their ancient and acoustomed liberties regiments and lawes they may not well be accounted rebells And the title of that page is the Law sometimes permits resistance and the margent is in some cases the Nobles and Commons may stand for their publicke regiment and laws of their Kingdome All which judgements of severall Divines I doe not bring forth as if I were of their mindes for deposing or punishing of Princes by the people which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes but to shew how the Doctors Dr. Willet Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17. judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Protestant Countries notwithstanding he would insinuate that our Divines of England are of his judgement and that our judgement is no Bilsons true difference between Christâ—an subjection and unchristian rebellion p. 5. 251. new upstart opinion you see what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counsell of Basil where one of them saith thus That in every well ordered Kingdome it ought specially to be desired that the whole Realme ought to be of more authority then the King which if it happened contrary it is not to be called a Kingdome but tyranny so likewise doth he thinke of the Church c. And presently another of the Divines of the sâ—me Coâ—â—â—â—ll saith thus For the Pope is in the Church as the King is in his Kingdome and for a King to be of more authority then his Kingdome this were too absurd ergo neither ought the Pope to be above the Church for like as oftentimes Kings which doe wickedly rule the Common-weale and exercise cruelty are deprived of their Kingdomes even so it is not to he doubted but that the Bishops of Rome may be depâ—sed by the Church that is to say by the generall Councell neither doe I herein allow them which attribute so large and ample authority unto Kings that they will not have them bound under any Lawes for such as doe so say are but flatterers who do talke otherwise then they think For albeit that they doe say that the moderation of the law is alwaies in the Princes powerâ— that do I thus understand that when as reason shall perswade hee ought to digresse from the rigour of the law for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Common-weale taketh pleasure in the profit and commodity of the subjects and in all his doings hath respect to the commodity of those over whom he ruleth which if he doe not he is not to be accounted a Kingâ— but a Tyrant whose property it is only to suck his owne profit For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant that the one seeketh the coÌ„modity profit of them whom he ruleth the other only his owne The which to make more manifest the cause is also to be alledged wherefore Kings were ordained At the beginning as Cicero in his Offices saith It is certaine that there was a certaine time when the people lived without Kings but afterward when â—and and possessions began to be divided according to the custome of every Nation then were Kings ordained for no other cause but only to execute Justice For when as at the beginning the common people were oppressed by rich and mighty men they ran by and by to some good and vertuous man who should defend the poore from injury and ordaine Lawes whereby the rich and poore should dwell together But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poore were oft oppressed lawes were ordained and instituted the which should judge neither for hatred nor favour and give like care unto the poore as unto the rich whereby we doe understand not only the people but the King to be subject unto the Lawes Then the Doctor tells us that he is against the Arbitrary way of government For saith he we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Lawes of the Kingdome Ans This reason doth no way destroy Arbitrary government but rather erect it For government is not said to be Arbitrary because the subjects may deny in word and so left to suffer For then the Turâ—ish government is not arbitrary For when the great Turke commands his subjects to doe any thing if they will deny and suffer for their deniall they may and doe sometimes deny their obedience If there be lawes whereby a King is to rule which he shall command his subjects to breake and his subjects are neither bound to obey him nor suffer by him then his government is not arbitrary but if there be lawes made and he may inforce his subjects either to keepe them or breake them and punish them at his pleasure that shall refuse and the whole kingdome bound in conscience to suffer whatsoever he shall inflict for not breaking those Lawes then is his government arbitrary for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio which he doth when either there is no law to rule by but his owne will or when hee hath a power to breake those lawes at his will and to punish the subject at his pleasure for not breaking them and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government then the former as it shewes more liberty in the will that it hath a power to act when reason perswades to the contrary then if there were no reason disswading and else there should be no arbitrary government in the world For no State but hath some lawes whereby they rule and are ruled even the very Indians onely here lyes the arbitrarinesse of a government that notwithstanding the law the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his subjects according to his owne pleasure Then the Doctor saith We must consider that they which plead for resistance in such a case as is supposed doe grant that it must be concluded upon Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus that is with the generall and unanimous consent of the two houses Ans 1. First these words are ill translated for omnes ordines regni may consentire and yet there may not be an unanimous and generall consent of the Members of the two houses as of one man 2. If so that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence why then doth he object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up armes for the defence of themselves against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the orders of the Empire and therefore their case is nothing to ours as hee pretends afterward But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them the representative body of the Empire then their case had beene more like unto ours and then no question but they would have taken up armes for the defence of themselves Then the Doctor saith We suppose that the Prince must be so and so disposed bent to overthrow Religion Liberties Lawes c. Ans Here he takes that
