doe all they doe that so they may prevent and restraine the designed tyranny Fiftly Yet I have one thing more to alleadge supposing the power of calling and dissolving wholly in the King ordinarily yet there may be such power in them so long as they doe sit to command Armes to bee rais'd for the suppressing of any Delinquents maintaining themselves with Armes even under the colour of the Kings Authority which I thus make good If there be any such kind of Power in the very Judges in their Courts at Westminster for the whole Kingdome and in their severall Circuits for the Shires they sit in although themselves are made Judges at the Kings will meerly and put out ordinarily at his pleasure and they can neither keepe Assizes at any time nor keep any Terme any where but when and so long as the King pleases to give Commission if I say there be such a power in the Judges and even in one of them then much more in the whole Parliament which is unquestionably and undoubtedly the highest Judicature in the Kingdome and hath most power during their sitting Now that such a kinde of power is in the Judges I appeale to experience in the case following A private man hath a suite with the King about Land or House and the like The King hath possession and some Officer or Tenant of his holds it for the King The Judges having heard the Cause give Sentence for the Subject adjudge him to have the possession delivered him by the Kings Tenant or Officer he refuses and armes himselfe to keep possession still Upon this after due summons and processe of law a Writ of Rebelliâ—n shall goe out against the Officer of the Kings even though he should pretend to keepe possession still by a command and warrant from the King and the Sheriffe shall be commanded to raise Armes even the whole posse Comitatus if need be to expell this Officer of the Kings and bring him to condigne punishment from resisting the Kings auâ—hority in his Lawes Here now is raising Armes by the Kings legall Authority against the Kings Title and the Kings Officer notwithstanding any pretended authority from the Kings personall command and that Officer haâ—h a Writ of Rebellion sent against him and shall bee punisht by Law for offering to resist the Law upon any pretence Aâ—ke the Lawyers whether in sense â—his be not the Law and ordinarily practised save that the King doth not command the contrary but whether that would hinder Law or not The Parliament then may in the case of necessity raise Armes against the Kings personall Command for the generall safety and keeping possession which is more necessary then the hope of regaining of the Houses Lands Goods Liberties Lives Religion and all And this by the Kings legall Authority and the resisters of this are the Rebells in the Lawes account and not the Instruments so imployed Legally though with Armes by the Parliament If the Doctor now or any for him will retort upon me as he thinks what I said before that if this be granted a King intending Tyranny will not call a Parliament or if he have called it he will straight dissolve it as soone as they attempt any thing against his mind REPL. I reply he will doe so indeed if hee can perswade the people by the Doctors Divinity or Law to endure him and his followers to take away their Goods and doe what else he list and they for want of a Parliament called or sitting dare not defend themselves at all But if hee find that they believe no such Doctrine but without dispute of Law or Consciences resolve rustically not to be robbed of their goods at pleasure or used like meere slaves but that they will defend themselves and somwhat they begin to doe and beat away or kill some that come to take their goods away in such illâ—gall manner he may then be glad to call a Parliament to quiet the People who perhaps also may begin to mutiny by troopes and be willing to sacrifice perhaps some of his Followers unto them as â—mpâ—oâ— and Dudley were in the beginning of H. the 8. though they proceeded with colour of the penall Lawes and even to provide for his owne Maintenance as 〈◊〉 â— In such a case some against his will cal'd a Parliament Anno of his Reigne And that it may be he will not he dares not hearken to those that would perswade him to dissolve it because then hee should bring all confusion besides want upon himselfe againe which was Hen. the Thirds Case Anno. Therefore I conclude that the Parliament as I said before may have this power and upon advantage of the Kings necessities and Peoples not enduring oppression be able to exercise it even though they meet not but at the Kings will and are dissoluble at his pleasure And so I have said enough of this Section except onely that I must note that in the close of it he either thinks those he hath to doe with Parliament and all grosse fooles or else he shewes himselfe extreamly simple in reckoning up the remedies of Tyrranny though he love not to use so harsh a word but we must when hee hath stated the Case for us of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties The denying of subsidies and ayd c. If hee meane in Parliament such a Prince never meanes to call any If out of Parliament this is the grievance that he takes it against Law by Ship-moneys and Monopolies and Imposts and any way and if they deny it themselves are fetcht up by the Pursevants and put in prison and for not executing such illegall commands Fined at pleasure halfe or all their Estates and perhaps starved in prison or little better Kept so close that they fall sicke and dye Nay if the Prince proceed to command his Souldiers or Officers to kill without delay any â—hat shall deny Subsidie or Ayd though never so illegall Hath not then the Doctor propounded a goodly remedy of Tyranny to deny him Subsidy and Ayd As if to quench a house a fire hee should send for a paire of Bellowes to blow a coole breath Let him now consider whether hee uttered those words in scorne or in policie and with what science or skill in common Reason not to say in Politicks and so with how truely an informed conscience he deales justly between the King and the People We have yet some further strength of his reason to examine in the next Section Of which now SECT V. IN this Section hee propounds this Reason as alleadged for the peoples Power that else the State should not have meanes for its owne safety when c. REPLY This Reason we acknowledge ours and considering what a State is a Body composed of many thousands who by themselves or their Ancecestors set up a King over them for their safety and good this Reason is as much Reason as any thing can be betweene Man
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least in some cases But the second Question What is ment by higher Powers will cleare in what cases either of these is required By the higher powers then is meant all civill legall Authority which in St. Peters phrase is of the King as Supreame or governour for these are higher then the people though lower then the King but it is to be observed that the word is in the abstract powers which notes the authority wherwith the person in authority is legally invested and not the person in the concrete least that might be understood of his personall commands without or beyond or even against his Authority Which conceit the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using the word Power which he doth also all the while he treats of this matter except only that once he names Rulers v. 3. 2. It is to be observed that the things about which the authority and so the subjection in this place is conversant are civill matters belonging to the second Table between man and man Not that I deny Magistrates to have Authority to command things belonging to the first Table and that subjection is due to them in such commands concerning Religion so that it be according to the will of God But I say that this is to be fetcht from other Texts rather then this My reason is because the Roman Magistrates of whom properly the Apostle speakes were so farre now from commanding things for Religion that they commanded things against Religion and the first Table and therfore certainly the active subjection at least here required is limited to civill matters 3. And now that so much as I have said is required active Obedience to legall civill Authority to all Magistrates in their legall commands in civill matters or at least passive yeelding to the penalty of the Laws in case of not obeying actively and neither further then to legall commands of legall Authority appeares by the Apostles reason in this 1. verse For there is no power but of God which he redoubles in a second phrase The powers that be are ordained of God or under God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every soule must be under their order which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they all are ordered by God under him his deputies and vicegerents in their order and degree higher and highest This is true of all powers and therefore to all must subjection be performed And to none hath God ordered or ordained any Authority but legall Which as none will deny no not the Doctor himselfe of other Governours besides the supreme So can none with reason affirme that any hath more authority then the Laws whether speciall or generall written or unwritten have allotted them Which Lawes God ratifies being not against his and so the Authority according to them And this our Doctor also confesses in sence in mâ—re places then one of his Booke for active Obedience that no more is due but according to the Lawes of God and the establisht laws of the Land Only he argues for passive obedience beyond this every where 1. Because he argues against resistance even of Tyranny But in a word to refute this from the Apostles reason in the first verse If I be bound to be subject to tyranny or to suffer violence of a tyrant by vertue of the commandement here Then tyranny is the Ordinance of God or Magistrates have power ordained of God to use tyrannous violence for thus the Apostle argues for subjection from Gods ordaining the power But this is false Ergo so is that that I should be bound to suffer tyrannous violence And now if this be the true and whole meaning of the precept in the first verse It will not be hard to cleare the meaning of the prohibition and threatning in the second verse which runnes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever therefore resists or carries himselfe disorderly against the power or opposes the power resists or sets himselfe against the Ordinance or order appointed of God and they that resist or so set themselves against man and God both shall receive to themselves Damnation Now here we are to resolve two Questions 1. What resistance is 2. Who or what may not be resisted 1. Resistance is contrary to subjection as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this also the word Therfore notes For it shews that the sin of Resistance is a transgression of the duty of subjection It is then two-fold either in not obeying commands or in not suffering penalties He that is wilfully and obstinately disobedient to some commands is by the Apostles scope and by the consent of all interpretours that handle it fully a Resister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he never offer to take up Armes but yeelds to suffer any penalty A man that refuses to answer at the Law he shall be outlawed he that refuses to yeeld possession shall have a Writ of Rebellion out against him he that refuses to put himselfe upon a legall tryall at his arraignement shall be pressed to death as a most obstinate resister of authority and so in many other cases Or secondly Resisting is in not suffering penalties resisting by force and even by Armes This is one kind of resisting and the worst kind against a lawfull power but what it is our second Question is to determine which againe breakes it selfe into two What is the power that may not be resisted and who In both the former verse may and must guide us as the word power repeated and the conjunction therefore and the mention of Gods Ordinance the third time assures us 1. Then what is the power that may not be resisted The legall authority of the Magistrate or the Magistrate legally commanding according to his authority For as the subjection reaches to this and no further So the sinfull resistance extends to this and is by it limited because Gods Ordinance hath confirmed all this and no more Only upon the change of the phrâ—se and not saying he that is not subject but he that resists the Spirit of God seemes to favour in some cases a simple not obeying and will not charge that with resisting Gods Ordinance Namely in such Laws as being of an inferiour nature may be generally good to be made and kept Yet to some persons in some cases so extremely inconvenient as the penalty according to man is much rather to be châ—sen then the practise of that Law in that case Now in such a case as our Divines generally use to say that obedience may be forborne to many civill Laws Extra casum scâ—ndali the Holy Ghost seemes to favour I say the not obeying and only charges guilt upon a not submitting to the penalty which is undeniable resisting But I say againe that by all the foregoing context and the reason from Gods Ordinance in the second verse The prohibition of blaming of resistance go's no further then of legall commands of legall authority The Doctor
