fame and credit to my sufferings as well as mine owne Innocency and their malice is the more observed with wonder at their successe and favour with some Members in the House of Commons because some six weekes before they complained of me to them divers of these my persecuting neighbours whereof the debauched Drunkard was one had convented me before the Justice of peace for omitting the Crosse and Surplice urging the worthy Gentleman to his admiration to inflict the penalty of the statute upon mee for the same when as notwithstanding at that time in other places to other persons they did raile upon mee for using the Common prayer booke at all which soone after they rent in peeces And lastly another reason of this my usage hath beene alleadged by a Member of the House to be this The King saies he turnes out those Ministers that be for the Parliament and we must provide for them and how should we so do but by turning out those that be for the King but I beleeve His worship was misinformed of His Majesty for unto that day I cannot yet heare though I have inquired that the King had sequestred any living or turned any Minister out perhaps some whose Consciences accused them for preaching treason and sedition did run away when His Majesties forces approached and in pity to the peoples soules so forsaken some might be appointed by His Majesty to preach unto them But such wrongs upon such grounds unto the Kings Subjects that are peaceable and loyall will make men see and beleeve what hath beene foretold them by their Soveraigne and to further that worke had I another Living I hope I should be content to loose it And now my Christian Brethren and friends you have heard also the reasons of my trouble persecution judge in your secret thoughts betweene mee and my enemies I hope I never gave occasion of scandall to the godly wise I am ready to give an account of my whole faith I tooke occasion from a conference with Master Marshall to publish my judgement in the case for which I suffer that I might give satisfaction to you all and that you might see I have some reason for my dissent from him and some others of my brethren I dedicate it as to him in particular so to you all in generall from whose hands I begge foure things 1. That you would not thinke the worse of that High and Honourable Court of Parliament for any of my sufferings nor interpret that any word in these succeeding Sections is intended against the same I have professed before it and so I do now to you and to the world that next to Christ and the King I judge my selfe bound in duty to endeavour the honour of it I neither do nor dare in conscience attribute the wrong that hath beene done mee to the major part of that part which is now sitting onely this I say some particular members who as men being seduced by ill Counsell have beene the Instruments of my unkind neighbours thus to abuse mee whose sinne God pardon and whose hearts God in mercy turne 2. That you would beare in mind that this publication of my faith judgement in the case is the Consequent of my troubles indeed occasioned by them for I have suffered and therefore do I speake this I request to the end you might be witnesses for me if afterward out of these following lines somewhat should be picked wrested and alleaged as the cause of my sufferings for I observe that 't is the custome of these times by doing wrong to urge men to complaine and then from their expressions to get some colour for their former evill doing against them when my selfe did first appeare before the Committee my charge was onely of a Sermon preached the Lords day after I had beene voted a Delinquent 3. That you would not thinke my present flight to be a relinquishing of the cause I never balked to appear upon the least intimations untill now that power was put into the hands of my raging Enemies which for ought I know was to kill mee indeed it was threatned before as was evidenced upon oath before a Justice that I should be cut off as not being fitting to live whereupon I went to that Member who was the Cheife instrument of my trouble and desired of him that I might be brought rather to suffer for this cleare truth of God in publicke as the Martyrs in Queene Maries dayes did which I hoped God would enable me to endure that I might glorify him by my death then be murdered in private as I was threatned he indeed made a tush at mee and said there was but one man that had said it But I am by Gods grace of the same minde still when ever I may in publicke give testimony to this truth of God I will not keepe in secret 4. My Christian friends I desire of you in the last place that I may not fare the worse at your hands because I have fared so ill at the hands of others the world's custome is to judge of men according to it's owne usage of them though Christ was more afflicted then other men The Apostle tels us that to you is given not onely to beleeve but also to suffer and if God gives suffering grace he will surely send afflictions for the exercise of it indeed the times are evill but we must not say so seculo premimur gravi quo scelera regnant the world goes ill when sin reigneth but remember non est ad astra mollis è terris via through many tribulations we must go to Heaven invisa nunquam imperia retinentur diu this world will not last alwaies egrediemur tandem we shall be freed from all our sorrowes at the last the merits of Christ will make amends for all and in the meane time if the example of these my sufferings may any way be serviceable unto you my Christian friends I shall rejoice the more in them I am not mine owne I am Christs nay I am yours by Christs appointment who hath ordained his poore Minister blessed be his name not onely to preach the crosse of Christ unto you but also to carry it before you I beg all your prayers for strength from him to whom I commend all you even to our onely wise and omnipotent God who will turne all things in the end to our everlasting good to whom be praise and glory for ever Amen Your Brother and friend in Christ Jesus E. S. March 28. 1643. THE SVMME OF THE SEVERALL SECTIONS 1. THe King being the Supreme Magistrate hath immediate dependance upon God to whom onely he is accountable Pag. 2 2. The Title of the Lords Annointed is proper and peculiar to the King p. 4 3. Royall Birth is equivalent with Royall Vnction and speakes the best Title to a Kingdome p. 6 4. The Precedency and Priviledge of Monarchy p. 7 5. Authority is a sacred thing and essentiall to the
God who hast made me King and art above me hast authority to Judge me Pro. 24.21 for which reason The King in scripture is commanded to feare God only and none else whereas all other men are bidden to feare God and the King because they are liable to answer unto both if they doe evill the Preacher sayes Eccl. 8.4 no man may so much as say to a King what doest thou indeed reason sayes if equalls have not any power over each other much lesse have inferiours over their superiours from whom they receive all their Authority and strength A King is not servus populi the peoples servant no more then the Minister of the Gospell is their dog what ever the dialect of some is in these dayes of Liberty but a King is Minister Dei Rom. 13.4 and what hath any to do to Judge anothers servant Rom. 14.4 saith the Lord David surely was in the right when some moved him against King Saul no sayes he He is the Lords Annoynted to whom only it doth belong 1. Sam. 26.9.10 and not to me or any else to meddle with him the Lord shall smite him for who besides can do it and be guiltlesse It is the Kings Honour to have immediate dependance upon God 't is a part of his prerogative royall above other men and surely they are no freinds to the Kings Honour or to that high prerogative which God hath given him who would make him but equall with the Common sort The Hebrews say their High Preist both judged and was judged Defence of Eccles Disc bare witnesse and had witnesse borne against him but so had not their King nor was he judged of any man And the inconformist ministers in Queene Elizabeths dayes did acknowledge as much priviledge to be due to the Kings of England as ever was given to the Kings of Israell SECT II. The title of the Lords Anointed is proper and peculiar onely to the KING I do also beleeve that in regard of this immediate dependance the Title of the Lords Annoynted doth belong only unto Kings to Christ in the first place who is Rex Regum and then to them who are Kings under him 1. Ioh. 2.27 And though all sincere professors have received an annoynting from the Holy one yet I beleeve there is a difference inter Christos Christianos inter unctos Christi Christos Domini for though others were uncti yet I find not in scripture that Honourable title of Christus Domini conferred upon any save only Princes nor do I thinke they had it from that Ceremony of powring oyle upon them for before that was in use Abraham Isaak and Jacob were so called who were Patriarchs or Princes in their families or generations Ps 105.15 Gen. 23.6 Act. 2.29 which 2 names we know are both of one signification a Patriarch is a cheife father in government and so is a Prince Abraham is called a Prince and David a Patriarch But that Title was given to such for their eminency above others because of Gods designation of them to supremacy Es 45.1 and therefore it went also afterward without the Ceremony as well as with it Cyrus was Gods Annoynted and so is Carolus And I doe beleeve that royall unction must be acknowledged to give Princes an exemption from all harme or wrong who must in this respect be looked upon by all men as sacred persons David in his lamentation for Saul speakes as if his enemies ought to have had respect