THE RESOLVING OF CONSCIENCE, Upon this Question, Whether upon such a Supposition or Case, as is now usually made (The King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws, and Liberties) Subjects may take Arms and resist? and Whether that Case be now?


  • I. That no Conscience upon such a Supposition or Case can finde a safe and clear ground for such resistance.
  • II. That no Man in Conscience can be truly perswaded, that the resistance now made is such, as they them­selves pretend to, that pleade for it in such a case.
  • III. That no Man in Conscience can be truly perswaded that such a case is now, that is, that the King will not discharge His trust, but is bent to subvert, &c.

Whence it followeth. That the resistance now made against the higher Power is unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle Damnable, Rem. 13. Also that the shedding of bound in the pursuit of this resistance is Murder.

By H. FERN, D. D. &c.

Wo unto them that call evill good, and gool evill, that put Darknesse for Light and Light for Darknessae, Isa. 5. 20.
O my Soule come not thou into their secret, Gen. 49. 6.

Printed at York by Stephen Bulkley, 1642.

To all Misse-led People in this Land.

HE that in these times will speak any thing to the People in behalf of the King, is likely to doe it upon disad­vantage, and be heard with preju­dice: but they that would be profita­bly informed by what they heare, must lend an equall Eare to what is spoken; which I hope you will do, being such, for the most part, as professe to make a conscience of your wayes, I desire therefore of you (into whose hands this Treatise shall come) that you would receive it with mind and affection, answerable to that wherewith it is offered to you, free from partiality and private respects; that you would consider Cases of Conscience are written out of Conscience: And were a distressed Prince a fit object for flattery, or this kind of instruction capa­ble of such language, yet is this a time for every man to informe and speak his Conscience; and as many of you as shall reade me in this book, will, I hope, con­ceive, I had no other purpose in the publishing of it, then to give testimony to the truth for the directing of your Consciences and the discharge of mine own. I have therefore written it plainly without af­fectation of curiosity, having a respect onely to your [Page] profit; the Learned through the Land are sufficient­ly persawded, and I may asure you all Ages have asserted this truth, out of which I could have drawn a cloud of witnesses and presented them to your sight, but thought it more expedient for your dire­ction, to shew you the cleare light of Divine Scrip­ture and rectified Reason, the onely rules of Con­science; and if by these you shall be brought to see the crookednesse of the New Doctrine of these times, and the uneven dangerous windings of this way of resistance, I have gained the end of my de­sires, and you have not lost by it.

One thing I must note as strange, that to discourse upon this argument shouldbe thought (as it is by ma­ny) a worke altogether beyond the profession of the Divine. Indeed popular States-men have alwayes held it very impolitick and unreasonable, that Sub­jects should not in dangers imminent have means to save themselves by a Power of resistance, and ac­cordingly framed their principles and grounds of State as unquestionable. We examine not the power or wisdome of Law-makers, but when we receive their Law, Declaration, or Command, and know it in terminis, understand it in the sense it be its, certainly it belongs to the Divine to consider whether it be against Gods Law, and accordingly to instruct his people. If it be agreed upon as a thing known in this State, that the King is the higher Power according to St. Paul, the Supreme according to St. Peter, the Father of the Commonwealth ac­cording to the fifth Commandement, surely it be­long to the Divine to urge obedience, honour, and subjection according to those place, and reprove re­sistance [Page] forbidden there: Which obedience we ac­knowledge to be limited and circumscribed by the established Laws of the Land, and accordingly to be yeilded or denyed to the higher Power, if those Laws be not repugnant to the Law of God: And for Resistance, as we have not yet heard of any Law of the Land that commands or warrants it, so we know that were there any Law or Ordinance made to enjoyn it, such would not bind, being against the Apostles expresse prohibition, back'd with argu­ments drawn from the very reason of Goverment, as shall be shewen in this following Treatise.

Be they who they will that present you with im­minent dangers, and work upon your fears, that tell you of Fundamentall Lawes, and give you rules of policy to captivate your reason; when all that's done, it is the Divine that must settle the Consci­ence, which will not be quiet, if in yeilding obedi­ence to any Law or Ordinance, it comes to a suspi­cion, that such an Ordinance of man entrencheth upon the word of God.

Let me tell you (for I suppose you follow this way in the simplicity of your hearts) how you are wrought upon by them that mis-leade you. You are dealt with according to your generall desire of the continuance of true Religion and the Subjects Li­berty, not according to the particular grounds of safety, which conscience doth require: You are told, the Gospel and your Liberties, and all you have, are in most imminent danger, and without taking Arms for the defence, irrecoverably lost; and that this is lawfull by the Fundamentals of this Kingdom: You must take all this upon trust, without an ex­presse [Page] and particular warrant, to rule and secure your Conscience against the expresse words of the Apo­stle forbidding resistance, Rom. 13.

You professe your selves enemies to Popery, and good reason for it, but why should you therfore be enemies to your King that declares against it too. I would you could observe how, under pretence of keeping out Popery, you are led in this way of r [...] ­sistance by the like steps that brought Popery in. For examine your hearts and try if the name of Parliament (which is of honourable esteem with all) be not raised to the like excesse of credit with you, as the name of the Church is with the Papists; if you have not within you a silent thought of infallibility in that great Councel, and so with an implicit faith are ready to receive and maintaine what ever is con­cluded there; if you be not drawn to believe your Prince is minded to overthrow Religion, and upon such a supposall or beleif (according to the very me­thod of Jesuitical practises) to take up Arms against him.

If you do not rest satisfied with your generall in­tention of a good end, that is, the defence of Re­ligion, not examining the meanes, you now use, to compasse that end; like those that for the advancing of the Catholick cause, as they call it, attempt any thing however unjust, even to the destruction of Kings, that are set over them; this blindnesse is Po­pish, and practice Jesuiticall. Lastly, examine your hearts, if you be not confirmed in your way by the number of your Professour, like as they are by the Universality of their Church, resting upon the per­son of men, not trying the Cause it selfe by the [Page] touchstone of divine Scripture and rectified Reason. I know it prevails with many thousands of you, be­cause you see, as you thinke, and use to say, All good people that have sense of Religion, and Consci­ence of their wayes, do go along with you, and you cannot beleive that God would suffer them to be so generally deluded; let me tell you, you do hereby very uncharitably conclude upon all those that run not with you to the like excesse, and I may say with­out breach of Charitie, they that appear with you in the Cause, would not all be found such, as you conceive them to be, if they were examined by the true marks of Christian profession, that is, by the true doctrine of faith, by their charitie, honestie, obe­dience, meeknesse of Spirit, and the like; without which your Religion is vain, whatever your exer­cises, or performances of duties be; the Pharisees righteousnesse will exceed yours, and his frequency and length of prayer will be as sure a mark as yours; nay the Anabaptist, at this day will out-do you in any of your forms of godlinesse. I do not speake this against the frequent and sincere performance of holy duties: God forbid I should. Nor do I speak it of you all: I know there are many good and Con­scientious men that go your way in the simplicitie of their hearts, as those did that followed Absolom; whom the just God suffers hitherto to be deceived, that even by their example this power of Resistance may gather strength to the just punishment of this sinfull land, and that they themselves when their eyes shall be opened (which, I hope, will be ere long) may see their own weaknesse, and be so much more humbled for it.

[Page] In the meane time you are according to the blind­nesse of a Popish way in all the former respects, car­ried on against all rule of Conscience; for you have neither certain knowledge of your Princes heart, to resolve for resistance upon a supposall of such inten­tions in him; nor have you any certain rule to war­rant the lawfulnesse of resisting upon such supposall, and to secure you against the Apostles prohibition, and damnation laid upon it; nor have you any judge­ment of Charity, in concluding such intentions in your Prince against His deepest Protestations made in such times of His distresse, and without that, all is nothing, though you lay down, as you think, your life for Religion. 1. Cor. 13. How much safer would it be for you to be guided by the sure Rules of Conscience, and (if it should please God to bring upon you what you fear) to suffer unjustly, then in the unwarranta­ble prevention of it to do unjustly.

To this purpose shall you have this Treatise speak­ing to you for the direction of your Consciences. If you think it strikes too boldly upon any thing con­cerning the Parliament, I desire yours and their fa­vourable interpretation, fain would I silence every thought and word that may seem to reflect upon that high Court; but what is necessary, I must speak for truth and conscience sake, from which neither King nor Parliament should make us swerve. We are taught that Kings must not be flattered; and the people ought to learn, that Parliamens must not be Idolized: that has been often charged as a fault up­on the Clergy, and This I fear is that sinne of the People, which, together with the licentiousnesse in­dulged back again to them, ha's moved God to blow [Page] upon that wish'd for fruit we might have reaped by this so desired a Parliament. For when I see Man is more sensible of every breach of his own rights and priviledges, then of those unparallel'd breaches so frequently made upon Gods publike Worship, I cannot but think the Lord will require it of this Land; and when I see right and just subverted, pro­perty and liberty exposed to the will and power of every one that is pleased to conceive his Neighbour a Malignant, and able to make him so by command­ing his. Goods and Person, I cannot but complain with the Psalmist, The foundations of the Earth are out of course; Psal. 82, and appeal to Heaven, Arise O God, judge thou the Earth. And I trust, that albeit this Spirit of seduction may prevaile a while, and this way of resistance prosper, for the great, but just pu­nishment of this sinfull Land, the Lord will look downe from Heaven, and make Truth and Peace again to flourish out of the Earth, will look upon the Face of His Anointed, and by this Affliction, as by a loving correction make him great. Ps. 18. 35. Great to the maintenance of Gods true Religion, and to the re­storing of the Peace and prosperity of this King­dom; And, Let all the People say, Amen.