will not doth not say that the most peremptory or obstinate refusing to obey actively tyrannous and illegall commands is resistance By what authority then of the Text or context will he stretch the prohibition to refusing to suffer tyrannous violence Or how does any resist unlawfully though by Armes when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave authority to use to him nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto In a word till Gods Ordinance can be prov'd allowing tyranny which can never be or undeniably ordaining a man to suffer it which is no where in his word I meane the extremity of tyranny depriving of life or so though often it is so in his providence when he affords no meanes of resistance This Text of the Apostle will no way condemne the resisting by Armes tyrannous and illegall outragious violences Besides all that the context following refuses this sence of the Doctor as I have already shewed But let me not forget my second Question or branch about resistance Who may not be resisted The Text saith The power any Magistrate acting with lawfull authority legally The Dr. would restraine it to the supreame because he thinks it was hard to assert all Governours irresistable though tyrannous But I say interpreting resistance â—right as before and so the Governour or Magistrate may be no more resisted then a Monarch And the King is resisted in resisting the meanest Officer Even high Treason may be committed in taking up Armes with some circumstances against a Magistrate who is not Supreme The Laws cannot be obeyed but by obeying other Governours in the Kings absence who cannot be every where and so obstinate disobedience which is resistance may be when only a petty Officer or Magistrate is present but commands according to Law Contrarily in the Doctors interpretation resistance is not forbidden neither with reference to the lesser Magistrate nor to the Supreame as hath beene shewed And if it were forbidden to resist with Armes a tyrannous King of necessity as hath been shewed this would extend to forbid resistance of any that he imployes â—n his tyranny Or else all the dispate about it would soone be at an end as was also noted But if the Doctor say that he includes under the Supreame all that Aâ—t his Will and only denies that subordinate Magistrates are within the security of this prohibition of resistance by Armes if they be tyrannous without any command from the Supreame I would have him shew me a ground of this distinction upon a Text of Scripture which speaking before of all powers names the power indefinitely a ground I say out of Scripture which himselfe requires in the beginning of his second Section or religious reason or else what conscience ought to regard what he saith If both Governours and Supreme be to be acknowledged Gods Ordinance and both to be subjected to for that cause as S. Paul here for the Lords sake as S. Peter Ephes 2.12 then either both may be resisted by Arms if tyrannous or neither Let him now take his choice and say what he will If he saith only the Inferiour may be then he looses this Text which matches them both equally If he say neither may be Then besides all that hath been said on the Text and context I only adde this That then every meanest Officer if wicked may ruine the whole neighbourhood because he may not be resisted by Armes who yet will bring Armes to act his villanies And so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turne to the greatest curse to Mankind the best and most conscientious of them that can be imagined in regard of outward sufferings and generall confusion It remaines therefore that as the Apostle in the following verses banishes tyranny out of the context describing every where a righteous Magistrate and not a tyrant So tyranny is to be banisht out of the interpretation of this Text which allowes him that is a tyrant no security that he shall be endured and not resisted even with Armes Though it doth and that most justly and necessarily secure a just ruling Prince or Magistrate from all resistance even when he punishes most severely according to Law and justice upon the heaviest guilt of being found resisters against God that resist such a rule and the heaviest penalty of damnation SECT II. Having clearely stated the Question I proceed with the Doctor to his second Section To examine how he maintaines his Negative That a Magistrate may in no case be resisted or as he expresseth himselfe That Conscience cannot find cleare ground to rest upon for making resistance HIs principall place of strength whereon he trusts is Rom. 13.2 Whosoever resists shall receive to themselves damnation To which he doth every where referre Though which I wonder at in a Scholler of his acutenesse without ever offering to Analyse the Verse or those before and after which would have afforded strength and clearenesse to his cause if there be any to be found for it there Therefore my first worke must be to doe that namely to expound Analytically but as briefly as may be so much of the Chapter as concernes subjection to Magistrates and then Conscience shall judge whether he hath urged it rightly to the Apostles scope The scope of the Apostle I make bold to say is properly and meerely in this place to urge Christians to be obedient to the Civill Lawes of the Roman Empire and so of other States between man and man and to the Magistrates that had authority and ruled according to those Lawes of what degree soever their authority was To this end 1. He delivers the precept generally in the former part of the 1. Verse in which are three things 1. The duty Subjection which is either Active obedience or Passive submission in case of not obeying 2. The Subject Every soule All Christians of what Ranke Sex Age Condition c. 3. The Object in the Abstract which notes the Legall authority the higher powers in the plurall number which our Doctor is pleased to take no notice at all of but only and every where reads it the higher power as if it only pointed to the Roman Emperour and so now to our King 2. He produces a reason for the precept from Gods authorizing Magistrates and their Lawes and this is delivered in a double expression 1. By way of Negation that any Magistrate can be Named which is not of Gods authorizing There is no power but of God which undeniably confirmes my exposition of the Plurall number powers to note all sorts and degrees of Magistrates as doth also that he repeates it 2. By way of Affirmation the powers that be are ordained of God or under God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. notes which as it speakes of all sorts of Powers so it adds both a further Amplification and urging Reason and a tacite limitation of the subjection The Reason is they are Gods vicegerents and Deputies by him ordered to
governe under him and therefore to be submitted unto by vertue of his Soveraigne authority who is absolutely and undeniably the highest power and Lord over all The Limitation is that it must be only in those things wherein those powers oppose not him under whom they are and from whom they have their authority and it is certaine he gives them none to oppose him Ver. 2. Thirdly He urges the precept by an Applicatory inference from the Reason premised denoting the sinne of denying subjection Whosoever therefore resists the power resists the Ordinance of God Wherein note the Apostle hath altered his first word and instead of a Negative which one might have expected puts now in an Affirmitive Not whosoever is not subject but whosoever resists wherein he seemes to favour at least in some cases the Exposition noted before of subjection and the distinction of Active and Passive Obedience to humane Lawes and so will not alwayes charge disobedience upon the conscience or soule of a Christian for the omission or doing contrary to a humane Law But only in case of resistance that he will neither doe nor suffer for then he is guilty of resistance of the Ordinance of the authority of God by and under which these Lawes were made and are urged Fourthly He urges it againe by a threatning of Gods displeasure against such inferred from the sinne of their resistance And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies Judgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly Damnation But if the resistance be obstinate and a wilfull persisting in it I doubt not but the full sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damnation belongs to such resisting and resisters of Lawes even humane which are not opposite to Gods and resisters of Magistrates urging obedience according to those Lawes Ver. 3. Fiftly By the present and continued benefit of such authority and Magistracy and Lawes Which is delivered againe both negatively and affirmitively For Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to evill wherin he both prevents an Objection and asserts an advantage He prevents the Objection that this authority was a wrong to our liberty which he denies so long as our liberty is only used to doe well and practice good works And on the other side there was an advantage to those that did well because evill works were terrified by Rulers Where also note that he hath changed the Abstract Powers into the Concret Rulers to imply that subjection is due and resistance forbidden no farther to Rulers or no longer for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then they exercise their lawfull power and are not a terrour to good works but to evill For their power makes them not nor allowes them to be a terrour to good works Sixtly He urges it by a second Application of the benefit and securing from feare of danger if men will obey Wilt not thou then be afraid of the power Doe well and thou shalt have praise c. Where againe he repeats the word Power as preventing an Objection That Rulers might abuse their power Noting that he still meanes of the power rightly used according to the nature of it whence will come praise to them that doe well according to the Lawes Ver. 4. Seventhly By a Confirmation of the Application From Gods end in authorizing Lawes and Magistrates He is the Minister of God to thee for good It is for thy benefit that God hath deputed Magistrates where his authority is the fourth time mentioned and thou art both against God and thy own good if thou yeild not obedience Active or at least Passive Eightly By a third Application of threatning against disobedience either Negative or especially Positive which is resisting He beares not the Sword in vaine c. Where is intimated that he may punish even capitally some disobediences and resistance And againe the fift time Gods authorizing him is asserted and applied to this power of punishment That he executes Gods wrath temporally God is angry with disobedience and requires his Vicegerents to punish them even by the Sword if the offences merit it according to the Lawes and so with other punishment Ver. 4 5. Ninethly By a reinforcement of the Precept under the terme of Necessity of Conscience which is but an Explication of the not resisting the Ordinance of God Where also the Apostle prevents an Objection as if he only had before advised them to obey or not resist to save themselves from the Magistrates wrath For it is Gods wrath also upon the Conscience and so the Conscience is bound though you could find a way to escape temporall wrath V. 6. Tenthly It is urged by a Parallel of respect usually paid to Magistrates Tributes the due whereof is also urged because Magistrates devote themselves to the publick good and so must be maintained upon the publick stock and if maintained then much more obeyed and subjection yeilded to them Ver. 7.11 Finally by an universall requiring to yeeld to all their dues where he asserts that he requires no other subjection and so forbids no other resistance then what the Law requires as due or forbids as undue because obedience Active or Passive was due by the Laws This is in summe the Apostles scope and Argumentation And now let us more particularly consider whither the clause threatning resistance with damnation or ought else in the whole context doe fight against such resistance as the Doctor oppugnes or rather of the two may seeme to fight against him and justifie such resistance if not otherwise vitiated To which purpose let us proceed by these Considerations First That whatsoever resistance is here forbidden and threatned relates to inferiour Magistrates as farre as their authority reaches according to laws as well as supreame Magistrates I may no more resist a Constable commanding me or arresting me or distraining my goods according to Law then I may doe the King commanding me c. Yet the Doctor takes no notice of this at all But as if it were not only the higher power in the singular number but the Highest in the Superlative degree He restraines all to the King which is a dangerous fallacy not only in the present Question but against all government To which I adde to refuse to be subject to the Parliament according to Lawes and to resist is much more by this Scripture undeniably a resisting the ordinance of God and brings damnation And what then will he say to those that have done so too and against the Parliament and those sent by their authority unquestionable 2. Secondly That Prohibition of Resistance cannot be meant here which is wholly contrary to the Apostles reasons following which perswade to Subjection and not Resistance Or that Assertion or Interpretation is not according to the Apostles scope which is formally opposite to his Arguments afterward But such is the Doctors Interpretation and Assertion Ergo His Assertion and Interpretation is
