AN INTRODVCTION Vnto the Treatiſe neceſſary for all good Subjects to underſtand, &c.

I Have peruſed Doctor Fearne his booke intituled, The reſolving of Conſcience, wherein I finde that he hath exceedingly miſtaken the queſtion; the queſtion in truth is, whether the Parliament now hath juſtly taken up arms; we affirme it, he denies it, and withall ſlips into another queſtion, whether it be lawfull for the Subjects to take • armes againſt their King: But if he will ſo propound the queſtion, • en I muſt preface theſe two or three diſtinctions, and one caution, Firſt, at the ſubject is conſidered two waies, either unitivè, conjunctively, OR diviſivè diviſively.

The Subject conſidered •• viſively hath alwayes applied himſelfe to prayers and teares, uſing no her remedy; and of this we ſpeake not: but conjunctively conſidered • ate-wiſe, ſo he now doth, and 'tis lawfull for him thus to take up arms. • condly, the Subject may be ſaid to take up armes either as an act of • f preſervation, or as an act of juriſdiction exerciſed towards his Prince. • e firſt way we ſay it is lawfull; the ſecond way we contend not for. • irdly, the Subject is ſaid to take up armes againſt the King either as a • nſt the Kings perſon, and of this we do not ſpeak: or as againſt the • ngs commandment for their own preſervation, ſo we affirm it, and then • r poſition is,

That it is lawfull for the Subjects conjunctively conſidered to take upThe poſition. • nes for ſelfe-preſervation againſt the Kings commandement, where • o things are to be cleared: Firſt, that this is the caſe of the Parliament. • condly, that this is lawfull for them to do: firſt, this is their caſe; for as any reaſonable by-ſtander may obſerve there are 3 grounds of this the proceeding, the one is to fetch in Delinquents, and ſuch perſons as a • accuſed before them to be legally tried in that higheſt Court of the Kingdome; the ſecond is to defend the State from forraigne invaſion, who ſe • more into the danger then we do; the third is to preſerve themſelves a • the Countrey from the inſurrection and rebellion of Papiſts: and that th • is lawfull we prove by divers reaſons, ſome drawn from nature, ſom • from Scripture, ſome from the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome ſome from the being of Parliaments, and ſome from the common tru • repoſed on Princes.

Firſt, from nature; It is the moſt naturall worke in the world for ever • thing to preſerve it ſelfe. Naturall for a man to preſerve himſelfe, naturall for a Community; and therefore when a Common-weale ſhall chu • a Prince or a State-officer, though they truſt him with their welfare, the that act of their truſt is but by poſitive law, and therefore cannot deſtro • Iacob; Almain de auth: eccleſi • apud Gerlon. the naturall law, which is ſelfe-preſervation, Cum humana poteſt is ſupra j • naturae non •• iſtit, ſeeing that no humane power is above the law of n • ture.

Secondly, from Scripture: the Word of God ſaith expreſſely in 1 Chr • 12. 19. That David went out againſt Saul to battaile: yet he was Sau • ſubject at that time, for the Lord of the Philiſtims ſent him away, ſayin • he will fall to his Maſter Saul: which Text I bring not to prove that Subject may take up armes againſt the King perſon; but that the Subject may take up armes againſt thoſe that are malignant about the Kings perſon, notwithſtanding the Kings command to the contrary, which becauſ • this of David is ſaid to be againſt Saul, and that Davids heart ſmote hi • for cutting off the lap of Sauls garment: the meaning therefore muſt nee • be that he went out in battell againſt thoſe that attended upon Sau • ſtrengthned by Sauls authority, notwithſtanding Sauls command to th • contrary. And in the new Teſtament, Rom. 13. 1 We are commanded to ſubject to the higher Powers, now the Parliament being the higheſt Cou • of Juſtice in this Kingdome (as King James ſaith in his Baſilicon Doron muſt needs be the higher powers of England, though the King be ſ • preme, yet they have the high power of declaring the law (as this Doct • Fearne confeſſeth) being moſt fit to judge what is law. They therefor • declaring this to be the fundamentall Law of the Kingdome for the ſu • jects to defend themſelves by forcible reſiſtance, notwithſtanding t • Kings command to the contrary, it is the duty of all the ſubjects to be • bedient to theſe higher powers.

Thirdly, from the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome: It is according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome (yea written and not unſeene Lawes) That the Parliament are truſted by the Common-weale with the welfare and ſecurity thereof; whence I doe reaſon thus: If it be the duty of the King to looke to the ſafety of the Kingdome, and that becauſe he is truſted therewith by the Common-weale; then if the Parliament be immediatly truſted by the Common-weale with the ſafety thereof as well as the King, though not ſo much, then are they to looke to it, and to uſe all meanes for the preſervation thereof as well as the King: But ſo it is that the Prince is bound to looke to the ſafety and welfare of the Kingdome as is agreed by all; and ſecondly, therefore he is bound to it becauſe he receiveth this power originall (I ſpeake not in oppoſition • o God) but I ſay originally from the people themſelves, as appears by the government of the Judges and Kings of Iſrael, which government, this Doctor ſaith, was Monarchicall, the beſt plat-forme for England: For Judges 8. 22. The men of Iſrael come unto Gideon to make him their King, and Judges the 9. 6. They gathered together and made Abimeleck their King, and Judges 11. 8, 9, 10, 11. The people covenanted with Jephtha and made him their King: and as for Saul, (though he was deſigned by God to the Kingdome) yet the people themſelves choſe the kinde of their government firſt, when they ſaid, Give us a King to rule over us after the manner of the Nations: After that God had annointed Saul, it is ſaid, 1 Sam. 11. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall, and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gigall: and as for David, though he was annointed King by Samuel, yet we finde that he continued a Subject unto Saul after that; and the 2. of Sam. 2. He came unto Hebron, and there the men of Judah were, and there they anointed David King over the houſe of Judah, v. 4. After that he was thus annointed by Judah to be King over them, yet he did not rule over Iſrael, till the other tribes alſo went out and made him King over them, 1 Cron. 12. 38. It is ſaid that all theſe men of warre came with a perfect heart to Hebron to make David King over all Iſrael, & as for Solomon (though he was deſigned by God to the Kingdome, yet) it is ſaid of him alſo, 1 Chro. 29. 22. that all the Corgregation did eat and drinke before the Lord, and they made Solomon the ſon of David King the ſecond time, and annointed him unto • he Lord to be the chiefe Governour. Solomon being dead, the ſecond of the Chron. 10. 1. It is ſaid of Rehoboam, that he went to Shechem, where all Iſraell came to make him King; and in the ſecond of Sam. 16. 18. it is ſaid thus: And Huſhai ſaid unto Abſolon, God ſave the King, God ſave the King: and Abſolon ſaid unto Huſhai, Is this thy kindneſſe unto thy friend, why wenteſt thou not with thy friend? And Huſhai ſaid unto Abſolom againe, nay, but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Iſrael chuſe, his will I be, and with him will I abid • : • that wee ſee that theſe Monarchs both of the Judges and Kings • Iſrael were choſen and entruſted▪ by the people, and had their powe • of governing from them. 3. The Parliament alſo is immediatly truſted b • the people, and Common-weal with the ſafety thereof as wel as the King though not to be King, for they are the officers of the Kingdom, and therefore choſen immediatly by the people, and not deſigned by the King: an • this kinde of officers was in Davids time alſo; there were ſome Officer • then that were the Kings Officers, his Cooks, his Bakers, the ſteward o • his houſe, and the like. Others were the officers of the Kingdome called the Elders and heads of the Tribes, which though they were under him yet were they with him truſted in the affairs of the Kingdome, whom therefore he did conſult with in the great affaires of the State, 1 Chron. 13. 1 • wherefore ſeeing the King is to looke to the ſafety of the Kingdome, and that becauſe he is truſted therewith by the people, and the Parliament ar • as well truſted by the people with the ſafety of the land, it is their duty i • caſe of danger to looke to it, which they are not able to do • , and mak • good their truſt, unleſſe they have power to take up Arms againſt an enemy, when the Prince is miſled or defective.

4. From the being of a Parliament. As it is a Parliament it is the higheſt Court of Juſtice in the Kingdome, therfore hath power to •• nd for by force thoſe that are accuſed before them that they may come to thei • triall; which power (if I miſtake not) inferiour Courts have, much more the higheſt. 'Tis out of doubt agreed on by all that the Parliament hath a power to ſend a Sergeant at Armes to bring up ſuch an one as is accuſed before them; and if they have a power to ſend one Sergeant at Arms▪ then 20. if 20. be accuſed, then a 100. if there be a 100. accuſed▪ then a thouſand, if there be a thouſand accuſed, then tenne thouſand▪ if there be tenne thouſand accuſed, and ſo more or leſſe as occaſion ſerves▪ for there is the ſame reaſon for two as for one, and for 4. as for 2. and for a 100. as for 20. and for a 1000. as for a 100. and take away this power from the Parliament, and 'tis no longer a Parliament▪ but the King • and his forefathers have by law ſetled theſe libertie • of Parliament, and therefore according to Lawes, they have a power to ſend for by force thoſe that are accuſed to be tried before them, which they cannot do unleſſe they raiſe an army, when the accuſed are kept from them by an army.

5. From the common truſt repoſed on Princes and the end thereof, which is to feed their people, Pſal. 78. 70. He choſe David his ſervant an • tooke him from the Sheep-fold to feed his people, Jacob and his inheritance in Iſrael. The end why the people have truſted the Prince is the ſ • fety and ſecurity of the Kingdome, the ſafety and welfare of the State, not that the King might be great, and the Subjects ſlaves. Now if a people ſhould have no power to take up armes for their owne defence becauſe they had truſted the Prince therewithall, then by that truſt they intended to make themſelves ſlaves. For ſuppoſe the King will let in a common enemy upon them, or take his owne ſubjects and make the • ſlaves in Gallies, if they may not take up armes for their owne defence becauſe they had truſted their Prince therewithall, what can this be but by their truſt to make themſelves ſlaves unto him?

2. The caution that is to be premiſed is this; notwithſtanding all that I have ſaid yet, I doe not ſay that the ſubjects have power to depoſe their Prince, neither doth our aſſertion or practice enforce ſuch an inference.

Object. But if the power of the Prince be derived from the people, then they may take away that power againe. Reſp. It followes not, neither ſhall the people need to thinke of ſuch an inference. Indeed if the power were derived from the people to the Prince firſtly, and that the people ſhould be ſo ſtrait-laced that they ſhould have no power left to defend themſelves in caſe of danger when the Prince is miſled, or unfaithfull, then the people might be occaſioned to thinke of depoſing their Prince: but though the power of the Prince bee originally from them, yet if they have ſo much power left as in times of danger, to looke to their owne preſervation, what need they thinke of any ſuch matter?

Object. Why but if the people give the power, then if abuſed, they may take it away alſo. Reſ. No that needs not; ſeeing they never gave away that power of ſelfe preſervation; ſo that this poſition of ours is the onely way to keepe people from ſuch aſſaults, whereby the power of the Prince is more fully eſtabliſhed: whereas if people were kept from power of ſelfe-preſervation which is naturall to them, it were the onely way to breake all in peeces; for Nullum violentum contranaturale eſt perpetuum, no violent thing againſt nature is perpetuall. Thus have I clearly opened our opinion, and proved our ſentence, give me leave now to ſpeake with the Doctor.

Section I.

THe Doctor ſaith, That in the propoſition or principle, by the word reſiſtance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command, but a riſing in armes a forcible reſiſtance: this though cleare in the queſtion, yet I thought good to inſinuate to take off that falſe imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdom, and upon all thoſe that appear for the King in this cauſe. Gubernat • res ergo in • is rebus quae cum decalog • & juſtis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent p • ae caeteris hominibus privatis; & perpretrantes id quod malum eſt, Coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium preſtante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordi • aſſe & inſtituiſſe poteſtatem illam gladio defendendi bonum▪ & puniendi malum, & praecipit ut omnis anima (& ſic ipſi guber n • ores▪ tali Dei ordinationi fit ſubjecta, hoc eſt obligat ad ſacien •• m bonum ſi velit defendi iſt a. Dei ordinatione & non ob ſua facino • a impia puniri. Magdeburgenſis cent. 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod a • tem ad nos proprie pertiner poſſum enumerare duodecim aut etiam amplius reges qui ob ſcelera & flagitia aut in perpetuum carcetem ſūt damnati, aut exilio vel morte voluntaria juſtas ſcelerū poenas fugerant nos autemid contendimus populum a quo reges noſtri habent quicquid juris ſibi vindicant regibus eſſ • potentiorē: Iuſ que idem in cos habere multitudinem quod illi in ſingulos a multitudine habent, B •• de Gub: Regni apud Sco • os.

Here the Dr. would inſinuate in the very entrance of his book (that ſo he might the better captare benevolentiam, curry favour for the matter of his diſcourſe following.) That the Divines of England are of his judgement. But if they be ſo, ſurely their judgement is lately changed: But indeed what Divines are of his judgement? not the Divines of Germany, not the Divines of the French Proteſtant Churches, not the Divines of Geneva, not of Scotland, not of Holland, not of England.

Not the Divines of Germany, who ſay thus: Governours therefore in ſuch things that are repugnant to the Law of God, have no power or immunity above other private men, & they themſelves commanding that which is evill, have no power or immunity above other private men, and they themſelves commanding that which is evill, are as much bound to feare the ordinance of God, bearing the ſword for the puniſhment of vice as other private men. For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. ſaith, that God did inſtitute and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good, and puniſhing that which is evill, and he commands that every ſoule (and ſo the Governours themſelves) would bee ſubject to this ordinance of God that is bound to doe good, if they would be defended by this ordinance of God, and not by their wicked deeds, make themſelves liable to puniſhment.