tâ—â— Judges then in the Kings Ans But how come we to this discourse to compare Monarcâ— and Aristocracy and to say that Monarchy is better government thâ— Aristocracy Doth it follow from the word True which the Dr. haâ— said to that proposition many see more then one and more safety 〈◊〉 the judgement of many then of one But seeing he is pleased to say â—he government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still first in Moses then in the Judges then in the Kings let us now diligently observe that Monarchicall government which God made choice of If Moses the Judges and Kings were are all Monarchs and Monarchy the best government Then 1. The best government is such where the people have the free choice of their Governour for so they had in the time of the Judges Chap. 11. 5. And it was so when the children of Ammon maâ—e war against Israel the Elders of Israel went to fetch Jephtha out of the Land of Tob and â—hey said unto Jephtha Come and be our Captaine that we may fight with the children of Ammon And Jephtha said unto the Elders of Gilead If â—â— bring me home againe to fight with the children of Ammon and the Lord â—eliver them before me shall I be your head And the Elders of Gilead said into Jephtha The Lord be witnesse betwixt us if we doe not so according â—o thy word Then Jephtha went with the Elders of Gilead and the people â—adâ— him Head and Captaine over them v. 11. Thus wee see that that government which the Doctor cals the best and set up by God is such when the people have the choice of their King and the derivation of â—is power is from them as I have proved at large in the Preface to â—ave beene in the Judges and Kings of Israel Secondly then the best government is that where the King and â—eople strike a covenant at his Coronation which covenant the King is bound to observe neither doth his covenanting with the peoâ—le make him no Monarch for David was a Monarch yet David â—ade a covenant with the Elders of Israel and so they anointed him King â—ver Israel 1 Chron. 11. 3. Thirdly then the best government is such also where the Prince â—oth advise with his people and Elders doing no great matter in State â—â— Religion without their consent and with their consent doing So David 1 Chron. 13. 1. And David consulted with the Captaines of thouâ—ands and hundreds and every Leader and David said unto all the Conâ—â—egation of Israel If it seeme good unto you let us bring againe the Arke â—â— the Lord our God unto us and all the Congregation said that they would â—â— so for the thing was right in the eyes of all the Congregation So that â—â—e people having an agency in the great affaires of the Kingdome is â—o way repugnant but consistent with Monarchicall government or â—â—e government appointed by God himselfe Fourthly then also is the best government appointed by God such â—â— doth carry along with iâ— a lawfulnesse for the subjects to take up armes and make forcible resistance for their own security and safety of the Common weale against their Monarchs when cause requireth for did not the people sometime in Israel take up armes against some of the Judges And did not David though yet a subject to Saul take up armes and make forcible resistance It is said expresly 1 Chron. 12. 18. 19. Then David received them and made them Captaines of the Band and there fell some of Manasses to David when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battell The Doctor said before in his Treatise that David tooke up armes onely in his owne defence But doe these words note no more Only I presse them thus far as may shew a lawfulnes for the people to take up armes in a way of forcible resistance against the Kings commandement when the danger is eminent which we finde agreeable to the best government set up by God himselfe as the Doctor acknowledgeth In the fourth place the Doctor answers that such power of resistance will be no meanes of safety to a State but rather a remedy worse then the disease which he proveth from Rom. 13. which I have answered already and from some reasons as 1. This power of resistance if admitted and preserved may proceed to a change of government Ans To which I answer that if severall formes of government be of humane constituâ—ion as the Doctor speaks why should we think that they are utterly unalterable as the laws of the Medes Persians But secondly this principle of ours cannot boyle up to that height for we only say that when the Prince shall neglect his trust the people are to see to it and silenc'd not for deposing 2. He saith This power of resistance is accompanied with the evils of â— civill war Ans No but therefore we are afflicted with civill warre becausâ— some people are mis-led from their own natures to take up armes against their own Country Civill war is from the cause thereof now the Parliament calls for armes only to defend the Country thesâ— make the civill war that are against the Countries