Vniverse To apply this in a word the safetie of the whole is the undoubted generaâ— Fundamentall of all States and so of the particular Lawes toward this and among them of the Kings being intrusted with the Militia But it is not limited by this particulaâ— Lâ—w which in case of necessitie when the Prince cannot or will not discharge â—is Tâ—ust for the safety of the whole must in Reason needs give way to the Fundamentall the safetie of the Whole and so quo ad hoc for so much and so long till this necessiâ—y ceases falls into other hand those that are next entrusted or rather then faile to the whole communitie it selfe But to câ—me to the fundamentall by him instanced in power originally in and from the People and this to be reassumed when the King intrusted will not discharge his Trust Concerning which let it be remembâ—ed that there seemes to lie a caâ—umniating Fallacy in two of these phâ—ases First in thaâ— of not discharging the Trust which here sounds as if it might be but some ordinary Omissiâ—n of Câ—re whereas the State of the Qâ—estâ— by himselfe layde is such a not discharging the Trust as proceeds from his being bent of himsâ—lfe or seduced by others which is all one for the danger and so necessity of using what power may be for resistance to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties In this case only Power of resistance is here pleaded for not in others And indeed the very phrase of Power of Resistance observed can beare no other Construction For it Imports a violence offered a danger presented which needs to be resisted not a sleight or ordinary failing to discharge a Trust But his phrase of re-assuming the power seemes more to sound a taking away all Power henceforth from the Prince which the Parliament nor those that have rationally pleaded their Cause never mention but with Protestation to detest the thought And I for my part wholy disclaime the pleading for any such reassuming of Power by the People or Parliament I onely maintaine a Right to use so much of it and so long as is of necessitie of the safety of the whole Of which now let us argue wheâ—her this Government of ours cannot as rhe Doctor sayes be built upon this fundamentall but confusion and Anarchy be raised He makes his discourse upon two particulars as it must be first of the Originall of power Secondly of the Power of reassuming it In the first I will not tye my selfe to the phrases of the Observatour or any else but examine the Drâ— Assertion and proofes by what Scripture and religious Reason declares aboue it To cleare which I will propound a briefe Schema of the maine things considerarable in Government which in the prosecution of the discourse I shall make use of more then once I say that in Government foure things are considerable 1. The Nature Authority of Commanding to doe â—orbeare by making Lawes calling for obedience to them Constraint to obedience by punishment Verball Reall 2. The end Chief GODS Glory Good of the Whole Society Secondary speciall Comfort of the Governours 3. The Efficient Supreame GOD. Subordinate Man 1. By Nature Parents 2. By Accident in which is considerable 1. The moving Cause the will or consent of the Parties be Governed which is either Altogether free and by Châ—ise partly forced by Occasion oâ— Violence 2. The persons Governing 1. In a Family Husband Mr. Mrs. 2. In a State one Monarch Many in Aristocracy of Chiefe Men. Democracy of people Soveraignty Subordinately Officers 4. The Extent Absolute Limited For Commands Constraints the Kind Degree He that hath not all these in his Eye I meane not in this Forme or Phrase but in sense shal never discern cleerly nor discourse rationally of this subiect of government our Dr. though he once occasionally mention the Peoples good as an End upon which Rulers ought to attend Yet he speakes so little oâ— it as it had need be a little more rememembred then it is and Gods glorie also which is the chiefest End of all But indeede the thought and mention of those Ends much would be too crosse to his purpose and therefore hee is wise in his Generation as I may say if without offence to forbeare it Therefore on the other side I must make bold to tell him that though the physicall end of things may be silenced or sleighted in a Discourse or Definition Yeâ— in moâ—all things such as Governmâ—nâ— the End at least the chief End is a necessary ingredient of both Dâ—finition and discourse and an Essentiall part of it if a man will consider it as he ought practically Let me therefore adde iâ— to his Definition oâ— Description of Power or Government and then it will râ—â— tâ—â—s It is a sufficiency of authority for Command and Coerciâ—n in the Governing of a People for Gods glory and the good of the Society And all the lawfull Power hath this Effect in part even Hâ—athen Authority redouâ—â—s to Gods Glory as the conservatour oâ— Mankind and effects also the Civill good of the Common-wealth Now the Dr. saith this power it selfe not naming the end is to be distinguisht from the designing of the person to beare that Power and the qualification of that power this I grant him and accepting his grant of the two latter being from men and after their consent ratified by Gods permissive Approbation I defiâ—â— a little to examine how farre that may be granted him which he earnestly contends for that the Power it selfe is from God and what may be inferred from thence for him or us His meaning is that All Men are as he saith bound to set up and live under Government This being the Ordiâ—ance and Appointment of God unto men as they are Reasonable Creatures If he meane this of Parentall Government That is set up to their hands by God in Nature as long as the Parents and Children live together and bind the Children to live with their Parents and under them till either necessity drive them away or their Parents dismisse them But â—f he meane this of Politicall Government of a People of many Families as it is pâ—aâ—â—e he doth and must if he will speake ad rem then I cannot absolutely grant it him neither will his text or Reasons prove it My Reasons of Denyall are first that all Mankind whose Parents are dead and were not by them while they lived Subjected to a Government are naturally free so not bound to part with that free some as even a Monarch doth part with much freedome when he takes the Rule unlâ—sse they see a necessitie or at least a great advantage for Gods Honour and their owne and others Good which is not alwayes to be found in setting up a politick Government 2. Wherein I am confirmed by the consideration of the three great Patriarkes Abraham Isaac and Iacob who while they lived in Canaan were not within any government but onely Domesticall and neither did
rule nor were ruled by the Inhabitants of Canaan nor joyned with them in a Common gouernment Though Abrahams Family was very numerous for a Family yet it would be hard to call him a Monarch much lesse Isaac and Iacob lesse who when he went downe into Aegypt doth not seeme to have had any Servants but onely Sonnes and his and their Wives and Children 3. And to this may be added that by all Authors it seemes to be late before any setled government beyond parentall any of diverse Families in continuation came to be in the World 4. When the World was more emptie as in Abrahams time a godly man as he having a Competent Family might subsist without others joyning in a government with him and he could not doe them any remarkable good or gayne glory to GOD by it they being Pagans So that it is not I say absolutely true that men are bound universally as by an Ordinance from GOD to set up live under government in the Drs. sense Marriage is GODS Institution and Ordinance and more originally then the Government politicall and necessary for encrease yet are not all of mankinde bound to marry but for their owne good and comfort and so of others and advancing Gods Glory in both So it is with Power or Government Politicall though new when the world is peopled As there is lesse Necessity of Marriage then when the World was thinner though still a Necessity to many even to most So is there more Necessitie of being within Government to secure ones selfe and others from wrong and doe one selfe and others good and glorifie GOD in all And so farre I grant it Gods ordinance to all But one thing more I must remember him and the readers of Namely that this Power will not be proved absolutely to extend to the making of any Humane Lawes but onely to see to the Observation of the Lawes of Nature and of God by His word and speciall Revelation both of the first and second Table and to no other power of coercion then what the Light of Nature will Argue Necessarie for the Observation of those Lawes of Nature And that all further power belongs to the third particular which he calls the qualification of the Power depends upon mans Consent so it be not against Gods Law and Word which I call the extent of the Power Which if it be true it shall be seene anon what Consequence may bee drawne from it to the disadvantage of the Doctours purpose And now let us view the Doctors proofs that Power it selfe is an Ordinance of God binding all Mankind to set up and live under government Rom. 13.1 The Powers are of God and the Ordinance of God v. 2. REPL. The Doctor seemes to have an excellent faculty to take so much only of a Text as seemes to serve his turne and leave out the rest which at least might seeme to be against him the words v. 1. are There is no Powers but of GOD The powers that be are ordained of God This may be true when Powers are and not that there must be powers every where as in the similitude before there is no Marriage but of GOD the Marriages that be are ordained of GOD. As for Saint Peters Ordinance of Man or it is in the Originall Humane Creation which is more Emphaticall granting as the Dr. doth that the qualification and Person is from Mans Creation I will not urge more from â—he Text against him 2. He urges ver 4 He is the Minister of God this yet proves not a necessitie in all of setting up Government But onely when it is set up to acknowledge the Governour Gods Vice-gerent So as before the Husband is GODS Vicegerent Yet a Woman not absolutely bound to be under a Husband The truth is Government and Power is from GOD originally in these respects no further First he hath laid a generall charge upon Mankinde to advance his Glory their owne and others good whom thus are bound to love as themselves by all meanes not by him forbidden Secondly in the parentall Authours or proparentall if the Parents dye in their Childrens Infancy he hath shewed them how much Government may conduce to this Thirdly he declares by instinct in Nature that as Parentall Authority is deputed by him so that he affords a deputation to other Governments when once set up Fourthly shewing all men now a dayes and long since in fully inhabited places of the world not only a profit but even a necessity of being within Government at least for his glory in the Civill good of societies Upon these grounds we may say he ordaines and commands all to be within one Government or other but not absolutely nor without relation to this end But thirdly he alleadges By me Kings reigne and I have said ye are Gods and the word of God came to them Joh. 10. That word saith he is the issuing out of the Commission for the setting up a Government over and among the People REPL. But none of all this will amount to his Conclusion 1. Kings reigne by God that is they are his Deputies Men could not give them any Authority over themselves unlesse God owned it and by his instinct had prompted them to it Secondly he saith Yee are Gods but this an owning the designation of the Person as well as the Power This place either proves more then the Doctor urges it for or lesse Thirdly as for his Dixi the Doctor mistakes most of all For it relates plainly to his owning the Persons whom yet he tels They shall are like Men but the Power dies not and is rather a granting a particular Patent or Commission to the Person chosen or succeeding then a Commission or Originall Writ to set up a Government His Reason is no more Universally True then his Texts pertinent God he saith Governs all Creatures Reasonable as well as Unreasonable the lower world by the Heaven and the Reasonable Creatures Men by others too set up in his stead c. Repl. But what if the Edge of this Reason be Turned against himselfe For by whom according to the Dr. are Kings and Monarks Govern'd In an Aristocracy each of the Governors is Governed by all the rest of his fellowes and so in a Democracy but in a Monarchy one Governs all and hee himself is Governed by none Either then al mankind are not bound to be under Government and then all his Texts and this Reason are alleadged in vain or else Kings and Monarks are also under some Government at least of the Representative Body of thei people according to what was before alledged from our Lawyers Rex non habet Superiorem praeter Legem Curiam Comitum Baroâ—um c. Let him take his choice Nor can hee evade this with saying the Text Speaks of Monarks and they are called GODS and so none above them But 1. I appeale to all Interpreters whether the Psalmist intend it not and so Christ after