Not the Divines of the French Proteſtant Churches; witneſſe their taking up of armes for the defence of themſelves at Rochell.

Not the Divines of Geneva: For as Calvin in the 4. book of his inſtitutions chap. 10. ſaith thus: For though the correcting of unbridled government be revengement of the Lord, let us not by and by think that it is committed to us, to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and ſuffer; I ſpeak alway of private men, for if there be at this time any Magiſtrates in the behalfe of the people (ſuch as in old time were the Ephori that were ſet againſt the Kings of Lacedemonia, or the tribuner of the people againſt the Roman Conſuls, or the Demarchy againſt the Senate at Athens, and the ſame power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal aſſemblies) I do ſo not forbid them according to their office to withſtand the outraging licentiouſneſſe of Kings, that I affirm, if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty, their diſſembling is not without wicked breach of faith, becauſe they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themſelves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God.

Not the Divines of Holland, for we know what their practiſe is towards the King of Spaine.

Not the Divines of Scotland: for Buca • an ſaith: for I can number twelve, • r more Kings among our ſelves, who for their ſinne and wickedneſſe were either caſt into priſon during their life, or elſe eſchewed the puniſhment by baniſhment. But this is that which we contend for, that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater then the Kings, and the whole multitude have the ſame power over them, as they have over particular men out of the multitude, witneſſe alſo their late taking up armes when they came into England, which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebellion.

Not our Engliſh Divines, whoſe judgement Dr. Willet was acquainted with as well as our preſent Dr. who ſaith thus: Touching the point of reſiſtance certaine differences are to be obſerved: for when there is an extraordinary calling (as in the time of the Judges) or when the Kingdome is uſurped without any right, as by Athalia, or when the land is invaded by forraigne enemies, as▪ in the time of Maccabees, or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany, in all theſe caſes then is leaſt queſtion of reſiſtance to be made by the generall Councell of the States, yet where none of theſe concur, God forbid that the Church and Common-wealth ſhould be left without remedy, the former conditions (viz. thoſe alledged by Pareus) obſerved, when havock is made of the Common-wealth, or the Church and Religion. Thus alſo Doctor Bilſon (whoſe booke was allowed by publicke authority and printed at Oxford) ſpeakes: If a Prince ſhould goe about to ſubject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme, or change the forme of the Common-weale from Empery to Tyranny, or neglect the lawes eſtabliſhed by common conſent of Pr. and people to execute his owne pleaſure in theſe and other caſes which might be named: if the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend their ancient and acouſtomed liberties, regiments and lawes, they may not well be accounted rebells. And the title of that page is, the Law ſometimes permits reſiſtance; and the margent is, in ſome caſes the Nobles and Commons may ſtand for their publicke regiment and laws of their Kingdome.

All which judgements of ſeverall Divines▪ I doe not bring forth as if I were of their mindes for depoſing or puniſhing of Princes by the people, which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes, but to ſhew how the DoctorsDr. Willet. Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17. judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Proteſtant Countries, notwithſtanding he would inſinuate that our Divines of England are of his judgement: and that our judgement is noBilſons true difference between Chriſt • an ſubjection▪ and unchriſtian rebellion, p. 5. 251. new upſtart opinion, you ſee what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counſell of Baſil, where one of them ſaith thus: That in every well ordered Kingdome it ought ſpecially to be deſired that the whole Realme ought to be of more authority then the King, which if it happened contrary, it is not to be called a Kingdome, but tyranny, ſo likewiſe doth he thinke of the Church, &c.

And preſently another▪ of the Divines of the ſ • me Co •••• ll ſaith thus: For the Pope is in the Church, as the King▪ is in his Kingdome, and for a King▪ to be of more authority then his Kingdome this were too abſurd, ergo neither ought the Pope to be above the Church; for like as oftentimes Kings which doe wickedly rule the Common-weale, and exerciſe cruelty are deprived of their Kingdomes, even ſo it is not to he doubted but that the Biſhops of Rome may be dep • ſed by the Church, that is to ſay, by the generall Councell; neither doe I herein allow them which attribute ſo large and ample authority unto Kings, that they will not have them bound under any Lawes, for ſuch as doe ſo ſay are but flatterers, who do talke otherwiſe then they think. For albeit that they doe ſay that the moderation of the law is alwaies in the Princes power • , that do I thus underſtand; that when as reaſon ſhall perſwade, hee ought to digreſſe from the rigour of the law: for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Common-weale, taketh pleaſure in the profit and commodity of the ſubjects, and in all his doings hath reſpect to the commodity of thoſe over whom he ruleth, which if he doe not, he is not to be accounted a King • , but a Tyrant, whoſe property it is only to ſuck his owne profit. For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant, that the one ſeeketh the cōmodity & profit of them whom he ruleth, the other only his owne: The which to make more manifeſt, the cauſe is alſo to be alledged wherefore Kings were ordained. At the beginning▪ (as Cicero▪ in his Offices ſaith) It is certaine that there was a certaine time when the people lived without Kings: but afterward when • and and poſſeſſions began to▪ be divided according to the cuſtome of every Nation, then were Kings ordained for no other cauſe but only to execute Juſtice. For when as at the beginning the common people were oppreſſed by rich and mighty men, they ran by and by to ſome▪ good and vertuous man who ſhould defend the poore from injury, and ordaine Lawes, whereby the rich and poore ſhould dwell together. But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poore were oft oppreſſed, lawes were ordained and inſtituted, the which ſhould judge neither for hatred nor favour, and give like care unto the poore, as unto the rich, whereby we doe underſtand not only the people but the King to be ſubject unto the Lawes. Then the Doctor tells us, that he is againſt the Arbitrary way of government. For (ſaith he) 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 Lawes of the Kingdome.

Anſ. This reaſon doth no way deſtroy Arbitrary government but rather erect it. For government is not ſaid to be Arbitrary, becauſe the ſubjects may deny in word, and ſo left to ſuffer: For then the Tur • iſh government is not arbitrary. For when the great Turke commands his ſubjects to doe any thing, if they will deny and ſuffer for their deniall they may, and doe ſometimes deny their obedience. If there be lawes whereby a King is to rule which he ſhall command his ſubjects to breake, and his ſubjects are neither bound to obey him nor ſuffer by him, then his government is not arbitrary; but if there be lawes made, and he may inforce his ſubjects either to keepe them or breake them, and puniſh them at his pleaſure that ſhall refuſe, and the whole kingdome bound in conſcience to ſuffer whatſoever he ſhall inflict for not breaking thoſe Lawes, then is his government arbitrary: for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio; which he doth, when either there is no law to rule by but his owne will, or when hee hath a power to breake thoſe lawes at his will, and to puniſh the ſubject at his pleaſure for not breaking them; and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government then the former, as it ſhewes more liberty in the will, that it hath a power to act when reaſon perſwades to the contrary, then if there were no reaſon diſſwading, and elſe there ſhould be no arbitrary government in the world. For no State but hath ſome lawes whereby they rule and are ruled even the very Indians; onely here lyes the arbitrarineſſe of a government, that notwithſtanding the law, the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his ſubjects according to his owne pleaſure. Then the Doctor ſaith,

We muſt conſider that they which plead for reſiſtance in ſuch a caſe as is ſuppoſed, doe grant that it muſt be concluded upon, Omnibus ordinibus regni conſentientibus, that is, with the generall and unanimous conſent of the two houſes.

Anſ. 1. Firſt theſe words are ill tranſlated; for omnes ordines regni may conſentire, and yet there may not be an unanimous and generall conſent of the Members of the two houſes as of one man.

2. If ſo that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence, why then doth he object againſt us, that the Chriſtians in the primitive times did not take up armes for the defence of themſelves againſt the Emperors, ſeeing they had not the conſent of all the orders of the Empire, and therefore their caſe is nothing to ours, as hee pretends afterward. But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them, the repreſentative body of the Empire, then their caſe had beene more like unto ours; and then no queſtion but they would have taken up armes for the defence of themſelves.

Then the Doctor ſaith, We ſuppoſe that the Prince muſt be ſo and ſo diſpoſed, bent to overthrow Religion, Liberties, Lawes, &c.

Anſ. Here he takes that for granted which was never given, but wee ſay not that we ſuppoſe, but ſeeing and finding experimentally that a Prince is miſled by thoſe about him that would overthrow religion, liberties, lawes; that then it is lawfull to take up armes to deliver the King from them, and to bring them to condigne puniſhment. Then hee proceeds to propound three Generalls, which he endeavoureth to prove in his following Diſcourſe, which I ſhall ſpeake to in order.

Sect. II.

THe Doctor ſaith, that the principle is untrue upon which they goe that reſiſt, and the conſcience cannot finde cleare ground to reſt upon for making reſiſtance: for it heares the Apoſtle expreſly ſay, Whoſoever reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation.Poenam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſic malo quam condemnationem, p • to enim hoc intelligendū de poe • â. quam inſert magiſtratus, ſicut verba frequentis declarant, &▪ ſic verbū 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 acc • p • tur pro puni • e 1▪ Cor. 6. 11. Piſcat. Rom. 13. 1▪ Sam. 14.

Anſ. In this his reſolving of Conſcience he endeavours to ſcare thoſe that are tender with the word of damnation, and forbids this reſiſtance upon paine of damnation; but the word in the Greeke is rather to be • tranſlated judgement and puniſhment, and as Piſcator obſerves thereby i • not meant eternall damnation, but the puniſhment of the Magiſtrate in this life; as appeares by the following words which are given by the Apoſtle as a reaſon of the former, thus: They that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves judgement, for rulers are not a terror to good workes, but to evill.

Then he proceeds to ſome examples of Scripture, which are brough • by us to ſtrengthen our Doctrine; wherein he takes what hee pleaſeth and leaves out what he liſts. The firſt example alledged is that of the peoples reſcuing Ionathan out of the hands of Saul, to which he anſwers the people drew not into armes of themſelves, but being there by Saul's comman • did by a loving violence and importunity hinder the execution of a particular paſſionate, and unlawfull command.

Anſ. Firſt, here the Doctor grants that the people uſed a violence which is that that we would prove; but hee doth not make it out by tha • Scripture that it was a loving violence, which is the thing hee ſhoul • prove: Neither is there any thing in that place which doth argue that he was delivered by love, for it is ſaid that the people reſcued him; and wha • is the reſcue by men in armes but a violence? 2. According to the Doctors poſition they ſhould not have reſcued him, but onely have defende • themſelves by prayers and teares, and left Ionathan to ſuffer; and therefore though he grants but a reſcue by loving violence, he gives away h • cauſe in the threſhold of his worke.

The ſecond example alledged (ſaith the Doctor) is Davids reſiſting • Saul, to which he anſwers, that Davids guard which he had about him was on • ly to ſecure his perſon againſt the cruelty of Saul, who ſent to take away his life.

Anſ. Therefore according to his owne grounds a Parliament may tak • up a guard to ſecure their perſons againſt the cut-throats that are abo •• a King, and this is more then prayers or teares or meere ſufferings whic • the Doctor onely allowes in the following part of his diſcourſe.

2. Herein alſo he gives his cauſe, for if Davids guard was to ſecure his perſon againſt the cut-throats of Saul if ſent to take away his life (as he ſayes) they could not ſecure David but by fighting againſt thoſe meſſengers of the King: and if he grants that meſſengers ſent by the king may be reſiſted by armes, he grants all that his adverſaries contend for.

2. The Doctor ſaith, this practice of Davids was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul.

Anſ. But what think you then of Davids words which he uſed to Achiſb in 1 Sam. 29. 8. And David ſaid unto Achiſh, what have I done, and what haſt thou ſound in thy ſervant ſo long as I have beene with thee to this day, that I may not goe fight againſt the enemies of my Lord the King? amongst which enemies was Saul and his cut-throats (as the Doctor calls them) but

2. His adverſaries deſire no more from this inſtance of David but an hoſtile defence: for where there is an hoſtile defence, though there bee no blowes given, yet the defender would ſtrike if there were cauſe, elſe why is he in armes?

3. David alſo was but one ſubject; and if it were lawfull for one ſubject to defend himſelfe by way of hoſtility, much more for the repreſentative body of the whole Kingdome.

4. According to the Doctors principles David ought to have done no more then to have ſought God with teares and prayers, and given up himſelfe in a ſuffering way to the fury of Saul, and therefore though it were meerly an hoſtile defence, yet it is more then his doctrine teacheth, and ſo in granting of this, he is contrary to what he ſayes afterwards.

For the matter of Keilah, the Doctor anſwers our ſuppoſition (as he cals it) with his own ſaying: but whether David would have defended Keilah againſt Saul, I leave to the conſcience of the Reader, conſidering that this only is made the reaſon of his removing from Keilah, becauſe the men of Keilah would not be faithfull unto him, for he did not enquire of the Lord whether it were lawfull for him to abide in Keilah, but having enquired whether Saul would come downe againſt him, and whether Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand; he removed from Keilah becauſe the Lord anſwered him that they would deliver him up, not becauſe it was unlawfull for him to keepe the City, but becauſe the City would be falſe to him.

And whereas the Doctor ſaith that in all this the example of David was extraordinary, for he was anointed and deſigned by the Lord to ſucceed Saul.