defence Thirdly he saith There is danger in this power of resistance for the if the people be discontented and have gotten power they may say the Members of the two Houses doe not discharge their trust and so by this rule takâ— up the power to themselves and so all rapine and confusion brought into thâ— Kingdome Ans There can bee no such inference made from this principle oâ— ours for the people do all acknowledge that we are to bee governed by Lawes and that as the Doctor saith the Parliament is thâ— Judge what is Law the people doe acknowledge according to truth that the Parliament hath the declarative power or the supreme power of declaring the Law the King doth not professe this but rather the contrary that he is no Lawyer nor skilled in the Lawes The Parliament doe professe it and the people acknowledge them to be so and therefore there is not the same reason that they should take their power to themselves in case that the Parliament should neglect their trust for why should the people take that power unto themselves should it be according to Law The Parliament will then tell them that they have done that which is according to law wherein they confesse that the two Houses have the power of declaring But now if the Prince shall neglect his trust and the people take a power to looke to themselves in times of danger by way of forcible resistance the Prince cannot say when the Parliament is against him the supreme power of declaring law doth agree my course to be lawfull so that you see there is not the same reason of both And whereas the Doctor saith That upon the like reason if the Parliament shall neglect their trust the people may call in
thinke of any such matter Object Why but if the people give the power then if abused they may take it away also Res No that needs not seeing they never gave away that power of selfe preservation so that this position of ours is the onely way to keepe people from such assaults whereby the power of the Prince is more fully established whereas if people were kept from power of selfe-preservation which is naturall to them it were the onely way to breake all in peeces for Nullum violentum contranaturale est perpetuum no violent thing against nature is perpetuall Thus have I clearly opened our opinion and proved our sentence give me leave now to speake with the Doctor Section I. THe Doctor saith That in the proposition or principle by the word resistance is meant not a denying of obedience to the Princes command but a rising in armes a forcible resistance this though cleare in the question yet I thought good to insinuate to take off that false imputation laid upon the Divines of this Kingdom and upon all those that appear for the King in this cause Gubernatâ—res ergo in â—is rebus quae cum decalogâ— justis legibus pugnant nihil juris aut immunitatis habent pâ—ae caeteris hominibus privatis perpretrantes id quod malum est Coguntur tam metuere ordinationem Dei gladium prestante ad vindictam nocentium quam alii homines privati nam Paulus Ro. 13. docet Deum ordiâ—asse instituisse potestatem illam gladio defendendi bonum puniendi malum praecipit ut omnis anima sic ipsi guber nâ—ores tali Dei ordinationi fit subjecta hoc est obligat ad sacienâ—â—m bonum si velit defendi ist a. Dei ordinatione non ob sua facinoâ—a impia puniri Magdeburgensis cent 1 l. 20. cap. 4. page 457. Quod aâ—tem ad nos proprie pertiner possum enumerare duodecim aut etiam amplius reges qui ob scelera flagitia aut in perpetuum carcetem suÌ„t damnati aut exilio vel morte voluntaria justas sceleruÌ„ poenas fugerant nos autemid contendimus populum a quo reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vindicant regibus essâ— potentioreÌ„ Iusque idem in cos habere multitudinem quod illi in singulos a multitudine habent Bâ—â— de Gub Regni apud Scoâ—os Here the Dr. would insinuate in the very entrance of his book that so he might the better captare benevolentiam curry favour for the matter of his discourse following That the Divines of England are of his judgement But if they be so surely their judgement is lately changed But indeed what Divines are of his judgement not the Divines of Germany not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches not the Divines of Geneva not of Scotland not of Holland not of England Not the Divines of Germany who say thus Governours therefore in such things that are repugnant to the Law of God have no power or immunity above other private men they themselves commanding that which is evill have no power or immunity above other private men and they themselves commanding that which is evill are as much bound to feare the ordinance of God bearing the sword for the punishment of vice as other private men For Saint Paul in Rom. 3. saith that God did institute and ordaine a power both of defending that which is good and punishing that which is evill and he commands that every soule and so the Governours themselves would bee subject to this ordinance of God that is bound to doe good if they would be defended by this ordinance of God and not by their wicked deeds make themselves liable to punishment Not the Divines of the French Protestant Churches witnesse their taking up of armes for the defence of themselves at Rochell Not the Divines of Geneva For as Calvin in the 4. book of his institutions chap. 10. saith thus For though the correcting of unbridled government be revengement of the Lord let us not by and by think that it is committed to us to whom then is given no other commandment but to obey and suffer I speak alway of private men for if there be at this time any Magistrates in the behalfe of the people such as in old time were the Ephori that were set against the Kings of Lacedemonia or the tribuner of the people against the Roman Consuls or