unto him in the battaile because he was anoynted with oyle and in the same Chapter the Amalikite a stranger was put to death because he had dared though desired by himselfe to rid him of his life 2. Sam. 1.21 because he was the Lords Annoynted And the Psalmist sayes that for Abraham and Isaacks sake God himselfe reproved Kings scilicit Pharaoh King of Egypt Ps 105.15 and Abimelech King of Gerar saying touch not mine Annoynted teaching thereby that such great respect is to be given by all the world to this High and Holy order of Kings that they must not be injured by their fellow Kings and if not by them then surely not by their own Subjects who have taken the oath of Allegiance unto them if they do them the least wrong either in word or deed God will reprove them after another fashion then he did Pharaoh and Abimeleck For in that Kings have obtained from God a more excellent name then other men it shews that they are of all others the most excellent persons God hath not said unto others at any time you are mine Anointed with mine holy Oile have I anointed you fit ye at my right hand and rule the Nations in my stead but to Kings he hath Others as was said are his Sancti but these are his Christi and that is more as the apple of his eye they must not be so much as touched for hurt either with hand or tongue or pen for touch the Anointed and ye touch the Lord they have not despised thee onely but mee they have despised saies God to his Vicegerent 1. Sam. 8.7 SECT III. Royall birth is equivalent with Royall unction and speakes the best Title to a Kingdome I do beleeve also that Royall Birth in those Kings that come to their Kingdomes by Inheritance is equivalent every way with Royall unction it speakes the same thing as truly and as loud which is onely a right title by Gods appointment without usurpation and royall unction spake no more this was the language of Royall birth of old as well as now for after the first of a Family had beene anointed to note Gods choyce unction was no more used in that family Bishop Andrews unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome as betweene Solomon and Adonijah Joash and Athaliah the eldest sonne of the Predecessour was afterward the Chosen of the Lord His Birthright spake the Lords Appointment as plainely as his forefathers unction had done and invested him with the title of the Lords Annointed as wee may see in Iosiah and Hezekiah and the other Kings of Iudah And I do beleeve that the Prince who is once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by Inheritance can never by any upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof againe without Horrible impiety Sacriledge and Injustice in the Instruments Royall unction was an indeleble Character of old 2. Sam. 1.14 it could never more be wiped off where it was once powred on this was apparent in Saul who remained the Lords Anointed to his last gaspe David himselfe confessed it who durst not take the right of Government actually upon him while Saul lived although he had it in reversion being already anointed thereunto and had received the spirit thereof Now Royall Birth-right being the same in sense with Royall unction it followes that he who is truly borne unto a Kingdome is in like fort the Lords anoynted for ever according to right
Kings Person p. 9 6. The Subjects duty and the Soveraignes Excellency p. 10 7. Inward Honour is due to the King and how the same is to be expressed p. 16 8. The question about resisting the Kings Person stated and opened p. 22 9. The lawfulnesse of resisting the Kings personall will by force of Armes disavowed p. 25 10. Scripture examples for it answered p. 30 11. Arguments from Reason answered p. 34 12. Objection from the Kings Oath answered p. 41 13. Scriptures alleadged to evidence the unlawfulnesse of this resistance p. 48 14. Particular Reasons why the Authors Conscience cannot permit him to concurre with some of his Brethren in the way of resistance p. 61 15. This way of Resistance shewed to be 1. Against the way of God p. 66 2. Destructive to the whole Law of God p. 67 3. Inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospell p. 71 4. Contradictive to the perpetuall practice of Christianity p. 72 5. Opposite to the Calling of Ministers p. 74 6. Adverse to common Prudence p. 75 7. Dissentive from the rule of Humanity p. 76 8. Contrary to nature it selfe p. 77 9. Gain-saying Reason p. 78 10. Against the Oath of Allegeance and late Protestation p. 83 84 Reader By reason of the Authors absence some of these Sections are not so plainly noted as the rest wherefore for your better information of the summe of each and where they begin have recourse to this Table Faults escaped in some Copies PAg. 9. lin 21. for yet reade yea◠p. 14. l. 1. r. more l. 15. r. rather makes p. 15 l. 4. r. hinder l. 21. for these r those p. 16. l. 13. r. the Lord will not l. 25. r. thousands p. 21. l. 35. dele and now Sir p. 22. l. 1. r. you discerne l. 3. for at r. out l. 34. for or r. and. p. 23. l. 6. r. contraria l. 14. r. proper l 17. for divers r. armes p. 24. l. 20. r. by Subjects p. 30. l. 9. r. purpose p. 31. l. 19. r. Osiander p. 35. l. 12. r. which p. 39. l. 19. r. singulatim l. 36. r. thee p. 40. l. 34. for this r. our p. 41. l. 16. for Empire r. Emperour p. 48. l. 29. for his r. this p. 89. l. 16. r. will of my c. TO MY REVEREND FRIEND AND BROTHER Mr STEPHEN MARSHALL THe God of all Wisedome Grace and Peace for Christs sake direct all our spirits ever to promote and do that onely which tendeth to the advancement of his owne glory and the tranquillity of this Church and State Amen SIR THe distance of place betwixt us causeth mee to reply by writing unto those things that were urged at our last meeting which at that time I rather heard then answered and now I do professe in the sight of that great God who knowes all hearts and must one day judge us that I desire to maintain no opinion as mine but as I conceive it to be a divine truth I am ready to deny my selfe in forsaking what I hold if at length such arguments as the weight of the cause requires can be produced against it out of Gods booke which is the onely bridle to my conscience In the first place I begge leave of your patience to declare my judgement or if you please my faith in the case I will plainely sincerely and fully expresse it with the grounds thereof then I will answer your Objections and discover how Scripture to my apprehension doth fairely lead mee out of that Labirinth wherein perhaps you thought mee left intangled and lastly I will give some reasons why my conscience disrelisheth that other way wherein diverse of my reverend and well regarded brethren walke SECT I. The KING hath immediate dependance upon God and to him onely is accountable Wherefore my good friends be you pleased to know that I do beleeve what ever the fancy of this Age is that next to Gods Sacred word and worship Kings and Kingdomes are things of the most high and reverend regard in this world with great humility therefore to be thought upon and discoursed of For as Scripture above all other writings so Kings above all other persons have an immediate dependance upon God Dan. 2.21 they are of his sole making He removeth and setteth up Kings And Kingdomes are of his owne disposing Dan. 4.25 The most High ruleth in the Kingdome of men and gives it to whomsoever he will Rom 13.1 And although it is most true that all the powers that be are ordained of God Joh. 19.11 and there is no power but what is given from above for as by him Kings Reigne so also by him Princes rule and Nobles yea all the Iudges of the earth Prov. 8.15 16. yet I beleeve all inferiour powers under the King are from God more remotely namely mediante Rege by the mediation of the supreme even as the lesser Starres have their light from God by the mediation of the Sunne they are the Kings delegates ordained and sent by him saies the Apostle who is sent by God 1 Pet. 2.14 and is under God the chiefe à Deo secundus post quem primus saith Tertullian And hence the Throne of the King is called the Throne of God wherein the King judgeth for God in Gods stead 1. Chro. 29.23.24 but the seat of the inferiour Magistrates is called the Kings seat where they sit and judge for him And hence too the King or supreme hath his Patent immediately from God He is Rex Dei gratiâ and his title is Gode Deputy or the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 but the Inferiour Magistrates have their Patents from the King they are Magistratus Regis gratiâ and are intituled the Kings Ministers or the Kings Iudges And as the man is said to be the Image of God and the woman to be the Image of the man upon whom she hath dependance 1. Cor. 11.7 so the King is the Image of God and inferiour powers in regard of their dependance upon him are the Images of the King they in their places represent Him as Hee in his place represents God and they no otherwise represent God then as they represent the King The King is to them as Moses was to Aaron and the other Judges Ex. 4.16 the mouth of God and they are the mouth of the King unto the people as Aaron and those others were the mouth of Moses Ex. 18.22 And as the Kings duty is to preferre Gods will before his owne so their duty is to preferre the Kings will before their owne when it contradicteth not the will of God revealed in his words And hence I gather that none can call Soveraigne Princes to an account if they transgresse but only God whose immediate stewards they are solum Deum quem habent Authorem habent quoque judicem therefore David well tibi tibi soli peccavi against thee Ps 51.4 thee only have sinned that is thou only O