Anſ. I anſwer, though David was Gods Anointed, yet he was Sauls ſubject, and though God did extraordinarily protect David, yet his extraordinary protection doth not argue that his practice was unlawfull but doth rather argue it to be more lawfull and commendable: for Go • will not give extraordinary protections to unlawfull actions, and if Davids demeanour herein was extraordinary, then he had an extraordinary command for what he did. For it is not lawfull for a man to ſtep fro • Gods ordinary way, but by ſome ſpeciall commandement from God, and if he had ſuch a command then how is that true which the Doctor ſaith afterward, that there is no command in Scripture for ſuch a practice o • kinde of reſiſtance as this.

3. In the words immediately before, the Doctor ſaith, this practice •• David was a meere defence without all violence offered to Saul; and if ſo, ho • was his demeanour in ſtanding out againſt Saul a worke extraordinary 〈◊〉 if it were a worke extraordinary, then it was not a meere defence without all violence, for that is an ordinary worke of the ſubjects toward thei • King.

Then the Doctor comes to other examples of his adverſaries, whereby the • contend (as he ſayes for reſiſtance, as that of the High Prieſt reſiſting the King in the Temple, and Eliſha ſhutting the doore againſt the Kings Meſſenger tha • came to take away his life; to the firſt he ſayes that the High Prieſt did no mor • then what every Miniſter may and ought to doe if the King ſhould attempt t • adminiſter the Sacrament, that is reprove him, and keepe the elements from him.

Anſ. But if that were all, the Prieſts ſhould not have beene commended for their valour, but their faithfulneſſe: and ver. 17. it is ſaid that Azariah • Chron. •• , 17 the Prieſt went after him, and with him foureſcore Prieſts of the Lord that were valiant men. In that they were commended here for valiant, it ſhewes that their worke was not onely reproofe but reſiſtance.

And whereas he ſaith, that they thruſt him out of the Temple becauſe God • and was firſt upon him, ſmiting him with Leproſie, and by that diſcharging him of the Kingdome alſo.

Anſ. I anſwer, how does that appeare out of Scripture that the King being ſmitten with the leproſie was an actuall diſcharge from his crown ••

Then the Doctor ſaith, Eliſha's example ſpeakes very little, but let u • thence (ſaith he) take occaſion to ſay that perſonall defence is lawfull againſt th • ſudden and illegall aſſaults of ſuch Meſſeng • rs, yea of the Prince himſelfe thu • far, to ward his blowes, to hold his hand, and the like, &c.

Anſ. 1. If you may ward his blowes, and hold his hands, this is mor • then praying and crying and ſuffering.

2. Suppoſe the King hath an army with him, how can you hold an armies hands without an army? and therefore according to his owne word • it is lawfull for the ſubjects conſidered State-wiſe to raiſe an army to de • end themſelves.

3. But this inſtance of Eliſha tells us that Meſſengers ſent by the King to take away a mans life may be taken priſoners, is not that a reſiſtance? for Eliſha ſaid, ſee you how this ſon of a murderer hath ſent to take away my head? looke when the meſſenger commeth, ſhut the doore, and hold him faſt at the doore, 2 Kings 6. 32.

Then the Doctor comes to anſwer a ſimilitude of the body naturall and politicke, whereby it is argued that as the body naturall, ſo the body politicke may defend it ſelfe: to which the Doctor anſwers, as the naturall body defends it ſelfe againſt an outward force, but ſtrives not by ſchiſme or contention within it ſelfe, ſo may the body politicke againſt an outward power, but not as now by one part of it ſet againſt the head, and another part of the ſame body.

Anſw. Now therefore here the Doctor granteth that it is lawfull for the naturall body to defend it ſelfe againſt an outward force, and what is the Militia for eſpecially, but againſt forrainers?

Then the Doctor diſtinguiſheth betwixt a perſonall defence and a generall reſiſtance by armes. He ſaith, a perſonall defence may be without all offence, and doth not ſtrike at the order and power that is over us, as generall-reſiſtance by armes doth, which doth immediately ſtrike at that order which is the life of the Common-weale, which ſaith he makes a large difference betwixt Eliſha's ſhutting of the doore againſt the Kings meſſenger, and their reſiſting the King by armed men.

Anſw. But why was Eliſha's defence perſonall? becauſe he was but one perſon that was defended? then if one man defend himſelfe againſt 1000. in armes that is a perſonall defence, or was it perſonall becauſe onely the perſon of the Prophet made defence and had none to aſſiſt him? not ſo becauſe he ſpake to the Elders to ſhut the doore and hold him faſt, and if this act of Eliſha was contrary to the Kings command, why did it not as immediately ſtrike at the order and power that was over him, as our reſiſtance doth now? indeed if the ſubjects as private men ſtrengthned with no authority ſhould gather together in a rude multitude to oppoſe lawes and governours, then that worke ſhould ſtrike immediately at the order and power and life of a State, but that the State ſhould ſend out an army to bring in Delinquents to be tryed at the higheſt Court of the Kingdome, that juſtice and judgement may runne downe like water which hath beene ſtanched up, is rather to confirme and ſtrengthen the order and power of authority, and ſo it is in our caſe.

Then the Doctor proceeds to ſome Scriptures, wherewithall hee thinkes to ſtrengthen his opinion, let us follow him: Firſt (ſaith hee) we have the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation gathering the people againſt Moſes and Aaron, Numbers 16. 3. and periſhing in thei • ſinne.

Anſ. I anſwer that Moſes and Aaron had not neglected their truſt, and our queſtion is in the generall laying aſide all reſpect to our Soveraigne whether a Prince neglecting his truſt, and doing that through his ba • Councell which may tend to the ruine of a State, may not by the whol • State be reſiſted therein? Now ſee how extreamly wide this inſtance 〈◊〉 from this queſtion.

Firſt of all the 250. Princes of the Congregation were not the whol • people, nor the repreſentative Body, nor any imploied by the whol • people.

2. Moſes and Aaron had not offended but were innocent.

The Dr. anſwers, The other ſuppoſed they had bin guilty, and that is enoug • it ſeems.

Anſ. It ſeems ſo indeed by him, that ſuppoſalls are enough to charg • the Parliament, but with us ſuppoſalls are not enough to charge ou • Prince.

2. The Dr. argues from 1 Sam. 8. 11. ſaying, there the people are let t • underſtand how they would be oppreſſed under Kings, yet all that violence and injuſtice that ſhould be done unto them is no juſt cauſe of reſiſtance, for they hav • no remedy left but crying to the Lord, verſ. 18.

Anſ. In this Scripture Samuel ſhewed them what their King would do not what he ſhould doe; and when he ſaith at the 18. verſe, You ſhall cry out in that day becauſe of your King which ye ſhall have choſen you, and the Lor • will not heare you in that day, he telleth them not what ſhould be their duty, but what ſhould be their puniſhment, for he doth not ſay, then ſhall you cry unto the Lord and he ſhall heare you as is the manner of Scripture when it enjoyneth a duty to annex a promiſe of acceptance. But he ſaith you ſhall cry in that day becauſe of your King, and the Lord will not heare you in that day, ſetting forth the puniſhment of that thei • choiſe.

3. The Dr. ſaith that according to Scripture the people might not be gathered together either for civill aſſemblies or for War but by his command; wh • • ad the power of the Trumpet, that is the ſupream, as Moſes was, Num. 10.

Anſw. The Parliament hath ſounded no Trumpet for Warre but what the ſupreme power hath given commandement for. For the • Doctor ſaith Section 1. page 2. That in the eſtabliſhed Lawes of the Lan • we have the Princes will and conſent given upon good advice, and to obey hi • againſt the Lawes, were to obey him againſt himſelfe, his ſuddaine will againſt his deliberate will, ſo that if there be any eſtabliſhed Lawes whereby the King hath given his former deliberate conſent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now ſounds, then this objection is but a falſe allarum.

Now though I be no Lawyer, and muſt refer you much to what the Parliament hath ſaid who are the Judges of the Law, yet thus much I can tell you as conſonant to right reaſon: That unleſſe the Parliament have a power to ſend for delinquents and accuſed perſons to be tried in that higheſt Court of Juſtice, I ſay unleſſe they have ſuch a power they are no Parliament. The King hath often proteſted to maintaine the liberties and priviledges of Parliament: Now ſuppoſe a man be complained of to the Parliament for ſome notorious crime, it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to ſend a Serjeant at Armes for him, and if he refuſe to come, that Serjeant at Armes hath a power to call in more helpe; and if the Delinquent ſhall raiſe twenty or thirty, or a hundred men to reſcue himſelfe, then the Parliament hath power to ſend downe more meſſengers by force to bring up the Delinquent, and if they may raiſe a hundred; why may they not upon the like occaſion raiſe a thouſand, and ſo tenne thouſand? And if the King ſhall protect theſe Delinquents, that is but his ſudden will, the Doctor ſaith, his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his ſudden will; now this is the knowne Law of the Kingdome, and the conſtant practiſe of all Parliaments that they have a power to ſend for their Delinquents, and indeed elſe how can they be a Court of Juſtice, if they cannot force the accuſed to appeare before them? And therefore according to the Doctors owne principles the Kings deliberate will being in his Law, he himſelfe hath ſounded this Trumpet, though by his ſudden will (as he calls it) hee is pleaſed to ſound a retreat. For though the Doctor ſaith that the Parliament takes up Armes againſt the King, yet herein he doth but abuſe them, miſtake the queſtion deceive many.

The truth is, they doe but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earle of Eſſex ſend for thoſe Delinquents that have beene obnoxious to the State: and to deny them ſuch a power as this, is to deny them the very being of a Parliament: For by the ſame reaſon that they may ſend one Serjeant at Armes for one, they may ſend one thouſand for one thouſand.

Then the Doctor tells us, That it is a marvellous thing that among ſo many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Iſrael for Idolatry, cruelty, and oppreſſion, none ſhould call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of reſiſtance.

Anſ. I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marvelling: For what ca • be more plaine then that Text, 2 Kings 6. 32. But Eliſha ſate in his houſe an • the Elders ſate with him, and the King ſent a man from before him, &c. bu • when the meſſenger came to him, hee ſaid to the Elders, ſee how this ſon of a murderer hath ſent to take away my head, looke when the meſſenger commeth ſhut th • doore, and hold him faſt at the doore. The Dr. wonders if reſiſtance wer • lawfull, why no Prophet ſhould call upon the Elders of the people fo • this duty of reſiſtance, here is the Prophet Eliſha calling on the Elders to impriſon the Kings meſſenger.

Then laſtly, the Dr. ſaith that Scripture, Rom. 13. Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher powers; and ver. 2. Whoſoever reſiſts the power, reſiſts the Ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation, doth above all give us a cleare manifeſtation upon the point.

Anſ. Now therefore let us here joyne iſſue, and if this place which th • Dr. makes the very hinge which all his diſcourſe moves upon, be no • clearly and fully againſt him, then let the conſciences of men be ſatisfie • in all that he ſaies, but if it be againſt him, then let them reject all that h • affirmes.

He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to reſi • with a forcible reſiſtance the command of a King though he comman • what is unlawfull, becauſe (ſayes he) that this commandement was given un • the Chriſtians to be obedient unto Roman Emperours whoſe commands were meerly deſtructive to the Chriſtian Religion, and thoſe powers nothing but ſubverters of that which was good and juſt.

Anſ. That there is no ſuch thing commanded in this Scripture I pro • by theſe reaſons.

1. Becauſe the power that every ſoule is here commanded to be ſubject to, and not to reſiſt is that power which is not a terrour to go • works but to evil. The 3. verſe being made a reaſon of the 2. the 2. ver • ſaith, Whoſoever reſiſts the power reſiſts the ordinance of God, and they that reſ • ſhall receive to themſelves judgement; then the reaſon is given: for Rule • are not a terrour to good workes, but to evill, ver. 3. and therefore the ſubjection commanded, and reſiſtance forbidden, is not in things that are u • lawfull, and contrary to the Law of God. 2. The power that we a • commanded to be ſubject to, and not to reſiſt is the ordinance of God; a • the Miniſter thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good, ver. 4. • ſaies the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of the Ruler that we are to obey, he is the Miniſter of God to us for good: but when he commands a thing unlawfull, a • contrary to the law of God, he is not the Miniſter of God to us for go • therefore in this Scripture there is no ſuch thing commanded us to ſubject to, and not to reſiſt the ungodly command of Princes.

Ob. And if it be ſaid that though his commands are unlawfull, yet he may be a penall ordinance of God for our good.

I anſwer, that in this Scripture we are not commanded to ſubmit unto a penall ordinance, becauſe the ſubmiſſion injoyned here by the Apoſtle reaches to all times and places: and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penall ordinance.

3. Therein the Apoſtle commands us in this Scripture to be ſubject, and not to reſiſt, wherein the Magiſtrates are Gods Miniſters, but in unlawfull commands they are not properly and actively Gods Miniſters though God may make uſe of them: though in regard of their place they may be Gods Miniſter, yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not; when they command things that are evill and contrary to Law. Now ſo we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action Gods Miniſters.

Verſe 6. For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo for they are Gods Miniſters attending continually upon this very thing.