the Demarchy against the Senate at Athens and the same power which peradventure as things are now the 3 States have in every Realm when they hold their principal assemblies I do so not forbid them according to their office to withstand the outraging licentiousnesse of Kings that I affirm if they wink at Kings wilfully ranging over and treading down the poor Commonalty their dissembling is not without wicked breach of faith because they deceitfully betray the liberty of the people whereof they know themselves appointed to be protectors by the ordinance of God Not the Divines of Holland for we know what their practise is towards the King of Spaine Not the Divines of Scotland for Bucaâ—an saith for I can number twelve â—r more Kings among our selves who for their sinne and wickednesse were either cast into prison during their life or else eschewed the punishment by banishment But this is that which we contend for that the people from whom the Kings have all that they have are greater then the Kings and the whole multitude have the same power over them as they have over particular men out of the multitude witnesse also their late taking up armes when they came into England which by the King and Parliament is not judged rebellion Not our English Divines whose judgement Dr. Willet was acquainted with as well as our present Dr. who saith thus Touching the point of resistance certaine differences are to be observed for when there is an extraordinary calling as in the time of the Judges or when the Kingdome is usurped without any right as by Athalia or when the land is invaded by forraigne enemies as in the time of Maccabees or when the government is altogether elective as the Empire of Germany in all these cases then is least question of resistance to be made by the generall Councell of the States yet where none of these concur God forbid that the Church and Common-wealth should be left without remedy the former conditions viz. those alledged by Pareus observed when havock is made of the Common-wealth or the Church and Religion Thus also Doctor Bilson whose booke was allowed by publicke authority and printed at Oxford speakes If a Prince should goe about to subject his Kingdome to a forraigne Realme or change the forme of the Common-weale from Empery to Tyranny or neglect the lawes established by common consent of Pr. and people to execute his owne pleasure in these and other cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyne together to defend
That in the established Lawes of the Lanâ— we have the Princes will and consent given upon good advice and to obey hiâ— against the Lawes were to obey him against himselfe his suddaine will against his deliberate will so that if there be any established Lawes whereby the King hath given his former deliberate consent for the blowing of the Trumpet that now sounds then this objection is but a false allarum Now though I be no Lawyer and must refer you much to what the Parliament hath said who are the Judges of the Law yet thus much I can tell you as consonant to right reason That unlesse the Parliament have a power to send for delinquents and accused persons to be tried in that highest Court of Justice I say unlesse they have such a power they are no Parliament The King hath often protested to maintaine the liberties and priviledges of Parliament Now suppose a man be complained of to the Parliament for some notorious crime it is granted by all that the Parliament hath a power to send a Serjeant at Armes for him and if he refuse to come that Serjeant at Armes hath a power to call in more helpe and if the Delinquent shall raise twenty or thirty or a hundred men to rescue himselfe then the Parliament hath power to send downe more messengers by force to bring up the Delinquent and if they may raise a hundred why may they not upon the like occasion raise a thousand and so tenne thousand And if the King shall protect these Delinquents that is but his sudden will the Doctor saith his deliberate will in the Law is to be preferred before his sudden will now this is the knowne Law of the Kingdome and the constant practise of all Parliaments that they have a power to send for their Delinquents and indeed else how can they be a Court of Justice if they cannot force the accused to appeare before them And therefore according to the Doctors owne principles the Kings deliberate will being in his Law he himselfe hath sounded this Trumpet though by his sudden will as he calls it hee is pleased to sound a retreat For though the Doctor saith that the Parliament takes up Armes against the King yet herein he doth but abuse them mistake the question deceive many The truth is they doe but in this Army now on foot under the command of the Earle of Essex send for those Delinquents that have beene obnoxious to the State and to deny them such a power as this is to deny them the very being of a Parliament For by the same reason that they may send one Serjeant at Armes for one they may send one thousand for one thousand Then the Doctor tells us That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel for Idolatry cruelty and oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of resistance Ans I cannot but wonder at the Dr. his marvelling For what caâ— be more plaine then that Text 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house anâ— the Elders sate with him and the King sent a man from before him c. buâ— when the messenger came to him hee said to the Elders see how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head looke when the messenger commeth shut thâ— doore and hold him fast at the doore The Dr. wonders if resistance werâ— lawfull why no Prophet should call upon the Elders of the people foâ— this duty of resistance here is the Prophet Elisha