and justice to his dying day He that is born a King or a Prince can never be unborne more semel Augustus semper Augustus Yea I believe that the eldest Son of such a King is in respect of birth the Lords anoynted in his fathers life time even as David was before Sauls death ' and to deprive Him of his right in reversion is as true injustice as to dispossesse him of it were he actually invested with it I believe where unction speaks not Inheritance by birth is the best Title to a Kingdome had unction been silent Adoniiah by this had surely prevailed as the succeeding Kings of Judah did Solomons own words to his mother inferre as much 1 Kin. 2.22 aske for him the kingdome also for he is mine Elder brother as in this our Nation Birth hath alwayes been the best and most unquestionable plea unto the Crowne the Conque-rour himselfe made use of it so did Henry the fourth and Richard the 3. though both usurpers we may observe how Gods speciall providence blessing hath alwayes favoured this title and preferr'd it they that marke what story tels concerning the opposite indeavors of some both in Henry the eighth Edward the sixth Queen Elizabeths dayes must needs confesse Gods speciall care in conveying the Kingdome to that Royall family where now 't is seated being lineally descended in the Elder surviving bloud from both the divided Houses after the union And on the other side it is most evident that God hath sharply punished those that have offered wrong unto right of Inheritance yea the whole Nation hath lost much both Noble and Vulgar bloud in former times for suffering injustice to be done unto it if we remember but the wars between Yorke and Lancaster we shall finde somewhat in the root of them to this purpose Concerning Monarchy I do believe that of all Governments it is Sect. 4 the best and most perfect it being most opposite to Anarchy most agreeing to well ordered nature as appears among planets birds beasts and bees the most ancient and Noble from the beginning of Nations yea of families whereof there is still an Image in every well guided house where one is chiefe and lastly it being that which God set up among his owne people and hath the nearest resemblance of himselfe for where Majestie is all concentred in one there is a more compleat Image of God who is but one yea and Majesty so united makes it as in God more amiable to the good and more terrible to the wicked And from hence I cannot but see and confesse to Gods praise this Nations Happinesse which hath ever been subject to this Government and if I should be of that sect who are weary of it and wish for an alteration Pro. 24 21 22. I believe I should neither feare God nor the King as I ought to do as Solomon infers they do not who associate with them that are seditious or affect a change whose calamity sayes he shall rise suddainly surely God is wiser then man and that Government which hee so long time hath blessed a Nation with is doubtlesse the best for that Nation In a Monarchy I do believe that the King hath neither superior to compell him nor equall to affront him for then he were not the supreme 1 Pet. 2.14 Gen. 49.10 as the Apostle cals him and I do conceive that in regard of his supremacy he is fons legum The Law giver the Authour and moderatour of the Lawes or rather the Lex viva of his Kingdome without him the Lawes are dead and on him dependeth salus reipublicae Himselfe is bound to no Lawes save those of God and the reason is quia nemo sibi fert legem sed subditis suis He is the King onely of his people and to whom onely he is a King to them onely he gives Lawes A King in this is like God and must indeed be like him further who notwithstanding hee may dispense with his own precept and so doth in some cases yet for the most part himselfe is pleased to walke towards us by those rules hee gives unto us Indeed the free conformity of a Prince to his own Lawes doth constrain his people to a more loving obedience In a Monarchy also I do believe suscipiendi belli Authoritatem penes esse principem as Augustine contra Faustum speaks and if men have not their Princes warrant they have not Gods call to go to war nor can they upon any good ground looke for Gods blessing God call'd Ioshua and the people to that prosperous undertaking against Amalek by the mouth of Moses We do not read in Scripture of any just war ever undertaken by Subjects without the will and command of the Sovereigne voluntiers in such a case are non entia in Gods book justa causa recta intentio personarum idoneitas et authoritas principis are the 4 Conditions that make a war compleatly righteous doubtlesse the justnesse of the cause alone cannot give a lawfull power as some imagine no though the cause be Religion it selfe and the persons Holy men their intentions good yet to take up armes without the Prince is crimen laesae majestatis and no lesse than Treason if war without the Prince be so unlawfull though for Religion then much more unlawfull is it if against the Prince or contrary to his command though for the same cause And I belive that in a case of war a subjects duty is to looke principally at a lawfull call yea more than at the cause it selfe for that may be supra nos and therefore nihil ad nos if we prye into the reasons of Princes undertakings we may prove our selves busy bodyes 1 Pet. 4.15 who in the Apostles judgement are guilty Persons Peter Martyr out of Aug. tels us that fieri potest ut princeps ipse contra Conscientiam bellum gerat et milites tamen nihil peccent dum ordinariae potestati obtemperant populum enim obtemperare oportet principi suo id vero dum faciunt potest illis dubium esse an a principe suo contra mandatum dei pugnetur excusantur autem dum in causâ dubiâ principi suo parent suo inquam non alieno and their own Prince is Hee under whose protection they were borne and unto whom onely they have sworne Allegiance Concerning Authority I believe it to be a most high and sacred Sect. 5 thing the very Crown and dignity of a Prince the Repositum which God hath committed to his charge and he who is faithfull to God will sooner part with life it self then suffer that which hee by him is entrusted withall to be violated undermined or diminished Yea I do believe that a Sovereigne Prince is bound in Conscience to uphold and maintaine this beam of Divinity with the sword if he be so hindred by obstructions that hee cannot defend it by his Lawes and I believe that all his Subjects upon his call are bound in
Conscience as they will answer the contrary unto God to assist him I believe also that the Authority of a King or supreme Governour is the naturall and essentiall investment of his Person though it extend where his Person is not even all over his dominions yet in him 't is radicated is as unseperable from him as his life is who ever aimes at the one aimes also at the other is the voice both of reason Law and story I do conceive that though the distinction holds good of inferiour Governours that they may be considered as men as magistrates yet not so of the supreme who comes to his Authority by inheritance Hee ought not to be considered of in any notion severed from that of King Sauls Person was Gods anointed In others their Authority is onely sacred and addes veneration to their Persons and is separable from them the man may live when his Authority is extinguished but the very Person of a King in regard of royall birth or unction and of immediate dependance upon God is sacred as well as his Authority and doth adde veneration unto that as well as that to him indeed they adde honour to each other and are inseperable they live and dye together they are of Gods conjunction whereas other Authority is of mans and though man may sever what himselfe hath joyned yet what God hath joyned no man must sever Hence I believe that as hee who resists the Authority of an inferior magistrate resists the King so hee that resists the Authority yea or the Person of a Prince or supreme magistrate resists God not onely his Power intrusted to him but also his wisedome in making and ordaining of him in fastning or bestowing the Authority upon him And as hee that resists the King in his Officers shall from the King receive punishment Pro. 17.11 a cruell messenger shall be sent unto him so they that resist God in the King His Minister Rom. 13. shall receive to themselves damnation either temporall from the hand of him that is resisted unto whom God will deliver them up Pro. 20.26 to scatter and to bring the wheele over or from some other in his place 2 King 14.5 as the Kings Son slew those that slew his father or else eternall if they scape here for Solomon sayth hee that provoketh a King to anger Pro. 20.2 sinneth against his owne Soule God doubtlesse will maintaine the Act of his owne wisedome their devise shall be onely mischeivous to themselves that seek to pull him downe whom God hath exalted Ps 62 4. therefore Solomon well Pro. 30.31.32 against a King there is no rising namely without the confusion and ruine of the risers to prevent which he gives his advise in the next words if thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thy self acknowledge it if thou hast thought evill lay thine hand upon thy mouth Private mens Injuries may be washed off with teares but wrongs done to Princes in regard of God his neare and speciall interest are hardly wiped off but with bloud who ever saies David lifted up his hand against Gods Anointed 1 Sam. 26.9 and was guiltlesse as if he had said can any one out of any story name me a man whom vengeance in such a case hath not alwayes followed I do believe that Military strength and outward wealth are the Sect. 6 nerves and sinews of Authority for by these feare and reverence is procured to that and love to the Princes person in all those who are