4. It appeares by all the firſt verſes of this 13. Chapter that the ſubjection and obedience here commanded by the Apoſtle is not paſſive obedience or ſubjection, but active; for the Apoſtle having ſaid, ver. 1. and 2. Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher power, and not reſiſt, he ſaith at the third verſe, Why wilt thou not then be affraid of the power, doe that which is good, and at the ſixth verſe, For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo. But if the King command any thing that is unlawfull and ſinfull (the Doctor ſaith) we are to be ſubject only paſſively: therefore the ſubjection commanded, and reſiſtance forbidden in the Scripture, not ſuch as relates the unlawfull command of Princes (as he affirmes when the Roman Emperour commanded things deſtructive to the Chriſtian Religion) accordingly Hierom upon the place, Oftendit Apoſtolus in his quae recta ſunt judicibus obediendum, non in illi quae religioni contraria ſunt. And beſides, the Doctor himſelfe confeſſeth, page 11. that this prohibition was not temporary, but perpetuall: therefore to reach unto thoſe times, when the Prince ſhould command that which was good, therefore the ſubjection here commanded was active ſubjection, and not meerly paſſive.

But the Doctor ſaith, he will free this place from all exceptions, and therefore he ſaith firſt, I may ſuppoſe the King ſupreme, as St. Peter calls him, or the higher power as St. Paul here, though it be by ſome now put to the queſtion.

Anſw. And is it but now put to the queſtion? What ſhall we ſay then of that ſpeech of Doctor Bilſon? By ſuperiour powers ordained of God, we underſtand not onely Princes, but all publicke States and Regiments, ſome where the people, ſomewhere the Nobles having the ſame intruſt to the ſword that Princes have in this Kingdome: and from this place Rom. 13. we are commanded to be obedient to thoſe that are in authority. Suppoſe we be in ſome country where there is no King, but States, doth not this Scripture command us ſubjection there alſo? How therefore by the higher Powers here is meant onely the King? The Doctor acknowledgeth that the Parliament is the higheſt Court of Juſtice in the Kingdome; and the higheſt Court of Juſtice muſt needs fall within the compaſſe of theſe words, the higher Powers; unto which, by vertue of this commandement of the Apoſtle, we are to be obedient. How then is this true which the Doctor ſaith, that by the higher Power is meant the King onely or ſupreme, in oppoſition to the Parliament.

But I prove it (ſaith he.) For S. Peters diſtinction comprehends all that are in authority, the King as ſupreme, and all that are ſent by him, 1 Pet. 2. 13. in which latter ranke are the two Houſes of Parliament, being ſent by him, or ſent for by him, and by his Writ ſitting there.

Anſ. Calvin (and other Interpreters) herein is contrary unto the Doctor,Nam qui pronomen (e • m) ad Regem refe • unt multum falluntur. Eſtigitur huc communi ratio •• commendandam omnium magiſtratu • authoritatē quod mancato Dei praeſunt & ab eo mit • unt • r: unde ſequitur (quemadmodum & Paulus do ••• ) Deo reſiſtere q • i ab eo ordi nata non ſe obedienter ſubmittunt. Calv. in 2 Pet. 1. 13. who ſaith thus; Thoſe that referre the pronoune (him) to the King, are much deceived: for this is that common reaſon, whereby the authority of all Magiſtrates is commanded; becauſe they doe rule by the commandement of God, and are ſent by him: (By him) being referred to God by other Interpreters, and to the King with the Doctor.

Then the Doctor ſaith ſecondly: In this Text of the Apoſtle it is ſaid, All perſons under the higher powers, are expreſly forbidden to reſiſt: for whoſoever in the ſecond verſe, muſt be as large as the every ſoule in the firſt.

Anſ. That which the Doctor aimes at in theſe words, is to make the whole Parliament ſubject unto the King. And who denyes them to bee the Kings ſubjects? and that as men, and Engliſhmen, they ſhould not be ſubject unto the King? But if he meanes, that as a Parliament, they ſhould be ſubject to enact and doe what ever he commandeth, then how is that true which he ſaith in the 25. 26. pag. That there is ſuch an excellent temper of the three States in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them: for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons, or theſe and the Lords without the King, might determine, &c. Or if he meane, that as a Parliament jointly conſidered, they are to ſubmit paſſively unto the unlawfull commands of the King, and that paſſive obedience is commanded only here in this 13. Ro. then this is ſo to ſtraiten the Text, as never any yet hath ſtraitned it: neither indeed can any conſcience thinke, that when the Apoſtle commands us to be ſubject unto the higher powers, his meaning is only by way of ſuffering in his unlawfull commands, and not by way of obedience in his lawfull commands.

Thirdly, the Doctor ſaith, That the Roman State might chalenge more by the fundamentals of that State, then our great Councell (he thinks) wil or can.

Anſ. But what then? Is it not therefore lawfull for the ſubjects now to reſiſt the higher power commanding things unlawfull, becauſe the Apoſtle commanded there that we ſhould not reſiſt the higher powers in things that are lawfull? Herein lyes the Doctors continued miſtake: He thinkes this command of the Apoſtle was given to the Chriſtians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawfull commands; whereas the Apoſtles command in this place, reaches to all times, and is made to all that are Chriſtians: Although they did live under Nero, yet it does not follow, that the Apoſtle commanded them to be ſubject to him in unlawfulls. If indeed Nero's commandements were onely unlawfull, and this direction of the Apoſtle was made onely to the Chriſtians in thoſe times, and that the ſubjection commanded were onely ſuffering ſubjection, then this Scripture might make much for his purpoſe. But though Nero was an enemy to the Chriſtians, yet ſome of his commandements were lawfull; and this direction of the Apoſtle was not made onely to the Chriſtians in thoſe times, but as a generall rule for all good men: and the obedience and ſubjection here commanded, was not onely to be paſſive, but active (which I have proved already, wherein I alſo appeale to the Doctors own conſcience, whether that this Scripture doth not command active obedience and ſubjection to the Prince) and therefore his interpretation thereof is exceeding wide, and his argument null.

Then the Doctor ſaith, If it be replyed, that that prohibition was temporary, and fit for thoſe times, as it is ſaid by ſome whom he anſwers.

Anſ. I anſwer, that the Doctor here makes his owne adverſary, and fights with him. Many other anſwers he refutes alſo, it being not in my purpoſe to make good every pamphlet, but to ſatisfie mens conſciences: onely I cannot but here take notice, that the Doctor profeſſes againſt arbitrary power, or ſuch as conquerours uſe, as he did Sect. 1. profeſſe, that he was much againſt arbitrary government. But I wiſh the Doctor would be pleaſed to conſider his own principles, as he delivers them in theſe papers: for he ſayes: that the Roman Emperours were abſolute Monarchs, and did indeed rule abſolutely and arbitrarily, and that they did make themſelves ſuch abſolute Monarchs by conqueſt. Then he ſayes, this Crowne of England is deſcended by three conqueſts. And therefore if one conqueſt is a reaſon for the arbitrary government of the Emperour, he cannot but thinke (though he conceale his minde) that his government alſo ought to be much more arbitrary.

What elſe remaines in this Section, I have either ſpoken to it already, or ſhall more aptly in the following Diſcourſe.

Sect. III.

THe Doctor ſaith, That for the proving this power of reſiſtance there is much ſpeech uſed about the Fundamentals of this power; which becauſe they lye low and unſeen by vulgar eyes, being not written laws, the people are made to beleeve that they are ſuch as they that have the power to put new laws upon them, ſay they are.

Anſ. Herein he turnes the Metaphor of Fundamentalls too far, as if becauſe the fundamentals of a houſe cannot be ſeen, therefore the fundamentall laws cannot be ſeen; which are not therefore called Fundamentall, becauſe they ly under ground, but becauſe they are the moſt eſſentiall upon which all the reſt are built, as fundamentall points of Religion are moſt ſeen, and yet fundamentall.

Secondly, he ſayes, theſe fundamentals are not written lawes. The Parliament ſay they are, and produce ſeverall written lawes for what they do. The Doctor, and thoſe that are of his ſenſe, ſay they are not: who ſhould the people be ruled by in this caſe, but by the Parliament, ſeeing the Doctor himſelfe ſaith, none are ſo fit to judge of the lawes as they?

Then the Doctor ſaith, Thoſe that plead for this power of reſiſtance, lay the firſt ground worke of their Fundamentals thus; The power is originally in and from the people; and if when by election they have intruſted a Prince with a power, he will not diſcharge his truſt, then it falls to the people: or, as in this kingdome, to the two Houſes of Parliament, the repreſentative body of this Kingdome, to ſee to it: they may re-aſſume the power. This is the bottome of their fundamentals, as they are now diſcovered to the people.

Anſ. We diſtinguiſh, as he doth, the power abſtractively conſidered from the qualifications of that power, and the deſignation of a perſon to that power. The power abſtractively conſidered, is from God, not from the people: but the qualifications of that power, according to the divers waies of executing in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation of the perſon that is to worke under this power, is of man: And therefore the power it ſelfe we never offer to take out of Gods hand, but leave it where we found it. But if the perſon intruſted with that power, ſhall not diſcharge his truſt, then indeed it falls to the people, or the repreſentative body of them to ſee to it; which they doe as an act of ſelfe-preſervation, not as an act of juriſdiction over their Prince. It is one thing for them to ſee to it, ſo as to preſerve themſelves for the preſent, and another thing ſo to re-aſſume the power, as to put the Prince from his office. As for example: Suppoſe there be a ſhip full of paſſengers at the ſea in the time of a ſtorme, which is in great danger to be caſt away through the negligence and fault of the Steerſ-man; the paſſengers may for their own preſent ſafety (that they may not be all caſt away) deſire the Steerſ-man to ſtand by, and cauſe another to ſtand at the Sterne for the preſent, though they doe not put the Steerſ-man out of his office. And this is our caſe: we doe not ſay that the Prince not diſcharging his truſt, the people and Parliament are ſo to re-aſſume the power, as if the Prince were to be put from his Office; which the (Doctor not diſtinguiſhing thus) would obtrude upon us, but only that the Prince being abuſed by thoſe that are about him, whereby the charge is neglected, the people, or repreſentative Body may ſo looke to it for the preſent, ſetting ſome at the ſterne till the ſtorme be over, leſt the whole ſuffer ſhip wracke. And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us, diſputing againſt us, as if we went about to depoſe our King, which we contend not for, nor from theſe principles can be collected.

Then the Doctor ſaith, That however the fundamentalls of this government are much talked of, this is according to th • n the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and governments; for they ſay power was every where from the people at firſt, and ſo this would ſerve no more for the power of reſiſtance in England, then in France or Turkey.

Anſ. If it be the fundamentall in all Kingdomes, and Governments, then it ſeemes it does not lye ſo low, and unſeen (as the Doctor ſaid before) becauſe all the world ſees it.

Secondly, whereas he ſaith, this will ſerve no more for power of reſiſtance in England, then in France or Turkey: he ſeemes to inſinuate that France and Turkey have no ſuch power of reſiſtance: but who doth not know that the Proteſtants in France are of this judgement with us and practiſe? witneſſe that buſineſſe of Rochell.

Then the Doctor ſaith, we will cleare up theſe two particulars, whether the power be ſo originally, & chiefly from the people as they would have it; Then whether they may upon juſt cauſes re-aſſume that power: and ſaith, firſt of the originall of power which they would have to be ſo from the people, as that it ſhall bee from God only by a permiſſive approbation.

Anſ. If the Doctor takes Power for Magiſtracie it ſelf, and ſufficiencie of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abſtractively conſidered, as diſtinguiſhed from the qualification of that power, according to the divers waies of executing it in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation thereof unto ſome perſon, then I do not beleeve there is any man in the Parliament (whom the Doctor eſpecially diſputes againſt) or of thoſe who write for them, that hold that the power is from the people, and by permiſſion and approbation onely of God; neither can they: for in that they contend ſo much for the Parliament, it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abſtract is from God himſelfe: and for the deſignation of a perſon, or qualification of the power according to ſeverall forms of government; the Dr. himſelf grants it in this Section to be the invention of man, and by Gods permiſſive approbation.

Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments, That power as diſtinguiſhed from the qualification thereof, and deſignation, is of divine inſtitution.

Anſ. Wherein he might have ſaved his labour in thoſe three arguments, for none doth deny it: yet we will examine what he ſaith in the arguments: 1. he ſaith, that the Apoſtle ſpeakes expreſly, that the powers are of God, Rom. 13. 1. and the ordinance of God, verſ. 2. by which power he underſtands the power it ſelfe of Magiſtracy as diſtinguiſhed from the qualifications thereof, or deſignation of any perſon thereto.

1. And if ſo, how is that true which he ſaith before, Section 2. where he ſaith, that the higher power in Paul, Rom 13. is all one with the King as ſupreme, 1 Pet. 2. 12. whereas he confeſſeth that the government of a King or Prince is the qualification of the power? ſo doth the Apoſtle himſelfe, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an humane conſtitution.

2. If by power here, Rom. 13. be underſtood Magiſtracie, and authority it ſelfe in the abſtract, then when we are commanded to ſubmit thereunto, the meaning cannot be that the Chriſtians in thoſe times, muſt ſubmit to the unlawfull commands of the Emperour, (as the Doctor would have it before) ſeeing the way of governing by an Emperour or Prince, is but the qualification of the power; ſurely if by power we are now to underſtand Magiſtracie and Authority it ſelfe in the abſtract, then all that is commanded in the 13. Rom. to ſubmit thereunto, is to acknowledge a Magiſtracie, & then all the Doctors arguments, and his ſtrength whereby he would prove that we may not make forcible reſiſtance to unlawfull commands from Rom. 13. falls to the ground.

Then the Doctor tells us in the ſame argument, this power is called an ordinance of man ſubjective, wherein he la • es this diſtinction, That power is conſidered two waies, either as it is ſubjective amongſt men, and ſo it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or elſe as it is conſidered cauſaliter, and ſo it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of God.