The Contents.

  • Sect. I. THe explication of the Question, and generall Re­solution of it.
  • Sect. II. The Principle or Ground on which they goe for Resistance examined by Scripture. Their chief Ex­amples, (to which should have been added Libnah's revolt, answered now in the last Sect.) Scriptures against them, especially that of the 13. to the Rom. urged and cleared: where shewed, The King is that higher Power. That all are forbidden to resist, even the Senate, which by the fundamentalls of that State might challenge as much as our great Councell can. That prohibition concerns all times; and was good, not onely in that State, because they were absolute Mo­narches, but in all States because of the pre­servation of Order which should be in all, and was good not onely against the Christians, because their Re­ligion was enected against by Law, but also against the Senate and People, though they were enslaved.
  • Sect. III. Their principle examined by reason. Of Funda­mentalls, their ground-work according to the pleaders for resistance, is the originall of Power from the People, and their re-assuming it, when the Prince will not dis­charge his trust. The Power it selfe, (distinguished from the de­signing of the Person, and the Qualification of it in [Page] severall forms of Government) is from God as an or­dinance or constitution under that providence whereby God rules the whole World, Creatures reasonable as well as unreasonable.
  • Sect. IV. That Power cannot be forfeited to the People or re­assumed by them. They cannot prove it by vertue of the first election, or by any capitulations or covenant, or the Oath between Prince and People.
  • Sect. V. Nor can it be proved by that necessity of means of safety which should be in every State to provide for it self: but greater dangers and inconveniences would follow by such means of safety as are pretended to by re­suming the Power.
  • Sect. VI. The Examination of the Resistance now made. Where shewen, that it is not so much as they themselves pre­tend to, who plead for it; either for the generall and unanimous consent of the Kingdome; for it was not so agreed upon: or for the defensive way of it; because the King is upon the defensive, For He was not first in Arms, and the Contentiom must needs appeare to be for something the King hath right to hold, or is bound by oath to maintain. Also because to any Mans Consci­ence it will appeare to he an oppugnation, rather then a resistance or meere defence.
  • Sect. VII. The case is not in being. No Conscience can con­clude the King to be, what they would have him suppo­sed: because the jealousies are groundlesse. The King [Page] hath done sufficient to clear them, by Promises, Prote­stations, acts of Grace. And Conscience if it hold the rule of Charity, will not against all those conclude contrary intentions in him, upon them to ground resist­ance; but will, if it will not not be partiall, judge the King hath offered such reasonable meanes of securitie to this State as ought to have been apprehended, rather then this Kingdom embroyled in a Civil war, and Ire­land neglected. Lastly, a Conscience that concludes for resistance, wants the perswasion of faith, and the judge­ment of charity in an high measure, and cannot appeare safely at Gods tribunall.

The Resolving of Conscience, Touching the unlawfulnesse of the War and Resistance now made against the KING.

LAmentable are the distractions of this Kingdome, and the more, because they gather strength from the name and authority of (that, which as it is of high esteeme with all, so should it be a remedy to all these our distempers) a Parlia­ment: and from the pretended defence of those things that are most dear unto us, Religion, Liberties, Laws. Whereupon so many good people, that have come to a sense of Religion and godlinesse, are mi­serably carried away by a strange implicit faith to beleive, that whatsoever is said or done in the name of a Parliament, and in the pretended defence of Re­ligion, Liberties, Laws, to be infallibly true, and al­together just.

But he that will consider, men are men, and would seek a surer rule for his Conscience then the Traditions or Ordinances of men taken hand over head, shall upon reasonable examinations find upon what plausible, but groundlesse principles, upon [Page 2] what fair but deceiving pretences, upon what grei­vous but causelesse imputations laid upon Majestie it self, poore people are drawn into Arms against the duty and allegiance they owe to their Prince by the Laws of God and man. For directing the Consci­ence in such an examination this ensuing Discourse is framed, as briefly and plainely as the matter will permit.


COnscience in resolving upon a question, first layes down the Proposition or Principle or Ground, on which it goes; then it assumes or applyes to the present case; then it concludes and resolves: as in this question, affirmatively for Resistance, thus, Subjects in such a case may arm and resist: But that case is now come: Therefore now they may and doe justly resist.

Or negatively against Resistance, either by deny­ing the Principle: Subjects may not in such a Case arm and resist, therfore now they do not justly resist. Or by admitting the Principle and denying the Case, Subjects in such a case may arm and resist. But that case is not now. Therefore now they do not justly arm and resist.

What it is that Conscience is here to admit or deny, and how it ought to conclude and resolve, this ensuing Treatise will discover: which that it may more clearly appeare, we will premise.

First, That in the Proposition or Principle by the word Resistance is meant, not a denying of obedience to the Princes command, but a rising in arms, a forcible resistance; this though clear enough in the [Page 3] question, yet I thought fit to insinuate, to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdome, and, upon all those that appeare for the King in this cause, that they endeavor to defend an absolute power in him, and to raise him to an Arbi­trary way of government; This we are as much against on his part, as against Resistance on the sub­jects part. For we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince, as are unlawfull by the Law of God, yea, by the established Laws of the Land: For in these we have his will and con­sent given upon good advice, and to obey him against the Laws were to obey him against himselfe, his sudden will against his deliberate will; but a far other matter it is to resist by power of arms, as is in the question implyed, and as we see at this day to our astonishment, first the power of arms taken from the Prince by setting up the Militia, then that pow­er used against him by an army in the field.

Secondly, we must consider, that they which pleade for Resistance in such a case as is supposed, do grant it must be concluded upon, Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus, that is, with the generall and unanimous consent of the Members of the two Houses, the representative body of the whole King­dome: also they yeild it must be onely Legitima de­sensio, a meer defensive resistance; and this also Con­science must take notice of.

Thirdly, it is considerable, that in the suppositi­on or case it is likewise granted by them, that the Prince must first be so and so disposed, and bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, Laws, and will not discharge his trust for the maintaining of them, be­fore [Page 4] such a Resistance can be pretented to. And al­though the question is, and must be so put now, as that it seems to straiten the Case, and make it de­pend upon the supposall of the people; yet it so much the more enlarges the falshod of the Princi­ple, for it plainly speaks thus; If subjects beleive or verily suppose their Prince will change Religion they may rise in arms; whereas all that have pleaded for Resistance in case of Religion, did suppose ano­ther Religion enjoyned upon the subject first. We will therefore endeavour to cleare all for the resol­ving of Conscience in these three generalls.

I. That no Conscience upon such a case as is sup­posed can find clear ground to rest upon for such re­sistance as is pretended to, but according to the rules of Conscience What is not of faith is sinne: and, In doubtfull things the safer way is to be chosen; Consci­ence it will find cause to forbeare and to suffer, ra­ther then resist; doubtfull, I say, not that a Consci­ence truly informed will not clearly see the unlaw­fulnesse of this Resistance, but because no consci­ence can be truly perswaded of the lawfulnesse of it, and so that Conscience that resolves for it, must needs run doubtingly or blindly upon the work.

II. That the resistance now used and made against the Prince is not such as they pretend to, either for that generall and unanimous consent that should pre­cede it, or that defensive way that should accompa­ny it, according to their own grants that plead for it, and therefore Conscience cannot admit such a re­sistance as is made now adayes.

III. If Conscience could be perswaded, that it is lawfull in such a case to resist, and that this rising [Page 5] in arms is such a resistance as they say may in such a case be pretended to, yet can it never (if it be wil­ling to know any thing) be truly perswaded that such a case is now come, that i [...], That the King refuse to discharge his trust, is bent to overthrow Religion, &c, and therefore Conscience cannot but resolve this opposition and Resistance to be unlawful, un­warrantable, and (according to the Apostle) damna­ble; and that people, running into arm without suffi­cient warrant, commit murder if they shed blood in the pursuit of this Resistance, and perish in their own sinne, if die in the cause.


FIrst then, that the Principle is untrue upon which they go that resist, and that Conscience cannot find clear ground to rest upon for making resistance: for it heares the Apostle expressely say, Whosoever resist shall receive to themselves damnation, Rom. 13. 2. and it can­not find any limitation in Scripture that will excuse the Resistance of these dayes.

The exception or limitation that is made, is taken from the Persons resisting, and the Causes of resist­ance, thus, They that are Private persons and do re­sist upon any cause receive damnation, but the States or representative body of the whole people may re­sist upon such or such causes.

But how will this satisfie Conscience, when eve­ry distinction or limitation made upon any place of Sripture, must have its ground in Scrpture; this has onely some examples in Scripture that come not home to the cause, and some appearances of Reason; which are easily refuted by clearer Scripture and Reason.

[Page 6] The examples alledged are, I. The peoples re­scuing of Jonathan out of the hands of Saul. 1 Sam. 14. Answ. Here the people drew not into arms of them­selves, but being their at Sauls command, did by a loving violence and importunitie hinder the execu­tion of a particular and passionate unlawfull com­mand.