not able to see God in the face of Majestie of which sort there are too many therefore to take away or with-hold these is to endeavour the weakening of the Kings Authority and to bring the same together with his person into contempt and his life it selfe into danger surely if a King be appointed of God to be the Supreame in Authority it is the Subjects duty to manifest their approbation of Gods will and their obedience to their Prince in yeilding to him the superiority over themselves in such matters true feare of God will make men honour him whom God honoureth and faith in God to trust him whom God trusteth The Hearts of Subjects I beleeve next to the Arme of God are the strength of the Princes strength and the wealth of his wealth and therefore to rob him of these is the greatest theft it is to rend from him his Honour his Reverence his Authority and what ever God hath invested him withall and this is often done by publishing and aggravating his humane infirmities Psal 35.11 but most commonly by laying to his charge things whereof he is not guilty When Absolom and Achitophel went about their horrid Treason they cast Iniquity upon the King they found none upon him but they laid some on Psal 55.3 2 Sam. 15. that so his Subjects might hate him as themselves did and joyne with them against him this I beleeve hath alwayes proved a sinne of a purple dye and is a blasphemy against God as well as against the King for he that speakes evill of the King speaks evill of Gods Law which commands the contrary and so of God himselfe A King is the light of his Israell Act. 23.5 the Sunne of his Kingdome Jam. 4.11 and true Religion which is a light too obscures not that light the Locusts that came out of the Pit were they that darkened the Sunne this condition better becomes Jesuites such as Sanders and Parsons were then Protestants Rev. 9.2 3. A Prince is the breath of his peoples nostrils and his honour is the breath whereby himselfe lives and whosoever have indeavoured to stop or infect this breath have gone about to murder all the Subjects as might be evidenced by examples what ever pretences at first were the issue in the end hath beene the Land was an Acheldama Surely I beleeve that Piety and Allegeance doth instruct a loyall Subject to prize his Soveraignes good name before his owne yea to be glad and joyfull of an occasion even to drowne his owne credit in his Princes service to advance him Scripture teacheth to deny our selves to Honour our King Samuel at Sauls request when he had told him that God had rejected him and so knew him to be actually under Gods displeasure and thereupon was himselfe departing from him in anger yet was content to turne againe 1 Sam. 15.30 to honour him before the people to put all respect that possibly he could upon him as he was a King I beleeve a true religious Subject dares not entertaine an evill thought of his Soveraigne nor beleeve evill of him he dares not conceipt meanly or slightly of the Lords Anointed that place of Scripture doth much awe him Eccles 10.20 Curse not the King in thy heart the word in the originall being disrespect not disesteeme not a disrespectfull thought of a King is an accursed thought and who so harboureth such a thought shall not
hunt or pursue from place to place but it presupposeth a being hunted or pursued and I shall rather take the terme in its ancient and prer signification as perhaps you would have mee thinke you take it as being the more gentle then in that new sense which this boisterous Age doth I conceive by a defensive resistance an active resistance by divers renouncing passive obedience Against the Kings will or personall command if they that maintaine this position be of the privy Councell to this resisting generation we may suspect two things from these their words if they doe not flander 1. That the present war is not principally against those that are with the King as the common people are made to believe but rather against the Kings owne Person Indeed that voice to fight against the King would call together but little money and few men in this Nation nor can all that looke that way hope to weare the Kings Crown but they may promise to themselves a portion in the estates of the Kings friends who if he perish which God defend are sure to fall with him 2. That this warre is not to defend Religion as the ignorant also are perswaded but onely to crosse the King that he might not have His will Indeed the great and onely Controversie between God and man is whose will shall be done no marvell if a good King be in Gods Condition Against the Kings Personall will when it contradicts his Law I suppose the reason is because we must love the Law better then we do the King the fountain of it but how if the Kings will be concurrent with His Law how if he not onely protests he will but actually doth adventure his sacred Person to defend his Law I hope in such a case it will be yeelded without dispute that resistance is unlawfull because haply it would be suspected that those that make it do beare as ill an Affection to the Law it selfe as fearing a triall by it as they do unto the King who would bring them to it But that is not our case you 'l say if you mean that which your self have put I grant the case concernes not us but why then is the position of lawfull resistance now preached do any purpose in aftertimes to get their King into a streight and so force in him some breach of Law to gaine advantage of resistance and therefore would have people by this doctrine ready prepared before hand to aid them against him on the suddaine without scruple well yet I hope the Consciences of true Protestant Subjects will never swallow this principle But concerning the Position I conceive 't is built partly upon that distinction already disliked as improper specially for Subjects to make use of it being indeed of evill and dangerous consequence namely that a King may be considered as a man without his office and as a King in his office for in an Hereditary Kingdome the Kings right to Regality was at the beginning of his Personality they were borne and they die together and therefore not so much as ly Subjects to be considered asunder Indeed the King himselfe may use this distinction in the case of pardoning those that offend his person as he is a Christian he may forgive for he is not borne a Christian though a Prince but those that offend him as he is Pater Patriae as by stirring up Rebellion in the Common-wealth and by shedding the bloud of his innocent Subjects he must punish in regard of his office I confesse 't is a sinne of a purple dye to offend the person of a Prince but true magnanimity can pardon great faults specially when none is offended thereby but he that pardons Againe I conceive the distinction betweene the Kings personall and legall command is of no ancient standing in the School of Christianity Faction bred it and Sedition if let alone will nourse it it hath been already the mother of much strife and I pray God it prove not the Grandmother to confusion but admit it good yet I doe not see how it belongs to Subjects to determine of the Princes will to be contrary to his Law whensoever to outward appearance it seemeth so God sayes Job giveth not account of his matters no more doe Princes those earthly Gods give a reason of all their doings to their Subjects When Solomon pretended to divide the quicke childe betweene the two Harlots 1 King 3. a most cruell and unlawfull thing to outward appearance yet none of his Subjects were so sinfully bold as to resist him in it or to say Thou art ungodly 2 King 10. so when Jehu pretended to serve Baal more then ever Ahab did and Constantine to honour those that would offer sacrifice to Idols and to banish those that would not neither of them were opposed by their people beside the effect shewed that their Wills were as right as their best Lawes notwithstanding those pretences It was once your owne honest interpretation before the publike Congregation that if the Kings Majestie were acquainted with the comeing forth of that booke of Liberty on the Lords day it was onely to discover the consciences of his Clergy how tender and faithfull they would be for the service and day of God their master But I proceed from the fashion or out-side to the matter or substance Sect. 9 of the position it selfe There is a difference made or rather coyned betwixt the King and His Law and the Authors thereof say It is lawfull to resist the King to keep his Law yea necessary as if not obeying and resisting were both one or must of necessity goe together the Apostle sayes Rom. 13. They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation not they that doe not obey doubtlesse therefore there is a difference I have alwayes thought passive obedience to be the Medium or Christian vertue betweene them and surely so it is unlesse Rebellion of late hath tane it from its place made a vice of it and clapt it into prison Reason sayes that by an humble submission to the penalty a man may deny obedience without resistance to the Personall as well as to the Legall commands of the Prince if men obey not the Law when the King forbids nor the Kings will where the Law inhibits neither is resisted had all the Nation beene of this mind we had bad no fighting though the Kings will had truly opposed his Law as is pretended But let them be as some would have it both one you say 't is lawfull to resist the King to keepe his Law and why not as lawfull at least as pious on the other side to neglect I say not to resist his Law to obey him when the thing commanded is not ungodly if the King be greater then his Law we may Nay if to obey the King be Gods Ordinance and to obey the Law but the Ordinance of man it is our duty These two particulars I will briefly prove 1. If