Anſ. But this is too ſtrait, for it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not only becauſe it is amongſt men, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an humane conſtitution in foure reſpects, 1. becauſe it is ſo cauſaliter, the forme of ſeverall governments being an invention of man. 2. Subjective, becauſe it is amongſt men. 3. Objective, becauſe it is buſied about men. 4. Finaliter, becauſe it is ordained for man, and the Common-weale, yet power it ſelfe is the conſtitution and ordinance of God.

Then the Doctor proves, That the power is of God, becauſe the Magiſtrate is called the Miniſter of God, Rom. 13. verſ. 4.

Anſ. But here he ſlips from the power it ſelfe, to the perſon deſigned to the power: for the power it ſelfe is not called the Miniſter of God, which was the thing he undertooke for to prove.

And ſo in this third argument where he ſaith to the ſame purpoſe, ſpeak thoſe other places, By me Kings reigne, I have ſaid ye are Gods, yet he confeſſeth, that the formes of government by Kings and Emperours, is an invention of man in the firſt argument.

But now ſuppoſe the Doctor had proved that the power abſtractively conſidered, is of Gods inſtitution, and had granted that the qualifications of this governing power in ſeverall formes of government, and the deſignation of the perſon thereto be of man, what hath he gotten from, or gain'd upon his imagin'd adverſary? For ſuppoſe that his adverſary ſhould ſay that they may depoſe their Prince, if he neglect his truſt (which is not our caſe) becauſe that his power is originally from them, how doth that which the Dr. hath ſaid, weaken this argument? For though he hath proved that the power of it ſelfe is from God, yet having granted that the formes of that government, and the deſignation of a perſon thereto, is from the people, they may as well urge and ſay therefore we may alter the government, and may depoſe the perſon becauſe he was of our deſigning, as well as they might have argued ſo, if the power it ſelf had been from themſelves.

Then the Doctor ſaith; The imputation is cauſleſſe which the pleaders on the other ſide doe heedleſſely and ignorantly lay upon us Divines, as if we cried up Monarchy, and that only government to be Jure Divino.

Anſ. To let paſſe reproaches, how can we thinke otherwiſe, if wee ſhould beleeve all that the Doctor ſaith? For he proves that the power mentioned, Rom. 13. is Jure Divino, and yet he ſaith, Sect. 2. That the • igher power there, is all one with the Supreme, or King in Peter: but this with • he nature of Monarchicall government, we ſhall come to conſider more • ptly in that which followes.

The remaining part of this Section is but to prove that the power it • elfe is of God, that the qualification and deſignation was firſtly of man, which we all grant.

Sect. IV.

NOw we come to the forfeiture (ſaith the Doctor) of this power, if the Prince, ſay they, will not diſcharge his truſt, then it falls to the people or the two Houſes (the repreſentative body of the people) to ſee to it, and to reaſſume that power, and thereby to reſiſt. This they conceive to follow upon the derivation of power from the people by vertue of election, and upon the ſtipulation or covenant of the Prince with the people, as alſo to be neceſſary in regard of th • ſe meanes of ſafety which every ſtate ſhould have within it ſelfe. Wee will examin • them in order.

Anſ. Herein he doth charge us with this opinion, that wee hold it lawfull for the people to reaſſume their power, in caſe the Prince diſchargeth not his truſt, making the world beleeve that we contend for depoſing of Kings; or that the Parliament goes about ſuch a worke as that is▪ for what elſe is it for the people or Parliament to re-aſſume their power from the Prince? whereas we deſire all the world ſhould know, that we now take up armes as an act of ſelfe-preſervation, not endeavouring o • intending to thruſt the King from his Office, though for the preſent the State ſets ſome under the King at the Ster • e, till the waters be calmed, as we ſaid before.

Then the Doctor ſaith, concerning the derivation of power, we anſwer, firſt▪ if it be not from the people, as they will have it, and as before it was cleared, the • can there be no re-aſſuming of this power by the people.

Anſ. How doth this follow? for all that the Doctor had cleared before, was this; that power abſtractively conſidered was from God, no • from the people; now let us ſee whether the clearing of that will brin • in ſuch a conſequence as this, that there can bee no re-aſſuming of this power by the people: if it will enforce ſuch a conſequence, then the ſyllogiſme is this; • f power and magiſtracy and authority it ſelfe be of God and the forms of government and deſignation of perſons be of man, the • there can be no re-aſſuming of this power by the people. But the powe • itſelfe and magiſtracy is of God, the formes of government and deſignation of perſons is of man (ſaith the Doctor Sect. 3.) Therefore there ca • be no re-aſſuming this power by the people, ſaith the Doctor, Sect. 4.

Anſ. Will not his imagined adverſaries eaſily deny the ſequell? indee • if he had proved that neither the power nor the qualification, nor the d • ſignation were of man but of God, and cleared that firſt, then hee had t • ken that argument from his adverſaries: but ſeeing he hath granted th • the wayes of government and deſignation of perſons to bee of m • (though he hath proved the power it ſelfe of God) ſure he hath no w •• ſtopped the courſe of their arguments, or practice againſt whom he d •• putes.

The •• he comes to ſhew the inconſequence, and ſaith. If the people ſhould gi •• the power •• abſolutely •• they would have it, leaving nothing to God in it but approbation, yet could they not therefore have right to take that power away, for many things which are altogether in our diſpoſing before we part • ith the • are not afterward i • our power to recall them.

Anſ. He ſuppoſeth we goe to take the power away from the Prince, (which we doe not, as hath beene ſaid.)

2. There is a difference between diſpoſing of things by way of donation or ſale, and diſpoſing things by way of truſt: true; thoſe things which we diſpoſe of by way of donation or ſale are not afterward in our power to recall, as they were before the donation or ſale; as if a man give his childe land, or ſell land to his neighbour, it is not in the power of the father or neighbour to recall or diſpoſe of the land, as before the donation or ſale: But if a thing be diſpoſed of by way of truſt, then if the fiduciary or truſted ſhall not diſcharge his truſt, it is in the power (at leaſt of the truſting) to looke to the matter himſelfe; as in caſe that a Steward bee • uſted with a mans houſe; and thus when any government is ſet up in a land by a people, they truſt the governour, they doe not give away their liberties or rights, but truſt them in the hand of the governour, who if abuſed that he doe not performe his Stewardly truſt as he ſhould, the people or repreſentative body as an act of ſelfe preſervation (I doe not ſay, as an act of juriſdiction) are to looketo it. Neither herein doe they ſo reaſſume their power as to take away any thing which they gave to the King, but ſo as to actuate that power which they alwaies had left in themſelves, (as the power of ſelfe-preſervation.)

Then the Dr. ſaith, Although it were as they would have it, that they give the power, and God approves, yet becauſe the Lords hand alſo and his oyle is upon the perſon elected to the Crowne, and then he is the Lords Anointed, and the Miniſter of God, thoſe hands of the people which were uſed in lifting him up to the Crown, may not againe be lifted up againſt him, either to take the Crowne from his head, or the ſword out of his hand.

Anſ. • f this be true, then Princes that are meerly elective and not hereditary, and whoſe comming to the Crowne is meerly pactionall, cannot be depoſed by the people, for they are the Lords Anointed, and the Miniſters of God; but this is contrary to the Doctor himſelfe, who in this ſame Section ſaith thus, Although ſuch arguments (ſpeaking of the forfeiture of the Princes power in the next line before) may ſeeme to have ſome force in States meerly elective, and pactionall, yet can it never be made to appeare by any indifferent underſtanding, that the like muſt obtaine in this Kingdome. And to this purpoſe ſaith the Dr. Phil. Paraeus ex • uſeth what his father had written on Romans 13. in the point of reſiſtance: that it was to be underſtood of elective and pactionall government, and when the government is elective and pactionall, are not the Princes the Miniſters, and the Lords Anointed?

Then the Doctor ſaith, How ſhall the Conſcience be ſati • fied that this their argument grounded upon election, and the derivation of power from the people; can have place in this Kingdome, when as the Crowne not onely deſcends by inheritance, but alſo hath ſo often been ſetled by conqueſt, in the lines of Saxons, Danes and Normans.

Anſw. Firſt, how can the Conſcience be • atisfied in that which the Dr. writes in this his booke, where he acknowledgeth in this Section that it is probable indeed that Kings at the firſt were by choiſe here as elſe where? And in Section 5. ſaith, that the forms of ſeverall governments (whereof Princedome is one) are from the invention of man, and ſo by derivation from man.

2. The Drs. great deſign I perceive by his frequent touching this matter is to make our King a King by conqueſt; for in Sect. 3. He ſaith Gods Vice-gerents here on earth came into their Office either by immediate deſignation, the election of the people, ſucceſſion and inheritance, or by conqueſt; now he cannot ſay that our King came in by immediate deſignation, & he doth not ſay that our Princes lay claim to the Crown by vertue of their election, & if by inheritance, then by the right of an election or by conqueſt; for by meere inheritance a man hath no more, then what thoſe firſt had whom he doth ſucceed; Inheritance being but the continuation of the firſt right upon the children, the right of election he doth diſclaim, and of derivation of power from the people, therefore the right that he makes our Prince to have to the Crowne is onely the right of a Conqueſt; then if any mans ſword be longer or ſtronger then his, hee may quickly have as much right to the Crowne as the King; which opinion of the Drs. for my owne part I muſt abhor from, what danger will it not expoſe our dread Soveraign to? Did not Athaliah reigne as a Conquereſſe ſix yeares? And who knowes not that ſhe was lawfully thruſt from the Throne againe by a ſtronger hand then her owne? Meere conqueſt being nothing elſe but an unjuſt uſurpation: and if the Conquerour rule the whole Kingdome, and keepe them under by conqueſt only, why may not the ſubject riſe and take up armes to deiiver themſelves from that ſlavery? Thus doth the Doctor open the door to greater reſiſtance then thoſe that he diſputes againſt.

3. Though a Prince ſhould hold his right by conqueſt as the next right, yet if he hold it alſo by derivation from the people as the remote right, and the laſt be the more naturall and juſt way, then arguments grounded on that remote right may be more valid, then thoſe that are grounded on the next right, but thus it is with our Prince who although he doth ſucceed the conquerour, yet doth alſo take in the voluntary and free conſent of the Common-weale unto his Crowne, which a meer conquerour doth not, but rules without the conſent and againſt the good liking of the people.

Then the Dr. ſaith, We tell them the Roman Emperors were not to be reſiſted; they reply that they were abſolute Monarchs, was it any other way then by force and arms, the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themſelves maſters of this people. Anſ. Now in theſe words we ſee the Drs. mind plainly that he contends for an arbitrary government; for he ſaith page 11. that the Emperours did rule abſolutely and arbitrarily, and here he ſaith how came they of Subjects to be abſolute Monarchs, was it any other waies then by force and arms the way that the Saxons, Danes and Normans made themſelves maſters of this people, in whoſe right and lines he ſaith before, the Crowne deſcended upon our King. What can be more plaine then this for an arbitrary government? It ſeems the Dr. was conſcious to himſelfe that herein he had diſcovered himſelfe, and therefore he ſaies this, I ſpeake not as if the Kings of this land might rule as Conquerours, but that will not heale it.

Then the Doctor comes to the matter of capitulation or covenant, or oath which the Prince taketh to confirm what he promiſed, which, ſaith he, are ſo alledged as if the breach or non-performance of the Princes part were, a forfeiture of his power. But we anſwer, ſaith he, the words capitulation or covenant are now much uſed, to make men believe the Kings admittance to the Crowne is altogether conditionall: whereas our King is King before he comes to the Coronation.

Anſ. Herein the Doctor miſtakes us: for though we aknowledge a covenant, yet we cannot be ſo weake as to thinke that any breach of the covenant is a forfeiture of the Kings power, for then the beſt man could not be King long; but we firſt affirme a Covenant, for though the Kings of Iſrael were Monarchs, and immediately deſigned by God himſelfe to their office, and ſo one would thinke there ſhould be no need of their comming to the Crowne by a covenant, yet to ſhew the neceſſity of this oath and covenant when they came to their Crowns, they alſo took an oath, and entred into covenant with the people to protect their rights and perſons, 1 Chro. 11. 3. 2. We ſay that this mutuall covenant betwixt the King and the people, binds the King to the people, as well as the people to the King, and that therefore it is as well unlawfull for a King by force to oppreſſe his ſubjects, and to take up armes againſt them, as for the ſubjects to take up armes againſt him.

Thirdly, that hence it followes that the Kings power is limited.

4. From this covenant and capitulation we ſay, thereby it appeare • that the people doe commit a truſt to the King: which,

5. If he doth neglect, as he doth not alwaies forfeit his power, ſo neither are they to forfeit their right of looking to themſelves for the preſent And therefore all that the Doctor ſaies, that we urge the covenant a •• capitulation ſo much as if our King were a conditionall King, and that which he brings to prove that he is a King before Coronation is needleſly urged againſt us: for we ſay and ſpeake plainly, that though the righ • that our King hath to the Crowne is firſtly by derivation of power from the people, yet he hath his right by inheritance, and is not ſuch an elective King as is choſen for a time, and his life if he rule well: and ſo his right to end in himſelfe, but to continue upon his poſterity: for the people doe derive their power two waies, either ſo as to chuſe a ma • into office for his life onely in caſe he rule well, and ſo our Kings Predeceſſors were not brought to the Crowne; or ſo as to commit the truſ • of the State unto him, to deſcend upon his poſterity, which when his poſterity comes to, hath both a right of election and inheritance; it being the right of inheritance as it is left by their fore-fathers, and the right o • election in regard of its principle from whence it flowed: and thus w • doe eſtate our King in his Throne, hereby eſtabliſhing him more ſur • therein, and then the oppoſite opinion of conqueſt doth.