such cases they have power to resist because it is a naturall right each hath against all except Parents so farre is it from my being bound not to resist unlesse I have expressly covenanted that I may Though withall I doe not say that I may covenant at all to resist in no case as I shall have occasion to shew anon Fourthly in the meane time if the Doctor grant that in case the agreement be that if the Prince discharge not his trust the states may take Armes and resist as in effect he seemes to doe when he saith That were something for if he doe no such agreement Then is not all Resistance damnable nor Rom 13.2 Rightly interpreted by him For this and more the Brabancons had in their Agreement with their Duke even to choose another as the Doctor himselfe tells us afterward So ever now and then he must contradict his maine Proposition by the force of truth But he saith after that The slender Pleaâ— Election is thought to have a Covenant in it but usually the higher wee rise in all Empires the freer Kings were and still downward the People gained on them And by this he would imply that specially in successive Kingdomes as this what ever may be said of merely elective States there can be no forfeiture of power by breach of Covenant made in after Ages by succeeding Princes REPLY In the first times there was a great simplicity in all covenants in sale of Lands and letting of Lands and the like yet no man ever sold or gave away or lent more then hee meant though the force and fraud of ill men forced after Ages to more express Covenants In like sort Ex malis moribus bonâ— Leges as well between Prince and people as between common men the tyranny of Princes forced People to require them to sundry necessary expresse Lawes Yet these Lawes now for Phrase or expression will not in reason be thought more then was intended in the first simple Covenant how briefe soever it were for certainly free people and in their right wits never meant to enslave themselves to the wills and lusts of those they chose their Princes But to be subject to them for their generall good which when they found by experience to be violated or in danger to be so for want of expresse Lawes specifications of the Generall Law of Nature the generall good of the society they were forced by necessity to require them to make such Lawes for their generall safety and particularly also to prevent inferiour officers from tyranny under the name of the superiour and so to prevent all necessity of Armes within themselves And some good Princes for their peoples comfort have even been forward of themselves to make such Lawes which yet without our making they were bound for the most part to have done accordingly for the welfare of their Dominions The People then have gained nothing for the great part of Lawes for their Liberties but ability to claime them as undoubted more then before nor have Princes lost any thing almost but a power of impovershing ruining their Subjects so much as before they seemed to have for the satisfying of their owne Prodigalities and Lusts Still then it remaines that the People had a right to all fitting Liberties even after they submitted to a King unlesse they expressly gave them away as unto some Câ—nqâ—erours the conquered Party were sometimes forced to doe But yet N. B. even then the Conquerours followers who were part of his subjects at that time and by whoâ—e hands he conquered the rest whether more or fewer did consent and agree to the Peoples and so their owne Posterities having but such and such Liberties and yeelding to the new Conquerour and his Posterity such and such Power and Authority So still consent gave whatsoever a Prince could or can challenge I say then once more unlesse in the first foundation of a State Kingdome or Empire and this Kingdome particularly the People did make their King so absolute as to give away all power of resistance from themselves in any case which the Doctor I beleeve will never be able to prove of this or any other Civill State though they made no expresse conditions or Covenant much lesse any mention of reserving a power of resistance yet the Law of Nature allowed them still some Liberties what they were we shall have occasion to scan in the next Section and amongst them this for one to resist any violence against themselves in any thing that the Law of Nature did undoubtedly make them still Masters of and was not subjected to their Princes power But the Doctor concludes his reasoning against such power of resistance to be in our Parliament with that which indeed hath least shew of strength of any thing he hath said yet Thus he writes where the King as it is said never dies where he is King before Oath or Coronation where hee is not admitted upon any such Capitulation as gives any power to the People or the representative Body as is pretended to nay where the Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that therein such a State such a Powâ—r should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the Fundamentals of such a State can never appeare reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistance that is now made by such a pretended Power REPL. This is the most plausible Plea he hath or any can bring specially the latter part of it about the calling and dissolving the Parliament at the Kings will and pleasure But to this also as well as all the rest sufficient satisfaction I doubt not may be given before indifferent judgements and unpartiall Consciences in the manner following First as the King never dies so he never growes he never hath more authority unlesse by a new grant from the people then his first Predecessor had unlesse it can be proved that the people then gave away their liberty of defence from outragious violence which all are naturally invested with it is free for them now as well as it was the second day or houre after they chose or consented to their first King as was implyed before Secondly as he is King before Oath or Coronation So he gives away none of his Rights in his Oath nor doe the People when they crowne him But he there professes himselfe bound by his Kingly Office to rule so and so for the common good and they yeeld no more to him then they did to his first Predecessor as before Thirdly as he is not admitted upon any such capitulation in expresse terms as mention this power of resistance in the people or representative body in case of Tyranny So nor doe the people at his admittance expresse a yeelding to him such absolute power as they may not or will not in any case resist I say againe and
hee know what he saith when he saith Rulers are not a terrour to good Workes therefore they must not be resisted Christianity is a good worke and Nero is a terrour to it though by GODS Ordinance he should not be therefore he must not be resisted What can be more unreasonable then to bring a Reason which is quite against the thing it is brought for to interpret then as the Dâ— doth v. 2. is to make St. Paul argue against himselfe if you Reader are not should not be and â—f you Keepe the literall sâ—nce are not then either he speakes that which is falâ—e of Nero and hâ—s Officers and under Rulers for they were a terrour to good Workes if Christianity be a good worke or Christianity is no good Worke. Let the Dr. take his choyce of the three I have a fourth too take to formerly sayde downe which is that he speakes of Civill Legall Authoritie in civill Lawes as then in the Romane State and such like and to Rulers according to them were not terrours to good Workes as the Apostle saith Secondly but see the Apostles next words wilt thou then not be affraid of the Power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same that is thou needst not resist but onely looke to doe well and hâ—e will commend thee But is this true of persecuting Nero Might the Christians count this a safe course of which they need not be afraid to practice Christianity safe that iâ— for which the Power would not doe any thing against them buâ— rather prayse them did Nero so Or could the Apâ—stle thinke he would O â—d he deceive Christians in saâ—ing so or condemne Christianitie as not good 〈◊〉 a Reason against himsâ—lâ—e Some of these things must bee said or else the Dâ— Sence must bee renounced it must be said that he meddles with no matter of Christian Religion here but of civill Subjection to Civill Lawes which Rulers according â—o their Power would praise them for and they need not feare such powers doing well Thirdly adde further what the Apostle doth v. 4. For hee is the Minister of GOD to thee for gooD Is this true of persecuting Nero in the case of his persecuting Whereby the Apostle proves he will prayse thee doing that which is good Surely in an over-ruling Worke of GODS Grace the very Divell is GODS instrument for GOOD as to Iob and we may say Mâ—nister too And Nero not a whit more in the Act of persecuting Buâ— this farre from St. Pauls meaning For hee meanes a civill good praising and rewarding and protecting Nero did St. Paul knew quite contrary to this He cannot then meane him as a Persecuter and so never intends here to forbid resisting his Persecution Fourthly goe on one step further with the Apostle which will yet make it more plaine if more can be But if you doe that which is evill then feare for he beares not the Sword in vaine for hee is the Minister of GOD a Revenger to exâ—cute wrath on them that doe evilâ— Evill contrary to Christianity is Idolatrie for one thing â—nd to make Chriâ—tians Idolaters did Nero and others persecute them if they would cast in a graine of Iâ—cense into the Fire by way of sacrifice to their Idolls they were freed Now is it St. Pauls meaning If you turne Idolater then feare for Nero beares not the Sword in vaine for he is GODS Minister a Revenger to execute Wrath upon them that commit Idolatrie Or is Christianitie the evill they were to feare as that which he used the Sword against and that with great wrath and revenge There is then nothing like the Drs Interpretation In all these Arguments of the Apostle but the cleane contrary besides what followes v. 5 6 7. Of which see the exposition before But some will say was it then lawfull for the Christians then to have resisted the persecuting Emperours Tertullian and the Fathers thought otherwise I answer first whether it were or no of which by and by most certaine it was not forbidden in this Rom. 13.2 3 4. Yet this is the Capitall place If any other can be found forbidding it which the Dr. offers not to urge further then what we have examined already that is nothing to this Text. For no Logick or Rhetorick can extract that sence from hence who ever they be that have so interpreted it heretofore Secondly but because of the great Outcry made of the Christians not resisting then I will once more looke upon the Text Rom. 13.2 and compare it also with that before so v. 1. and see whether by a right view it will not plainly pronounce Christians even then free from passive subjection in case of persecution supposing they had Force to resist by their hands not tyed by Gods Ordinance from resistâ—nce or at least wise onely upon a speciall Reason applyable to that State of the Church and Roman Empire of which yet there is not the least intimation in that place but must â—e gathered elsewhere as we shall see and which is no impediment at all to Christians resisting the persecution now of Popish Tyranny I say then Subjection to the Higher power is commanded and resisting it forbidden there upon this ground because they are of GOD ordained under GOD GODS Ordinance Note how all the words accord in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whosoever resists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordained under GOD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinance of GOD all from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order that iâ— GOD hath given to men Power and auâ—hoâ—ity to urge the execution of his Lawes and to make some Lawes under him and his and to punish according to the merit of the Offences the transgressions of the one or the other And so farre as this they are to be subjected unto by every soule either actively or at least passively and not to be resisted by wilfull froward disobedience and much lesse by taking up Armes against such Lawes or them that exercise authoritie to them But this is all the Authority GOD gives to any and not to make Lawes against his nor yet to punish those thaâ— obey his Lawes And if any such Lawes be made or any such punishment offered to be inflictâ—d even by reason of such Lawes made they are not the Ordinance of GOD He hath afforded them no such Authoritie no such Power Nay such Lawes and Rulers according to them are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opposers and Resisteâ—s of GODS Ordinance of the Law of Nature or Scripture or both The Lawes therefore are Null and the Authority Null quoad hoc as will be plaine by this instance A King grants a Charter to a Major of a Towne to governe that Towne with others or alone that is all one according to his Lawes and punish all Malefactors and moreover to make some particular Lawes or Orders in the Towne for the