subducit aut etiam aliquid in principem molitur that being alienated in affection from his Prince withdraweth his obedience doth endeavour somewhat against him by way of resistance Ob. But to what purpose then are Lawes established if the Kings will be above them or must be obeyed in the first place Answ Lawes are established to instruct the Subjects in their duty not to rule the King they are the Kings will in scriptis his revealed or written will and therefore 't is supposeable that his personall will may yet at least be coordinate with them and so no more resistible then they for we must remember still the question is about resistance But for the matter of obedience let me adde further the Lex or Law is one thing and Ius or right may be another it may be supra legem and on the Kings side when his will commands contrá in such a case even Conscience it selfe requires us to preferre the dictate of his will in our obedience There was among the Romanes a power called potestas regia which was absolute and above the Lawes still reteined in that Common Wealth after the enacting of that festivall called Regifugium for the banishment of their Kings and it was inherent to the Person of the supreme magistrate that was pro tempore for those wise men though they were great lovers of that which they called Liberty yet they conceived that if the chiefe Authority were restrained within the streights of Lawes it could not be exercised to the publike utility and therefore since all Lawes were to be interpreted pro ratione locorum temporum ac personarum with respect to place time and person and many things fell out which might render the Law evill that was in it selfe good they thought it fit in all doubtfull cases to repaire ad Dictaturae Ius to the Personall direction of a chiefe Magistrate called the Dictator et quod Dictatori ut res postulabat fuit temporarium Imperatori et Regi oportet esse ut sit perpetuum what was to him temporary is to a setled King perpetuall the State of the Kingdome so requireing Ob. But suppose Ius or Right be on the Lawes side and the Kings will be to violate that as well as the Law Answ I answer that notwithstanding a King should do so yet I do not conceive it lawfull for Christian Subjects to resist him by force of arms In the Jewish Politicks we know that were made by Moses was couched not onely Law but even Right it selfe yet when Samuel foretold the people of the conditions of their King and mentions such acts of His will as might be reckoned among such kinde of violations he did not grant them any warrant or countenance for resistance when the King should take away their Sons and Daughters to serve his lust and will their servants and feilds to dispose of according to his pleasure 1 Sam. 8.18 Samuel doth not say thereupon and you shall fight it out in that day against your King But and you shall cry out in that day because of your King and to whom shall they cry to the people or to one another no but even unto the Lord saies the Text who gave the King and who alone is above the King and who sometimes permits a King for the peoples sins to do such things Indeed reason saies that God onely whose servant the King is hath power over him and to him onely we must repaire if we have any businesse concerning him Pro. 21.1 to which parpose the Spirit saies the Kings heart is in Gods hand who turneth it as himselfe willeth all mens hearts we know are in Gods hand too but the Kings heart is said to be there in a speciall manner to teach that our duty is to use Gods helpe onely when we would have the Kings heart turned to us if we neglect God in such a case and addresse our selves unto the people stir up them to rage and be tumultuous wee shall rather drive the King further from us then draw him nearer to us no way or hand can or shall incline the Kings heart but the way or Hand of God Nehemiah went to God when he would have the Kings Heart inclined to him and his request and so did Mordecay and Hester when they desired the like favour from the King These are Reverend Sir the objections as I remember that were expressed or involved in your discourse which according to my weak power and my Conscience I have thus answered and do conclude that I cannot see how it is lawfull to resist the Kings Personall commands in the behalfe of his Legall when opposite I do conceive that rather then so his Personall if not against the Commands of God are to be obeyed nor can I apprehend how a man in such a case can properly be said to breake any Law that obeyeth the Commands of the Law-maker Sect. 10 I now come unto your Scriptures which were alleadged to prove the lawfulnesse of resistance They are not precepts any of them yet for points of practice in matters of far lesse moment precepts are necessary and I must confesse I thinke it strange that a businesse of such high concernmentâ—â—s resisting a King by force of Armes should be in action among Christians and not one direct command of God to bottome it upon Ob. Yea but if the Examples be pregnant and nothing in Gods word contradicting they being many may be as valid as a precept Yes haply in some cases though whether in such a one as this I question but are these such nothing lesse they are rather blinde and unlikely suppositions and so thread-bare with often use for want of better change that for this purpose almost to every eye they seeme worthlesse The first is that of the peoples resisting Saul in the behalfe of Jonathan 1 Sam. 14.45 But how did they resist the words of the Text are these The people said unto Saul who had made a rash vow shall Jonathan die who hath wrought so great salvation in Israel God forbid as the Lord liveth there shall not one haire of his head fall to the ground for he hath wrought with God this day so the people rescued Jonathan that he died not Here we see are onely Reasons and Arguments such as might become prayers here is no intimation of Armes or violent resistance as therefore Saint Peter might be said to be rescued out of prison by the prayers of the Church or Nabal and his family from slaughter by the prayers of Abigail so was Jonathan out of danger by the prayers of the people And that is the judgement of Divines Junius Borrhaius Psiander whom Willet alleadgeth in this case and Gregory as I finde him quoted And reason sayes that Saul might easily be intreated by his Subjects without any violent resistance on their parts to breake a rash and unlawfull vow to save the life of his eldest sonne whom he loved who was
innocent and had that day been Gods Instrument of so great salvation unto Israel Nay Peter Martyr addes further that if the people did any more then pray if they pressed violently upon Saul in making a mutiny they sinned so that the first example is nothing to the purpose The second is of Davids strengthening himselfe against Saul To which I answer that I finde not in Scripture that David ever strooke up the Drum or used any meanes to call or gather men unto him for any such end indeed 't is said 1 Sam. 22.2 that many that were afflicted as he was gathered themselves unto him and he became their Captaine so that properly he strengthened not himselfe they rather strengthened him or the Lord by them preserved him for that imployment whereunto he was appointed But doe we ever reade of any act of hostility that David with them did exercise against Saul or against any of his followers so long as Doeg was in favour they might well pretend that the King had ill Councellours about him yet we reade not of any violence that was used to remove them Nay very easily might David have revenged himselfe upon the Ziphites that did their good will to betray him into Sauls hand if his conscience would have served him to kill any of the Kings Subjects against the minde of the King Whereas you say that you gather from 1 Chron. 12. that David was 40000 strong in the dayes of Saul and 't is probable he did not lie still with his great Army I answer it is not apparent that all those Captaines mentioned in that Chapter brought all their men with them yet if it were so it makes against you that David being so strong should alway flee from Saul when pursued by him and resist never much lesse seeke after him should get him out of Sauls Kingdome with so many men following him and beg a place to dwell in of Achish King of Gath. But Sir the truth is David was never above 600 strong till about the time that Ziglag was burnt which was about the time of Sauls death and that great concourse of men mentioned 1 Chron. 12. came then to him it may be probable that they fled from the battaile wherein Saul was slaine for the Text sayes vers 21. some of them helped David against the Rovers And vers 22 23. 't is said They came to him to turne the Kingdome of Saul to him according to the word of the Lord. It was well knowne in Israel that David was appointed to succeed Saul and who will not at such a time looke to the Sun-rising Thus to my apprehension the second example is as farre from the marke as the former Beside David being an extraordinary person full of Gods spirit and by unction designed of God unto the Kingdome his example in such a case is not proper Sam. 23. The third you alleadged is the businesse at Keilah It is supposed say you that David would have defended that Towne against the King if the Inhabitants would have beene faithfull to him ergo 'T is lawfull to resist the King and to keepe his Townes against him We use to say à facto ad jus non valet consequentia indeed this was not factum yet I see not how it followes It is so supposed but not by every body for some may and perhaps as simply suppose because 't is said afterward Chron. 