Then the Doctor tells us, That though the King doe breake his covenant or not make performance thereof, yet a forfeiture of his power doth not follow from thence: for ſaith hee, could they in this covenant ſhew us ſuch an agreement between the King and his people, that in caſe he will not diſcharge his truſt, thus it ſhall be lawfull for the States of the Kingdome by armes to reſiſt, and provide for the ſafety thereof it were ſomething.

To which I anſwer, we doe not preſſe the forfeiture of the Kings power upon non-performance of covenant, but we ſay this; that the end o • his truſt being to looke to the Kingdome, though there be no ſuch word expreſſed in the covenant or agreement betwixt the King and his people that in caſe he ſhall not diſcharge his truſt, then it ſhall bee lawfull fo • the State of the Kingdome by armes to reſiſt, and to looke to their own • ſafety: their ſafety being the end of this truſt, & ratio legis being lex in reaſon that muſt be implied, there is a covenant ſtricken betweene man & a woman at Marriage; when they marry one another it is not ve • bally expreſſed in their agreement, that if one commit adultery, th • party ſhall be divorced; and yet we know that that covenant of marri • g • carries the force of ſuch condition. What followed in this Section i • either • repetition of what was before, or what in ſubſtance we have anſwered already.

Onely at the laſt the Doctor moveth this queſtion: What then if the Prince take to himſelfe more power, or not performe what hee is bound to? and anſwers, then may the ſubjects uſe all faire meanes as are fit to uſe, cryes to God, petitions to the Prince, deniall of obedience to his lawfull commands, deniall of Subſidies, &c. but are left without all meanes to compell by force or reſiſtance.

Anſ. The ſubjects are conſidered two wayes:

Socially Severally

Severally as private men, and ſo it hath beene taken for granted, that in • aſe of oppreſſion the ſubjects have uſed no armes but teares and prayers. Before this Parliament, how many oppreſſions were there upon the people, both in their eſtates and in Gods worſhip, by thoſe who had un • uly gotten authority from the King; and yet wee ſaw no forcible reſiſtance made, but every man quietly ſubjecting himſelfe under that ſuffering condition.

Socially and joyntly, and ſo there is other remedy for the ſubjects then onely prayers and teares, and that the ſubjects are conſidered in this poſture wherein now we are, profeſſing that wee take not up armes as we are private men barely, but as ſubjects united and joyned in the repreſentative body of the Kingdome, which never yet was counted unlawfull by any Divines, as I have ſhewed before.

Sect. V.

THe Doctor comes unto that which he calls our laſt reaſon, the ſafety of the Kingdome, where he ſaith firſt, that we have many weapons ſharp •• d for this reſiſtance at the Philiſtims forge, our arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schooles, as he ſaith.

Anſ. But there is much difference betweene us and the Papiſts in this particular; for, 1. The Papiſts contend for the lawfulneſſe of depoſing Kings, which we doe not. 2. The Papiſts plead for a power to depoſe a Prince in caſe that he turn Heretick, which we doe not; for we hold that though a Prince may leave and change his religion, the ſubjects are not thereby excuſed from their allegiance. 3 The Papiſts doe not onely hold •• lawfull to depoſe and thus to depoſe their Prince, but to kill him alſo: 〈◊〉 , that a private man inveſted with the Popes authority may doe thus: all which we abhor from: why therefore ſhould the Doctor charge us thus, and make the world beleeve that we favour the Popiſh doctrine in this particular? But as the Parliaments Army is ſcandalized by the adverſaries, ſaying, there are many Papiſts in their army to helpe on their deſignes; ſo is our doctrine ſcandalized by our adverſaries, ſaying that we make uſe of Popiſh arguments to ſtrengthen our opinion; but the truth of this we leave to all the world to judge of.

But to prove this, the Doctor ſaith further, that by this reaſon the Pope aſſumes a power of curbing or depoſing Kings; for that if there be not a power in the Church, in caſe the civill Magiſtrate will not diſcharge his truſt, the Church hath not meanes for the maintenance of the Catholick faith, and its owne ſafety.

Anſ. But what likeneſſe is there between that of the Papiſts, and this of ours? The Papiſts ſaying, the Church hath a power of preſerving its own ſafety, and therefore the Pope may depoſe: we ſay the Kingdome hath a power to preſerve it ſelfe, and therefore if the King neglect the truſt, the State for the preſent is to look unto it: And as for the matter of the Church, we turne the Doctors argument upon himſelfe thus;

If the Church cannot be preſerved where the Officer is an hereticke, unleſſe the Church have a power to reject him after once or twice admonition, then cannot a Kingdome have a power to preſerve it ſelfe, when the officer is unfaithfull; unleſſe the Kingdome have a power either to depoſe him, or to looke to their own matters till things be better ſetled: But the Church hath excommunication granted to it by Chriſt himſelfe for its owne preſervation; neither can we conceive how a Church can preſerve it ſelfe from evils and errors, unleſſe it have a power to caſt out the wicked officers; as in the body naturall it cannot preſerve it ſelfe, unleſſe nature had given it a power to deliver it ſelfe from its own burdens, therefore the Commonweale alſo by the like reaſon cannot have a power to preſerve it ſelfe, unleſſe it have a power to deliver it ſelfe from its burden; but in caſe that an Officer be unfaithfull, we doe not ſay that it i • lawfull for the Kingdome to depoſe him, therefore it may be lawfull for themſelves ſocially conſidered Statewiſe, in time of danger to help themſelves. Neither herein as the Doctor would, doe we appropinquate to the Romiſh doctrine, for the Papiſts from this power of the Church doe infer a power unto the Pope, and not unto the Church or community.

Secondly, the Doctor askes us this queſtion by way of his ſecond anſwer, If every State hath ſuch meanes to provide for its ſafety, what meanes o • ſafety had the Chriſtian Religion under the Roman Emperors, in or after the Apoſtles times, or the people then inſlaved, what meanes had they for their liberty had they this of reſiſtance? Tertullian in his Apology, ſayes thus, the Chriſtians had number and force ſufficient to withſtand, but they had no warrant.

Anſ. 1. The queſtion is wrong ſtated, it ſhould have been made thus, If any State hath ſuch meanes to provide for its ſafety; what meanes of ſafety had the Roman State under the Roman Emperours, when as he doth ſay, what meanes of ſafety had the Chriſtian Religion under the Roman Emperours? Chriſtian Religion, and the State are two different things.

Secondly, in the primitive times the Chriſtians indeed had none of this power of reſiſtance, nor warrant for it (as Tertullian ſpeaks) becauſe the Roman State was not with them: but ſuppoſe that the Roman Senate or Parliament had ſtood up for them, and with them, the repreſentative body of the whole Empire (and this is our caſe, not as the Doctor • ayes it) then would not the Chriſtians have made reſiſtance for their owne defence? No queſtion but they would, and would have knowne that they had warrant therein; who may not ſee that hath but halfe an eye, the vaſt difference betweene the condition of the Chriſtians in the primitive times, and ours? they not having the State to joyne with them, they not being the repreſentative body of the Empire, as it is now with us; yet this objection maketh a great outcry, and there is ſome threed of it runnes through the Doctors booke, but how eaſily it may be cut, let the world judge; there being no more likeneſſe betweene our condition & the condition of the primitive Chriſtians, then between the condition of private men whom the whole State doth move againſt, and the condition of people whom the State is with.

The Doctor replyes; that though the Senate of Rome were againſt the Chriſtians of thoſe times; yet if the people have the firſt right, and all power bee from the people, that people muſt riſe up and reſiſt, becauſe the Senate did not diſ • harge the truſt▪ and ſo it will be in this State, if at any time a King that would • ule arbitrarily, ſhould by ſome meanes or other, worke out of the two Houſes • he better affected, and by conſent of the major part of them that remaine, com • aſſe his deſires, the people may tell them they diſcharged not their truſt, they • hoſe them not to betray them, or inſlave them; and ſo might lay hold on this power of reſiſtance for the repreſentative body claimes it by them.

Anſ. Concerning the Senate of Rome, and the people of the Romane Empire, we ſay that though the Emperor and the Senate had been for the • eſtructiō of the Chriſtians, yet if the whole body of the Empire had joint • y riſen for the Chriſtians, I make no queſtion but that many of thoſe that • ied, would ſo far have reſiſted that they would have ſaved their owne • ves; but the Emperours and Senate being againſt them, and the body of the Empire jointly conſidered, not riſing for them▪ it is true indeed, they had no warrant to make reſiſtanc • ▪ but to ſuffer as they did. This i • none of our caſe.

Secondly, whereas the Doctor ſaith, both here and afterward in this Section; that if upon our grounds the King will not diſcharge his tru •• that therefore it falls to the repreſentative body of the people to ſee to i • then the people having this power may alſo ſay, if the Members of the tw •• Houſes doe not diſcharge their truſt committed to them, they doe not that which they were choſen and ſent for, and then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them, take the power to themſelves.

Firſt, I anſwer, that there is not the ſame reaſon why the people ſhould be ſo ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their truſt, being they are very many choſen out of the whole Kingdome for their faithfulneſſe, approved every way for their goodneſſe and wiſedome; whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown, and ſo by vertue of his inheritance may rule, though he be knowne to be vitious; as alſo becauſe it is received by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes, and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is; as alſo becauſe the people doe actually elect and truſt the Parliament men with the preſent affaires of the Kingdome. Now though the Prince indeed be truſted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers, whereunto the people doe now conſent, yet there is not that actuall election or deſignation of him unto the preſent affairs of the Kingdom, as there is of the Parliament men choſen for theſe particular buſineſſes; as for example, ſuppoſe that a people doe chuſe their Miniſter, truſting him with all the great affaires of their ſoules, and there doth riſe a controverſie betweene neighbours, wherein they chuſe an arbitrator to umpire the buſineſſes, though theſe two Pariſhioners • hat have fallen out, have formerly truſted their Miniſter with all the affaires of conſcience, yet they doe not ſo readily ſtand to his verdict, by reaſon of the generall truſt, as to the verdict of thoſe arbitrators whom they have now actually choſen for this buſineſſe; neither can they in law o • reaſon ſo eaſily revoke or renounce the ſentence of Arbitrator, who • they have choſen to this buſineſſe, as the ſentence of their Miniſter wh •• they have truſted in the generall: ſo in this caſe of ours, though the Kin • be entruſted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of th • Kingdome, yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and deſigne • by the people for the preſent affairs of the Kingdome; and therefore th • people take themſelves bound to ſtand to their arbitrement: neither c •• they thinke, that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and ſentence, as they are for the deniall of their Princes commandement.

Secondly, I ſay, there is not the ſame reaſon that the people ſhould recall their power from the Parliament, in caſe the Parliament ſhould be unfaithfull, as there is they ſhould ſee to things in caſe the Prince be miſ-led: I ſay there is not the ſame reaſon, (though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people) becauſe that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince, is not made the ſole reaſon by thoſe that the Dr. diſputes againſt for this their reſiſtance: but the authority that they are clothed with, whereas if a people upon ſurmiſes that the Parliament doe not performe their truſt, ſhould call in their truſt and their power, then they ſhould have left themſelves naked of all authority, and ſhould be private men; but now that they looke to themſelves in this time of danger, and in that ſenſe doe re-aſſume their power which they have derived to their Prince, they are ſtill led on by authority.

Thirdly, the Doctor anſwers, that we cannot expect any abſolute means of ſafety and ſecurity in a State.

Anſ. Neither doe we expect it, though this be granted which we deſire, or that granted which he contends for.

Then he ſaith, that there is an excellent temper of the three Eſtates in Parliament, there being a power of denying in each of them, and no power of enacting in one or two of them, without the third: for what might follow, if the King and Lords without the Commons, or thoſe and the Lords without the King might determine, the evills of theſe dayes doe ſhew: ſo is this power of denying, for the ſecurity of each State againſt other.

Anſ. This both the Doctor and I muſt leave to the judgement of thoſe that know the Lawes and the Liberties, and the Priviledges of all three Eſtates.

Further, he ſaith, that now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three▪ Eſtates, is reſtrained uſually to the two Houſes, but alſo that temper is diſſolved.

Anſ. Firſt, it was alwayes ſo, that the Parliament was made diſtinct from the King, in ordinary ſpeech ſaying, The King and his Parliament: when the Parliament is mentioned alone, it may include the King; but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together, the ſpeech can intend no more then the two Houſes. As when the body is mentioned alone, it includes the head and the members; but when the head and the body are mentioned together, then the body doth not include the head.

Secondly, that the Doctor ſaith, this truſt of the three States is di • ſolved, I conceive it is a ſcandalous charge, and ſo I leave that t • others.

Then the Doctor ſaith, If it be replyed, as it is, for the reaſonableneſſ • of this meanes of ſafety through that power of reſiſtance, and that many ſ •• more then one, and more ſafety in the judgement of many then of one, I anſwe • (ſaith the Doctor) true: but 1. Conſcience might here demand for its ſatiſfaction, why ſhould one hundred in the Houſe of Commons ſee more then thr •• hundred, or twenty in the Lords Houſe more then ſixty that are of differen • judgement, and withdrawne?

