by a milder Death, Treason by a more severe Death, and Confiscation both of Goods and In­heritance. But hereof they must be convict per pares, by Peo­ple of their own Condition, and adjudged by a Superiour Iuris­diction, which can be derived only and singly from the King. So that the King not having his Peer, or any of his own Condition, cannot have a legal Tryal; And having no ju­risdiction superior to himself, cannot be adjudged, or senten­ced by any. For neither the Extent of the Law, nor any Condition of the Pacts, or Stipulation, do reach to the pu­nishing of the Person of the King, or the forfeiture of his Do­minion over us. It is true, that (in civill things) Tryals may be (and often are) brought against the King; And Kings do give way, That the Iudges be sworn to do equal Iustice betwixt them and their Subjects. And in point of Oppressi­on and Wrong, we may Remonstrate our Grievances, and challenge Redress by our Petitions; Which if they be not condescended unto, we may insist upon them as our right, and claim them as a due, and not as of grace; And although we do it by way of Petition, that is but a dutifull form of Subjects bringing their Plea against the King, For in other sort he ought not to be impleaded. Besides these Peti­ons of Right, we may (as it hath been formerly said) remon­strate, enter our Protestations, and take all those Courses which the Laws allow. Neither ought the King to take Of­fence at these legal Contestations with him, because by his assent unto the Laws, he hath assented unto them: Nay he ought in them to do us Right, being bound thereunto by the Law of God, and by his Oath, and by moral Honesty and Iustice. But, if he fail in all these Duties, our Jurisdiction reacheth not to his personal Punishment; therein, he is sub nullo, nisi sub D [...]o; and the Law stoppeth there, and telleth us, satis sufficit ei ad poenam, quòd Deum habet ultorem, It will be a sufficient punishment to him, that he hath God for an Avenger. Yet are we not altogether left without remedy, For Kings, although they be Gods Vice-gerents, yet they cannot work as God worketh, saying Fiat, and it was done. [Page 68] Kings must work by mediate Instruments, And if they Com­mand illegal things, the Executioners of them are respon­sable, and must make satisfaction to the Parties injured. And therefore the King ought not immediately to imprison, nor in Person to execute any thing, because that in Case of wrong-doing, the Subject would be left without Remedy, in regard the Kings Person is not to be impleaded by Law. I know the usual Objections, In Case Kings will do that which they ought not to do, and will by their own immediate Warrants, Commit, and be the Personal Actors of the Injuries, or not suf­fer the Executioners of their unlegal Commands to be legally proceeded against; shall the Subject be left wholly without Re­medy, and the People be debarred of the benefit of that Right of Nature in-bred in all Creatures, of self preservation? Yes. We must be contented with that Condition wherein God hath placed us, and wherein, by our own Consents, and Stipulations of subjection, we have placed our selves, and may only right our selves by those means, which by the laws (whereunto we have given our assent) are permitted unto us: Neither is our native Liberty hereby ravisht from us, but, as we have parted with it, by our own Consent and A­greement, So we cannot resume it, but by those waies which we have reserved in the Stipulations of our submission. And besides that, herein there is no Injury, for that Volenti non fit Injuria, It would be more hurtfull to mankind if it were otherwise: For there is a necessity, that in all sorts of Go­vernments, aswell as in Monarchy, there should he an Im­punity and Power, somewhere, of not being questioned, else all would presently fall into Anarchy and Confusion, Neither could there be a final ending of Controversies, if there were not a Dernier Ressort, and last Appeal, wherein we are bound to acquiesce; And this Power must be trusted in some hand, and that must of necessity be, where the Soveraign Power remaineth, else▪ there mstu be supposed a Superiour Power to that Soveraign Pow­er, and so in infinitum, untill we come to some such Power that hath nothing above it, and then that must be trusted, and must be submitted unto, without being accomptable to any but to God, because on earth there can [Page 69] be to it no Superiour Iurisdiction. And this Power is in the King of England, in all things except such wherein he him­self or his Ancestors, have by Lawes and Stipulations, lim [...]ted