II. Davids resisting of Saul. Answ. 1. Davids guard that he had about him was onely to secure his person against the cut-throats of Saul, if sent to take away his life. 2. It was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul; therefore he still gave place as Saul pursued, and did no act of hostility to him or any of his Army when they were in his power, 1. Sam. 26. But thirdly, because they gather out of the 1. Sam. 23. 12. that David would have defended Keilah against Saul, if the inhabitants would have been faithfull to him, We say that's onely an uncer­tain supposition, not fit to ground Conscience in this great point of resistance; also to this and all other Davids demeanours, in his standing out against Saul, we say his example was extraordinary; for he was anointed and designed by the Lord to succeed Saul, and therefore he might use an extraordinary way of safeguarding his Person.

These are the cheif examples. They make use al­so of the high Preists resisting the King in the tem­ple, 2. Chron. 26. and Elisha's shutting the doore against the Kings Messenger that came to take away his head; and the like; which speake not so much as the two former, having no appearance of such resistance as is implyed in the question.

[...] we answer. 1. That of the high Preist is [Page 7] more pertinently applyed to the Popes power of excommunicating and deposing Kings, then to this power of resisting now used; but truly to neither. For he did no more then what every Minister may and ought to do if a King should attempt the admi­nistration of the Sacrament; that is, to reprove him, to keepe the Elements from him. Ambrose Bishop of Milan withstood the Emperour at the entrance of Gods house, not by Excommunication, much lesse by force of Arms, but by letting him understand he was not fit for that place, there to be made partaker of the holy things, till he had repented of that out­rage and bloudshed at Thessalonica. Upon which the Emperour withdrew.

The Preists here are said to thrust him out of the Temple, but we must note Gods hand was first upon him smiting him with leprosie, and by that dischar­ging him of the Kingdome also. It is added in the Text, yea himselfe also hasted to go out. But enough of this

2. Elisha's example speakes very little. But let us thence take occasion to say, That Personall defence is lawfull against the sudden and illegall assaults of such Messengers; yea of the Prince himselfe thus far, towards his blow, to hold his hands, and the like: nor to endanger his person, not to return blows, no; for though it be naturall to defend a mans selfe, yet the whole Commonwealth is concerned in his per­son, as wee see in the Commonwealth of the crea­tures, one particular nature will defend it selfe a­gainst another, but yeild to the universall.

If this be drawn from Personall defence to the Publick [...] [Page 8] the Argument thus; If the body naturall then the body politick may defend it selfe, if a private person much more the whole State may; and they do but shut the way up against the King that comes to de­stroy his Parliament, and take away their heads.

We answ: As the naturall body defends it self against an outward force, but strives not by a schisme or contention within it selfe; so may the body po­litick against an outward power, but not as now by one part of it set against the Head and another part of the same body; for that tends to the dissolution of the whole. Again: Personall defence may be without all offence, and does not strike at the order and power that is over us, as generall resistance by Arms doth, which cannot be without many un­just violences, and does immediately strike at that order which is the life of a Commonwealth. And this makes a large difference twixt Elisha's shutting the doore against this Messenger, and their shutting up the way against the King by armed men; nor can they conclude upon such an intention in the Kings heart without the spirit of Elisha. He professeth he intends no violence to his Parliament nor has be ta­ken away the head of any of theirs that have fallen in­to his power, nor does desire any other punishment inflicted upon any that do oppose him, then what a Legall triall shall adjudge them to, which no good Subject ought to decline.

Now let us see how Scripture excludes this, and all other exceptions, giving no allowance to resist­ance, in regard of Persons or Causes, or other pre­tenses, and this not onely by Examples, but by Pre­cept, Conclusions, Resolutions, which are more safe.

[Page 9] First, we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, gathering the people against Moses and Aaron, Numb. 16. 3. and perishing in their sinne. If it be replyed, the Persons indeed were publicke, but there was no cause for it; Moses and Aaron did not deserve it. I answer, but the other supposed, they did, and that is now enough, it seems, to make people not onely say to their Prince, You take too much upon you, but therfore to rise in arms also, which I hope will appeare to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise.

Secondly, see for the cause of Resistance, 1. Sam. 8. 11. there the people are let to understand how they should be oppressed under Kings, yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance, for they have no reme­dy left them but crying to the Lord, v. 18.

Thirdly, we have not onely Example, but Reso­lution and Conclusion our of Scripture, The peo­ple might not be gathered together either for Civill assemblies, or for war, but by his command that had the power of the Trumpet, that is, the supreme as Moses was, Numb. 10.

Also when David had Saul and his army in his power, he resolves the matter thus, Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords annointed and be guilt­lesse, 1. Sam. 26, 9. If replyed, now they intend not hurt to the Kings person; yet might nor they as well have hurt his person in the day of battell, as any of them that were swept away from about him by the furie of the Ordinance, which puts no difference 'twixt Kings and common souldiers?

This also I must observe concerning this point of [Page 10] Resistance, out of the Old Testament (for from thence have they all their seeming instances) That it is a marvellous thing, that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatrie, cruelty, oppression, none should call up­on the Elders of the people for this duty of Resist­ance.

But lastly, that place of the Apostle, Rom. 13. at first mentioned, does above all give us a cleare reso­lution upon the point, which now I shall free from all exceptions.

First, I may suppose, that the King is the Supreme, as S. Peter calls him; or the higher power, as S. Paul here, though it be by some now put to the question, as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it; but I prove it. S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authoritie, The King as supreme, and those that are sent by him, 1. Pet. 2. 12, in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament, being sent by him, or sent for by him, and by his Writ sitting there. Also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged, That there is no power above him without or with­in this Realm; and that he is in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme. Also acknowledged by the Petitions of the two Houses addressed unto his Ma­jestie, wherein they stile themselves His loyall Sub­jects. But enough of this.

Secondly, in the text of the Apostle, All persons under the higher Power are expressely forbidden to resist. For whosoever, in the second verse, must be as large as the every soul in the first, and the resistance forbidden here concerns all, upon whom the subje­ction is injoyned there, or else we could not m [...]ke [Page 19] these Universals good against the Papists, exempting the Pope and Clergy from the subjection.

Thirdly, in those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate, which not long before had the supreme power in the Romane State, and might challenge more by the Fundamentalls of that State, then our great Counsell (I think) will, or can. But now the Emperour being Supreme, as S. Peter calls him; or the higher power, as S. Paul here, there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him, by the Apostle. This for the persons that should resist, all are forbidden. Now consider the Cause.

Fourthly, was there ever more cause of resistence then in those dayes? were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so, but even actually were enemies to Religion, had overthrown Laws and Liberties? and therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against Re­sistence in the 3, 4, 5, verses, (For rulers are not a ter­rour to good works but evil, and he is the minister of God to thee for good) reply, That Rulers so long as they are not a terrour to the good, but minister for our good, are not to be resisted: the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception, be­cause the Powers then (which the Apostle forbids to resist) were nothing so, but subverters of that which was good and just.

If it be replyed, that prohibition was tempora­ry and fit for those times, as it is said by some. I an­swer, 1. This is a new exception never heard of (I think) but in these times. 2. It is groundlesse, and against the Text, for the reasons of the prohibition in the 3, 4, 5, 6, verses, are perpetuall, from that or­der, [Page 12] that good, for which the Powers are ordained of God, which will be of force as long as there is government, and will alwayes be reasons against re­sistence; because resistence (though it be made a­gainst abused Powers as then they were) doth tend to the dissolution of that order, for which the pow­er it selfe is set up of God By which also that other distinction of theirs is made void, when as they reply, as they think, acutely, That they resist not the power, but the abuse of the power

It is also answered by some, that the Emperours then were absolute Monarchs, and therefore not to be resisted. I answer: They did indeed rule abso­lutely and arbitrarily, which should have according to the principles of these dayes been a stronger mo­tive to resist. But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs; was it not by force and change of the government, and was not the right of the people and Senate (according to the Principles of these dayes) good against them with as much or more reason, then the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crown descending by three Conquests? And this I speak not to win an Arbitrary power or such as Conquerours use, unto this Crown, but onely to shew that resistence can be no more made against the Kings of England, then it could against those Emperours. Nay, with lesse rea­son against them, then these.

Lastly, it is replyed, That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law; but the Religion con­tended for is established by Law. I answer: But is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it? Shall the Apostles prohibition be good [Page 13] against Christians in the behalfe of actuall Tyrants persecuting that Religion, and not against Subjects freely enjoying the Religion established? Or may Protestants upon a jealousie resist a Protestant King professing the same Religion, and promising to con­serve it entire to them?

2. The prohibition does not onely concern Chri­stians, but all the people under those Emperours, and not onely Religion was persecuted, but Liberties al­so lost, the people and Senate were enslaved by E­dicts, and Laws then inforced upon them, and they (according to the principles of these dayes) might resist, notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition, and the Laws then forced upon them; or else the State, as they usually say, had not meanes to provide for its safetie. Thus one phansie of theirs thwarts another, because both are groundlesse. But more anon of those meanes of safety they suppose to be in every State, by the power of Resistence.

Hitherto of Scripture, which is most powerfull against Resistence, in the prohibition and the reasons of it, by which Conscience will clearly see, it can have no warrant from Scripture for Resistence. Now let us try what Reason can enforce.


For proving this power of resistence, there is much speech used about the Fundamentalls of this government, which because they lie low and unseen by vulgar eyes, being not written Laws, the people are easily made to beleeve they are such as they (that have power to build new Laws) upon them) say they are. And indeed none so fit to judge [Page 12] [...] [Page 13] [...] [Page 14] of them as they: Yet this we know, and every one that can use his reason knows, that the Fundamen­talls must needs be such as will bear the setled go­vernment of this Land, such as are not contradicto­ry to the written established Laws: but both the go­vernment we see used in this Land, and the written Laws which we reade, must have a correspondency and anology of reason to these Fundamentalls, and these to them.