Anſ. I anſwer, if there be three hundred of the Houſe of Common withdrawne, and but an hundred left; and ſixty of the Lords Houſ • withdrawne unto twenty, if indeed there be ſo many gone away, wh • did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote, and th • controverſie had beene now at an end? Then could it never have bee • ſaid to the people, that the Parliament are againſt the King, the • might the three States have all joyned together, and there had been n • further queſtion.

Secondly, the Doctor anſwers, that the Prince, though one, ſees wi •• the eyes of many, for which his Houſes of Parliament are his great Counſell to preſent to his eyes the differences of things, with the reaſons of them.

Anſ. This needs no other anſwer then that which followes in th • Doctors owne words, where he ſaith, that the King ſometime diſſen • from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament, ſo that he ma • ſee with their eyes, and ſee other things then they doe, and be of different judgement from them. And if he may ſee with other mens ey • that are of different judgement from him, becauſe they doe preſent t • his eyes the difference of things, with the reaſons of them, then m • the Houſes of Parliament alſo ſee more then he does, becauſe the di • ference of things, with the reaſons of them, are preſented to them al •• ▪

Then the Doctor deſcends to prove, that Monarchicall government is t • beſt, and that God made choice to ſet up that ſtill, firſt in Moſes, then in t •• Judges, then in the Kings.

Anſ. But how come we to this diſcourſe, to compare Monarc • and Ariſtocracy? and to ſay that Monarchy is better government th • Ariſtocracy? Doth it follow from the word True, which the Dr. ha • ſaid to that propoſition, many ſee more then one, and more ſafety 〈◊〉 the judgement of many then of one. But ſeeing he is pleaſed to ſay, • he government which God made choice of to ſet up among his people, was Monarchicall ſtill, firſt in Moſes, then in the Judges, then in the Kings, let us now diligently obſerve, that Monarchicall government which God made choice of. If Moſes, the Judges, and Kings, were are all Monarchs, and Monarchy the beſt government, Then

1. The beſt government is ſuch, where the people have the free choice of their Governour: for ſo they had in the time of the Judges, Chap. 11. 5. And it was ſo, when the children of Ammon ma • e war againſt Iſrael, the Elders of Iſrael went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob, and • hey ſaid unto Jephtha, Come and be our Captaine, that we may fight with the children of Ammon. And Jephtha ſaid unto the Elders of Gilead, If •• bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon, and the Lord • eliver them before me, ſhall I be your head? And the Elders of Gilead ſaid into Jephtha, The Lord be witneſſe betwixt us, if we doe not ſo according • o thy word. Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead, and the people • ad • him Head and Captaine over them, v. 11. Thus wee ſee that that government which the Doctor cals the beſt, and ſet up by God, is ſuch, when the people have the choice of their King, and the derivation of • is power is from them; as I have proved at large in the Preface, to • ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Iſrael.

Secondly, then the beſt government is that, where the King and • eople ſtrike a covenant at his Coronation: which covenant the King is bound to obſerve, neither doth his covenanting with the peo • le, make him no Monarch: for David was a Monarch, yet David • ade a covenant with the Elders of Iſrael, and ſo they anointed him King • ver Iſrael, 1 Chron. 11. 3.

Thirdly, then the beſt government is ſuch alſo, where the Prince • oth adviſe with his people and Elders, doing no great matter in State •• Religion without their conſent, and with their conſent doing. So David, 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David conſulted with the Captaines of thou • ands, and hundreds, and every Leader; and David ſaid unto all the Con •• egation of Iſrael, If it ſeeme good unto you▪ let us bring againe the Arke •• the Lord our God unto us: and all the Congregation ſaid, that they would •• ſo: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation. So that •• e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome, is • o way repugnant, but conſiſtent with Monarchicall government or •• e government appointed by God himſelfe.

Fourthly, then alſo is the beſt government appointed by God, ſuch •• doth carry along with i • a lawfulneſſe for the ſubjects to take up armes, and make forcible reſiſtance for their own ſecurity, and ſafety of the Common weale againſt their Monarchs, when cauſe requireth: for did not the people ſometime in Iſrael take up armes againſt ſome of the Judges? And did not David though yet a ſubject to Saul) take up armes, and make forcible reſiſtance? It is ſaid expreſly, 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19. Then David received them, and made them Captaines of the Band, and there fell ſome of Manaſſes to David, when he came with the Philiſtines againſt Saul to battell. The Doctor ſaid before in his Treatiſe, that David tooke up armes onely in his owne defence. But doe theſe words note no more? Only I preſſe them thus far, as may ſhew a lawfulnes for the people to take up armes in a way of forcible reſiſtance againſt the Kings commandement, when the danger is eminent: which we finde agreeable to the beſt government ſet up by God himſelfe, as the Doctor acknowledgeth.

In the fourth place the Doctor anſwers, that ſuch power of reſiſtance will be no meanes of ſafety to a State, but rather a remedy worſe then the diſeaſe; which he proveth from Rom. 13. (which I have anſwered already) and from ſome reaſons, as 1. This power of reſiſtance, if admitted and preſerved, may proceed to a change of government.

Anſ. To which I anſwer, that if ſeverall formes of government be of humane conſtitu • ion (as the Doctor ſpeaks) why ſhould we think that they are utterly unalterable, as the laws of the Medes & Perſians.

But ſecondly, this principle of ours cannot boyle up to that height: for we only ſay, that when the Prince ſhall neglect his truſt, the people are to ſee to it, and ſilenc'd not for depoſing.

2. He ſaith, This power of reſiſtance is accompanied with the evils of • civill war.

Anſ. No, but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre, becauſ • ſome people are miſ-led from their own natures, to take up armes againſt their own Country: Civill war is from the cauſe thereof, now the Parliament calls for armes only to defend the Country: theſ • make the civill war that are againſt the Countries defence.

Thirdly, he ſaith, There is danger in this power of reſiſtance: for the if the people be diſcontented, and have gotten power, they may ſay, the Members of the two Houſes doe not diſcharge their truſt, and ſo by this rule, tak • up the power to themſelves, and ſo all rapine and confuſion brought into th • Kingdome.

Anſ. There can bee no ſuch inference made from this principle o • ours: for the people do all acknowledge, that we are to bee governed by Lawes, and that (as the Doctor ſaith) the Parliament is th • Judge what is Law: the people doe acknowledge, according to truth, that the Parliament hath the declarative power, or the ſupreme power of declaring the Law, the King doth not profeſſe this, but rather the contrary, that he is no Lawyer, nor skilled in the Lawes. The Parliament doe profeſſe it, and the people acknowledge them to be ſo; and therefore there is not the ſame reaſon, that they ſhould take their power to themſelves, in caſe that the Parliament ſhould neglect their truſt: for why ſhould the people take that power unto themſelves, ſhould it be according to Law? The Parliament will then tell them, that they have done that which is according to law, wherein they confeſſe, that the two Houſes have the power of declaring. But now if the Prince ſhall neglect his truſt, and the people take a power to looke to themſelves in times of danger, by way of forcible reſiſtance, the Prince cannot ſay, when the Parliament is againſt him, the ſupreme power of declaring law, doth agree my courſe to be lawfull: ſo that you ſee there is not the ſame reaſon of both.

And whereas the Doctor ſaith, That upon the like reaſon, if the Parliament ſhall neglect their truſt, the people may call in their power. How can the people thinke that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land, when the Parliament are the Judges thereof, and the people confeſſe ſo: and therefore the Doctor may be out of feare for this matter.

Laſtly, the Doctor ſaith, That ſeeing ſome muſt be truſted in every Eſtate, it is reaſon that the higheſt and finall truſt ſhould be in the higher and ſupreme power, and that he ſhould have the beſt ſecurity, which is worth ten thouſand of his ſubjects.

Anſ. I anſwer, therefore the people do truſt the King and his Parliament, who are the higheſt power and Court in the Kingdome: and if the greateſt and beſt ſecurity ſhould be about the King, becauſe he is worth 10000. ſubjects, then ſurely the Kingdome it ſelfe ſhould have the beſt ſecurity, becauſe the King is ordained for his Kingdom.

In Fine, the Doctor preſſes the oath of Supremacie, Allegeance, and the laſt Proteſtation upon the conſcience, and wiſhes men here to conſider their power of reſiſtance, and taking up of armes is contrary thereto; in which he ſaith, We ſweare and proteſt to defend the Kings perſon.

Anſ. And thus we do by taking up of Arms: for what man is there that conſiders things rightly, may not eaſily perceive, that if the Popiſh party ſhould prevaile (which are either about the King, or of his Armies,) I ſay, who may not eaſily thinke, if they ſhould prevail, that either our King muſt be a ranke Papiſt, of a dead man? Who knows not, that if the Papiſts get the upper hand, though now they cry out for Supremacy, Supremacy, that either they wil force the King to another Supremacie, or elſe quickly make a hand of him? Is it not their opinion? What better ſervice therefore can a true ſubject performe to his Majeſties perſon, then by force of Armes to deliver him out of the hands of thoſe ſpoylers that lye in waite for his pretious ſoule? In the oath of Supremacie we ſweare him our Soveraigne to be Supreme in oppoſition to the Pope, or any other particular perſon. How does our doctrine or practiſe infringe this? In the oath of Allegeance we ſwear to be his liege Subjects according to Law, and that which we doe is ſo: And in our Proteſtation we proteſt to maintaine the Kings Perſon, the Parliaments priviledges, the Subjects rights, and our Religion: if we doe not take up arms in this time of Popiſh inſurrection, how can we with good conſcience ſay, that either we defend the Kings Perſon from the violence of Papiſts, which (according to their owne Doctrine) we know ſhall be made upon our King, or the priviledges of Parliament, whoſe power is to ſend for delinquents, and thoſe that are accuſed before them, even by force to bring them into their triall; or the liberty of ſubjects, who have this given by nature to defend themſelves, or the truth of our religion, which notwithſtanding all flouriſhes, we have ſeen ſuch invaſions made upon, and now in our conſcience under more hazard; becauſe thoſe that are oppoſite unto it, doe profeſſe to defend it: whereupon I preſume that every good man that maketh conſcience of his waies (conſidering theſe things) will not be backward to advance this publicke deſigne. And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others, charging men from this reſiſtance upon paine or damnation; yet a ſetled conſcience will be no more ſcared with the Doctors damnation, then with the Cavalliers God damne us.

Sect. VI.

NOw the Doctor comes to the application of all in theſe two faſt Sections, in which I intend not to trace him into all that he ſaies. The application of all being left unto what men ſee and know experimentally; yet ſomething I muſt ſay unto theſe Sections. In this ſixth he tells us that we doe not walke up unto our own • principles, which are as (he ſaith) that our reſiſtance muſt be omnibus ordin but regni conſentientibus: that is (as he tranſlates it) agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous conſent of the whole States.

Anſ. But is this a good and true tranſlation of the words? The Doctor may know that when the matter comes to a ſcrutiny in the Regent houſe the matter is to paſſe with the conſent of the Regents, non-Regents, and heads of the Univerſity; and though all doe not manimouſly as one Man conſent, yet it may be omnibus ordinibus conſentientibus.

But he ſaith, How ſhall conſcience be perſwaded that this reſiſtance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free conſent of the States; for ſaith he, he that knowes how the Militia (in which this reſiſtance chiefly began) was brought in, with what oppoſition eſpecially in the Lords Houſe, and by what number that at length was voted; alſo how the like proceedings was voted ſince, how that a vote paſſed by a few upon the place, though it have the power and condition of a vote, for the formality of law was not paſſed in full aſſemblies, cannot be perſwaded in conſcience that this is ſuch an unanimous, free & generall conſent as makes the judgement of the whole Kingdom.

Anſ. To the which I anſwer, that by the like reaſoning, there is no act of Parliament or Law, ſhall be of any force; and he may as well queſtion any law that is made; for when was there ever any law made, which all did unanimouſly as one man conſent to? By the conſtant law of the Kingdome though there be not ſo many in either Houſe which have been preſent at theſe late affairs of the Kingdome, it is to be acknowledged for an act of Parliament, and ſo the judgement of the whole Kingdom.

Then ſecondly, he tells us, That we doe not walk up to our ſecond principle, viz. that our reſiſtance muſt be meerly defenſive, for, ſaith he, thoſe that are firſt in armes cannot be upon the defenſive part, page 22. and then page 21. ſaith he, who were firſt in armes? He that can number the ſucceſſion of months and weeks in his Almanacke, may decide this, he ſhal find that armed men were thruſt into Hull, the Militia ſet up, &c.

Anſ. To which I anſwer, If thoſe that are firſt in armes cannot be on the defenſive part, then ſurely Davids act was not meere defence, as the Doctor ſaith before: for we finde in Scripture, that David, and his men were gotten into armes before that Saul followed him: ſurely the Doctors Almanack hath not all the months in it, for he begins his account only at the buſineſſe at Hull, wheras before that, the King came in hoſtile manner unto the Parliament, gathered forces about Windſor, but this muſt be left unto mens eies, and experienced knowledge, it being matter of fact.

Then the Dr. (I know not how) comes to enquire into the cauſe of theſe armes, wherein after ſome flouriſhes, he ſaith, Would an • man have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes, if Rehoboam had promiſed to conſerve their liberties? Saying further, what ſhall we then generally thinke of this revolt from allegeance, which hath poſſeſſed well neare tenn • Tribes of the twelve, and yet in page 21. he tells us of a vote paſſed by • few upon the place, that this worke of reſiſtance is not carried on with a generall and unanimous conſent, and yet here he ſaith, ten tribes of twelv • are for it.