or Priest or Jesuit according to his place even sentence of death if he could not avoidâ— it Onely with two cautions 1. That he should be as favourable as was possible 2. That he should give timely Intelligence of any severe sentence Let now charity judge what circumspection almost can suffice against such a generation of Men Or what jealousie can be too much of them that still professe this treacherous Religion And yet all this notwithstanding at last to have even professed Papists taken in against the Parliament Can this be without a designe in them that have counselled the King to it Was it not in a prudent fore-sight that they should be cal'd and admitted to helpe that the Papists have no where been plundered by the Kings Army though others have who held not with the Parliament 8. As for Ziba David knew not his treachery at the first and his lyes had so blasted honest-hearted Mephibosheth that it appeares David did scarcely beleeve his apology for himselfe Otherwise what ever may now be said of his credulous charity to Ziba to the prejudice of one that was not present to answer for himselfe it was none of Davids good deeds to be imitated to recompence a flattering Sycophant that had brought him a present in a hard time indeed with so large a share in Mephibosheths estate When by the Law of God he was to dye for his false accusation of Treason as Mephibosheth had deserved death had it been true But now our Papists are knowne to be Enemies to the Parliament as was said before and some of their Party in the Country sticke not to say that the Parliaments Intentions of rigour against them already shewed by the executing of so many Priests and Jesuites Men of tender consciences is one part of the Court-quarrell against them They are more like Doeg then Ziba who first accused the Priests and then readily undertooke the execution of a most cruell sentence and executed it with all cruelty But Psal 52. Reades their doome And Psal 54.4 Sutes the Ziphims too those of Davids owne Tribe that came and discovered him to Saul 1 Sa. 23.26 once and againe and so incensed him afresh against him Though Saul blesses them 1 Sa. 23.21 as his speciall good subjects that had compassion of him Conscience must now judge whether the Papists being favoured were any cause of the resistance now made or only the resistance now â—â—de was the cause that they were admitted to helpe the King in his distresse 9. But for the D â— to honour them with the Title of good subjects preferring them before the Parliament and so great a part of the Kingdome as visibly adhere to them is one of the highest reproaches that ever was belcht out against them enough for a Jesuite or a Pope to have said But the Dr. how ever he pretend modesty oft-times and respect to the Parliament stabbs them as desperately as any enemy could doe now and then While he seemes also resolved to justifie all that hath been done against them else he would have been silent in this peece and the next that followes about Ireland 10. In the meane time because he upbraids with a scandall that this resistance brings on our Religion which saith he would not be easily wiped of were it to stand or fall by the doctrines of this giddy age I must needs make bold to tell him that he forgets himselfe strangely and the Doctrines and practises of our Religion when he can scarce name that Country where there are any Protestants that have not taken Armes to defend Laws and Liberties and with them Religion even though not before allowed by Laws Sweden Germany France The low Countries Bohemiah Scotland And did not Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory assist them in France Holland and Scotland and K. James Holland and at least owned the cause of the French though he only sent Ambassadours and K. Charles did send to aide Rochel as I noted before and ownes the Prince of Orange sufficiently who yet is Rebell Generall against the K. of Spain if our Parliaments resistance be Rebellion Indeed we in England are the last and above all other Nations have been by the Court Doctors within this 40 Yeares much prepared to suffer any thing rather then resist Yet Bishop Bilson in the Queens time was suffered to averre that the States of a Kingdome might resist vide But it now above all other times greeves that we offer to doe what all others have done before us upon a great deale lesse Authority considering our Parliament continued by Act and its power granted by the King as I have noted before against all delinquents For if they could have subdued and swallowed us up the other Protestants in other Countreyes would much more easily have been devoured 4. The last Allegation is concerning the businesses of Ireland Of which because the Dr. saith the King hath written enough he had done wisely to have written nothing but that word Though I have not yet been so happy who would be glad to see it to meet with any Answer to the last Peece of the House of Commons which reckons so many particulars of wrong done to that poore Kingdomâ— Therefore till I meete with that I must needs tell the Dr. he saith not enough to cleare the businesse nor the Kings Councellours in that businesse For whereas his whole defence is â—in a word that the Kings necessity made it lawfull to make use of any thing intended for their releefe which he parallels by the Necessity that excused the Scots comming in hither To this divers things may and must be replyed 1. The Scots are no parallell for this carriage toward Ireland Their coming what ever the Dr. affirmes brought no such great detriment to the Inhabitants there if you except their professed enemies Papists and Prelates as the poore Souldiers and other Protestants of Ireland have suffered by the actions done concerning them 2. The King and Parliament have justified by Act of Parliament their coming as necessitated Yet they were proclaimed Traitours againe and againe and it was counted necessary to make War against them one yeare and a second as now against the Parliament The necessity then that is now pretended by the Kings party wants a great deale of the justification that the Scots have had before all the world specially remembring all that was noted before of the doings of the Kings followers before ever the Parliament did any thing but Petition 3. Which necessity by them pretended if it appeare a necessity by themselves made will it not make their actions concerning Ireland more horrid and proclaime the designe to be more rooted 4. But it must by no means be forgotten what hath been pretended for Ireland to which these actions are most contrary 1. When the King rode Northward and the Parliament more then once represented that it would greatly prejudice Ireland The King protested still it should not but he would be as
ready to doe all things for Ireland as if he had stayed at London 2. When he had been at Hull and demanded of the Parliament justice upon Sr. John Hotham he declared he would doe no businesse till he had satisfaction in that except only the businesse of Ireland 3. A few dayes after that he would in all haste goe over in Person to subdue the bloody Rebels and venture his Royall Person to recover that poore Kingdome Who now almost can beleeve his Eares or Eyes that any thing should be done to the prejudice of Ireland 4. If the dates be observed of some of those things mentioned in that Answer of the House of Commons they will be found done before the Parliament had done any thing more toward their own defence then when that profession was made after the Kings being at Hull when the King would have ventured himselfe to goe into Ireland 5. It is strange that the puniâ—hing of Sr. John Hotham and the suppressing the Militia the recovery of Hull and the Magazene which at last after many other Declarations perswading of no intention at all of a War against the Parliament the King declares he would loose his life but he would obtaine and this I think Quaere before there was any one man listed for the Parliaments defence should be thought a necessity allowing any retarding much lesse disappointing the crying necessities of Ireland after such Protestations of care for it 6. If the Parliament be not only not so good subjects as the now entertained Recusants but unlesse they be worse then those horrid Rebels of whom some of the Kings Declarations speake with destation enough while the Parliament protests before God and the Kingdome and the world that they have no Thoughts nor Intentions but loyall to the King and faithfull to the Religion and Kingdome and the Popish bloody Rebels who one while avouch they have the Kings authority for what they have done another while seeme to renounce him and to intend a new King But alwayes professe to intend the extirpation of the Brittish Nation and Protestant Religion in that Kingdome and then to come over into England to fight against the Parliament and Puritans and Protestants here If I say the Parliament be not worse then the Irish Traitours it is a prodegy that any necessity can be thought sufficient to doe such and so many acts as that Declaration of the House of Commons mentions or almost any one of them to the woefull prejudice of that bleeding Kingdome and great incouragement of the bloody Rebels It would be too long to insist on every particular which if a man would Rhetorically and but justly amplifie he might astonish all men how the former Protestations and those actions could agree and what necessity could be pretended for some of them as entertaining Irish Rebels c. vide 7. Unto all which adde but this as a corrollary that the whole is a most unhappy verification of that which at the first breaking out of the Rebellion was related as spoken from the Rebels that they had a considerable Party in England in the very Parliament and the Court and that they doubted not but to find us so much work at home as we should have no leisure to send succours to the Protestants there Nor can I forget what I heard a few dayes before the Irish Rebellion brake out that a Steward of a Popish great Lord disswading a Church-warden from obeying the Order of the House of Commons about taking away Idolatrous Pictures c. Bidds him not be too hasty for before a Moneth were at an end he should see great alteration and so it appeared though blessed be God not yet to the full of their hopes Lay now all these things together which the Dr. hath instanced in and forced this descant upon with those in the former Section and then let all consciences exercise their most unpartiall judgement and most ample charity and then suspect in whom the designe hath bin and is which hath necessitated the other party to take Armes to defend themselves and then let them say Amen to an Application of two Stories of Scriptures one of Jotham to the men of Shechem If you have done faithfully c. then rejoyce and â—et your party rejoyce but if not then fire come forth and devoure c. The other of Solomon concerning Abner and Amasa's bloud let it rest on the head of Joab c. but upon David and upon his house and upon his Throne let there be peace from the Lord for ever and let I say all that love God and the King and Justice and Truth say Amen But the Doctor will have us consider what the King hath done to exempt these scruples of feares and jealousies from the peoples minds Which in summe are the passing of Bils this Parliament and protestations for Religion Priviledges of Parliament Laws and Liberties For the first of these what are they worth in ill times and under ill Judges if once the Militia and the Navy be surrendred and this Parliament dissolved what did magna Charta the Petition of Right Articles of Religion serve to prevent all the illegalities and innovations upon Church and State before this Parliament or what did all the Laws and Priviledges of Scotland serve them for If suspected Councellours and followers be still about the King and favoured by him where shall be a security to take away these feares Also for the other What have Protestations prevailed to prevent former danger That unparallel'd danger to the House of COMMONS and the whole Kingdome by his comming into the House with such Followers waiting at the doors so weaponed so behaving themselvs and speaking then and since was it not the very day after his Message denying them the Guard they desired and protesting toward the close We do ingage unto you solemnly the word of a King that the security of all and every one of you from violence is and shall ever be as much Our care as the preservation of Vs and Our Children And how did all men judge that beleeved the Protestations set out at Yorke a while that no war was intended against the Parliament till some strength gotten as was noted before under the name of a Guard out of Yorke-shiere and more endeavoured by Agents in severall parts of the Kingdom and hoped for from beyond Sea altered the language and the face of things till it came to the present extremities Also whatever the Doctors Informations were at the time he was penning his clause of applauding the Kings excellent moderation amidst the pressures and extremities of warr shewing what respect he hath to the Property and Liberty of the Subject whosoever remembers what all but wilfully ignorant or altogether carelesse know of taking away armes from the Countries along to Chester and backe afterward the plundering of Banbury notwithstanding the Kings promise to the contrary and Abington Reading but most specially Brainford and Kingston