12.1 that David kept himselfe close in Ziglag that he would also here have lien close in Keilah if the men thereof would as Rahab did the spyes but have concealed him But by the way here is one thing notable David it seemes though he was 600 strong in that Towne would not venture upon it for to hold it untill he knew whether he should have the good will of the Inhabitants he did not seize upon it on the suddaine whether the King and they would or no before they were aware and keepe it by force against both robbing killing and plundering his fellow Subjects But to the place the Text sayes vers 9. 1. Sam. 23.9 that David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischiefe against him and thereupon fearing some treachery in the men of Keilah if he stayed there being in a great streight He asked counsell of God about the matter and the Lord answered him accordingly and this was all the businesse But if you will suppose further that David had a purpose to have kept the Towne against the King if the Citizens would have stood to him I hope it may be lawfull for me to suppose also that the Lord whose counsell was asked both could and would have inclined their hearts to have beene faithfull if the thing purposed had beene lawfull but Gods answer speakes to my apprehension his disallowance of it and so doubtlesse it did to Davids as appeares by his departure and his never attempting any such matter afterward if the answer of God had been cleane contrary to what it was or such as might in any sort have countenanced his stay there had beene some colour to have alleadged this story for this matter of resistance but Gods wisedome would not have any such example upon record in his Word he fore-saw that they who are so bold upon a bare supposition would have beene more bold if more could be upon a plaine example Gods answer therefore is such that all may understand if they please his refusall of a blessing upon such an enterprise If it be yet urged upon me farther as was before the Committee what I thinke David would have done if he had staid in Keilah till Saul came I must make the same answer as I did then what David would have done I cannot tell but I suppose the men of Keilah would have done to him as the men of Abell did to Sheba afterward even cut off his head and throwne it o're the wall had the King came or sent for to demand it But truly I wonder that the example of David should be alleadged in this case of fighting against the King considering what his deportment to Saul was at two severall times when he had him at such advantage Chron. 26. â—s 17 18 c. But now for the last example that of Vzziah who for going in the pride of his heart sayes the Text into the Temple to meddle with the Priests office was withstood by Azariah the Priest and fourescore Priests with him that were valiant men But how was he withstood by these men in the Temple not with swords or weapons but vers 18. They withstood Vzziah the King and said unto him it perteineth not to thee Vzziah to burne incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sonnes of Aaron who are consecrated thereunto goe out of the Sanctuary therefore for thou hast trespassed neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God thus they withstood Vzziah by saying these words unto him Indeed when he persisted notwithstanding this
you but of two one a precept and another an example the first is Esay 50.10 whoever feares the Lord when he is in darkenesse and hath no light that is Es 50.10 in such great streightes and deep dangers that he can see no glimpse of deliverance from the creatures no hopes of escape let him namely at such a time trust in the name of the Lord and stay himselfe upon his God O! Master M. when shall wee live by faith if not in such a Condition The second warrant is the example of David in the wildernesse of Maon Saul had beset him round hee was in a great distresse 1 Sam. 23.26 27. fly hee could not from his Prince fight he durst not against his Prince what shall he doe He stayed himselfe upon his God who appeared to his helpe by diverting the King to a businesse of better consequence a messenger comes all on the suddaine and brings him word the Philistines had invaded his Land Ob. But suppose the Prince sets upon me in mine owne House and I therein am able to defend my selfe which perhaps David in his distresse was not why may I not so do and trust to Gods Assistance that way my House is my Castle Answ I yeild your house is and may be your Castle to defend you against any private Person but whether against your Leige Lord the King or no I question or if the Law yeilds you this that the House which was left you by your predecessors be your owne and the weapons therein which you bought with your owne money be solely yours for your defence and for that purpose you may use them But not forgetting your similitude suppose you be in your fathers or masters House and the weapons therein be his weapons whether you may keep his owne house or use his owne weapons against himselfe Hoc restat probandum Ob. But shall I yeild my throat to be cut then I shall be guilty of selfe-murder Answ It doth not follow that if you yeild to your Prince in such a case that your throat must needs be cut for we read of some that by faith stopped the mouth of Lions Heb. 11.34 and escaped the edge of the sword God is able and will if you pray and trust to him by your yeilding to your offended and displeased Prince mollify his heart towards you as hee did Sauls heart to David Labans to Iacob at one time and Esau's towards him at another O deare Sir have wee beene preaching faith and patience thus many yeares to others and shall we thus boggle and wriggle against the Power of faith and the practice of patience when we are put to trials nay shall we argue in the behalfe of flesh and bloud against the power of faith But I returne Ob. To permit a Prince said you to do what he will without resistance is the way to destroy the whole society of men and the Church in speciall if a Prince be so minded Answ It doth not follow for Church and Commonwealth are both preserved by Gods providence God is Governour of and in both and so far as the rage of men shall make to the praise either of his wisedome and justice in punishing the wicked or of his Power and grace in the trials of his servants Psa 76.10 Es 10. so far doth he permit it and the remainder thereof doth he restraine we see it in Assur Es 10. and in all the Tyrants of all Ages the Romane Emperours that had their wils had also but their time and did no more by all their fury then Gods hand and counsell had foredetermined should be done Ob. But this is Anabaptisme to hold it unlawfull for Christians to fight Answ It is one thing for Christians to fight under their Princes Banner and at his command and another thing to fight against his standard and contrary to his will to fight for him is Christianity but to fight against him is Anabaptisme nor indeed do the Anabaptists hold it unlawfull to fight when they thinke themselves strong enough to resist as appeared by their behaviour at Munster but as Jsrael had beene in peace if Ahab had been as free from troubling it as Elias was whom hee accused 1 King 18.17 so should England at this time be if they that oppose Regality and indeavour the dammage of it were as far from Anabaptisme as they are that hold such resistance unlawfull Ob. But Salus populi is suprema lex and for the preservation of the whole we may resist a part Answ There is indeed much talke of Salus populi now adayes but I believe there is a great mistake both in Salus and in Populi 1. In Salus which as appeares by mens proceedings is thought to consist in fighting rather then in flying in resisting rather then in yeilding in shedding one anothers bloud rather then in sleeping in peace God the generall conserver of mankinde hath created man for that end conservare speciem and his will is that those vertues should be specially practiced and maintained that are most conducible thereunto and those are not warres and contentions strife and debate but love meeknesse and patience bearing and forbearing one another I professe Sir it is a Paradox to me that men should lead people from peace to warre to preserve them sure there is a mistake in Salus 2 And so there is in Populi too for whereas some say by the people they meane all who conjunctiâ—â— are as much above the King as hee is above any one of them sigillâ—atim and therefore though one may not resist him yet all may as if the sinne were the lesse because many commit it or rather none at all if they have but strength and company for to act it others againe by the people do interpret every mans particular selfe whence arise those expressions I value the King no more then I do another man I would rather disarme the King then he should disarme me yea and kill him too to save my selfe I tremble to mention these sayings doubtlesse these varlets to save themselves would deale so with God himselfe if he were capable and they could reach him I do believe your selfe will yeild that there is a mistake also in Populi But Sir is not the King the Head of the people and can they be safe without him I admire at some of us that dare in the pulpit separate betwixt them and vilify Majestie to advance popularity O cry some the whole must be preferred before a part Ob. for Christ saies if thy right eye or right hand offend thee cut it off and cast it from thee 't is better that a part perish then the whole Answ Yea but Christ doth not say if thine head offend the cut off that for that would be to the ruine of the whole Ob. O say others the Kingdome is cheifly to be regarded the King is but for the Kingdomes sake Hee is the younger of the two there was