Well then, they that plead for Power of resist­ance in the people, lay the first ground-work of their Fundamentalls thus: Power is originally in and from the people, and if when by election they have intrust­ed a Prince with the Power, he will not discharge his trust, then it falls to the people; or, as in this Kingdome to the two Houses of Parliament (the re­presentative body of the people) to see to it; they may reassume the power.

This is the bottom of their Fundamentalls as they are now discovered to the people. But here we may take notice by the way, that however the Fundamen­talls of this Government are much talked of, this is according to them the Fundamentall in all King­domes and Governments; for they say power was every where from the people at first, and so this will serve no more for the power of resistance in Eng­land, then in France, or Turkey: but if this must be a Fundamentall, it is such an one as upon it this Go­vernment cannot be built, but Confusion and Anar­chy may readily be raised; as shall appeare by the clearing of these two particulars, Whether the Power be so originally and chiefly from the people as they would have it; then Whether they may upon such cause, reassume that power.

[Page 15] First, of the originall of power, which they will have so from the People, that it shall be from God onely by a kind of permissive approbation as we may see by the Observator, and all other that plead for this power of resistance. We must here distin­guish what the Writers of the other side seem to confound, to wit, the Power it selfe, (which is a suffi­ciency of authority for command and coercion in the governing of a People) from the designing of the Person to bear that power, and the qualification o [...] that power according to the divers wayes of execu­ting it in severall forms of government and then we grant that the designing of the person is some­times from the People by choyce, and that the pow­er of the Prince receiving qualification by joynt consent of himself and the people, is limited by the Laws made with such consent; but the power it self is of God originally and chiefly: which we prove by Scripture and Reason.

First, by such places of Scripture as plainly shew an ordaining and appointing, rather then a permissi­on or approbation.

1. The Apostle speaks it expressely, The powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the Ordinance of God, vers. 2. S. Peter indeed saith, every ordinance of Man, 1. Epist. 2. but of man there, and of God here is much differing; there it is 'anthr [...]pine, of Man, subjective, that is, every ordinance or power set up amongst men; but here it is 'apo theou, of God, causaliter, that is, from him, his ordinance; and if in that 'anthr [...]pine there be implyed any creation or causality, or inven­tion of man, it respects the qualification of the power according to the forms of severall governments and [Page 16] offices in them, which are from the invention of man; it does not make the power it self the creation of man, which is the constitution and ordinance of God; and men are not onely naturally bent to socie­ty, but also are bound as they are reasonable crea­tures, to set up and live under government as under an order of that providence by which the World is governed.

II. He is called the Minister of God, v. 4. but if so from the People and no otherwise from God then they would have him, he should be Minister Populi rather; he is indeed their Minister for their good, which makes the People to be the end of this go­verning power, not the fountain and originall of it: therfore the necessity of subjection urged in the fifth verse, ha's a double ground, The ordinance of God, whose ministers Rulers are, ther's the fountain and originall of Power to govern; then the Peoples good, upon which Rulers ought to attend, that's an end of the Governing Power.

III. To the same purpose speak those other pla­ces, By me Kings reigne: and I have said ye are Gods, Psal. 82. in relation to which our Saviour saith, Joh. 10. They are called Gods to whom the word of God came, that dixi, that word is the command, the issuing out as it were the commission for the setting up of a go­verning power among the people.

These places cannot be satisfied with that poore part, they on the other side leave to God in the set­ting up of power for the governing of men, that is, to approve it when the People ha's created or in­vented it. Indeed if we consider the qualification of this governing power, and the manner of executing [Page 17] it according to the severall forms of government, we granted it before to be the invention of man, and when such a qualification or form is orderly agreed upon, we say it ha's Gods permissive approbation

And therefore the imputation is causelesse which the Pleaders on the other side do heedelessely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines; as if we cryed up Monarchy, and that onely government to be jure divino. For although Monarchy ha's this excellen­cie, that the Government God set up over his people in the person of Moses, the Judges, and the Kings, was Monarchicall, yet we confesse that neither that, nor Aristocracy, or any other form is jure divino; but we say the power it self, or that sufficiency of Autho­ritie to govern, which is in Monarchy or Aristocra­cy, abstractly considered from the qualifications of either form, is an efflux or constitution subordinate to that providence, an ordinance of that Dixi, that silent Word by which the world was at first made, and is still governed under God.

Secondly, as this appeares by the former places of Scripture, so it is also suitable to Reason: Because God doth govern all creatures, Reasonable as well as Un­reasonable, the inferiour or lower world he governs by the heavens or superiour bodies, according to those influences and powers he ha's put into them; and the reasonable creatures, Men, he governs too by others set up in his stead over them; for which they are called Gods, because in his stead over the people: and the powers are said to pe 'apo theou tetagmenai Rom. 13. 1. not only 'apo theou, from God; but also as orders ranked under him too, subordinate to that providence by which all creatures are governed.

[Page 18] These his Ministers he sometimes designed imme­diately by himselfe, as Moses, the Judges, Saul, Da­vid, &c. Now he designes his Vicegerents on earth mediately, as by election of the people, by successi­on or inheritance, by conquest, &c. To conclude, the Power it selfe of Government is of God, howe­ver the person be designed, or that Power qualified according to the severall forms of government by those Laws that are established, or those grants that are procured for the peoples securitie. Thus much of the originall of Power.


NOw we come to the Forfeiture, as I may call it, of this Power. If the Prince, say they, will not discharge his trust, then it falls to the people or the two Houses (the representative body of the people) to see to it, and reassume that Power, and thereby to resist. This they conceive to follow upon the deri­vation of Power from the people by vertue of election and upon the stipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people, as also to be necessary in regard of those meanes of safety, which every State should have within it selfe. We will examine them in order, and shall find the Arguments inconsequent.

Concerning the derivation of Power we answer? First, if it be not from the people, as they will have it, and as before it was cleared, then can there be no reassuming of this Power by the People; that's plain by their own argument.

Secondly, if the people should give the power so absolutely as they would have it, leaving nothing to God in it but approbation, yet could they not there­fore [Page 19] have right to take that power away. For many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them, are not afterward in our power to recall; especially such in which their redounds to God an interest by the donation, as in things de­voted, though afterward they come to be abused. So although it were, as they would have it, that they give the power and God approves; yet because the Lords hand also & his oyl is upon the person elected to the Crown, and then he is the Lords anointed and the Minister of God, those hands of the people which were used in lifting him up to the Crown, may not again be lifted up against him, either to take the Crown from his head, or the sword out of his hand. This will not a true-informed Conscience date to doe.

Thirdly, How shall the Conscience be satisfied that this their argument, grounded upon election and the derivation of power from the people can have place in this Kingdome, when as the Crown not onely descends by inheritance, but also ha's so often been setled by Conquest in the lines of Sax­ons, Danes, and Normans? In answer to this they looke beyond all these, and say, the right is still good to the people by reason of their first election. I answer: So then that first election must be supposed here, and supposed good against all other titles, or else this power of resistence falls to the ground. It is probable indeed that Kings at first were by choyce here as elsewhere; but can Conscience rest upon such remote probabilities for resistence, or think that first election will give it power against Princes that do not claime by it. We tell them the Romane [Page 20] Emperours were not to be resisted, Rom. 13. 2. They reply, as we had it above, that they were ab­solute Monarchs. But how came they of Subjects to be absolute Monarchs? was it any otherwise then by force and arms? the way that the Saxons, Danes, and Normans made themselves Masters of this peo­ple, and was not the right of the people as good against them for the power of resistence, by vertue of the first election, as well as of the people of this Land, against their Kings after so many Conquests? This I speak not, as if the Kings of this Land might rule as Conquerors: God forbid. But to shew this slender plea of the first election can no more take place against the Kings of this Land, then it could against the Romane Monarchs, especially according to their argument, that hold all power originally from the people, and that (as we observed above) to be the Fundamentall of all government. Therefore whether Kings were in this Land at first by election or no; we acknowledge what belongs to the duty of a Prince in doing justice and equitie: what Grants also, Laws, Priviledges have since those Conquests been procured, or restored to the people: unto all those the King is bound. But yet not bound under forfeiture of his power to the people: which now comes to be examined in that capitulation or cove­nant he is said to enter with the people.

In the next place therefore: That Capitulation or Covenant, and the Oath which the Prince takes to confirme what he promiseth, are so alledged, as if the breach or non-performance on the Princes part were a forfeiture of his power. But we answer, The words capitulation or covenant are now much used [Page 21] to make Men believe the Kings admittance to the Crown is altogether conditionall, as in the meerly elective Kingdomes of Polonia, Swedeland, &c. whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation, which is sooner or later at his pleasure, but alwaies to be in due time, in regard of that secu­rity His People receive by his taking the oath, and he again mutually from them, in which performance there is something like a covenant, all but the forfei­ture. The King there promises and binds himself by oath to performance. Could they in this covenant shew us such an agreement between the King and his People, that in case he will not discharge His trust, then it shall be lawfull for the States of the King­dome by Arms to resist, and provide for the safety thereof, it were something.