of Israel and Judah for their Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Rep. To this marvell there may be a ready satisfaction if we remember That even in the reigne of the best Kings not only the peoples hearts were usually unprepared and in their greatest seemings hypocriticall and treacherous as appeares by the Story and the Prophets But also the Princes Elders and Nobles were exceedingly corrupt In Joash his time as soone as Jehojada was dead the Princes came and corrupted the King and in the beginning of Esay's Prophesie in Vzziah's time who was among the better Kings he calls them Princes of Sodom and so even in Hezekiah's time how doth Micah complaine of them Ch 3. Jer. 26. and Jeremy in Josiahs time after the Reformation begun Now if they were so bad in good times who can marvell if they were starke nought where the King was rought and helpers forward of his Idolatries cruelties and oppressions And why should it then be expected that the Prophets should call upon them to resist the King being on their side and they on his Sixthly At last the Doctor comes to his maine strength of all namely Roman 13.2 In the improvement of which Text to his purpose he layes downe four Positions and then makes a five-fold Objection and shapes Answers to them all which must come under examination 1. He sayes St. Peter St. Paul here though it be by some now put to the Question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it Rep. But by his leave hee runnes away too fast with his supposition in a double respect 1. That St. Paul here Rom. 13.2 speakes only of resisting the supreame power the King or Emperour or Monarch whereas the word in this second verse is indefinite the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which extends to all in authority in either ranke or degree as well as the supreame as was noted before If he or any for him say that the power v. 2. must signifie no more then the higher power v. 1. which he interprets only of the supreame Repl. Here againe I must tell him he abuses his Readers carelesly at least I will not say wittingly let his conscience looke to that for he alwayes reades higher power in the singular whereas it is Powers in the plurall and the next words There is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God shews the Apostle speakes of all sorts and rankes of Powers Therefore he must take in the other Powers as well as the supreame in both verses and that will be nothing for his benefit as will appeare by this briefe reason If the Powers that are under the Supreame may not be resisted by this Rom. 13.2 Then either the resistance forbidden extends not to resisting though with Armes out-ragious and tyrannicall assaults of illegall violence offered by those officers as suppose a Major Justice or even a Constable or else even one of those officers even a petty Constable is as absolutely over those that are under his office as any Monarch and they slaves to his lusts as well as to an Emperours because the one ought not to tyrannize by the Doctors Confession § 1. no more then the other and the one ought not to be resisted no more then the other by this argument and Text. Now which part of distinction will the Doctor chuse if the former he deserts his cause plainly If the latter then besides the apparant absurdity of it I urge that all men will grant That a Constable and such like officers betweene the people and the supreame are lyable to be themselves punished by Lawes if they offer any out-ragious and illegall violence which cannot possibly be unlesse they may be resisted even with Armes in case any arme themselves to practise violence Also else a few of them as the Major or Aldermen of a Towne joyning together might goe through all the City and robbe and kill as many as they would by force of Armes and no man might offer to resist them by taking Armes against them It remaines therefore that all Magistrates except the supreame to begin with may be resisted even with Armes if offering violence and tyranny And yet St. Paul forbids to resist the Powers without distinction of supreame or other Therefore St. Paul mâ—anes not to forbid resisting Tyranny with Armes But resisting legall and lawfull commands even other wayes as well as with Armes though this be the worst kind of resistance where obedience is due But secondly It must not be granted him for all his bigg words of Absurdity imputed to those that deny it That the King of England is in all considerations the supreame or the highest Power if St. Pauls words were in the superlative This belongs to Politicks and the Doctors Divinity will not reach it himselfe cannot deny it That the King is not supreame in the legislative power Though hee have a negative voyce in Lawes so have either of the Houses distinct Hee can then neither make new Lawes alone nor abrogate old ones Nor violate without injustice the goods much lesse the lives or chastities of any of his meanest Subjects and least of all authorize any of his followers by his warrant or presence to doe so His Supremacy then is bounded by Lawes and is given him be it more or lesse ad salutem non ad destructionem Which yet were not if no Tyranny of his might be resisted But of that more anon But the Doctor will prove the King supreame 3 wayes 1. St. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authority The King as supreame and those that are sent by him 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 Repl. 1. Why did the Doctor leave out the word Governours Is he afraid to grant the Houses of Parliament any power of Government 2. What if sent by him referrs not to the King but to the Lord for whose sake all both King and Governours are to be obeyed and by whom both are sent but of this also more anon 3. But grant him his way I aske how it shall appeare that the name of King extends as farre every where as S. Peters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Spartans had two Kings and yet neither of them so supreame but under the controll of the Ephori There are also Monarches as supreame as any that have the Title of King The Great Duke of Florence The Great Duke of Muscovy and others Also the Romans in S. Peters time cal'd not their Emperours King Rex Which yet is the ordinary Latine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word he only is supreame whom the Law cals supreame and no further then the Law makes him 2. He saith also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this
Realm and that he is in all causes and over all persons supreame Repl. But some Lawyers will tell him That the Oath of Supremacy is either only against forraigne powers and namely the Pope having to doe here or against all particular persons having authority above the King within the Realme But that with all Law-books intimate a superiority in curia Comitum Baronum c. which is the two Houses of Parliament And secondly That he is supreame not to judge all persons and causes at his pleasure but as assisted according to Lawes with his Counsell and Judges and specially his great Councell and chiefe Judicature during their sitting the two Houses of Parliament His Supremacy then still appeares limited by and according to Law 3 But hee adds This is also acknowledgedged by the Petition of the two Houses addressed unto his Majesty wherein they stile themselves his Loyall Subjects Repl. True and right but still this is to be understood to be Subject according to Lawes and for the good of King and Kingdome neither of which is promoted or preserved by a restraint of a defensive Resistance of tyranny which restraint the Doctor so contends for Adde here what must elsewhere be further urged That the King himselfe in his answer to the 19 Propositions acknowledges that the two Houses have legall power more then sufficient to prevent or restraine Tyranny Which I would faine have any man shew me how it can bee done but by taking up Armes and then I will yeeld him the cause That all Armes taken up are unlawfull But till then the King hath granted the cause legall and just against the Doctors first maine Proposition and all his Arguments His next ground is That in the Text of the Apostle all persons under the higher Power are expressely forbidden to resist for Whosoever in the second verse must be as large as every soule in the first verse and the resistance forbidden here concrnes all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not make these universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from subjection Repl. 1. He still runnes on in his errour to limit the higher power to the supreame But secondly I grant him that all other powers under the supreame are forbidden to resist in the Apostles sence A Constable Justice Major Sheriffe Judge of Assize nor the very Houses of Parliament may not resist the authority of the King commanding according to Lawes But yet it remaines to be prooved that they may not resist his violence when he is bent to subvert Lawes and Liberties and Religion and all Or the violence of his followers even though doing it by his warrant or in his presence Also because he doth so much insist upon the phrase of higher power let me put him a case A wicked Robber that hath committed twenty most bloudy murthers one after another in cold bloud is led away after legall condemnation by the Sheriffe to be put to death Suppose a King would come with armed souldiers and offer to take him violently and by force out of the hand of Justice Who resists damnably now that power which is the Ordinance of God and to whom the Sword is committed The Sheriffe and his men that resist the violence or the Kings followers or even himselfe that resist the due Execution of Justice Let him study on it and give an Answer at his leisure 3. He proceeds In those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Roman State and might challenge more by the fundamentals of that State then our great Councell I thinke will or can But now the Emperour being supreame as S. Peter cals him or the higher power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle Thus for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the cause Rep. 1. Doubtlesse Saint Paul wrote not to the Roman Senate nor Saint Peter neither And if the Doctor will proove it unlawfull for them to resist he must proove it from the Law of nature or at least from some ancient Law of the old Testament given to the Ancestours of the Roman Senate Or else shew how this could concerne them who never heard any thing of it For any thing then â—e saith it was lawfull for the Roman Senate and the Heathen Subjects to resist though not for Christians 2. If he or any for him shall say that it suffices for his cause that it was forbidden to Christians and accordingly is now Rep. 2. If you reply that supposing it not forbidden to Heathens No more was it to Christians before S. Paul and S. Peter wrote And if so then belike as was formerly toucht the Apostles laid a yoake upon the necks of Christians worse then all the Jewish ceremonies which the Gentiles were ever freed from For whereas before the Romans might resist their tyrannous Emperours now by becoming Christians their hands must be tyed to have all their throats cut even though the whole Senate were Christians at one Neroes pleasure He that wisht that all Rome had but one neck that he might strike it off at a blow had done wisely to have endeavoured to have made them all Christians and then he and his Guard with him or his Army might by this Doctrine have struck off all their heads or runne them all through one after another as fast as they could deale blowes and so he should have his will in their destruction though there must have beene a little more paines taken about it Surely Christ who came to purchase liberty to his people never meant to enslave them to tyrants above all others of Man-kind The Doctor must goe prove resistance unlawfull from some other grounds of natures law or the ancient lawes of Scripture or else this Text of S. Paul will appeare to have another interpretation even that which hath beene given before in the explication of the Text and inference from it Thirdly I will not therefore trouble my selfe to compare the Authority of the Roman Senate with our Parliament much lesse argue for that power which they had lost about a 100 Yeares before S. Paul writ It suffices he hath not disproved at all their present power of resisting tyranny when S. Paul wrote and that by the same argument I have disproved that S. Paul forbids Christians to take any such power to themselves 4. But he adds was there ever more cause of resistance then in those dayes Were not the Kings then not only conceived to be enclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and liberties Rep. If it had been before demonstratively proved that resisting the power or higher power did properly signifie taking Armes against the Supreame when he plays the tyrant This fourth step were a just illustration and confirmation of it But now he only beggs the