calling on the Elders to imprison the Kings messenger Then lastly the Dr. saith that Scripture Rom. 13. Let every soule be subject to the higher powers and ver 2. Whosoever resists the power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation doth above all give us a cleare manifestation upon the point Ans Now therefore let us here joyne issue and if this place which thâ— Dr. makes the very hinge which all his discourse moves upon be noâ— clearly and fully against him then let the consciences of men be satisfieâ— in all that he saies but if it be against him then let them reject all that hâ— affirmes He would prove from hence that it is not lawfull for any man to resiâ— with a forcible resistance the command of a King though he commanâ— what is unlawfull because sayes he that this commandement was given unâ— the Christians to be obedient unto Roman Emperours whose commands were meerly destructive to the Christian Religion and those powers nothing but subverters of that which was good and just Ans That there is no such thing commanded in this Scripture I proâ— by these reasons 1. Because the power that every soule is here commanded to be subject to and not to resist is that power which is not a terrour to goâ— works but to evil The 3. verse being made a reason of the 2. the 2. verâ— saith Whosoever resists the power resists the ordinance of God and they that resâ— shall receive to themselves judgement then the reason is given for Ruleâ— are not a terrour to good workes but to evill ver 3. and therefore the subjection commanded and resistance forbidden is not in things that are uâ— lawfull and contrary to the Law of God 2. The power that we aâ— commanded to be subject to and not to resist is the ordinance of God aâ— the Minister thereof is the ordinance of God to us for good ver 4. â— saies the Apostle speaking of the Ruler that we are to obey he is the Minister of God to us for good but when he commands a thing unlawfull aâ— contrary to the law of God he is not the Minister of God to us for goâ— therefore in this Scripture there is no such thing commanded us to subject to and not to resist the ungodly command of Princes Ob. And if it be said that though his commands are unlawfull yet he may be a penall ordinance of God for our good I answer that in this Scripture we are not commanded to submit unto a penall ordinance because the submission injoyned here by the Apostle reaches to all times and places and all times and places have not their authority and government by way of a penall ordinance 3. Therein the Apostle commands us in this Scripture to be subject and not to resist wherein the Magistrates are Gods Ministers but in unlawfull commands they are not properly and actively Gods Ministers though God may make use of them though in regard of their place they may be Gods Minister yet in regard of the thing commanded they are not when they command things that are evill and contrary to Law Now so we are commanded to be obedient as they are in that action Gods Ministers Verse 6. For this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing 4. It appeares by all the first verses of this
power or such as conquerours use as he did Sect. 1. professe that he was much against arbitrary government But I wish the Doctor would be pleased to consider his own principles as he delivers them in these papers for he sayes that the Roman Emperours were absolute Monarchs and did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily and that they did make themselves such absolute Monarchs by conquest Then he sayes this Crowne of England is descended by three conquests And therefore if one conquest is a reason for the arbitrary government of the Emperour he cannot but thinke though he conceale his minde that his government also ought to be much more arbitrary What else remaines in this Section I have either spoken to it already or shall more aptly in the following Discourse Sect. III. THe Doctor saith That for the proving this power of resistance there is much speech used about the Fundamentals of this power which because they lye low and unseen by vulgar eyes being not written laws the people are made to beleeve that they are such as they that have the power to put new laws upon them say they are Ans Herein he turnes the Metaphor of Fundamentalls too far as if because the fundamentals of a house cannot be seen therefore the fundamentall laws cannot be seen which are not therefore called Fundamentall because they ly under ground but because they are the most essentiall upon which all the rest are built as fundamentall points of Religion are most seen and yet fundamentall Secondly he sayes these fundamentals are not written lawes The Parliament say they are and produce severall written lawes for what they do The Doctor and those that are of his sense say they are not who should the people be ruled by in this case but by the Parliament seeing the Doctor himselfe saith none are so fit to judge of the lawes as they Then the Doctor saith Those that plead for this power of resistance lay the first ground worke of their Fundamentals thus The power is originally in and from the people and if when by election they have intrusted a Prince with a power he will not discharge his trust then it falls to the people or as in this kingdome to the two Houses of Parliament the representative body of this Kingdome to see to it they may re-assume the power This is the bottome of their fundamentals as they are now discovered to the people Ans We distinguish as he doth the power abstractively considered from the qualifications of that power and the designation of a person to that power The power abstractively considered is from God not from the people but the qualifications of that power according to the divers waies