If it be said, that so much is imployed in the first election. We answer: We examined that slender plea of the first election above, as it was thought to be a derivation of power. Now as it is thought to have a covenant in it: we say, That usually in all Empires the higher we arise, the freer we find the Kings, and still downwards the People have gained upon them: for at first when the People chose their Rulers, they did as Justine in the beginning of his History observes, resigne themselves to be governed by such, of whose prudence and moderation they had experience; and then, Arbitria Principum pro le­gibus erant, the will and discretion of the Prince was Law unto the People; but Men were Men though in Gods place, and therefore for the restraint of that Power, with consent of the Prince, such Laws have been still procured by the People as might make for their security.

[Page 22] Now from a promise the King makes for doing Justice (the duty of every Prince) for the continu­ing those Priviledges, immunities, that have been granted or restored to the People, and for the ob­serving of those Laws that have been established with the Princes consent, and from that oath (by which for the greater security of the People he binds himself to the performance of the premises) to infer a great obligation lyeth upon him, is right: but to gather thence a forfeiture of his power upon the not performance, is a plain but dangerous incon­sequent Argument.

And though such Argument may seem to have some force in States meerly elective and pactionall, yet can it never be made to appear to any indifferent understanding, that the like must obtain in this King­dome. And to this purpose Phil. Pareus excuseth what his Father had written more harshly upon the 13. to the Romans, in the point of Resistence, that it was to be understood of elective and pactionall government, not to the prejudice of England, or such Monarchies. For where the King, as it is said, never dyes, where he is King before oath or corona­tion, where he is not admitted upon any such capi­tulation as gives any power to the People, or their representative body, as is pretended to: Nay, where that body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince, and is dissoluble at his pleasure; that there, in such a State, such a power should be pretended to, and used against the Prince as at this day, and that according to the fundamentalls of such a State, can never ap­pear reasonable to any indifferent judgement, much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistence that is now made by such a pretended power.

[Page 23] What then shall we say? Is the King not bound to perform? Yes, by all means. Or ha's he not a limited power according to the Lawes? Yes. What then if he will take to himself more power, or not perform what he is bound to? Suppose that; (though thanks be to God we are not come to that.) Then may the Subjects use all fair means as are fit to use, cryes to God, petitions to the Prince, denials of obedience to his unlawfull commands, denials of subsidie, ayd, &c. But are they left without all means to compell by force and resistence? This however it may at first sight seem unreasonable to the people and very impolitick to the Statesman, yet ha's Scripture forbidden it, as before was plainly shewed, and so doth Reason too, as will apeare in the examination of their last proofe they make for re-assuming this power and resisting, from that necessi­ty of means of safety, which every State is to have within it self: Of which now.


IN the last place it is thus reasoned, Were it not so that the two Houses might take and use this power, the State should not have means to provide for its own safety, when the King shall please to de­sert His Parliament, deny His consent to their Bills, abuse His power, &c. So they.

When right and Just will not defend a thing, then Necessity is usually pleaded; as if, because Salus Po­puli in a good sense is Suprema Lex, every thing must be honest which is Spartae Ʋtile, imagined to conduce to the proposed end. We answer therefore;

[Page 24] First, They have many weapons sharpened for this resistence at the Philistins forge, arguments borrowed from the Romane schools, among them this is one, the very reason that is made for the Popes power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresie. For if there be not that power in the Church, say they, then in case the Civill Magi­strate will not discharge his trust, the Church ha's not means for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its own safety. Well, as we reply to them, the Church has means of preserving the faith, such as God ha's appointed, though not that of one Visible head, which though at first seems plausible, for pre­serving the Unity of faith, yet ha's experience shown it to be indeed the meanes to bring much mischief upon the Church: So to the other we say, The State ha's meanes of preservation such as the Law ha's prescibed, though not such as are here pretented to in this power of resistence; which though seem­ingly plausible, yet true Reason will conclude them dangerous, and at this day, God knows, we see it. Of this in the fourth answer more particularly.

Secondly, If every State ha's such means to pro­vide for its safety, What means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Romane Emperours in and after the Apostles times? or the people then enslaved, what means had they for their Liberties? had they this of resistence? Tertullian, in his Apol. sayes, the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand, but they had no warrant; and the A­postle expressely forbids them and all other under the higher power, to resist.

If it be replyed, as it was above touched, That [Page 25] things being so enacted by Law, it was not lawfull for them to resist. I answer: But it is known that not onely those Edicts which concerned Christian Religion, but also all other that proceeded from those Emperours and enslaved the people, were meerly arbitrary and enforced upon the Senate, and that the Senate did not discharge their trust in con­senting to them, and therefore according to the former position the people might resist, notwith­standing the Apostles prohibition, or else no means of safety left in that State.

So would it be in this State, if at any time a King that would rule arbitrarily, as those Emperours did, should by some meanes or other work out of the two Houses the better affected, and by the Consent of the Major part of them that remaine, compasse his desires; might the people then resist? The Apostle forbids it to them as well as to the Romans in such a case: if so, where are these means of safety by this power of resistance? Or are these means of safe­ty extinct in the Consent of the Senate or the two Houses? No, the people will tell them they dis­charge not their trust, they chose them not to betray them, enslave them; but according to the principles now taught them, they might lay hold upon this power of resistence; for their representative body claims it by them.

Thirdly we answer, We cannot expect absolute means of safety and securitie in a State, but such as are reasonable; and such are provided, especially in the fundamentalls of this Government, by that excellent temper of the three estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them, and [Page 26] no power of enacting in one or two of them with­out the third; which as it is for the securitie of the Commonwealth (for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons, or these and the Lords without the King, might determine, the evills of these dayes do shew) so is this power of denying, for the security of each State against other, of the Commons against the King and Lords, of the Lords against them: and must the King trust onely, and not be trusted? Must not he also have his secu­ritie against the other, which he cannot have but by Power of denying? This is that Temper of the three Estates in Parliament, the due observing whereof, in the moderate use of this power of denying, is the reasonable means of this States safety: but now not onely the name of Parliament, which implyes the three Estates, is restrained usually to the two Houses, but also that Temper is dissolved. I need not speak it, the distractions and convulsions of the whole Commonwealth, as the distempers in a natu­rall body, do sufficiently shew such a dissolution, and what's the cause of it.

If it be replyed, as it is, for the reasonablenesse of these meanes of safety through that Power of resist­tence and the final trust reposed in the representative body of the people, That many see more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one. Answ. True. But 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction, Why shovld an hundred in the House of Commons see more then three hundred; or twenty in the Lords House, more then sixty that are of indiffereent judgement and with­drawn;

[Page 27] 2. Reason doth suppose, That the Prince, though one, sees with the eyes of many, yea with their eyes who are of different judgement from him, for which his. Houses of Parliament are his great Coun­cell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them; and albeit he sometimes dissents from the Major or Prevailing part, because he is convinced in his own judgement they seek themselves nor his or the Publike good, or for other reasons that may perswade him against their Vote, yet have all times thought good to have Kings, and to reduce the judgement of many unto one. The Government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still; first in Moses, then in the Judges, then in the Kings; yea generally all Authors yeild, and experience ha's taught it, That Monarchy is a better government then Aristocracy, because the Tyranny and Miscar­riage of one, sometime happening in a Monarchy is nothing so dangerous as Oligarchy, Faction, and Division usually incident to Aristocracy or the Go­vernment by many equalls. Again, as all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy, which set­tles the chief power and finall judgement in One; so will there be alwayes sufficient reason to with­hold the King from a wilfull deniall of his Consent to the free and unanimous Vote of his Houses: he cannot but see there will alwayes be some necessary good accrewing to him by his Parliament, that will keep him in all reason from doing so: and no cases can be put or inconveniences feared upon his Power of denying, but greater and more eminent will ap­peare upon his not having it, as ha's been insinuated, and now do follow.

[Page 28] Fourthly therefore and lastly we answer. Such power of resistence would be no fit means of safety to a State, but prove a remedy worse then the dis­ease. This is very plain by the drift of the Apostles reason which he gave against resistence, in the 3, 4, 5, 6. v. of the 13. to the Rom. in which we may consider, that, although the Powers then were alto­gether unjust, tyrannicall, subverters of true Religi­on, nothing answerable to the end for which the Governing Power is ordained, yet doth the Apo­stle draw his reasons against the resisting of them, from that good, that justice, that order for which God hath set up the higher Powers; to insinuate, that the resisting of the higher Powers, even when they are so, does tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Commonwealth; and this not onely because there is still order under tyranny, but chiefly because, if it were good and lawfull to resist the power, when abused, it would open a way to the people upon the like pretences to resist and overthrow even Powers duely administred for the executing of wrath upon them that do evill.

I enter this dicourse, not to cast the least blemish upon Parliaments (which are an onely remedy for distempers of the Kingdome) not to reflect upon the intentions of those that are yet resident in that high Court, (unto God the judge of all, they stand or fall) not to raise jealousies, but to settle Consci­ence, and in the way of reasoning to shew according to the Apostles reasons what dangers and evills may ensue upon this power of resistence.

For first of all, This power of resistence, if admit­ted and pursued may proceed to a change of Go­vernment, [Page 29] the Principles that now are gone upon, and have carried it so farre as we see at this day, may also lead it on to that greatest of evils: And I have heard and seen it defended by the example of the Low-countreys; how they excuse it throughly, I ex­amine not, but this I am sure they can say, That their Prince, succeeding in the right of the Duke of Bur­gundie was admitted upon other conditions then the Kings of England are: also that a contrary religion was enforced upon them by a terrible Inquisition, whereas they that do resist the higher. Powers here, do freely enjoy their religion, and have the Princes promise and protestation for it.