him of all sorts of Judges and so Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not Curse the GODS nor speake evill of the Ruler of the People Yet this S. Paul acknowledges extended even to the High Priest the Ecclesiasticall Goververnour 2. Is not the Text at least meant of all the Governours in a Democracy and in Aristocracy that they are call'd GODS yet each hath the rest above him 3. However still his Reason is voyde for all Reasonable Creatures are not governed by others in GODS stead for by his saying Monarks are not and yet they oft times need to be governed so far as not to be suffered to undo all by their Governing or else this Question had never bin in the world which our hearts bleed to be forced to dispute concerning the power of resisting Monarks If now the Dr. will say that we afford GOD a poore part in setting up of power for the governing of Men he had need seek better proofe or else he will hardly perswade any more to a considerate Reader But perhaps hee will say I have yeelded him enough and more then others have done that will be seene by the use he can make of his assertion But in the meane time I have 2 or 3 Considerations to propound from his Texts and Reason and my own grants and assertions 1. Each one of his Texts speaks of more then the Supreame Powers Rom. 13.9 Plainly Plurall more then once and takes in all Ranks as hath been proved Saint Peter names Governours to be submitted to for the LORDS sake aswell as the Supreame and I should thinke Sent by him is by the LORD rather then by the Supreme as I shall shew by the Reason by and by and St. Paul hath said the powers that he even the Governors are ordained of GOD. And Prov. 8. after the words By me Kings Raigne follows And Princes Decree justice By me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Iudges of the Earth This is plaine aswell for other Governors as Supreme being the Ordinance of God And as for Psal 82. and Ioh. 10. I have spoken before I wonder then that the Dr. in a Treatise of Conscience and having that word so often in his Discourse makes no conscience of confining these places as in effect he doth continually meerely to Supreme power It was for his turne indeed as will appeare more anon But that will hardly satisfie a Conscience let him think on it But I must not forget his reason now serving me once more against him God governes all men by others in his stead now that is done by subordinate Governours as well as supreame and so the inferiour and unreasonable creatures by divers subordinations and the subordinate doe sometimes even ten more then then the supreame let him be never so good if they be bad the government and order will be disturbed and perverted in a large Dominion because his eye and hand can not be but in one place at once and all may be and will be naught if those under Governours be naught whiles he his absent But if they be good they keepe things for the generall tolerably well how bad soever he is For his badnesse then as his goodnesse before will not reach to all places and scarcely though badnesse in a corrupted world will reach further then goodnesse much further then where hee is present Kingdomes then are governed under God by other Powers as well as by the preame and they no lesse sent by him then the supreame I shall make an inference or two from this afterward Secondly meane time I add my second consideration That in all the forementioned Texts the spirit of God with the mention of Governours authorized and ordained by him inculcates their duty to him and their obligation to Justice c. and that not onely when hee speakes to them Psal 82. and of them at large Prov. 8. But even when he speakes to inferiours to be subject to them and especially when he forbids resistance Rom. 13. And for this cause they are all to be prayd for 1. Tim. 2 2. That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty Which words if they may not be taken as intending why God hath set any in Authority yet the thing is undoubtedly true hee never by way of ordinance gave any Authority for any other End Those Governours then whether supreame or other that under pretence of their Authority from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet and peaceable life which the inferiours should lead in all godlinesse and honesty as to bee sure they doe that are bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties are farre from being Gods Ordinance in so doing and therfore however their power it selfe a sufficiency of Authority for command and coercion in governing the People be from God yet their Tyranny is not at all from him by way of Ordinance or Approbation and so they that resist it even with Armes Resist not the Ordinance of God but resist the violation of his Ordinance and so doe nothing unlawfull though it be a resisting of the supreame person Thirdly let it be remembred that St. Peter in the place fore-mentioned speaking of Governours suppose if meant as the Doctor would sent by the supreame adds for the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well If then the supream send Governours to erect or practise a Tyranny to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties whether under the name of Iustices of Oyeâ— and Terminer Sheriffes Commissioners of Array or the like which is to the Punishment rather of those that doe well and the praise of Evill doers St. Peter saith not a word to bid be subject to them either actively or so much as passively Nor any where else in Scripture I dare be bold to say it doth the Spirit of God bid be subject to Princes or politick Governours though tyrannous or perverters of Religion and Justice I meane not when it speaks of them as such And till then though they have power from God which is not to be rejected yet their Tyranny being not from him but against him may and the Doctor hath not been able nor will never be to prove to the contrary SECT IV. IN this Section the Doctor undertakes to treat of the Forfeiture of the Power and so of the Re-assuming of it by the Parliament or People for the Kings not discharging his trust And denies this Forfeiture and this power of Reassuming that Power But this he saith they that plead for it offer to prove by two or three things laid together First that the power is derived from the People by way of Election Secondly that there is a Covenant betweene the King and the People Thirdly that it is necessary for a State have a meanes within it selfe to preserve it selfe Against all those the Dr. argues and I follow him Onely remembring him that by Forfeiture is not understood Forfeiture of all Kingly Authority nor
by Reassuming as I said before a taking of the whole power from him to themselves but onely for the particular Case in hazard and for the present necessity And now to begin with what he first mentions the Derivation of power I must tell him that he forges what he before complained of in others that they confounded the power it selfe with the person and the Qualification I am sure he doth so here if ever man did Hee before granted the Person and Qualification from men and then they approved of God and more then that no man pleads to be derived nor more to be forfeited plead not for so much nor he Paâ—liament neither But only the Qualification for he particular Case of danger and till that danger may be sufficiâ—ntly secured Yet here now at first to oppose the Forfeiture but of this particular which is only in question now before us he denies the power to be from the People and appeales to what he hath cleared which is onely by his owne saying but not altogether as hath beene shewed that the Power it selfe is from God But for all that if no more can be said against the persons forfeiting his reigning Power and specially in the Qualifications of it even for ever it may undoubtedly be forfeited and so re-assumed all of it which is more then I say Secondly but he will prove that though the People have this Power absolutely which himselfe hath more then once granted of the Designation of the Person and Qualification yet could they not have right to take it away REPL. The King will have no cause to thank him for his undertaking as well because he doth it not with any great strength as also because hee hath hereby provoked men to dispute even this Case which no way needed since the Parliament never pretended to this Right in generall but rather disclaimed it First he saith Many things which are altogether in our disposing before we part with them are not afterward in our power to recall REPL. True but some things are and that both if conditions be not observed and even at our owne pleasure A King makes some Officers for terme of life others quamdin se bene gesserint others aâ—â— ante bene placite To the latter hee may send a Writ of Ease at his pleasure and every day it s in his power to recall their Authority To the second their offices are sure without power of recalling till they are legally convicted of misbehaviour To the third as long as they live their Authority is firme and no power of recalling it wholly Yet even such may bee hindred from some Administrations by Accusations by and apparency of Crimes making it unfit for them to be trusted in the particular We imagine not the People to have power to recall that Regall Authority at their pleasure we argue not that they have power to recall it wholly upon any Case of Mal-administration All that we plead for is power to administer a part of it upon necessity which he will not administer for good but rather for evill And there are not many things that were altogether ours and in our disposing before we part with them but are still so farre ours as to use them againe in our necessity for that turne at least though there are some Secondly But he will prove this to be one of those that are not after in our power to recall especially saith he such in which there redounds to God an interest by the Donation as in things devoted though after they come to be abused REPL. 1. Grant this true in referrence to the Power of recalling them wholly which yet is not universally true as will appeare straight yet may there be power enough to administer so much as is of necessity A Wife is tyed to her Husband by the Covenant of God so called Prov. 2. by the Ordinance of God more ancient and no lesse strong then that of Politick Government She cannot recall wholly her Husbands Authority over her though shee was once altogether at her disposing to choose or another or none to be her head All the goods of the Family are his in Law and not here but by his leave and order Yet for her necessity she may by the Law of God and conscience administer so much of the goods as is fit and secure her Person from his violence by absence though that ordinarily be against the Law of Marriage and the end of it or any other meanes of nccessary defence But secondly it is not altogether true that there is no power or recalling any thing devoted to God Hezekiah took off the gold from the Doores of the Temple and the Pillars which he had overlaid and all the silver in the house of the Lord to pay the King of Assyria his demanded Ransome 2. Kings 18.14 15 16. If the Doctor will not owne this Act of Hezekiah I am sure he will that of David taking the hallowed Bread which was not for any by Gods Law to eate but onely the Priests This was devoted to God and not so much as abused and by him assigned to a speciall use yet from that diverted and lawfully without question And now I appeale to all Consciences Whether the necessity of saving a Kingdome from the subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties be not greater then Davids necessitie was And if I will have mercy and not sacrifice did justifie Davids act will it not theirs who in a necessity use or administer the power of the Militia or Armes which ordinarily is only to be admieistred by the King Neither will Abimelech the Priests consenting to David alter the Case for it was devoted to God and but in necessity he might not have consented nor David accepted Necessity then recalled that particular Bread through devoted So necessity may recall this parcell of power in question Thus the Doctors ground failes him for our Case yet 3. see what he adds so although it were as they would have it that they give the power and God approves himselfe oft hath said and cannot deny but they give the Person his power and if they take it from his person yet they may leave it to his Heire but wee argue not for so much yet because the Lords hand and his oyle also is upon the Person elected to the Crowne and then he is the Lords Annointed and the Minister of God those hands of the People which were used in lifting him up to the Crowne may not againe be lift up against him either to take the Crowne from his head or the Sword out of his hand this true inform'd Conscience will not dare to doe REPL. 1. Is not Gods hand upon a Judge Is not hee the Minister of God Is not a King bound to God and to his People to appoint Judges who may lesse be spared in their Power then the Monarch himselfe for what is his Power when an Infant Is not the Kingdome then administred