of executing in severall formes of government and the designation of the person that is to worke under this power is of man And therefore the power it selfe we never offer to take out of Gods hand but leave it where we found it But if the person intrusted with that power shall not discharge his trust then indeed it falls to the people or the representative body of them to see to it which they doe as an act of selfe-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince It is one thing for them to see to it so as to preserve themselves for the present and another thing so to re-assume the power as to put the Prince from his office As for example Suppose there be a ship full of passengers at the sea in the time of a storme which is in great danger to be cast away through the negligence and fault of the Steers-man the passengers may for their own present safety that they may not be all cast away desire the Steers-man to stand by and cause another to stand at the Sterne for the present though they doe not put the Steers-man out of his office And this is our case we doe not say that the Prince not discharging his trust the people and Parliament are so to re-assume the power as if the Prince were to be put from his Office which the Doctor not distinguishing thus would obtrude upon us but only that the Prince being abused by those that are about him whereby the charge is neglected the people or representative Body may so looke to it for the present setting some at the sterne till the storme be over lest the whole suffer ship wracke And herein the Doctor does exceedingly wrong us disputing against us as if we went about to depose our King which we contend not for nor from these principles can be collected Then the Doctor saith That however the fundamentalls of this government are much talked of this is according to thâ—n the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and governments for they say power was every where from the people at first and so this would serve no more for the power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey Ans If it be the fundamentall in all Kingdomes and Governments then it seemes it does not lye so low and unseen as the Doctor said before because all the world sees it Secondly whereas he saith this will serve no more for power of resistance in England then in France or Turkey he seemes to insinuate that France and Turkey have no such power of resistance but who doth not know that the Protestants in France are of this judgement with us and practise witnesse that businesse of Rochell Then the Doctor saith we will cleare up these two particulars whether the power be so originally chiefly from the people as they would have it Then whether they may upon just causes re-assume that power and saith first of the originall of power which they would have to be so from the people as that it shall bee from God only by a permissive approbation Ans If the Doctor takes Power for Magistracie it self and sufficiencie of authority to command or coerce in the governing of a people abstractively considered as distinguished from the qualification of that power according to the divers waies of executing it in severall formes of government and the designation thereof unto some person then I do not beleeve there is any man in the Parliament whom the Doctor especially disputes against or of those who write for them that hold that the power is from the people and by permission and approbation onely of God neither can they for in that they contend so much for the Parliament it argues they are of opinion that authority and power in the abstract is from God himselfe and for the designation of a person or qualification of the power according to severall forms of government the Dr. himself grants it in this Section to be the invention of man and by Gods permissive approbation Then the Doctor comes to prove this by 3. arguments That power as distinguished from the qualification thereof and designation is of divine institution Ans Wherein he might have saved his labour in those three arguments for none doth deny
and principle now taught them take the power to themselves First I answer that there is not the same reason why the people should be so ready to thinke that the Parliament doe neglect their trust being they are very many chosen out of the whole Kingdome for their faithfulnesse approved every way for their goodnesse and wisedome whereas a Prince may be borne to the Crown and so by vertue of his inheritance may rule though he be knowne to be vitious as also because it is received by all the Kingdome that we ought to be governed by Lawes and the people all know that the Parliament are better able to judge of the Law then the Prince is as also because the people doe actually elect and trust the Parliament men with the present affaires of the Kingdome Now though the Prince indeed be trusted by the Commonwealth with their affaires in our forefathers whereunto the people doe now consent yet there is not that actuall election or designation of him unto the present affairs of the Kingdom as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses as for example suppose that a people doe chuse their Minister trusting him with all the great affaires of their soules and there doth rise a controversie betweene neighbours wherein they chuse an arbitrator to umpire the businesses though these two Parishioners â—hat have fallen out have formerly trusted their Minister with all the affaires of conscience yet they doe not so readily stand to his verdict by reason of the generall trust as to the verdict of those arbitrators whom they have now actually chosen for this businesse neither can they in law oâ— reason so easily revoke or renounce the sentence of Arbitrator whoâ— they have