Secondly, This Power of resistence when used, and pursued, is accompanied with the evils of Civil warre: Former times shew it, and how little was gained by it beside the expence of bloud; as when all was referred to the rule and disposing of the 12 Peeres, how long lasted it? what security had the State by it? and at this day we feel and groan under the evils brought upon us through this power of resistence, the Law silenced, the Property and Li­bertie of the subject every where invaded; and the Lord knows when or how we shall be restored to them, or better secured in them by this way

Thirdly, We see the danger, (if as it is now said, for the justifying of this power of resistence, The King will not discharge his trust, and therefore it fals to the representative body of the people to see to it, so) the People being discontented, and having gotten power shall say, The Members of the two Houses do not discharge the trust committed to them, they do not that for which they were chosen [Page 30] and sent for, then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them, take the Power to them­selves, it being claimed by them, and say to them as Numb. 16. Ye take too much upon you, or as Cade, and Tylar, boast themselves Reformers of the Common-wealth, overthrow King and Parlia­ment, fill all with rapine and confusion, draw all to a Folkmoot, and make every Shire a severall Govern­ment.

These are Dangers and Evils not conceived in the phansie, but such as reason tells us may follow, and experience hath often, and this day doth shew us, do arise upon this Power of resistence, and for the preventing of which, the Apostle gave his reasons against resisting even of abused powers, as we heard above.

Lastly therefore, Seeing some must be trusted in every State, 'tis reason the highest and finall trust should be in the higher or supreme Power, with whom next to himself God hath intrusted the whole Kingdom, all other that have power and trust, ha­ving it under him as sent by him; Good reason I say that the supreme Power (which is worth 10000 of the Subjects) should have the best security on its side, for as much as Order, the life of a Commonwealth, is so best preserved, and not so endangered by Ty­ranny as by factions, division, tumults, power of re­sistence on the Subjects part, and this is according to the drift of the Apostles reasons against resistence, as before they were laid down.

Well, now unto all that hath hitherto been said from Scripture and Reason, let Conscience adde the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance, also the late [Page 31] Protestation, and consider what duty lyes upon eve­ry subject by the former to defend the Kings person and Right against what Power soever, and how by the latter he hath protested and undertaken before Almighty God in the first place to defend the same; and then what can Conscience conclude from the Premises? that the Prince hath his Power for the good of his people? true, but that Power cannot be prevalent for the good and protection of his people unlesse it be preferved to him intire, unlesse he hath the Power of Deniall, and the chief command of Arms; or that the Prince hath a limited Power, ac­cording to the Laws established? true, but if Con­science be perswaded he does not hold himselfe within those bounds so fixed, can it be perswaded also that the people may reassume that Power they never had? or take that sword out of his hand that God hath put into it? No, Conscience will look at that Power as the Ordinance of God, and the abuse of that Power as a judgement and scourge of God upon the people, and will use not Arms to resist the Ordinance under pretence of resisting the abuse, but cryes and prayers to God, petitions to the Prince, denialls of obedience to his unjust commands, denialls of subsides, aids, and all faire means that are fit for Subjects to use, and when done all, if not succeed, will rather suffer then resist: so would a truly inform­ed Conscience resolve, were the Prince indeed what he is supposed to be, and did he do indeed as the people are made to fear and believe he will do.

Hitherto we have been in the examination of the Principle upon which they go that plead for resi­stence, and we have found both Scripture and Rea­son [Page 32] speak plainly against the resisting even of abused Powers, professed enemies to Religion, actuall sub­verters of the Peoples Liberties, how much more against the resisting of a Prince that professeth the same Religion which we freely enjoy, promiseth the maintaining of that and our Liberties, onely upon a supposall He will not stand to His word, will over­throw all.

This however it may seem lesse reasonable to the Statist in the way of Policie, permitting as little as he can to the goodnesse of the Prince, or the provi­dence of God for the safety of the State; yet ought it to satisfie a Christian in the way of Conscience, which when it comes to a desire of being safe, will not rest till it have a sure ground, which here it hath against resistence laid downe by Scripture and Rea­sons even the Apostles reasons so powerfull against resistence.

The summe of all is this; Conscience hears the Apostle expressely forbid all under the higher Power to resist, finds no other clear Scripture to li­mit it, finds that the limitations given will not con­sist with it, for the reasons of them (that are drawn from the election of the People, and the Covenant supposed therein, from the necessity of means of safety in every State to provide for it self) were as strong in the Romane State as any; nay, are suppo­sed by those that urge them, to be the fundamen­tals of every State; and so resistence is forbidden as well here, as there in the Romane State, which is also cleared by the Apostles reasons, shewing the Power of resistence cannot be the meane of safety, but strikes at Order and Power it self, though made [Page 33] against tyrannicall and abused Powers, as before often insinuated. Therefore Conscience will not dare to go against the Apostles expresse prohibiti­on, lest it fall into the judgement denounced by him.

But if there shall be any Conscience as strongly carried away with the name of a Parliament, as the Papists are with the name of the Church, and think­ing Religion may be defended any way, & that upon supposall that their Prince is minded to change it, (which is another humour of Popery) will not be perswaded that the resistence made upon the pre­sent supposall is unlawfull, against Gods Word, and reason; I am sure such a Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it is lawfull, but must want that clear ground it ought to have, especially in a matter so ex­presly against the Apostle, and of such high con­cernment as damnation; must needs runne blindly, and headlong by a strange implicit Faith upon so great a hazard.


NOw we come to the Application of their prin­ciple to the present, where we must enquire ac­cording to the second and third Generalls, whether the resistence now made be such as is pretended to by them in such a case as they supposed, and then whether Conscience can be truely perswaded the King is such and so minded as in the case He is sup­posed to be.

The chief considerations of these two Generalls, are matters of fact; The principle was examined by Scripture and Reason, these admit the Judgement of sense, and are cleared by what we heare and see; [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 34] which Judgement of sense is not so easily captivated by an implicit Faith as that of Reason is; insomuch as Conscience here cannot be so blinded but it may see, that (were the principall good on which they rest, yet) this resistence which they make, is not such as they pretend to, and that this King, whom they resist; is not such as in the case they supposed him to be, not such as ought to be resisted according to their own grants.

The second generall was, That the Resistence now made is not such as is pretended to by them that plead for it, and therefore Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it may lawfully bear part in it, or assist them that in the pursuit of it pretend one thing and do another.

It was premised at the beginning that such a re­sistence should be omnibus ordinibus regni consenti­entibus; agreed upon and undertaken by the gene­rall and unanimous consent of the whole State, and that it should be onely Legitima defensio, a meer de­fensive resistence; and these laid down, not that I ad­mit resistence however conditioned (for all that I have said before doth altogether condemn it) but according to their own grants that plead for it: To this purpose it is that they say the King is Ʋniversis minor, lesse then the whole State, and every body naturally defends it self. Therefore if a contention be between the Plead and the Body, it must in all reason be the whole Body that is set against it; and if there be such an appearing against the supreme Power, as tends to resistence, the consent and judge­ment of the whole Kingdom must be against him, or else every prevailing faction might indanger the [Page 35] State by causing such changes and evils as now it's threatned with: This is the reason of this unreason­able power of resistence in the people.

Well then how shall Conscience he perswaded that this resistence was agreed upon by an unani­mous and free consent of the States assembled in the two Houses, such as in this case may be called the judgement of the whole kingdome?

He that knows how the Militia (in which this re­sistence chiefly began) was brought in, with what opposition, especially in the Lords house, and by what number there at length was voted; also how the like proceedings of resistence, that have been vo­ted since, are declared against; by a greater number of each House then do remain in either, such as have been cast out or withdrawn themselves upon dislike of these proceedings: can he, I say, that knows this (and who knows it not, that hath eyes and eares?) be in Conscience perswaded, that this is such an unanimous, free, and generall consent, the judge­ment of the whole kingdome?

For though a Vote passed by a few upon the place ha's the power and condition of a Vote for the formality of Law, yet, if the question be, Was this passed in full assemblies; Was it freely and general­ly carried; Did they all unanimously as one man consent unto it? Conscience cannot be convinced there is such efficacy in the place, as to make a few, the whole; or their agreement to be that judgement: of the whole kingdome, that unanimous consent, which must be in the case of resistence, by their ac­knowledgement that plead for it. For were it in this case to be held for the judgement of the whole, [Page 36] which is passed by a few, then would the State be unreasonably exposed to that danger (above men­tioned) which every prevailing faction might bring upon it under the pretence of the judgement of the whole kingdome.

Again, is Conscience cannot be truely perswaded that this resistence is agreed upon with such a gene­rall and unanimous consent, as they themselves pre­tend to, which pleade for this resistence, so can it not be truely perswaded that this resistence is such for the meer defensive way of it, as it ought to be according to their grants and pretences that appear for it.

Conscience here will see how to resolve, upon the triall of these two particulars, Whether the King or they be upon the defensive part? then, Whether the managing of this warre or resistence on their parts, be so void of hostile acts, as the defensive way, which they pretend to, ought to be?