of Nature to defend my self from outragious Violence being altogether an Innocent I cannot see specially in a case concerning GODS immediate Honour as well as my safety 2. If Lawes cannot tie my hands in all Cases in the forenamed from resistance much lesse an Arbitrary Power but of that it will be convenient to discourse a little further and apply it also to Civill Matters as well as to Religion wherein we shall also see whether all Civill Lawes doe so tie us as none of them neither may be resisted and if any which and which not I say then an Absolute Arbitrary Power or absolute Monarchy as some call it is not at all the Ordinance of GOD and so no lawfull Power secured from resistance by Rom. 13.2 First GOD allowes no man to rule as hee list to make what Lawes he list to punish how and whom hee list But his Word speaks the Contrary every where Secondly GOD not allowing Men cannot give it to a Conquerour or any other They can give but what GOD allowes for they have no more their owne in that sence Now no man can give any thing but what is his owne Thirdly particularly no man is allowed by GOD or can be made by Man an absolute Monarch a meere Arbitrary Prince in point or Religâ—on I am farre from denying Authority about Circumstantialls in Religion But I meane he hath no Authority to bid what GOD forbids or to forbid what GOD bids or punish them that obey GOD rather than him GOD never gave this Power nor can men give it Fourthly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to violate the Chastity of any A Law of Platoes Community is null because against GODS expresse 7th Commandement and may and ought to be resisted yet now we are among civill matters Fiftly no Monarch hath any Power from GOD or can have from men to take away the life of his Subjects any one at his meere pleasure or without a Law broken whether Civill or Martiall and knowne to the Transgressour or which he ought to have knowne and might which Ionathan could not hee had no meanes to know of his Fathers Oath being then made and in his absence Lycurgus his Law to destroy all Children that were deformed or weakelings and Pharaohs Arbitrary Command to destroy all the Israelitish Males were both alike tyrannous and null and might have been resisted In all these cases there is I say no absolute Monarchy no meere arbitrary Power Lawfull none that is GODS Ordinance And whosoever challenges such Power is in that not GODS Deputy but an Vsurper whether King or Caesar Roman or Turkish Emperour or any other Sixtly but the only Cases wherein a Monarch may be absolute in Matter of Liberty of mens persons of Goods anâ— manner of Judaciall proceedings and making or taking away Officers and Honours and such like in those I grant that as GOD denies not but a Monarch may have absolute Authority onely he must use it to Good so men may give away their Liberty by Feare or otherwise and become much enslaved to their Princes Will in comparison of what others are And if any bee so which I beleeve not of the Roman State though much was done arbitrarily by the Emperours I yield they may not resist though they be sorely pincht They may thanke themselves who bound their owne if therefore our Parliament in after Ages or this by being forsaken by the People seduced by the Dr. should so enslave us we must beare it and not resist because it is our owne Act who choose them and put all such things into their hands but in other things we should not could not be bound as I said before The Doctor hath a third Reason We cannot expect absolute meanes of safety and security in a State but such as are reasonable REPL. If by absolute meanes of safety and security hee meane such as God cannot defeat we grant what he saith or such as God hath forbidden But if he take it of rationall means he saith nothing at all that allotts any means which are not absolutely sufficient according to humane proceedings to procure sâ—ch a safety as a State shall nâ—ed A State is a most considerable body and may challenge all possible meanes which God hath not denyed them and so even a private man may being altogether innocent except where a greater good then his Particular life calls him to venture it or yeeld it up But there is no greater good on earth in civill respects then the safety of a state Therefore all meanes not forbidden from Heaven are reasonable and to bee expected and used though not expressly provided for that is mentioned in the Fundamentalls of this Government which the Doctor would require Then he falls a commending the excellent temper of the three Estates King Lords Commons having each a power of denying REPL. They have so in making particular Lawes But the Quest now is of exercising the generall and maine fundamentall Law of all States to save the whole from ruine and subversion Here though all three agreeing and none denying makes the safety more secure and more comfortable and honourable Yet no reason but in a Co-ordinate Power as here it is plainly so see the Fuller Answer to the Doctors Booke any two or of three or even any one of them rather then all should faile and be dissolved should have Power to endeavour the common safety which the others neglect or intend to subvert or betray And I verily beleeve the Doctor himselfe or any other of his partie if hee forbeare not to say so much least it should be retorted on himselfe will confesse that the King and the Lords may save the Kingdome from ruine without or against the House of Commons and the King and the House of Commons without or against the Lords and which is yet more the King alone without or against both Lords and Commons For indeed this is the very thing now pretended by the King for his taking Armes to save the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and his owne Rights c. which he saith the Lords and Comâ—ons whom he termes the Major part of both Houses present intend and goe about to subvert And if they did so certainely all true Subjects and Paâ—riots ought not onely not to joyne with them in their Armes but to joyne with the King in his against them And if it could be possible that all the three Estates should agree to ruine Religion and the State even the Body of the People should by vertue of the power which each State hath for its necessary safety have Authority sufficient to defend themselves and resist all outragious Attempts of mischiefe as hath been proved before though then for want of many conveniences and perhaps of wisedome to manage it the defence and resistance must needs be much more hazardous and dfficult The power therefore of denying and so all other power in each of the 3.
againe it can never be rationally conceived the people have given away such a naturall liberty such a necessary power for their common safety Unlesse it can be proved that they have done so The proofe then before the Barre of indifferency of judgement and unpartiall conscience will lie on the Doctors part not ours Fourthly But he saith the representative Body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure REPL. 2. It hath been so de facto multo but whether it bee altogether so de jure may justly be questioned upon these grounds First for their meeting when the Prince is an Infant or if a prisoner in enemies hands and so cannot give out a legall Warrant for their meeting or if distracted hath not the State power to meet in Parliament for their common safety and the Princes too They have met in the infancy or minority of Kings and made Lawes as in Edw. the 6. time and not by the meere power of the Protectour for the Nobility after put him out his head was cut off afterward by a Law made while he was Protectour It was then and could be nothing else but the inherent power of State to meet so in cases of necessity Yet I beleeve there is no written Law for this but the generall Maxim of Salus Populi suprema lex And this will extend to the case of Tyranny as fully as any of the former if not more Withall did not the Lords in Richard the 2 nds time call a Parliament without the King wherein they had their grievances redressed and this afterward was confirmed in the first of Hen. the 4 th Secondly then for their dissolving It hath indeed beene very much practised by our two last Kings But our Histories so farre as I remember quare whether Hen. 3. did not dissolve some Parliaments in discontent mention not any such thing as a Parliament dissolved in displeasure or against the desire of the Houses But as they meet very frequently oft-times every yeare somtimes oftner so that in the space of a hundred yeares there are counted above a 100. Parliaments So they sate till they had ended the Princes and their owne businesses which went much together and so it never came to a matter of examination or discontent the delay of calling them to meet or the too timely dissolution of Parliaments Parliaments were not wont to bee so odious or dreadfull to Princes as within these forty yeares they have been By whose default they have been so since let the encrochments upon Magna Charta and the Subjects liberties direct any to judge 2. But further for both these First the Parliament averres that there are Lawes that there should be a Parliament every yeare and so they have abated of their Right rather then gained upon the King by the Act of the Trienniall Parliament 2. And for the dissolution I have heard some wisemen affirme that by Law it cannot be dissolved while there are any Petitions of grievances or such matters of importance depending and unfinished Whereunto may be added most justly that in ordinary times Countrey Gentlemen and Noblemen and in a manner the whole body of the Parliament would be as sick of a long Parliament and continuall attendance as the King could wish and would petition rather then be tyed so by the legge for a dissolution or at least a Prorogation And it 's well enough knowne that even this Parliament after the Act of Continuation past were as weary of sitting as need to be desired till the Rebellion in Ireland seconded by the growing evills at home put new spirits into them and forced them to that diligence of attendance and unwearied labours so many as have taken the common good to heart as no Age or Story can parallel here or in any other Kingdome or Nation Thirdly beyond all this I appeale againe to the Kings Answer to the 19. Prepositions formerly mention'd and aske whether if the King have absolute power to forbeare calling them at his will and to dissolve them at his pleasure it be not a meere nothing that hee saith the House of Commons have power to impeach his owne Followers and Favorites who have broken the Lawes even by surreptitiously gotten commands from the King and that the Lords have power to judge and punish and are an excellent skreene between the King and the people to assist each against any incroachings of the other and by just Iudgements to preserve the Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three and that the Power legally placed in both Houses is more then sufficient to prevent and restraine the power of Tyranny What serves all this for when his Favourites will keepe him from calling a Parliament perhaps all his dayes unlesse unlook'd for neceâ—sity force him to it We haoe â—eene our selves about 13. yeares without one and had there not beene conceived hopes that there would have beene Money given against the Scots it had not been then called as it was Againe what serves the calling them when the same Favourites being questioned shall counsell a dissolution We have knowne that too even three times in this Kings Reigne and no other dissolution but on these grounds And the last was within three weekes because they would not in all hast and contrary to all former Presidents and Priviledges give mony against the Scots and embroyle the two Kingdomes in a perpetuall Warre not having had one grievance redressed And in the case of a Prince bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties which is the Doctors Case propounded It is undoubted he will if he can dissolve them as soone as they offer but to punish any of his Favourites and so to crosse the designe unlesse he dare not of which anon because therefore I believe the King in that Answer hath not ascribed more then right to the Parliament It will follow that in right specially in such case they ought not to be dissolved And that if by force they should be or should not have been called at all the People have right to meet together when and where they can in a Parliamentary manner or otherwise to such end as to defend themselves and one another from tyranny and the designed subversion of Religion Lawes and Liberties as hath beene often said Fourthly but for the present condition of our Kingdome and Parliament I must professe that as I admire the providence of God in the Act passed for the continuation of this Parliament so I doe for the forementioned expressions of the King in that answer Which laid together may to any understanding men wholly decide this first Question betweene the Doctor and us in point of Legality in our Kingdome if there were nothing else said or to be said that supposing such a designe to subvert Religion Lawes and Liberties This Parliament hath if no other had or could have being dissoluble at pleasure compleat power and Authority to