chosen to this businesse as the sentence of their Minister whâ—â— they have trusted in the generall so in this case of ours though the Kinâ— be entrusted by our forefathers and us with the generall affaires of thâ— Kingdome yet the Parliamentary men are actually elected and designeâ— by the people for the present affairs of the Kingdome and therefore thâ— people take themselves bound to stand to their arbitrement neither câ—â— they thinke that they are at the like liberty to renounce their arbitrement and sentence as they are for the deniall of their Princes commandement Secondly I say there is not the same reason that the people should recall their power from the Parliament in case the Parliament should be unfaithfull as there is they should see to things in case the Prince be mis-led I say there is not the same reason though both the Parliament and Prince have both their power originally by derivation from the people because that the derivation of power from the people unto the Prince is not made the sole reason by those that the Dr. disputes against for this their resistance but the authority that they are clothed with whereas if a people upon surmises that the Parliament doe not performe their trust should call in their trust and their power then they should have left themselves naked of all authority and should be private men but now that they looke to themselves in this time of danger and in that sense doe re-assume their power which they have derived to their Prince they are still led on by authority Thirdly the Doctor answers that we cannot expect any absolute means of safety and security in a State Ans Neither doe we expect it though this be granted which we desire or that granted which he contends for Then he saith that there is an excellent temper of the three Estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or two of them without the third for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or those and the Lords without the King might determine the evills of these dayes doe shew so is this power of denying for the security of each State against other Ans This both the Doctor and I must leave to the judgement of those that know the Lawes and the Liberties and the Priviledges of all three Estates Further he saith that now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three Estates is restrained usually to the two Houses but also that temper is dissolved Ans First it was alwayes so that the Parliament was made distinct from the King in ordinary speech saying The King and his Parliament when the Parliament is mentioned alone it may include the King but when the King and Parliament are mentioned together the speech can intend no more then the two Houses As when the body is mentioned alone it includes the head and the members but when the head and the body are mentioned together then the body doth not include the head Secondly that the Doctor saith this trust of the three States is diâ—solved I conceive it is a scandalous charge and so I leave that tâ— others Then the Doctor saith If it be replyed as it is for the reasonablenessâ— of this meanes of safety through that power of resistance and that many sâ—â— more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one I answeâ— saith the Doctor true but 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction why should one hundred in the House of Commons see more then thrâ—â— hundred or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of differenâ— judgement and withdrawne Ans I answer if there be three hundred of the House of Common withdrawne and but an hundred left and sixty of the Lords Housâ— withdrawne unto twenty if indeed there be so many gone away whâ— did they not come all this while and carry things by a vote and thâ— controversie had beene now at an end Then could it never have beeâ— said to the people that the Parliament are against the King theâ— might the three States have all joyned together and there had been nâ— further question Secondly the Doctor answers that the Prince though one sees wiâ—â— the eyes of many for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Counsell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them Ans This needs no other answer then that which followes in thâ— Doctors owne words where he saith that the King sometime dissenâ— from the major or prevailing part of the Parliament so that he maâ— see with their eyes and see other things then they doe and be of different judgement from them And if he may see with other mens eyâ— that are of different judgement from him because they doe present tâ— his eyes the difference of things with the reasons of them then mâ— the Houses of Parliament also see more then he does because the diâ—ference of things with the reasons of them are presented to them alâ—â— Then the Doctor descends to prove that Monarchicall government is tâ— best and that God made choice to set up that still first in Moses then in