Conscience will discern whether part is upon the defensive, by inquiring, First, Who were first in Arms? He that can number the succession of weeks and moneths in his Almanack may decide this. He shall find that armed men were thrust into Hull, the Kings Arms seized against his will, the Militia set up, and by that the Kings Subjects drawn into Arms before the King had any thing to oppose but Pro­clamations: that subscriptions for Plate, Money, Horse; that listing of souldiers for the field, and ap­pointing of Officer of the Army were begun upon their part, before His Majesty did the like. Now re­sistence doth in the word it self and in their pretence presuppose a power and force first made against [Page 37] them, where as it is plain, they were still upon the preventing and forehand with the Kin [...], still shewed him example for what he has done since in the way of Warre: yet must the people believe he raises the Warre, and they are upon defence; But Conscience will not be so forced.

Secondly, by inquiring what is the c [...]se of these Arms? What do they contend for? And though it be clear, that if Subjects be first in A [...]s they can­not be upon the defensive, yet the consideration of the cause will more apparantly convince it, when Conscience shall see it is not for what is pretended, but for something the King ha's right to deny, that this resistence is made. The preservation of Reli­gion and Liberties is pretended, but can it be for ei­ther? The King denyes them not: Their Religon they freely enjoy; and was it ever known that Sub­jects should rise in Arms against their Prince for a Religion which he promiseth to maintain? Or does Religion stand in need of a defense, which it self condemnes, a defence which would be a perpetuall scandall to it? If therefore Religion be the pretence, but no cause of Warre, then is the Warre raised on their part, the King is upon the defensive. Or can it be for antient Rights and undoubted Priviledges that they contend? The King denyes them not, pro­miseth all security so he may enjoy his own, and God sorbid that either He or they should suffer in their just Rights. But would any man ever have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes, if Rehoboam had pro­mised to conserve their Liberties? What shall we then think of this geneall Revolt from Allegiance that ha's possessed well-near ten Tribes of twelve? [Page 38] They suppose he will not make good his promises, and therefore they will make all sure, seize his Arms and Forts, strip him of all, and if begin to stirre for his own Right and Dignity, then the people must be made to believe he makes warre against his Par­liament, intends to destroy their Liberties. But can any man in Conscience think his Majesty since the beginning of this breach was ever in such a Condi­tion of strength as might threaten the Libertie of the Subject, or destroy Parliaments, when as it was long ere he could with much ado attain to any reasona­ble means of subsistence, or to such a strength whereby he might seem to be able to defend him­self?

To speak the truth, Religion and Liberties can be no other then the pretences of this Warre, the King ha's fortified them so with many Acts of Grace passed this Parliament, that they cannot be in that danger which is pretended for the raising of this Warr. It must be something that his Majesty does indeed deny for which the contention is raised: That we shall find to be His Power of Arms, and or­dering the Militia of the Kingdome, His Power of denying in Parliament, His disposing of the offices of State, and such like; Also the Government of the Church and the Revenue of it. In the three former he challenges his right, as his Predecessours had; the other he is bound by Oath to maintaine as by Law they are established. Well, if these be attempted, and his Majesty will not be forced from them, can­not yeild them up, but it comes to Arms, then will Conscience easily be convinced the King is upon the defensive, for the maintaining of what he justly [Page 39] holds his right, or is bound by Oath to defend.

And if we hearken to the peoples voice, for that commonly speaks the mind of their leaders, we shall hear them usually call this Warre as they did that with the Scots, The Bishops Warre. His Majesty has indeed alwayes declared against the altering of the Government of the Church by Bishops, being such as it alwayes had since the first receiving of the Christian Faith in this land, and of all other Go­vernments simply the best, if reformed from abuses and corruptions that have grown upon it, to the purging out of which His Majesty is alwayes ready to agree. But be it the Bishops Warre (though the abolishing of that Government be but one of the many inconveniences which this Power of resist­ence doth threaten this Land with, and which the King has reason by Power of Arms to divert) whe­ther is it so just in Subjects by Arms to force a change of Government which was alwayes in the Church, and by Law established, as it is in the King to defend the same as he is bound by Oath? it is clear which of the two are upon the defensive.

The second particular by which the defensive way of this resistance is to be examined, was the ma­naging of this Warre on their parts, whether so void of acts of Hostility as that defensive way should be which they pretend to. Davids resistence made a­gainst. Saul is frequently alledged by them, which example, though it will not countenance their cause (as was shewed before) yet might it tell them their demeanor should be answerable. He offered no act of violence to Saul, but still gave place and with­drew from him: the Spear indeed and the Cruse [Page 40] David tooke away from the Kings head, but it was onely to shew Abners neglect, who had the Com­mand of Sauls Militia, and to testifie his own inte­grity, therefore he restored them before they were demanded, 1 Sam 26.

But now the Kings Spear and his Cruse, his Am­munition, and His necessary Provisions are taken away, intercepted, not restored, though often de­manded, used against Him with all advantage; nay he is stript of the very Power and Command of Arms, His Officers and Ministers thrust out, and other sub­stituted, and by them His People drawn into Arms against Him.

Also by these that are in resistence against the King, His Loyall and Peaceable Subjects are assault­ed, despoiled of their Arms, Goods, Estates; their Persons Imprisoned, because they would according to their Allegiance assist Him in this extremity, or would not, contrary to their Conscience, joyn with them against Him. What Conscience that will not follow this way with a stupid implicit faith can be perswaded that this Warre is the defence of the Subjects Liberties, and not rather an oppugnation of them? or that it is a meer resistence or withstand­ing of a force first made against them, and not rather a violent illation or bringing in of force upon those that were disposed to Peace. Therefore no Con­science that ha's a sense of Religion, or of that which is just and right between Man and Man, can beare a part in this resistence, for fear of that sentence of damnation which the Apostle ha's laid upon it.


BUt in the last place, if Conscience could be per­swaded, that it is lawfull upon such a case, as they make, to take Arms and resist, and that this rising in Arms is such a defensive resistence, as in such a case they seem to pretend to, yet how will it be perswaded that the Case is now, that is, That the King is such as the people must be made to be­lieve he is, unles it will as desperately offend against the rule of Charitie, in so concluding upon the King, as it does against the rule of Faith and Per­swasion, in admitting so uugrounded a principle as is now rested on for resistence: so that such a Con­science shall have in its perswasion neither certainty of Rule; for the principle it goes on is false; nor cer­tainty of the Case, for it knows not the heart of the King, to conclude for resistence upon supposals of his intentions, and in its judgement it will be al­together void of Charitie.

Indeed it concerns all such as will resist upon the principles now taught to render their Prince odious to his people under the hatefull notions of Tyrant, Subverter of Religion, and Laws, a Person not to be trusted, or at least as one seduced to such evil de­signes, by wicked Counsel. But what? Hath this King forbid the exercise of the Religion established or left off to professe it himselfe? hath he disclaim­ed his trust, or not upon all occasions promised justice and libertie to his Subjects?

Yea! but they have cause to fear Popery will pre­vail, and that he will not stand to his promises. It seems thy are men that would be loath to suffer for their Religion, they are so ready to fly to Arms [Page 42] to secure themselves; But shall subjects rise in Arms against their Prince upon such remote fears and jea­lousies as these will appear to be? When can such be wanting in turbulent minds? When shall the Prince be assured of safety? This was the way that David himself was shaken out of his Throne, and driven from Jerusalem by Absolom: This cunning Rebell steals away their hearts by raysing jealousies in them, and an evill opinion of Davids government, 2. Sam. 15. 3. Some ground it seems, he had for his treacherous plea, through the negligence of those that were under David; but it was his villanie to make use of it to the alienating of the People from their King. Accordingly let us now consider what slender grounds our People have for their fears and jealousies, then what security they have and mightt have against them, that it may appear how causelesse those jealousies are in themselves, how unjust causes of this resistence.

If we examine the fears and jealousies that have possessed the People, we shall find them to be raised upon these or the like grounds. Reports of Forraign Power to be brought in, The Queens Religion, The resort of Papists to His Majesty, His intercepting of means sent for the reliefe of Ireland, from whence the People by their good teachers are made to believe, that He means to enslave this People, re­establish Popery, and does comply with the Re­bels.

In answer to all, which I needed not to say more then what Michael the Arch-Angell to the Devill that arch-accuser; The Lord rebuke thee, Jude 9. but in particular; For such reports of invasion from [Page 43] abroad, as were, before the setting up of the Mili­tia, given out to keep the people amused, the easier to draw them into a Posture of Defence as was pre­tended, all such are discovered by time to have been vain; if there be now any forraign ayd, towards the King (as all Christian Kings cannot but think them­selves concerned in the cause) it will be as just for him to use them against subjects now in Arms, as it was unjust in the Barons to call in the French against their naturall King. K. Iohn.

For the Queens Majesty; Her Religion is no new cause, if it be a sufficient cause of Jealousie to them, they have had it from her first entrance; I would to God it were otherwise with her, that it would please the Lord to open her eyes that she may see the truth and light of the Protestant Religion: onely this I must say, this is not the way to draw her to it, if she look at it in the doctrines and practises of these times she is not like to fall in love with it.