In examining the cauſes of this war and reſiſtance, the Dr. ſaith▪ To ſpeake truth, Religion and liberties can be no other then the pretences of this war, the King having fortified them with ſo many acts of his grace paſſed this Parliament, that they cannot be in that danger that is pretende • for the raiſing of this war: It muſt be ſomething that his Majeſty indeed doth deny, for which the contention is raiſed; which we ſhall finde to be his power of armes, his power of denying in Parliament the government of the Church, and the revenue of it, which he is bound by oath to maintaine, as by law they are eſtabliſhed.

Anſ. This is a very bold aſſertion and ſcandalous to charge a Parliament in the face of the world with hypocriſie: but how doth this agree to the Drs. owne principles, who doth declaime againſt me • for their uncharitableneſſe, in not beleeving the Kings Proteſtations? Is this then no uncharitableneſſe in him, charging the Houſes with pretending one thing, and intending another? Is not conſcience a • well bound to be charitable, and to beleeve the Proteſtations of th • Parliament, as thoſe papers that come out in the name of the King? and hath the Parliament and Houſes carried themſelves ſo unworthily and baſely, that under pretence of Religion, we ſhould think • they gape after the revenues of the Church? O where is this man • charity? And if the King be bound by oath (as the Dr. ſaith) to maintaine the government of the Church as by Law eſtabliſhed, yet h • is no more bound by vertue of that oath to maintaine that government then any other Law of the Kingdom; and as for other Laws, i • the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale them, they may, ye • without breach of the Kings oath: ſo in this alſo.

Then the Doctor comes in the 25. page to open himſelfe ſome what more freely concerning the government of the Church b • Biſhops: where he ſaith, That it is ſuch a government which t •• Church alwaies had ſince the firſt receiving of the Chriſtian faith in th • land, and of all other governments ſimply the beſt, the aboliſhing wher • of, the King hath reaſon by power of Armes to divert.

To which I anſwer, Firſt, that if the Doctor looke into the ſtory of Queen Maries time, he ſhall finde, that ſuffering Proteſtant Churches, (which by reaſon of perſecution, were faine to lye hid in London) were governed by Elders and Deacons: That is ſimply the beſt government of the Church which is chalked and ruled out by the Scripture, as the Doctor will confeſſe: and if this government bee ſo, I wonder that thoſe that are ſo much for it, ſhould bee of that judgement, that there is no particular forme of Church-government laid downe in the word: which judgement they muſt needs bee of, unleſſe they will hold, that the government of other Churches is ſinfull, and contrary unto the word, which they are loth for to doe. And truly if this government be ſimply the beſt, the beſt hath the worſt ſucceſſe: for there is no government in all the Churches of Chriſtendome, that hath had ſo many Sects and Schiſmes, or occaſioned ſo much ſeparation from the Churches of Chriſt, as this hath done. There are many Sects and diviſions in the low Countries, but none of them departing from the Proteſtant Church there, by reaſon of the Church-government or diſcipline, but by reaſon of doctrine.

Let any man but ſeriouſly conſider the Proteſtant Churches in Switzerland, France, Holland, Germany, Scotland, and hee ſhall eaſily obſerve, that there is no ſuch ſeparation or diviſion made from the Churches by reaſon of the Church-government ſtabliſhed in them, as hath been here in England, by reaſon of this Dioceſan government. And if any man ſhall ſay, this bad ſucceſſe here is rather to bee imputed to the wickedneſſe of the Governours, then the corruption of government: Why ſhould hee thinke that the Governours in England are more wicked then in other Proteſtant Churches, if the government itſelfe did not give ſcope to their wickedneſſe? And if the government of Dioceſan Biſhops, bee of all governments the beſt, wee wonder that Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſhould not appoint it: ſurely they appointed ſome government in the Church; and what they appointed was • ure Divino, and ſo beſt; whereas this was never counted Iure Divino till of late. But if this government bee ſimply the beſt, it will abide triall in its due time and place: but that it ſhould be ſo good, as that the aboliſhing thereof, the King hath reaſon by power of Armes to divert, this is ſtrange. Now the Doctor ſhewes himſelfe, that hee had rather the Kingdome ſhould be embrewed in a bloody warre, then Epiſcopacie ſhould be put downe; and that will ſtirre up the King to an unnaturall civill warre for the upholding of that order: Judge yee, O all Engliſhmen, whether it be better for you to have this order taken away, then for the whole Kingdome to lie imbrewed in their owne gore?

In the concluſion of this Section the Doctor complaines, That the Kings Speare and Cruſe, and neceſſary Ammunition, and proviſions, are taken away, not reſtored though often demanded, contrary, ſaith hee, to the example of David, who having taken the Speare and the Cruſe from Saul his King, reſtored them againe before they were demanded, 1 Sam. 26.

Anſ. But though Sauls Speare was reſtored before it was demanded, yet not before Saul had humbled himſelfe to David, ſaying, I have ſinned; returne, my ſonne David, for I will no more doe thee harme; becauſe my ſoule was pretious in thine eyes this day: Behold, I have played the foole, and have erred exceedingly, verſ. 21. Whereupon David aroſe, and ſaid, verſ. 22. Behold the Kings Speare, let one of the young men come over and fetch it. Neither is mention here made of reſtoring the Cruſe. Some other things the Doctor hath in this Section, wherein hee doth rather charge then prove, but mens knowledge may ſufficiently anſwer to thoſe things.

SECT. VII.

IN this laſt Section the Doctor tells us, That though Conſcience could be perſwaded that it is lawfull to make a defenſive reſiſtance, yet it can never be perſwaded that the King is ſuch as the people muſt bee made to believe he is: for indeed it concernes all ſuch as will reſiſt upon the principles now taught, to render their Prince odious to his people, under the hatefull notions of Tyrant, ſubverter of Religion and Lawes, a perſon not to be truſted, or at leaſt as one ſeduced to ſuch evill deſignes, by wicked counſels, that hee will bring in Popery, that hee will not ſtand to his promiſes.

Anſ. Theſe are ſad charges, but how groundleſſe God and the world knowes; who may not ſee how tender the Parliament hath been of the Kings honour? Therefore they have not beene willing to beleeve that thoſe Declarations that came out in his name, are his owne: Therefore they charge all that is done on his counſellors, not on himſelfe; herein being fully like unto David, who though Saul came out againſt him, yet did he not impute that unnaturall warre unto Saul himſelfe, ſo much as unto thoſe that were about him, ſaying unto Saul, If the Lord hath ſtirred thee up againſt me, let him accept an offering; but if they be the children of men, curſed be they before the Lord: for they have driven mee out▪ this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, 1 Sam. 26. 19. Therefore alſo when the Parliament hath written any thing that might in the leaſt meaſure reflect upon his Majeſty, I have obſerved that they never did write ſo, but to vindicate and to cleare themſelves from ſome aſperſions firſt caſt upon them; and when they did write ſo, like Shem and Japhet, they took a garment and went backward; deſiring rather to cover then to behold any nakedneſſe in our dread Soveraigne: And woe be unto them from the Lord, (but I will not curſe them with the curſe of Cham) who put his Majeſty upon ſuch actions, whereby any nakedneſſe ſhould bee diſcovered.

Then the Doctor comes to the examination of thoſe fears and jealouſies which have poſſeſſed the people, which hee ſaith are raiſed on theſe grounds, report of forraine powers to be brought in, the Queens religion, the reſort of Papiſts to his Majeſty, his intercepting of meanes ſent for the reliefe of Ireland: To which he anſwers, firſt, That the report of forraine invaſions given out to keepe the people in a muſe, the eaſier to draw them into a poſture of defence are diſcovered in time to have been vain: But ſaith he, If there be now any foraigne aid comming towards the King (as all Chriſtian Kings cannot but thinke themſelves concerned in this cauſe) it will be juſt for him to uſe them againſt ſubjects now in armes.

Anſw. To which I anſwer, That it doth not appeare that our fears were vaine, becauſe forraigne invaſion hath been prevented; for we may rather thinke that therefore we have not been invaded by forraigners, becauſe the Parliament hath beene vigilant both by ſea and land to prevent them. But who doth not ſee that ſo far as lies in the Doctor, he doth invite forraigne forces into the land, and ſo ſtir up other Princes for to ſend them, and our King for to uſe them? Whether this be agreeable to an Engliſh Divine, or an Engliſh Subject, I leave to be judged.

Then he ſaith, The Queens religion is no new cauſe.

Anſw. To this I ſay nothing but leave it (being matter of fact) to the judgement of eyes that have ſeene actions, whether there be no more cauſe of jealouſie now then at her firſt entrance.

And thirdly, for the reſort of Papiſts, and the Kings entertaining them, the Doctor ſtrengthens the intruſt of it with that example of David, we may ſee ſaith he, what manner of men were gathered to David in his diſtreſſe, and how Ziba was rewarded.

Anſw. To which I ſay this only, how can the Doctor make it appeare, that thoſe that were gathered to David were men of another Religion from David, and of ſuch a Religion that by the State was counted rebellion, who alſo by the State was to bee diſarmed? Which if the Doctor does not make good, this inſtance is nothing to our caſe.

And 4: for the matter of Ireland, I leave that wholy to the Parliaments Declarations, who without doubt know the proceedings of thoſe better then this Doctor, and what conſcience enlightened will not rather reſt for ſatisfaction upon Parliamentary Declarations, then upon this Doctors aſſertion in this matter.

The other things in this Section are moſtly matter of fact, and therefore I muſt referre them to mens ſenſe, onely I cannot but obſerve how in all things the Doctor cleares the King, and caſts dirt upon the Parliament, but ſtill with this cunning; when he hath laid the greateſt aſpertion upon them, he retracts in theſe words: I ſpeake not this to caſt any blemiſh upon the wiſdom of the great Councell, like as before, when he had ſaid what he could, (or happily dar'd) for the Kings ruling by conqueſt, he comes oft with this kinde of ſpeech, This I ſpeak not as if the Kings of the land might rule as Conquerours; and this is an ordinary ſleight when men have preached againſt purity and holineſſe with as much bitterneſſe as they can, then they thinke to come off in this or the like manner, God forbid that I ſhould ſpeak againſt purity and holineſſe: But let him in Gods name, cleare the King in what he may, (as wee are all bound to doe as farre as we can) but can he not cleare his Majeſty without ſuch foule aſpertions caſt on the Parliament? of whom he ſaith thus page 30. Men are higly concerned to conſider whether they alſo that are the maine directors of this reſiſtance doe diſcharge this truſt they are called to, whether to diveſt the King of the power of Armes, and to uſe them, be to defend his Perſon, Right and Dignity? Whether the forcing of the Subjects property to the advancing of this reſiſtance, and the impriſoning of their perſons for deniall, be the maintaining of the right and priviledge of the ſubjects? Whether the ſuffering of ſo many Sects to vent their Doctrines, and to commit ſuch unſufferable outrages upon the worſhip of God with ſuch licentiouſneſſe, be a defending of Religion, and the eſtabliſhed worſhip of this Church?

Anſw. Theſe are foule charges upon the Parliament: How can the Doctor ſay, I enter not this diſcourſe to caſt the leaſt blemiſh upon the Parliament? Well, bleſſed is the man that condemneth not himſelfe in that thing which he alloweth: The Doctor confeſſeth, That man to bee ſubject to higher powers and that we are to ſubmit to them, he confeſſeth alſo, That the Parliament is the higheſt Court in the Kingdome, and it ought to judge what is the Law; they having therefore judged this reſiſtance to be lawful, if the Doctor ſhall reſiſt this their declarative power, ſaying it is not law, and caſt ſuch dirt and reproaches upon them, doth he not condemne himſelf in the thing which he alloweth?

But in this laſt clauſe of his booke, he ſummons conſcience to anſwer upon paine of damnation, and I make no queſtion, but when men ſhall have ſeriouſly conſidered his booke, the verdict that conſcience will bring in, will this be:

As in the ſight of God, I have peruſed this Treatiſe of his, and I finde it injurious to the King, to the Parliament, to the Divines of this Kingdom, to the other Subjects, & to the Treatiſer himſelf.

To the King, for hereby he is put on, and exaſperated againſt his Parliament and Subjects, further engaged in this war, and encouraged to take the aſſiſtance of Papiſts, who if he conquer by their meanes, what Proteſtant good ſubject doth not bleed to thinke what will become of him?

To the Parliament, being charged with the blood that is ſpilt in theſe warres, with the miſeries of Ireland, with the Schiſmes and Sects of this Kingdome, with open hypocriſie, pretending one thing, and intending another.

To Divines, all whom he makes to be of his judgement.

To the Subjects, denying to them the liberty given them by God, and Nature, and the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, and calling in forraigners upon them.

To the Treatiſer himſelfe, who hath needleſſely imbarked himſelfe in a bad cauſe.

And laſtly, to the Scripture and God, and his great Officer on Earth, Conſcience; the Scripture being wreſted, God diſhonoured, and the conſcience deceived.

Now the Lord grant that whilſt we ſpeake of Conſcience, we may in all things make conſcience of our waies, for multi conſcientiam habuit adjudicium, non ad remedium. As concerning the King, Give the King thy judgements, O God, and thy righteouſneſſe unto the Kings Son: And as concerning the two Houſes of Parliament, Let the mountaines bring grace unto the people, and the little hills thy righteouſneſſe. Let the King and Queen, and people praiſe thee, O God, yea let all our England praiſe thee.