a people before there was a King he was ordained for their good and therefore is to serve them Answ So Esau was Iacobs elder Brother yet the elder was appointed to serve the younger and the whole world that great Kingdome was made before man yet made for his sake to serve him not he to serve that indeed a King is no more ordained for the peoples good then they are for his good they are each ordained for other good and both for Gods glory which is most advanced by peace and union so that 't is not Salus populi alone but 't is Salus Regis et populi that is suprema Lex and so highly to be regarded nor doth Salus populi consist in resisting or suppressing the King What saies Pilate the Heathen to them that called themselves Gods people shall I crucify your King q. d. what an unnaturall and unreasonable thing is it for Subjects to goe about to ruinate their own King if they had answered O 't is to save our selves Pilate would have laught them to scorne although indeed perhaps when people go about any such businesse 't is to save some of themselves whose black merits do make them suspicious of the Kings mercy but should they prevaile the effect would shew that the safety of the enemies would never countervaile to the Commonwealth the Kings dammage Some there be that thinke Salus populi to consist in Liberty and Liâ— qerty as they conceive is for every man to do what is right in his owne eyes be of what Religion he please commit Idolatrie and Adultery rob plunder and take away the goods of others be both his owne Carver and his owne Judge and thus it was of old when there was no King in Israel ergo But Sir though some upon a taste of this kinde of Liberty which hath of late been permitted to them cry out O these be the blessed dayes these be the happy times yet you and I cannot but conceive that they are the beginning of sorrowes wil end in bitternesse we know this Liberty is every way destructive and rather Beast-like then Humane whereas this should be Christian which consists cheifly parendo Gods service is a perfect freedome and there was a King set up in Israel to remedy those abuses And thus Sir you see that I doe not apprehend from your reasons or arguments any necessity of such resistance in the case Now concerning the Oath or Covenant which the King takes or makes at his Coronation how that doth countenance a defensive resistance Sect. 12 on the Subjects part if the Prince shall make a breach thereof we shall a little consider First Sir let me minde you of what you yeilded namely that the King is King before his Coronation indeed his Crowne is but a note or ensigne of his Kingly dignity he hath a right unto and is in actuall possession of his Inheritance given him of God before he makes his Covenant on the Coronation day which cannot therefore be supposed to be conditionall with the people nor be thought that he by it from them receives his office with a quandiu bene se gesserit so that of necessity he must forfeit his power unto them if he breakes his promise We read that supreme Princes in ancient times as they were free from Lawes so from Oathes the Romane Empire was not wont to sweare unto the Senate or to the people but they both did take an Oath to him Those Oathes Covenants the Scripture mentions in the Story of the Kings of Iudah were not made or taken by the King if we marke them but by the people to their King or by the King and people together unto the Lord after some generall defection from his worship and service no this custome of a Kings swearing is the Infant of later times it was borne ad faciendum fidem peoples distrust was the parent of it evill suspicion as being for the most part the root of Rebellion was ever counted ominous and therefore to prevent a sinister opinion of a new King it was thought meet by such Princes upon their solemne Coronation day to enter into a visible Covenant with God in the presence of their people And I beleive the custome 's good as a meane by Gods grace to keepe a Prince his will within the bounds of Conscience but in that it was not so ab initio it plainly shewes that a Kings entrance into his Government doth no whit depend upon his Covenant nor doth this Covenant at all diminish his supremacy or derogate from the absolutenesse of his Power no if it were made unto his people as it is not I do not see how of necessity it must make him any way liable to their subjection God himself was pleased ad faciendam fidem to swear to Abraham and to David yet did hee not thereby any way make himselfe their inferiour But indeed the Kings Oath and Covenant is onely unto God 't is His Oath of Allegiance to the Lord and in effect to this purpose that he will discharge the trust imposed upon him by the God of Heaven and earth of whom he holds his Kingdome and this is made visibly in the presence of the people that they might not distrust the faithfulnesse or integrity of that Person to whom is committed by him who knowes all hearts so great a Power And sure as 't is a heavy sinne in a Prince to falsify his Covenant with the Majestie of Heaven so 't is no small sinne in Subjects to distrust a Prince his fidelity upon slight grounds or to expose him by any means to the generall suspicions of his people But now Sir what warrant have the Subjects from hence for their resistance if the King breakes his Oath to God is not God able to revenge his owne cause hath hee not alwayes done it observe stories and see if you can name one example of any King though never so great that brake Covenant with God whom God hath not remembred and is his arme shortned or is not his Justice still the same Ob. O yes say some we have a warrant to helpe the Lord against the mighty Meroz was cursed because she did not Answ Meroz indeed was cursed with a bitter curse and did deserve it because she came not to helpe her King her Captain or supreme Judge whom God had set over her on whose side the Lord was against his Enemies that rose up or went out against him that were so many and so mighty but she is not cursed because she did not resist her owne Governour The breach of our Oath of Alleagiance unto the King is onely an offence against the King and to be punished by him and not by any of his Subjects without his Authority nay if any breake promise and Covenant with one of us our selves onely can justly accuse him and shall we not allow God the same Priviledge by what Authority therefore do you this thing call
Clergy suppressed and all learning as Popish and prophane discountenanced and every man be he weaver pedler or cobler should have free leave in publicke to shew his gifts is the King bound to establish and defend such a Law must he breake that part of his oath which is to preserve the present established Clergy and Church of God to the uttermost of his power and when God shall call him to an account for it will it be sufficient for him to answer as Aaron did Moses the people would have it so I believe not But though the vulgus be somewhat unreasonable yet we wil not conceive them so bold as to urge the King by any new Law to breake any part of his oath or Covenant because they seeme so carefull he should keepe it and find such fault with the imaginary breach thereof I will therefore instance in another case Suppose the vulgus should for the present thinke it just that all whom the King loves or that love him should be counted malignants and be liable to plundering and should choose to have a Law made that whomsoeyer the King casts his favour upon unlesse approved of by themselves and whosoever shall speake in the Kings behalfe should presently forfeit all their estate unto the said vulgus unto whom it shall be lawfull before any publicke triall to seize upon the said Delinquents lands cut downe his woods and timber trees and make spoile of all or if a Minister shall dare to preach obedience to the King when he sees his people run into all waies of disloyalty he should forfeit all his profits ipso facto and be forced to weare the brand of a malignant yea of a very Cavaleir a marke as bad as a Popish San bennet untill he recant such his detestable errours and preach more approveable Doctrine Is the King bound by his Oath to establish and defend such a Law surely no therefore people are much deceived in their interpretation of that clause if there be any such in the Kings Oath But his Sacred Majestie in one of his Declarations doth fully declare the true meaning of it and to that onely I do referre you Onely this I would have you remember that the vulgus do commonly goe in the broad way which Scripture saies is not the best Mat. 7.13 Company you know is the strongest argument to prevaile with the many therefore Moses well follow not a multitude to do evill Ex. 23.2 inferring thereby that for the most part they go in a way of evill doing and so of ill choosing 2 Sam. 15. Mat. 27.20 2â— as when they forsook David to follow Absolom and Achitophel nay when they chose Barrabbas and would have an order to crucify Jesus indeed 't is true some factious Priests with some Scribes and Pharisees that were gracious with them did perswade and teach them to make that sinfull choice but their weaknesse did appear in their being so perswaded and the Common people still are apt to be seduced thrust by such means into the worst waies Bellua multorum capitum you know one cals them they are apt to be led they know not whither to say they know not what to cry they know not wherefore as that example shewes Acts 19.32 Act. 19.32 therefore nothing of that nature which was alleadged but may be supposed of the vulgus perhaps experience also could say somewhat to the matter if she might as safely use