For the resort of Papists, and the Kings enter­taining them; He hath often declared what caution he desired to use therein, till necessitie hath driven him to admit of some few into his Army, which al­so he answered lately. Let me adde this concerning the justnesse of it, If he hath entertained any into this service, he may justly make use of them. We see what manner of men were gathered to David in his distresse, 1. Sam. 22. 2. and how false Ziba bringing provision to the King when he fled from Absolom, was entertained and rewarded, insomuch that the King (when afterward he knew how Ziba had abused him to gain his own ends) would not reverse the sentence pronounced in his favour; If [Page 44] therefore in this distresse after much forbearance our King hath admitted the help of some Recusants, it cannot be alledged as a cause of the resistence now made against him, but that resistence was a cause of it; and if the Papist will shew himself a good sub­ject, it is just and reasonable that the King when he is put to it, may admit of his help, and the more shame it is for them that professe the Protestant Religion to force him to it; a scandall that would not easily be wiped off from our Religion, were it to stand or fall, by the doctrines of this giddie Age.

Lastly, His Majestie hath written enough for the clearing himselfe from those false and odious impu­tations laid upon him in relation to the Irish busi­nesse. I have onely thus much to say, concerning any thing intended for the relief of Ireland; It was great pittie they should want it there, but it is more pittifull, the King should be forced to make use of it here.

It is not long since our neighbour Nation brought an Army into the Northern parts of this kingdome to the great detriment of the inhabitants there, and it was excused by invincible necessitie, which drove them hither. The necessitie his Maje­stie was driven to is sufficiently known, and might excuse him, in taking his own where he meets with it, and drawing it from his service abroad to that which more nearly concerned him at home. And when his Arms, Moneys, and Provisions are seised on wherever they be found intended for him, and imployed against him in a Warre, the Lord knows how unnecessary; shall it not be lawfull for him to take some part of them where he finds it for his ne­cessary defence?

[Page 45] Indeed the distresse of Ireland by the help of wicked Pamphlets hath been used as a great engine to weaken the Kings reputation with his people; but upon whose account the heavie reckoning of that neglected Cause will be laid, together with the disturbance of this kingdome, any man in Consci­ence may easily discern, that sees what sufficient and reasonable means might have been had for the secu­rity of Religion and Liberties, and for the redresse of all just greivances before this time. Which is the next thing considerable: What his Majesty hath done and profered to exempt these scruples of fears and jealousies out of his peoples minds

For Religion, if it be a new Frame they contend for, I must acknowledge he declares against all such; but if they desire the continuance of that true Pro­testant Religion, which hath been professed without interruption from the beginning of the Queens dayes, and established by the Laws of this Land, that he undertakes to maintain, that he hath protest­ed in the head of his Army to defend. For matter of Church-government and discipline he hath offer­ed any just reformation, even with a respect to ten­der consciences in point of Ceremony, hath often called his two Houses to the work in drawing up the grievances to some head. For priviledges of Parliaments and libertie of Subjects he hath given them the like promises with the deepest Protestati­ons; and by an excellent moderation, amidst the pressures and necessities of Warre, hath shown what respect he hath to the property and libertie of the Subject. Lastly, For his choyse of Officers of State, he hath promised to admit any just exception, and [Page 46] thereupon to relinquish the person; and as an assu­rance of all this, hath so farre condescended as to take away Starre-chamber, High-commission, Bi­shops votes, &c. and to grant the Continuance of this Parliament, and the constant return of a Trie­niall; And now after all these promises and prote­stations, and so many reall expressions of Grace, can any man in conscience think there was yet place left for Propositions of such necessary concern­ment, that except they be granted this Kingdome must be imbroyled in a Civill warre, and the releif of Ireland neglected? I speak not this to cast any blemish upon the wisdome of the great Councel, or upon their desires and endeavors to gain a greater security to the Publick: but I would to God, the King were once thought worthy to be trusted a lit­tle, and that the Consciences of his Subjects were more respected, which cannot so easily be com­manded into a resistence, being very tender in the points of damnation, and taught out of Gods Word not to raise so much as an evil thought against the King, much lesse to lift up an armed hand. Eccles. 10.

Every mans Conscience now is solicited to ad­here either to the King in this great cause, or to joyn with Subjects in making resistence: To draw it from Allegiance, tongues are set on fire of hell, which blast his Majesties Actions and Declarations; and books written by hellish spirits, enemies to peace and qui­etnesse, are suffered to issue forth into every corner of the land to possesse the people, That his promises are but words, his acts of Grace were forced, he will not stand to them: It seems then he must by force of Arms be compelled to be willing. But let us see [Page 47] whether a Conscience that destres to be safe can be so perswaded in judging the actions and intentions of him (to whom it owes the highest duty under God) as first to conclude He intends not as He pro­mises, and thereupon to resolve for resistence? No, it will direct it self by the rule of Charity, which is, not rashly to conclude upon the Heart which it knoweth not, or to think any evill; and if the diffe­rence be betwixt two, as in this cause, it will hold the rule of indifferency, impartially to consider the actions of both.

Conscience therefore that it may be informed of His Majesties intentions, will it look upon him at such a distance as London, and reade him onely in those horrid relations that issue thence, and conceive of Him as they report Him to the People? or will it consider some failings that necessity ha's inforced, or other accidentall occurrences have occasioned, and from these conclude intentions in Him, contrary to all His Promises and Protestations? This would be too partiall, too uncharitable: Conscience ought al­wayes to be tender in judging upon other Mens in­tentions, especially those of the Prince, and those to be concluded as evill, and to be made a ground for resistence, which runs the hazard of Damnation.

In the 2. Chron. c. 21. 10. Libnah is said to re­volt from the King of Judah because he had forsa­ken the Lord; a Text that is objected to us, and should have been answered in the first part: but it is impertinent as all the rest are, for it neither proves the principle, That it is lawfull for the People to re­volt when the King forsakes Religion, but shews that such revolt is a punishment from God upon such [Page 48] a King, though a sinne in the people: Nor doth it come home to the Case: for there the King had forsaken: here is onely supposall that he will, and that groundlesse and unconscionable too.

For as there was enough in David to clear those jealousies upon which that rebellion of the People following Absolom was grounded, so is there on the Kings part, to direct Conscience against this de­sperate uncharitable judgement, if it look at those many Acts of Grace as new additions to that secu­rity, by which this State ha's so long stood, and from them conclude, He would not in a faire way deny any thing reasonable: If it consider those ma­ny promises strengthened with the deepest Prote­stations, enforced with desires of successe from God according to His just intentions; and all these, as proceeding from a King, under such affliction, in such danger, after such successe and experience of Gods protection, approving thereby the reality and sincerity of his heart: What Conscience can here conclude contrary intentions in him, and not think it blasphemeth God and the King?

Furthermore, as Conscience will not be unchari­table when it judgeth upon the intentions of ano­ther mans heart, so neither will it be partiall when it judgeth between two, unto which of them it should incline: and therefore he that is abused to believe amisse of his King, and solicited to enter this way of resistence, is highly concerned first to consider, Whether they also that are the main directors of it, and to whom he would adhere, to discharge their trust they are called to, I say such an one, unlesse he will resigne up his faith to men, and receive their, [Page 49] dictates as the immediate rule of his Conscience, must consider whether all be just and honest that is done in that way? Whether to divest the King of the Power of Arms and to use them against him, be to defend his Person, Rights, and Dignity? Whe­ther the forcing of the Subjects property, to the ad­vancing of this resistence, and the imprisoning of their persons for deniall, be the maintaining of the Right and Liberty of the Subject? Whether the suffering of so many Sects to vent their Doctrines with such liberty, and to commit unsufferable out­rages upon the publike worship of God, with such licentiousnesse, be a defending of Religion and the established worship of this Church? All these du­ties every Subject respectively is bound to dis­charge, and the neglect of them his Majesty has chiefly charged upon those that he conceives the chief Directors and Actours in this resistance made against him, and every man in Conscience ought se­riously to consider it

The necessity of the Commonwealth is pretend­ed to defend the not-defending of the premises; when as no necessity may excuse any failings on the Kings part, as if his promises, by which he stands obliged to his Subjects, did not suppose they for their parts also should perform: I know not how some particular men may be engaged and contract a necessity of resisting, or seeking safety by Arms; but I am perswaded, no man in Conscience can think it a necessity of the Commonwealth to have all con­founded, or of a Christian to run the hazard of dam­nation by resisting. My Conscience tells me, and Qwill theirs one day tell them, how much they have [Page 50] to answer for not improving that grace and willing­nesse, they had experience of in His Majesty, and might still have found in him, to the speedy and hap­py Reformation of this Church and State▪ I pray God to give them Consciences truly inlightned, and bowels truely compassionate, that they may speedily and feelingly be sensible of the miseries this Land groanes under, and faithfully examine how far they are answerable for them, by rejecting such reasonable means of security, as they might have [...] for the safety of this State. Amen.

And now if there be any one that will run the ha­zard of this resistence, I desire he would first set his Conscience before the Tribunall of God, where it must appear, and consider whether it will excuse him there, when he ha's shed the blood of others, and expended his own, to say, I verily supposed and belie­ved my Prince would change Religion, overthrow our Liberties. I must tell him it will not be safe for him to present such a Conscience at that Barre, a Conscience that wanted the rule of Faith to warrant and perswade the lawfulnesse of resistence upon such a supposall, a Conscience that wanted the certainty of perswasion that the Princes Heart (which God onely knows) was so inclined, a Conscience that wan­ted the Judgement of Charity, in concluding such in­tentions in the King, notwithstanding all His Pro­mises and deepest Protestations made in the time of His trouble, without which Charity all is nothing though he layes down (as he thinks) his Life for Re­ligion. Such a Conscience I must needs conclude sinfull, and liable to that which the Apostle threatens vnto Resistence, Damnation.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.