their Absolute Power, as hath been above set down; As en­acting or repealing Laws without his Parliament, levying of Moneys, and many other things, wherein He and his An­cestors have restrained their Power; And this we are by the Law of God and of th [...] Land bound to obey, and not to make any resistance but what the Law alloweth us; We must in the rest, have recourse unto God, if our Princes be wicked: Neither may we mutiny or repine at God, when we have ill Kings, more than when he sendeth Diseases, Plagues, Cater­pillers, Blightings or Blasts▪ For wicked Kings are but Blas­tings of the People that God is pleased to punish; Neither must we think our Condition worse than that of wicked Kings, (notwithstanding their temporall Impunity) For cer­tainly it is much better both in regard of Punishment in the World to come, and commonly in this. For the next World, As their Sin is greater; So it is declared, that their Punish­ment shall be greater. Heare o ye Kings, and understand, &c. Wisd. 6. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Because being Ministers of Gods Kingdom, you have not judged aright, nor kept the Law, nor walked after the Counsel of God. Horribly and speedily shall he come upon you, for a sharp Iudg­ment shall be to them that are in high places, For mercy will soon pardon the meanest, but mighty men shallbe mightily tor­mented. Wheras Subjects which suffer with patience, because they are so commanded by God, make him their Debtor by their sufferings, and he alwaies payeth faithfully, who saith that if we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with him. And for this World, Their Wickednesse and Oppression, is ever accompanyed with those Fears Distractions, and Horrours of Conscience, which have ever been unseperable from Tyran­nies, by which their lives are rendred more uncomfortable than the unhappiest of their Subjects. And for the most part, their ends are as miserable as their lives, For what they fear, and by their Tyrannie seek to prevent, doth commonly fall upon them. Their People do Revolt, and Rebel, And although they be never so well Catech [...]zed in the points of Obedience, yet their Natural Inclination to return to Liberty, much [Page 70] more to cast off unjust Burthens and Oppressions, is such, that slight and weak Arguments will easily perswade them to that whereunto they are so strongly inclined; and the least pretence of Religion, or colour of Reason, or Lawful­ness countenancing or tolerating the freeing themselves from Subjection in any Case, will be more prevalent with them, than the most positive Precept of Gods Word injoining Obe­dience. And if in any Case taking of Arms be admitted, Theirs shall ever be that case. And if the wickedness of their Prince shall be allowed as a ground for Rebellion, Their Prince shall ever be the most wicked; And of this, all Ages have produced many examples, and especially these latertime through all the Estates of Christendom. And although the Christian churches of all Professions (as before is shew'd) declare against the Do­ctrine of Resistance, Two or Three hot-headed-men writing or preaching, suitable to their Affection & Desires, will pre­vail against the Authority of all the Churches of Christen­dom. And wicked Princes will find, that Precepts in this Case will not serve the turn: But it wil be in this point of Resistance, as Tacitus saith of Divinations in Rome, which was a wicked­ness that had been, and ever would be forbidden, yet ever would be reteined, semper vetabitur & semper retinebitur. And so Princes that will highly oppress and make their Will, and not the Laws, the Rule of their government (though to resist be a wickedness, and that it is against the Law of God and Man to do it) yet where the wrongs are great, and a fair opportunity offered of prevailing, It will be ever done: For that amongst men, there are a Thousand for One, that prefer their own In­terests or Inclination, before Duty or Conscience. And cer­tainly a prudent and foreseeing Prince, that will impartially examine things, cannot but expect it should be so For why should he suppose, that other men wil be more honest, or more religious than himself? And when he breaketh through all the Bonds and Tyes of Oaths, of Divine Precepts, and Moral Iu­stice, only to stretch and extend his Power and Greatness; why should he not expect, that Subjects should make as bold to transgress the same Duties, in hope of recovering Liberty, with the false shew whereof, people are apter to be further transported than by any earthly desire whatsoever? Neither [Page 71] will the fear of Death or Danger restrain them, because they will not attempt, untill opportunity make them hopefull of prevailing, and then they conceive by Power to provide for their own Impunities,