their power How can the people thinke that the Parliament doth any thing contrary to the law of the land when the Parliament are the Judges thereof and the people confesse so and therefore the Doctor may be out of feare for this matter Lastly the Doctor saith That seeing some must be trusted in every Estate it is reason that the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and supreme power and that he should have the best security which is worth ten thousand of his subjects Ans I answer therefore the people do trust the King and his Parliament who are the highest power and Court in the Kingdome and if the greatest and best security should be about the King because he is worth 10000. subjects then surely the Kingdome it selfe should have the best security because the King is ordained for his Kingdom In Fine the Doctor presses the oath of Supremacie Allegeance and the last Protestation upon the conscience and wishes men here to consider their power of resistance and taking up of armes is contrary thereto in which he saith We sweare and protest to defend the Kings person Ans And thus we do by taking up of Arms for what man is there that considers things rightly may not easily perceive that if the Popish party should prevaile which are either about the King or of his Armies I say who may not easily thinke if they should prevail that either our King must be a ranke Papist of a dead man Who knows not that if the Papists get the upper hand though now they cry out for Supremacy Supremacy that either they wil force the King to another Supremacie or else quickly make a hand of him Is it not their opinion What better service therefore can a true subject performe to his Majesties person then by force of Armes to deliver him out of the hands of those spoylers that lye in waite for his pretious soule In the oath of Supremacie we sweare him our Soveraigne to be Supreme in opposition to the Pope or any other particular person How does our doctrine or practise infringe this In the oath of Allegeance we swear to be his liege Subjects according to Law and that which we doe is so And in our Protestation we protest to maintaine the Kings Person the Parliaments priviledges the Subjects rights and our Religion if we doe not take up arms in this time of Popish insurrection how can we with good conscience say that either we defend the Kings Person from the violence of Papists which according to their owne Doctrine we know shall be made upon our King or the priviledges of Parliament whose power is to send for delinquents and those that are accused before them even by force to bring them into their triall or the liberty of subjects who have this given by nature to defend themselves or the truth of our religion which notwithstanding all flourishes we have seen such invasions made upon and now in our conscience under more hazard because those that are opposite unto it doe professe to defend it whereupon I presume that every good man that maketh conscience of his waies considering these things will not be backward to advance this publicke designe And though the Doctor be frequent with his damnation both in this Section and in others charging men from this resistance upon paine or damnation yet a setled conscience will be no more scared with the Doctors damnation then with the Cavalliers God damne us Sect. VI. NOw the Doctor comes to the application of all in these two fast Sections in which I intend not to trace him into all that he saies The application of all being left unto what men see and know experimentally yet something I must say unto these Sections In this sixth he tells us that we doe not walke up unto our ownâ— principles which are as he saith that our resistance must be omnibus ordin but regni consentientibus that is as he translates it agreed upon and undertaken by the generall and unanimous consent of the whole States Ans But is this a good and true translation of the words The Doctor may know that when the matter comes to a scrutiny in the Regent house the matter is to passe with the consent of the Regents non-Regents and heads of the University and though all doe not manimously as one Man consent yet it may be omnibus ordinibus consentientibus But he saith How shall conscience be perswaded that this resistance was agreed upon by an unanimous and free consent of the States for saith he he that knowes how the Militia in which this resistance chiefly began was brought in with what opposition especially in the Lords House and by what number that at length was voted also how the like proceedings was voted since how that a vote passed by a few upon the place though it have the power and condition of a vote for the formality of law was not passed in full assemblies cannot be perswaded in conscience that this is such an unanimous free generall consent as makes the judgement of the whole Kingdom Ans To the which I answer that by the like reasoning there is no act of Parliament or Law shall be of any force and he may as well question any law that is made for when was there ever any law made which all did unanimously as one man consent to By the constant law of the Kingdome though there be not so many in either House which have been present at these late affairs of the Kingdome it is to be acknowledged for an act of Parliament and so the judgement of the whole Kingdom Then secondly he tells us That we doe not walk up to our second principle viz. that our resistance must be meerly defensive for saith he those that are first in armes cannot be upon the defensive part page 22. and then page 21. saith he who were first in armes He that can number the succession of months and weeks in his Almanacke may decide this he shal find that armed men were thrust into Hull the Militia set up c. Ans To which I answer If those that are first in armes cannot be on the defensive part then surely Davids act was not meere defence as the Doctor saith before for we finde in Scripture that David and his men were gotten into armes before that Saul followed him surely the Doctors Almanack hath not all the months in it for he begins his account only at the businesse at Hull wheras before that the King came in hostile manner unto the Parliament gathered forces about Windsor but this must be left unto mens eies and experienced knowledge it being matter of fact Then the Dr. I know not how comes to enquire into the cause of these armes wherein after some flourishes he saith Would anâ— man have defended the revolt of the ten Tribes if Rehoboam had promised to conserve their liberties Saying further what shall we then generally thinke of this