her tongue as she may her eyes and eares Ob. But though the vulgus or Common people may not haply on their owne heads resist the King or call him to an account yet the Parliament may the great Court of the Kingdome Answ What a Parliament may do I will not determine Onely this I hope as a man desiring information I may say I do not see how the Parliament taken in a compleat and perfect sense conjoint together of head and members scilicet of King Nobles and Commons can be said to resist the King or to call him to an account for that himselfe is the principall or cheife part thereof nor if wee take it in an incompleate or imperfect acceptation for the minor or inferiour part as divided from the King and the major part of his Peers do I see how properly I am sure not kindly the head can be resisted by the lower members I see not how such a part hath power to do more then the Prince himselfe can do scilicet dispence with oathes inable men without offence to God to breake those his Lawes wherein he commands Honour to the King and forbids resistance nor how such members may do that for which they were not chosen scilicet arme us that chose them against him that gave us power to choose and them to sit nor how that they themselves as Parliament men have Authority to oppose him whom as private men they have sworn to obey and whom God in his owne stead hath set over them they are but the representations of us our Images and how they can pull downe the Image and representation of God I cannot see But this I know and wil be bold to say as a minister of Jesus Christ that a Parliament take it in either sense though it may do what private men may not do yet it must not do what a Christian ought not to do I beleeve that the Members of that Honourable Court are Christian men that their duty is in the midst of their State Affaires to remember their relation to Christ and to do nothing contradicting the same for it will be no sufficient excuse when he shall come to judge both quicke and dead and charge any of them for breaking his Law to say I did it as J was a Parliament man and not as I was a Christian for if the Parliament man be punished for his faults I beleeve as a private man hee will feele the smart thereof and so I conclude this particular with my dayly prayer Lord give to every member of that Honourable Court now Assembled a full measure of thy grace that they may be willing and ready to comply with his Sacred Majestie their Gracious Sovereigne and thine Anointed in all those wayes that tend to thy Glory and the peace of this Church and Commonwealth Amen Sect. 13 â—criptures eviâ—encing the unâ—wfulnesse of â—ch resistance Now reverend Sir I have answered all your objections that I can remember and come to your request which was to shew some Scriptures oppugning this resistance Sir I know it rests onely on their part who forsake the old way to produce Scriptures for their new but because you know 't is easier to overthrow that which you are upon then to maintaine it you are pleased to put what you conceive is lesse difficult upon mee which I accept both willingly and thankefully Rom. 12.18 I will not insist upon that precept of the Apostle So much as in you lyeth if it be
Stephen tells us he knew then that God had appointed him for that service but that errour cost him 40 yeares exile in the Wildernesse and when God imployed him he directed him to goe in another way namely in all humility to repaire unto the King and demand a dismission at his hands we cannot but suppose that God could have made them able had there beene fewer of them with their owne swords to make their owne way and by his command could have made it lawfull so to have done but this other course which God would have them take did in the effect more aggravate Pharaohs obstinacy and illustrate the Religion of Gods people and was more to the magnifying of Gods glory In the fourth place let me minde you of that in the first of Samuel cap. 8. the 9 and following verses God having a purpose to give Israel a King doth order so in his wisedome that they should make sute for him themselves whereupon he takes occasion by his Prophet in that place to forewarne them of some intolerable qualities that might fall to be in some of their Kings and thereby doth timely prepare them to obedience and patience under them if we marke there is as great injustice and tyranny foretold as could be imagined their sonnes daughters and servants should be taken from them those that were noble and free borne should be made slaves and put to servile offices their lands and goods should be extorted from them and diverted to his owne and his Courtiers private use and commodity which were as great breaches of the Lawes of the Common-wealth as any could be made yet no resistance in the case is countenanced but countermanded rather the onely course prescribed is vers 18. You shall cry unto the Lord in that day as if he had said be as weary as you will or as you have cause yet you shall not have leave to shake off the yoake which God through your importunity hath layed upon you it shall not be lawfull for you to resist or oppose by force these personall and unjust courses of your King but you shall onely cry unto God as you cryed for a King so shall you cry under a King and till ease and helpe comes unto you this way you must submit to the highest extremities that his illegall will shall impose upon you It is to be remembred that this was at the first erection of a King among Gods people and all Scripture being written for our Learning doublesse this is chronicled in Gods booke for the instruction of all Subjects that should acknowledge and feare the Lord in after times And most fitly also for the good of posterity did Gods providence and spirit strengthen this prescription by recording the example of Davids carriage toward that their first King for as Saul discovered in part the described manners of such a King as Samuel had spoke of so David discovered the prescribed conditions of such a Subject as God approves off It is well knowne how unjustly and illegally he was persecuted by Saul and how he avoyded his fury onely by flying from place to place he did not hunt the King the King hunted him He in all his streights did cry to God and trusted in his providence and he lost nothing by it God wrought for him better then he could have done for himselfe and did him more good then e're his owne resistance could have done him 't is worthy our speciall remembrance how God provided for his escape in the wildernesse of Maon when he was so encircled about with Saul and his men that of necessity he must be killed if he did not stand upon his owne defence 1 Sam. 23.27 but God would not suffer a good Subject to have a hand in so sinfull a businesse or to leave so evill an example to after-times and therefore his providence sends a messenger to tell Saul that the Philistims had invaded his Land whereby he was on the sudden forced to be gone and so David was delivered 1 Sam. 29. Likewise at another time when David was in as great a streight namely when he should have gone out with Achish against Saul the Lord did also deliver him Achish had allowed him Ziglag to dwell in for David durst not in conscience possesse himselfe of any Citie in Israel without the Kings leave much lesse hold it against his will and therefore that he might not offend he fled the Kingdome and God gave him favour in the eyes of Achish an enemy to Israel and David could not tell how in gratitude to deny Achish to goe out with him against their common enemy and therefore fained a willingnesse but doubtlesse in his spirit he cryed unto the Lord for his helpe that he might not be forced to lift up his hand against his Soveraigne whereupon the Lord moved the Princes of the Philistims to dislike of his being there so that he and his men were dismissed thus is the Lord ready at hand to helpe those good Subjects in their streights that walke in the wayes of loyalty and God is still the same 1 Sam. 15. I could here minde you of Samuels behaviour when he had from the Lord pronounced Sauls rejection how he went home and prayed and wept for him did not stirre up the people to rebell against him he did not forget as some of us doe his owne doctrine of passive obedience 1 Sam. 8. which formerly he had preached unto them I could also remember you of Elias his carriage towards Ahab an unjust man one that had sold himselfe to worke wickednesse that Prophet had as good credit with the people as any Preacher in these dayes hath to have perswaded them to resist his illegall commands had it beene lawfull for him to have imployed it that way but he onely saved himselfe by flight from his cruelty and so by his example taught others to doe But the fifth speciall place which I desire you to observe is the story in the booke of Ezra Ezra 1.1 c. Cyrus you know had made a Decree and the Lawes of the Medes and Persians were unalterable concerning the building of the Temple at Jerusalem which worke the adversaries of the Jewes hindered and obtained a Letter from King Artaxerxes one of Cyrus his successors to command the Jewes to cease Ezra 4.21 unto which Ezra 6.3 though onely the personall command of the King and contrary to a written and unalterable Law the people of God submitted did not stand upon their owne defence pleading the Decree of Cyrus or the goodnesse of the worke the building of Gods owne House Ezra 4.24 but sayes the Text The worke ceased untill the second yeare of Darius King of Persia when as they had new leave to proceed in the same And by the way 't is worthy to be observed for the better practice of this age when the King had given them authority and put it into their hands to