But besides this proness in people to be easily led, & perswa­ded into Rebellion, under the false and specious shew of reco­vering liberty, The great Monarchs & Princes of Christendom, have been (in great part) the fomentors & upholders of Rebel­lion, and their Doctors have not so much by their preaching, and writing beaten it down, as the Princes themselves have by their Examples and Actions given encouragement unto it; for although I shall ever speak with Reverence of Princes and their Actions, yet I shall hope that the humble representation of this truth will receive a fair interpretation. For it is unde­niably true, that in this later Age all the great Monarchies and States of Christendom have been made unhappy by Inte­stine Wars, which have been fomented (if not contrived and designed) by one Christian Prince against another; every one countenancing and encouraging Rebellion, untill it become his own Case, and then he is offended: of this I shall give no particular instances, the Notariety of it is too great, and I fear every State may too easily apply it to what they have done, And it may be feared that the sad Condition of almost all the States of Christendom at this present day,Matt. 7.12. may feel something of Gods Iudgements, who hath said; With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And wicked Kings (as they are sure they shall not escape the severe Iudgment of God in the next world, (if they do believe the Scripture) So (if they will believe Antient Histories of what hath passed in former times, or their own experience of what they see daily with their eyes, or that they do believe, that God will repay unto them, that which they have either countenanced, or contrived against others they must expect to have troublesome and uncomfortable lives, accompanied with Hatred, Hazard and Infamy. And if these considerations will not restrain them, yet we must not be wicked because they are so; Neither will God admit of Recrimination for our Excuse. Our Duty of not resisting is positive, upon pain of dam­nation, from which no good Success or Prevailing can kee [...] [Page 72] us, although it may save us from the Gallows. Besides this great hazard of our Souls, Moral Prudence should teach us, That a Civil War is commonly a Cure much worse than the Disease; For no Oppression, nay, no Tyranny bringeth with it half those Miseries and Calamities, which of necessity do ever accompany an Intestine War. Wicked Kings may be Cruel, Covetous, and Licentious, But their Oppressions and their Lusts are restrained to some Wickednesses, and to some Per­sons; But in a War, Rapes, Murthers, Robberies, Sacrileges, and all Impieties break in, and all sorts of People are made miserable, which the poor Kingdom of England hath found by sad experience; where within these five years last past, more hath been taken from the Subject, than would have been exacted by Subsidies, Projects, or any unjust Taxes whatso­ever, by the worst of Kings in the space of one hundred, And so all other wickednesses proportionably have been increased.

I shall conclude this Discourse with my humble and hearty Prayers to God Almighty, to avert his heavy displeasure from that most unhappy Kingdom, which I have seen the most prosperous and flourishing of all the Kingdoms of Europe, And by our own Dissention ▪ is now become of all other the most miserable; And so like to continue, unless it shall please God so to dispose the minds both of King and People, that they may really desire and endeavour a just, moderate, & equitable Accommodation; Whereby they and the Kingdom may be a­gain put into the Way of recovering some measure of happi­ness; It not being to be doubted, but that the many Afflictions which have happened to the King, will adde much of Wisdom and Circumspection unto his other Virtues. And the publique Calamities that have befallen the Kingdom▪ and the Distra­ctions that the War hath visibly brought both in Church and Commonwealth, wil make the people value and esteem Peace, and not so Wantonly be again ingaged in new Miseries. And although unto me (in regard of mine Age and other Conside­rations) there remaineth little Hope of ever seeing my Coun­try again. Yet where or howsoever it shall please God to dis­pose of me, I shall dye with Comfort, if I may judge it in a probable way of recovering some measure of its antient Hap­piness and Honor.